Latest Green Idea: Pouring Millions of Tons of Bubble Mix into the Sea

Dissolved_snails_ship

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

222 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mycroft
February 7, 2016 4:56 am

..and to use ships!!! The most polluting type of transport there is!!!

Reply to  Mycroft
February 7, 2016 1:21 pm

Surely you mean – ships – the most efficient form of transport?

toorightmate
February 7, 2016 4:56 am

Hubble bubble,
Toil and trouble.

Twobob
February 7, 2016 5:03 am

Tamen sui supplant teneo.

richard verney
February 7, 2016 5:31 am

What surface area of the oceans is used by ships? Could this really make any difference? I would like to know the sensitivity of the models if the model run projects the result claimed.
Ships proceed in shipping lanes, so they use a very narrow tract of the ocean. Of course, at times they depart from the usual route because of bad weather, or are pushed a little off course by currents, but for the main part very little area of the vast tracts of the oceans is used by commercial shipping. For example, see the incomplete map which gives a good insight into how little area is actualy plyed on trade routes.
comment image

Reply to  richard verney
February 7, 2016 8:54 pm

If all those shipping lanes were filled with bubbles, how do the ships float?

February 7, 2016 5:32 am

Some tossers were dumping iron into the Pacific back in 2009, a feeble but no doubt locally damaging geo-engineering stunt. Then El Nino decided to help his sister by picking up silt from Australia’s interior (there’d been some earlier flooding out Lake Eyre way) and sending millions of tons of IRON-rich dust into the Pacific on the wings of one of those powerful spring westerlies you often get in El Nino conditions.
I’m sure the tossers didn’t even notice. Maybe they were climate experts and good at not noticing.

Reply to  mosomoso
February 7, 2016 6:55 am

Iron fertilization of oceanic deserts may be a good idea for inducing a more life friendly habitat. Needs more study though.
But it is clear that in places where cold and nutrient rich water upwells from depth, marine life explodes in vast abundance.
If there are places where lack of iron is creating large areas that are virtually devoid of life, how is this different, in theory anyway, than applying fertilizer and trace mineral suppliments to nutrient poor lands?

Reply to  Menicholas
February 7, 2016 7:19 am

Just sayin’.

Reply to  Menicholas
February 7, 2016 7:21 am

Iron fertilisation of oceans is probably important for habitat, climate cycles etc. I think that’s why melting glaciers and Australian deserts do that red dust thing they do. Only they work for free, at the right time, and dump a million times more iron than a boat can, with a much better scatter.
Similar dust events occurred in the El Ninos of the early 1940s and 1983. Of course, publications like the Guardian were happy to describe this 2009 event as a disaster and hint that dust from siltation carried by strong westerlies must be something sinister. Oddly, the climatariat probably think iron seeding done the hard, expensive and ineffective way is a great idea.
If someone wants to try careful artificial seeding for some commercial purpose, I guess that’s fine, if they mind what they are doing.
If they’re hoping to do some climate-dialling by polluting the oceans, I’d rather sink their boat.

Reply to  Menicholas
February 7, 2016 10:20 am

I could support experimenting with some sort of machine to create upwelling from the deep by utilizing the temperature difference to self power it.

commieBob
Reply to  mosomoso
February 7, 2016 7:59 am

… a feeble but no doubt locally damaging geo-engineering stunt.

The jury is out. link Nobody has found much harm from dumping iron in the ocean.
A few years ago

… a chartered fishing boat strewed 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the ocean off western Canada last July, the goal was to supercharge the marine ecosystem. The iron was meant to fertilize plankton, boost salmon populations and sequester carbon. Whether the ocean responded as hoped is not clear, but the project has touched off an explosion on land, angering scientists, embarrassing a village of indigenous people and enraging opponents of geoengineering. link

The local population had noticed that

A bumper run of sockeye salmon in 2010 came two years after a volcanic eruption in Alaska sent a layer of iron-rich ash over the ocean, fertilizing a plankton bloom.

The eco-loons were up in arms because some folks did what nature does naturally.
Any attempt at anything that looks like geo-engineering will provoke a reaction that is way overboard.

