Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new study suggests that large ocean going ships could help reduce global warming, by pouring surfactants into their wake, to extend the life of the shiny bubbles churned up by ship’s propellers.
According to the Huffington Post;
… Crook and her co-authors maintain that their climate model shows the scheme could bring a 0.5-degree Celsius reduction in the Earth’s average surface temperature by 2069, helping to offset the 2-degree warming expected by then.
According to Crook, the effect is comparable to those achieved by other so-called geoengineering schemes that have been proposed in recent years.
Of course, those bubbles won’t resist popping just because we want them to. The scheme calls for the ocean-going ships to pump out a stream of chemicals known as surfactants as they move along. Surfactants help prevent popping by affecting the surface tension of water — at the same time making the wakes a bit whiter than they would be ordinarily.
But it’s not clear whether the scheme would be safe for marine life. And then there’s the matter of its effect on air quality.
“Previous research suggests surfactants reduce the amount of CO2 uptake by the ocean, which would mean by adding surfactant we might cause atmospheric CO2 to go up,” Crook said. “But by how much and whether the resulting warming from the extra CO2 would outweigh the increased albedo is unknown. This could be a show-stopper.” …
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/ships-ease-global-warming_us_56b0e2cce4b0655877f73d91
The abstract of the study;
Solar radiation management schemes could potentially alleviate the impacts of global warming. One such scheme could be to brighten the surface of the ocean by increasing the albedo and areal extent of bubbles in the wakes of existing shipping. Here we show that ship wake bubble lifetimes would need to be extended from minutes to days, requiring the addition of surfactant, for ship wake area to be increased enough to have a significant forcing. We use a global climate model to simulate brightening the wakes of existing shipping by increasing wake albedo by 0.2 and increasing wake lifetime by ×1440. This yields a global mean radiative forcing of -0.9 ± 0.6 Wm-2 (-1.8 ± 0.9 Wm-2 in the Northern Hemisphere) and a 0.5 °C reduction of global mean surface temperature with greater cooling over land and in the Northern Hemisphere, partially offsetting greenhouse gas warming. Tropical precipitation shifts southwards but remains within current variability. The hemispheric forcing asymmetry of this scheme is due to the asymmetry in the distribution of existing shipping. If wake lifetime could reach ~3 months, the global mean radiative forcing could potentially reach -3 Wm-2. Increasing wake area through increasing bubble lifetime could result in a greater temperature reduction but regional precipitation would likely deviate further from current climatology as suggested by results from our uniform ocean albedo simulation. Alternatively, additional ships specifically for the purpose of geoengineering could be used to produce a larger and more hemispherically symmetrical forcing.
Read more: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024201/abstract
Pouring enough surfactant into the sea, to allow bubbles to survive for 10 days in open water, might kill a lot of sea life. Surfactants are often used in cleaning products, such as dish washing liquid, because they are very effective at breaking up organic matter.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A badly thought out idea from a bunch dedicated to ruining the environment and reported by a rubbish reporter.
Ah but think of al of the grant money they got for that foolishness.
Does this mean we can go back to flushing tons of persistent detergents out to sea?…
Sufactant is just another word for soap and detergents…
The stupidity of dumping tons of detergent into the oceans seems lost on these folks… but it brings a new maening to Tide Detergent…
oh! oh! I know.. polystyrene cups! and and PET bottles, we could throw ALL the things in the ocean to reduce evaporation and reflect all that nasty heat that humans make. er, sunlight.. um, the warming stuff, we can make that go back somewhere – yay! Give me grant money.. give it to me faster..
One thing that would reduce evaporation from the ocean would be a layer of oil. Are they next going to propose deep well drilling and, once they strike oil, just let it float to the top? That would work. Sorta.
“Are they next going to propose deep well drilling and, once they strike oil, just let it float to the top?”
No, oil is too dark.
What about oil painted in white?
“A badly thought out idea from a bunch dedicated to ruining the environment…”
I agree.
it takes about ten seconds for anyone with their head screwed on right (or screwed on at all) to see the inanity and insanity of pouring an actual pollutant in the ocean to combat the imaginary affects of an imaginary pollutant (life giving CO2).
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Do they actually consider themselves to be scientists?
Are they even humans?
” Are they even humans?”
The debate rages on, on this important question.
Funny how many separate debates were sparked when the debate on a settled science was declared over.
“it takes about ten seconds for anyone with their head screwed on right (or screwed on at all) to see the inanity and insanity…”
They have told repeatedly “keep an open mind”; after many brain accidents, the Surgeon General made this warning message mandatory:
“Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out”
Indeed – wasn’t there a huge outcry over the use of surfactants on the Horizon oil spill?
Now its all good because it saves the climate?
Bingo!!
I’m sure that counts as “different”. Don’t ask me how. Undoubtedly one is “evil” and the other warrants a Nobel peace prize. Or something. All I know is that the greens don’t want to live by the same rules or laws of nature and don’t want to be judged the way they judge others, especially when their stupid ideas do such massive amounts of damage to the environment.
They have become what they see in mankind, a plague upon the Earth. Gang Green has set in. We need to amputate.
Bravo A. D.
Well said.
johnm
You have been outstandingly kid to this – kindness again – ‘hypothesis’
Auto
The part of Roundup that makes ecoloon go crazy is NOT glyphosate (they have to accept that it isn’t extremely toxic), it’s the SURFACTANT.
hmm? ya reckon, ?
its the UNLISTED other chem that can be anything at all ,as synergists thats got people worried, and FYI glyphosate is NOT exactly nontoxic,if it bloody well wasnt it wouldnt work!
it doesnt break down on contact with soil as they used to tell us
it can remain in soils and mobile for some time, and even longer in water.
surfectants as soaps..dont worry us “ecoloons” theyre used by many of us to make nonwetting soils in arid areas able to absorb water.
“FYI glyphosate is NOT exactly nontoxic,if it bloody well wasnt it wouldnt work!”
Obviously, if you are a plant, it is toxic.
You look very organic anyway. Your message seems written by a plant.
Oz, Roundup, even it it’s concentrated form, is one of the safest substances ever tested as a toxin. And it has been tested perhaps more than any other substance in existence.
You say that if it was not toxic, it would not work. But this mistaken sentiment is incorrect, as you seem to be implying that it’s toxicity to plants makes it necessarily toxic to humans or animal life.
If this is your belief, then you have no idea how and why it is toxic to plants, and hence why it is not toxic to things that are not plants.
You have many substances in your kitchen, such as salt for example, which are far more toxic than Roundup.
Simple-touriste, Please examine the food chain. Do you eat to live or live to eat? Either way Plants are required.
“Either way Plants are required.”
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
(Please explain what you think I was saying.)
Menicholas
You said :
I suggest you do a search on Google Scholar for “seneff + glyphosate”. I get 238 results. Read the first 2 or 3 then search (regular) Google for the same. There has been quite a dust-up on the safety of glyphosate starting around 2013. I’d say the jury is still out on it.
On my Roundup container it tells me not to use it near garden ponds or other places where there might be fish.
There are separate products that are identical with different names that are used for aquatic plants.
And they enforce that stuff too.
I work in the lake and wetlands management industry.
Every pond in Florida would be able to be crossed on foot within a few months if not sprayed with aquatic herbicides and algaecides.
A comparison of LD50s for some herbicides and other more commonly encountered substances:
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pi170
Menicholas,
Thanks for the reference. Are their any long term exposure test similar to the oral LD50s? According to Google (for what that’s worth) there are now 26 countries than have either banned or partially banned GMOs, but it doesn’t specifically say Roundup or glyphosate.
Joe,
Genetically Modified Organisms that are related to glyphosate use do not contain glyphosate, or anything like it.
Rather, these are plants which have had a clone of a naturally occurring gene or genes inserted into their genome.
The gene in question, in the case of Roundup Ready Corn, for example, codes for a variant of an enzyme that occurs in plants. The normal variant is the one which is blocked by glyphosate, but the resistant variant is not blocked by glyphosate, and so no harm is done to the plant by exposure to glyphosate.
This allows farmers to spray roundup after the corn has begun to grow, and thus greatly increases yields over what occurs when herbicides cannot be used and weeds interfere with the growth of the corn crop.
Roundup works, specifically, by blocking the production of certain amino acids. We get these amino acids from the food we eat. So glyphosate has no effect on mammals. It is quickly passed in urine and feces after exposure or accidental ingestion (or in cases of purposeful ingestion) in an unchanged state. Almost all of the amount ingested is quickly eliminated, and the rest takes slightly longer.
Regarding purpose ingestion, there have been many cases of individuals attempting to kill themselves by drinking glyphosate, including highly concentrated Roundup. The amounts consumed have been incredible, and most of the people had minimal ill effects. Some have had injuries due to corrosive effects, and I believe these were due to adjuvants and not the glyphosate.