Reply to  commieBob
February 7, 2016 8:28 am

Well, if they’re doing it for a feed of salmon and there’s no apparent harm, good luck to ’em. On top of all that good desert dust you get maybe a million tonnes of iron (not too digested at the start and making a good spread) from glacial melt annually, so I guess a few tonnes more is no big deal. I guess if they stuff up the recipe over a small area it won’t matter.
But if it’s for climate-dialling or carbon-gobbling, no way. Same goes for the fizzy ocean and sudsy ocean ideas – and the rest of the submarine white elephants. These warmies seem to go by the philosophy that you can’t burn an omelet without breaking all the eggs.

richard verney
February 7, 2016 5:34 am

Further to my post above.
To see the map, click on the x in the square.
It should then open up and one can quickly see that only fractions of a percent of the ocean are sailed by commercial ships.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  richard verney
February 7, 2016 8:43 am

Richard,
There use to be a single sideband radio station (‘Herb’) in Bermuda, and later moved to Canada, that had the most accurate weather available for the North Atlantic and Caribbean. The National Weather Services (NWSs) only used information reported by commercial ship traffic that followed the shipping lanes so, as your map shows, their coverage was very limited. ‘Herb’ was in contact with practically all of the private boaters and sailors in those waters. Since they sailed outside the normal shipping lanes his information covered considerably more of the North Atlantic and Caribbean than did that of the NWSs. He could usually tell you within a half hour or so when you were going to hit fair/foul winds and fronts, or he could successfully steer you safely around or through gales and storms.

michael hart
February 7, 2016 5:39 am

“The day of the Suds”, was probably the best ever episode of Danger-Mouse.

Reply to  michael hart
February 7, 2016 6:56 am

LMAO!

michael hart
Reply to  Menicholas
February 7, 2016 7:31 am

Good link available here;
http://kisscartoon.me/Cartoon/Danger-Mouse/Season-02-Episode-004-day-of-the-suds?id=40886
Puts global warming in its proper perspective.

Gregg C.
Reply to  michael hart
February 12, 2016 6:30 am

So this finally would be c.h.e.m.t.r.a.i.l.s. in reality.

Bruce Cobb
February 7, 2016 5:45 am

It’s idiocy all the way down.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 7, 2016 7:14 am

“†This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review…”

guido LaMoto
February 7, 2016 5:50 am

Pour surfactant into the Ocean? Didn’t we used to do that (as washing detergent in our sewage) a lot, then the EPA said we couldn’t do it anymore cuz it was ruining the environment?

Bernie
February 7, 2016 6:02 am

Marine chemtrails. Nice.

emsnews
February 7, 2016 6:03 am

So, they want to POLLUTE the ocean with foreign materials and the goal is to make the planet very cold right on the verge of the next Ice Age which is about due, now.

Reply to  emsnews
February 7, 2016 6:57 am

*voice of Joe Piscapo imitating Frank Sinatra*
Hey, this is science baby!

February 7, 2016 6:08 am

Nice Photograph…!!!

Dreadnought
February 7, 2016 6:17 am

Another dollop of lunacy from the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

john
February 7, 2016 6:18 am

I bet the EPA will be in charge of this one code name Obama Toxic Seafood.
Speaking of O’failure…
Obama proposes to double U.S. clean energy funding
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-02/07/c_135081987.htm
U.S. President Barack Obama said Saturday he will ask Congress to double the country’s funding for clean energy research and development by 2020, as part of his efforts to combat climate change.
“Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future,” Obama said during his weekly radio address, hoping that the Republicans in Congress who “are still considering their position on climate change” could support his budget for the fiscal year 2017, which will start from October this year.
The budget for the fiscal year 2017 will be released Tuesday.
Obama added that the money “will include new investments to help the private sector create more jobs faster, lower the cost of clean energy faster, and help clean, renewable power outcompete dirty fuels in every state.”
U.S. federal investment in clean energy research and development would rise from 6.4 billion U.S. dollars in the fiscal year 2016 to 12.8 billion dollars in the fiscal year 2021, under Obama’s new proposal, according to a statement from the White House.
That would mean about a 15 percent increase in clean energy research and development funding in each of the forthcoming five years of the pledge.
If approved, the fiscal year 2017 budget would provide 7.7 billion dollars in discretionary funding for clean energy research and development across 12 agencies, which is about 20 percent above the level for the fiscal year 2016.
Earlier this week, Obama said he would also propose in Tuesday’s budget to seek a fee of 10 dollars per barrel on oil to be paid by oil companies to help create a cleaner, more sustainable transportation system.