In many toxicity tables, the amount listed for LD50 is a greater than quantity, since they were unable to force a sufficient amount of the chemical into any of the tested animals to kill any of them. I believe this was the case with dogs. They could not be killed no matter how much they were given.
I had some very specific information in some very interesting reports, but the links are on another computer than the one I am using right now. If I can come across them I will post them.
No studies have been able to find any evidence of long or short term risks to humans. And they have tried, and tried, and tried to find a reason to ban it.
But it is simply incredibly safe, as much as some would very much like to believe otherwise.
Hard to understand why…some people just need something to hate i suppose, or just cannot believe something that makes plants wither and die could be safe to mammals. Such beliefs are based on emotion and lack of context and lack of knowledge of the relevant biochemistry.
“there are now 26 countries than have either banned or partially banned GMOs, but it doesn’t specifically say Roundup or glyphosate.”
Ségolène Royal (mother of François “I, President” Hollande, and Minister of Enviro-crazy-stuff, most precious gift to humorists and imitators after Hollande and Sarkozy) was filmed removing bottles of Roundup from shells:
http://static.latribune.fr/full_width/484761/royal.jpg
(Yes, she likes PR stunts.)
But the Roundup wasn’t actually removed from stores: merchants were only ordered to keep consumers from directly accessing the Roundup, and should give “consumer advice” about herbicide. This was after the much hyped “glyphosate gives you cancer (or maybe not)” CIRC/PAN PR stunt.
About the safety of Roundup: don’t drink soap, the millions of bubbles won’t block the sun but might block your lungs; also, the surfactant makes the glyphosate more dangerous.
It is indeed it’s the surfactant that kills frogs, not the glyphosate. As far as toxicity goes, the LD 50 of glyphosate is 60 times that of vinegar. That is vinegar is 60 times more toxic to rats than glyphosate. It is true that glyphosate is passivated on clay particles, rather than breaking down.
…WTF !! Are these idiots trying to rush to the next Little Ice Age ??
More like the No Remaining Life Age.
They hate nature, or something.
So plants are required after all.
Marcus,
Years ago when this CAGW boondoggle first got going we were told that the average warming they were talking about would not be uniform. It would not be 2 degrees (or whatever) warmer everyplace. It would be warmer at night and especially towards the poles. Canada and Russia would be warmer but Florida would not really see any warming to speak of. (and the tropics would hardly notice anything)
Now that meme did not scare people much since many would not mind a little more warmth at night and most don’t really care how Canada and Russia deal with a couple of degrees warming. So we soon stopped hearing about warming at night and towards the poles and the scare story shifted. Now it is more like Florida will get so hot the sands will burn your feet in the summer at the beach. (oops, it already does so they may be right!)
The alarmists have no shame.
“most don’t really care how Canada and Russia deal with a couple of degrees warming”
Probably more telling… Canada and Russia would probably WELCOME a couple of degrees of warming. Hah.
Considering that both places are so cold across much or their territory that an unprotected person would quickly die, even in summer, I would have to agree.
Being less fatally frigid does not sound like a bad thing to this kid.
Menicholas: “Considering that both places are so cold across much or their territory that an unprotected person would quickly die, even in summer,”
That’s what I thought. But I saw a program on the most northerly railway in the world, in Russia, and the presenter (English) was rugged up in too many layers of warm clothes to count, but the Russians were wandering around in shorts and T-shirts – with nothing but snow and ice in all directions!
Now that you mention it Ron, I did see a show once about some guy up in the Alaskan tundra who was immune to cold somehow.
He was walking around in underwear in sub-zero temperatures, and not just for a few minutes or anything.
And I have it on good authority that people in Minnesota routinely consider 40 degrees “shorts weather”.
But for normal humans…
I suppose for any condition one can consider, there are some people who have an adaptation to it.
The range of human adaptability and genetic variability is incredible.
I personally believe that people are born with many abilities that are lost at various stages of growth if not utilized.
We know about the mammalian dive reflex, where people can survive long periods underwater and be resuscitated if the water is cold enough. Infants are born with a very strong grip in their hands, likely to allow them to hang onto a mother’s hair without falling from birth.
World records in sporting events, that were considered a miraculous achievement of a highly trained adult athlete a few decades ago, are now surpassed by every kid on a high school varsity squad. Where does it end?
My guess is that there are a range of such abilities that we only see an occasional glimpse of.
“Most of us can learn to live in perfect comfort on higher levels of power. Everyone knows that on any given day there are energies slumbering in him which the incitements of that day do not call forth. Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. It is evident that our organism has stored-up reserves of energy that are ordinarily not called upon ? deeper and deeper strata of explosible material, ready for use by anyone who probes so deep. The human individual usually lives far within his limits.”
– William James
Just my two cents worth, but if you’re in San Francisco on a foggy day in summer, the locals are rugged up in all kinds of warm clothing. If you see anyone in shorts and T-shirts, they’re from Canada or the UK, basking in the warmth.
76 degrees F at game time earlier. Global warming 4u. Very similar to when I arrived here in 1980.
I suggest keel hauling a climate scientist on each vessel. The natural oils in their bodies should do the trick. No more climate catastrophe.
Are they “organic”?
Of course. They are greenies.
Oh Dear !. I always get oils and surfactants confused. Must use a new model. I also forgot that modern vessels have ship screws. Never mind. The fishies get something to eat.
Lots of bubbles, too.
Might also work for airplanes.
Painful.
What could possibly go wrong ??? So now they want to turn the ocean in one gigantic washing machine.
I wonder if he was trying to see how far an academic can go or if that was an attempt at trolling other scientists?
+1
Sailors could lean over the bow, do their laundry, etc . . .
How would the bubbles affect the evaporation and the oxygen and CO2 interchange? How about reducing the penetration of sunlight to phyto organisms and the effect in the interface between sea life and water: think gills, Protozoa, digestion, etc?
And your point is?………
The point is it would really screw up gas exchange and cut down on insolation needed by phytoplankton. A really Dumb Idea!
Besides for what you said, the stuff would kill many organism directly…no loss of sunlight required.
I used to sell surfactants a thousand years ago. The most common was sodium laurel sulphate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_laureth_sulfate
Oh my. What a SLES (y) idea. Fantastic.
It would be unfortunate if the planet was just starting a cooling trend and this policy was implemented.
Unintended consequences could be devastating.
Not to worry, warmistas are wrong about everything they postulate or recommend, so it may well be that the overall effect on temps would be nil.
“Unintended consequences could be devastating”
Doug, ANY consequences that kill lots of people, preferably millions (except themselves, of course), would suit the greenies just fine.
You’d think geo-engineering would be the perfect application of the precautionary principle. Don’t do it; it might work better than you think. (see Snowpiercer )
Crook? Is that her name or is that her game?
And thse morons are teaching our kids?
” … Crook and her co-authors maintain that their climate model shows the scheme could bring a 0.5-degree Celsius reduction in the Earth’s average surface temperature by 2069, helping to offset the 2-degree warming expected by then. …”
The first thing I noticed is that this is all yet another
computer game toycomputer model. These computer models are never verified, have no predictive skill, and almost always start with wrong-headed physics. Why should we spend even one dollar (now almost worthless) on such a scheme?The second thing I noticed was that the 0.5 degree Celsius cooling is pure speculation. It could be an order of magnitude less than that.
The third thing I noticed is that these buffoons do not seem to realize that a 2 degree Celsius average warming would be a very, very good thing. Warm is good, and cold is very bad. (if they love cold let them move to Canada — I hear they have ample supplies of cold up there)
The forth thing I noticed was that these blockheads don’t seem to know that the “2 degree” warming is not going to happen. CO2 don’t do what they think it does and climate history tells us that we are at the end of the present tiny warming period and headed back into a colder period. Even if you don’t believe that, you have to admit that it is not settled science that we will see any 2 degrees warming. Heck, there has been none at all for nearly 20 years while CO2 went through the roof.
This “study” is one more data point supporting my contention that there is no real science in climate “science”.
I agree with you post. Your point “The second thing I noticed was that the 0.5 degree Celsius cooling is pure speculation. It could be an order of magnitude less than that.” It could easily be wrong in either direction.
And what if it works and really cools down the entire planet just as we are on the verge of another Ice Age????
It’s a joke right? A spoof. Nobody would seriously consider this sort of a project. The effect on cell membranes – –. They cannot be serious.
My reactin too. Wtf?! Worse than cane toad idea. True greenies should be screaming from the roof tops with all sorts of potential biological consequences ie a real manmade catastrophe.
“True greenies should be screaming from the roof tops with all sorts of potential biological consequences ie a real manmade catastrophe.”