Reply to  john
February 7, 2016 2:29 pm

Yes our courageous leader and defender of the poor and downtrodden seeks to impose a $80 Billion per year, highly regressive tax on basically everything.
Has there ever been a tax which was not immediately passed on to the end consumer, one might ask?
No, never, one might well answer!

peter
February 7, 2016 6:36 am

I seem to remember a Popular Science? article a few years back where the thing under discussion was using air forced under the hull of a ship, or sub, to make them move more easily through the water. At the time it was only the speed they were discussing, but if the principal worked it would seem to me it would also save fuel.
here we go. Supercavitation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation
This process would also likely increase the bubbles in the wake of a ship, without the need for any chemicals.

Gamecock
Reply to  peter
February 7, 2016 11:27 am

Since the ships are kept afloat by displacement, air underneath will cause them to ride deeper in the water.

Wrusssr
Reply to  Gamecock
February 7, 2016 11:44 am

. . . or sink if they sail over a large pocket of natural gas leaks on the ocean floor.

Barbara Skolaut
February 7, 2016 6:45 am

J.C. on a crutch!
These worthless clowns* are serious, aren’t they? 🙁
*apologies to regular clowns everywhere.

Reply to  Barbara Skolaut
February 7, 2016 7:00 am

As senior VP of my local chapter of Worthless Clowns Anonymous, I must take strong exception to this unwarranted smear of my beleaguered brethren!

Jerry Henson
February 7, 2016 6:47 am

Artificially increase the cost of energy, slow capitalism, all the regulation is not destroying
capitalism fast enough.
Sarc/

Leon Brozyna
February 7, 2016 6:51 am

We had to save the planet by killing it.

Reply to  Leon Brozyna
February 7, 2016 7:01 am

Now you are getting the right idea.

Reply to  Leon Brozyna
February 7, 2016 7:23 am

Please disregard my comment just above. Here is what i should have said:
Now you are getting the right idea about their wrong ideas.
There, fuxxed it for me.
🙂

prjindigo
February 7, 2016 7:23 am

This would kill 90% of sea life within 5 years and increase the effects of CO2/salt acidity nearly tenfold.

Reply to  prjindigo
February 7, 2016 12:34 pm

*channels Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny*
Are you sure about that 90%?

FJ Shepherd
February 7, 2016 7:36 am

I wonder how much of the grant money received by the authors to study this nonsense was used as a subvention to the publisher? How else could this crap have been published?

The Original Mike M
February 7, 2016 7:43 am

Put the soap bubble stuff into the sulfuric acid sprayer. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

February 7, 2016 8:17 am

Why anyone would want to come up with any scheme to decrease global warming natural or otherwise since all agree no matter what humans do we are heading ultimately for a return of full ice age conditions makes me wonder about the sanity of some people.
Warming is good! (especially since we are well within historical natural variation anyway – would if we could delay the full on ice age)

Matt
February 7, 2016 8:17 am

Don’t you just love girlie science. I imagine as we sit here reading this, part-written “scientific” papers are being amended to include a reference to this rubbish. The more citations it gets the more credible it will become. Next appearance? In the next Report by Policy Makers from the IPCC.

February 7, 2016 8:31 am

That should be enough to close the show! This is the result of hundreds of thousands of climate scientists and students, in an age of only marginal scientific discoveries, spending their waking hours desperately trying to think up something to give themselves relevance. Remember the thousands of things that global warming causes (a web site somewhere keeps tabs). This and the speed with which over 60 reasons were given for the dreaded PAUSE that had caused an epidemic of climatist clinical depression and was the most threatening falsification of the CO2 control knob (or any control knob for that matter, unless the pause was on cruise control!) is prima facie evidence that much of the garbage out comes from this homogeneous swarm of clisci humanity.
As a politically incorrect observation, I note that there are more and more women publishing, pushing out this embarrassing stuff. I grew up in a very liberated family with a strong mother and older sister (who was a true genius) who were fully advanced in their liberation before the movement was invented. But, right now, I am worried about a female becoming president of the US. I’m sorry, but, at this level, I think Hillary, whom I believe to have more than a few self-doubts and scores to settle from her experiences, will let thoughtful deliberation be submerged in the urge to “Show you just what I can do!”. We aren’t talking Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Aung San Suu Kyi, Indira Ghandi, Janice Moore, Jo Nova or Donna LaFramboise! We are talking Isabel Peron, Angela Merkl, Julia Gillard, Kim Campbell…. Please no more nurturing and nannying.

Marcus
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 7, 2016 8:41 am

Right about now, Janice Moore is trying to figure out how to send you a big wet sloppy kiss !! LOL

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 7, 2016 12:37 pm

I am strongly considering on-my-knees-before-bedtime praying to help avert a Hillary win.
Seriously.

Verified by MonsterInsights