Yes, and the folks at the World Wildlife fund are similarly up in arms at the prospect of a gauntlet of bird-chopping wind turbines being erected across the planet!
Psyche! No they aint!
Haha, that was funny, Macha!
With Greens and trougher scientists every day is April 1st.
Those bubbles from propellers on boats and ships can cause a phenomenon called cavitation where the air in the bubble is so hot it, literally, wears “pits” on the outer edge of the blade. And they want to go putting this stuff in the water? Idiocy!
Patrick….it’s the pressure that causes cavitation.
I did say can cause. Yes it is the pressure in high powered boats.
“Yes it is the pressure in high powered boats.”
How is the power of the boat relevant? High power boat do not automatically create high speed water and huge depressions. It depends on the size and speed of turbines.
The bubbles are created by the excess speed imposed on water, so that water fills the empty place fast enough, pressure drops and water boils. After the boiling (which isn’t a big issue) there the liquefaction: the gaz bubbles collapse causing high speed water walls and gigantic accelerations. They are essentially underwater destructive mines.
Well if you have a power boat with 5000hp on tap, you will eventually see cavitation on the propelor.
Rather than a wikipedia article, try this one;
http://www.iims.org.uk/introduction-propeller-cavitation/
Cavitation is a submarines worst enemy.
Run silent, run deep
Ok I am at home now. Cavitation has many causes. Incorrect propeller for the job, unmatched propeller drive shaft engine combination, unmatched engine power. Too much power. Unmatched pitch and rake of the propeller (It’s why big ships these days have variable pitch props, esp the ships with huge thrust demand). Hull configuration. The list is almost endless. However, cavitation involves pressure shock waves striking the face of the blade. Those shock waves, and the bubbles they create, can sometimes create very high temperatures, literally, melting the metal. In my experience it sounded like “gravel” being sprayed on the underside of the hull.
Patrick MJD,
Your comment above with regards to cavitation (you need to read up and understand that) has the credibility of that of the so-callled mainstream “climate science” as supported by the so-called “97% climate consensus”
The are too many engineers and those knowledgeable in physics using/reading WUWT to let your comment slide as being correct. You should do at least some due diligence before posting such nonsense. I hope that you haven’t poisoned the mind of anyone following the this thread with such an off the wall and incorrect claim related to simple physics.
Try this, it took me approximately 3 seconds to find it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation
Rather than a wikipedia article, try this one;
http://www.iims.org.uk/introduction-propeller-cavitation/
Patrick,
Thank you for the link. My point is that the shock wave of the collapsing bubble and the kinetic energy of the fluid filling the collapsed void is the determining factor with regards to cavitation, not the micro effects of any heat produced.
Rock such as granite and marble are cut using water jets which rely on the cavitation effects of the pressure jet. Check out Bit Tooth Energy blog by Dave Summers (?) for good descriptions of the process.
Yes I know it’s the “shock wave”, but also hull design, propeller type, even drive shaft and gearbox as well as engine torque can induce that. The gas temperature and pressure in the bubble when it finally collapses can exceed the melting point of the material used in the propeller. Too many variables.
“The gas temperature and pressure in the bubble when it finally collapses can exceed the melting point of the material used in the propeller.”
In fact, the temperature can exceed that by some orders of magnitude.
“When bubbles in a liquid get compressed, the insides get hot – very hot,” said Ken Suslick of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “The temperature we measured – about 20,000 degrees Kelvin [35,540 Fahrenheit] – is four times hotter than the surface of our Sun.”
http://www.livescience.com/192-bubbles-hotter-sun.html
“……additional ships specifically for the purpose of geoengineering could be used to produce a larger and more hemispherically symmetrical forcing.”
So, would these ships dedicated solely to ‘blowing bubbles’ be wind or solar powered? We certainly couldn’t allow any nasty petroleum based propulsion. Maybe Tesla could come up with an ‘electro-ship’ then we could induce the Chinese to build a bunch of artificial islands equipped with wind turbines and solar panels and used as recharging stations. In order to maximize the ship’s efficiency we could put propellers all along each side oriented perpendicular to the keel and thrusting away from the hull. We would need to be cautious and calculate the correct amount of bubbles to generate without affecting the vessel’s buoyancy.
Being green is as much fun as playing cowboys and Indians when you’re a child, lots and lots of stimulation for your imagination without the burden of reality.
.
Is the soap bio-sourced and Gaia-compatible too?
I would propose a boat hull be designed with 2 dissimilar metals running the length of the hull. Ion exchange between them thru the saline water would produce an electrical current would drive electrical motors to turn the propellers. Nonpolluting and it is FREE!!!
Address to send grant monies on request.
. . . see surfactant as a possible force multiplier. Navy lays down a long swath, runs a squadron of fast boats with large propellers down its length, maneuvers fleet behind bubbles.
Free, Barryjo, until you need to replace the constantly eroding anode part of your setup.
Doh!
[snip – Doug Cotton is banned for: 1. Spamming threads with his own pet theories. 2. Being wildly off-topic. 3. Multiple instances of sock-puppetry (like this one). 4. Not being smart enough to realize that when he achieves banned status, trying to get around it only makes him look desperate. 5. Being a pest not just here, but pretty much everywhere.
Doug, get it through your thick head – you are not welcome here <mod ]
When I read “stuff” like this, I always go back to the famous quote of Professor Albert Einstein:
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former”.
I think Professor Einstein would be appalled that climate “scientists” are considered scientists.
I think Professor Einstein would be appalled that climate “scientists” are considered scientists. Or social “scientists”. And wuite a few other *&^%$£s who like to all themselves “scientists”
I think he would say, “Hypothesis confirmed.”
What has this got to do with the subject, “Pouring Millions of Tons of Bubble Mix into the Sea”.
I was not talking about a failed hypothesis. Hopefully yours is a sarcastic comment. If you are serious, than you are 5 tinnies short of a six-pack.
As for the atmospheric CO2 hypothesis of Global warming: Why do CO2 plots lag the Temperature plots by 800 to 1000 years? And why do the official model plots not fit the observed data? I see it as a major hypothesis fail.
I leave you with another famous quote:
“One of the most insidious and nefarious properties of scientific models is their tendency to take over, and sometimes supplant, reality”.
— Erwin Chargaf
The stupid, it burns.
haven’t we heard this before… I’m sure some other nut job suggested this some time ago… and wasn’t he finally banned from here for his trolling when everyone flamed him??
If a democrat wins this fall, the US Navy will be forced to adopt this for its submarine fleet. Because CAGW trumps ability to remain undetected
A teacher asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Obama fans.
Not really knowing what an Obama fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.
The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different… again.
Little Johnny said, “Because I’m not an Obama fan.”
The teacher asked, “Why aren’t you a fan of Obama?” Johnny said, “Because I’m a Republican.”
The teacher asked him why he’s a Republican. Little Johnny answered, “Well, my Mom’s a Republican and my Dad’s a Republican, so I’m a Republican.”
Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, “If your mom were a moron and your dad were an idiot, what would that make you?”
With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, “That would make me an Obama fan..”
Borrowed. Thanks John.
it just keeps getting weirder and weirder.
gee, lets see multi millions of people using detergents to do clothes washing daily/weekly
avg 3 or 5 loads dep on home size?and brainwashing levels of “cleanliness”
then daily showers with shampoo soaps etc all going down drains to water treatment
home etc other cleaners,
treatment? plants that do NOT remove those chem or the pharma drugs street runoff chem and poisons etc used on paths gardens etc
than all the sewer water
how much more crud do we need to throw in the oceans I wonder?
“(H)ow much more crud do we need to throw in the oceans I wonder?”
According to this newfangled “science”…plenty!
I can just see me hove to heading into a force 10 and not being able to see out of the wheelhouse windows because they are covered in bubbles made as each wave brakes over the bow.
I would guess the radar scanner might not like it much either.
As for the bubbles going through the engine cooling water pump ….. .
As my English teacher used to say “Clotted tosh and curdled balderdash”.
….as each wave brakes …..crumbs! – do they come with disc brakes or drum brakes these days>?
As my English teacher used to say “Clotted tosh and curdled balderdash”.
I yews two due mie ohn auto repairs, butt eye am afraid ay will brake my breaks if eye tried that won!
Yep, ya got me. I cringe.
Been a hard weekend.
Do not sweat it…i have made far worse errors and do so with frequency.
In a pinch, blame autocorrect or faulty text to speech.
No coffee yet is a goodun too.
Sometimes I have written whole sentences and even paragraphs that turned out to be mistakes.
So we’re going to fight Climate Change by turning the world’s oceans into a giant bubble bath?
Where’s my rubber ducky! 🙂
You really dont want me to answer that, do you?
Geoengineering: billions will die.