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
TomRude
February 7, 2016 8:37 am

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

It is the 2069 that somehow raised suspicion. Had it been 2070…

Reply to  TomRude
February 7, 2016 12:38 pm

2070 is 54 years man!
It only takes 53 years dude!
Dang…some peoples!

Reply to  TomRude
February 7, 2016 12:39 pm

Did i ever tell you about my 7 minute abs video?

H.R.
February 7, 2016 9:04 am

I counted six ‘coulds’ in the abstract. That’s a little more than we usually see, so this paper is above average for a ‘climate change’ paper.

Pamela Gray
February 7, 2016 9:06 am

Oh that’s a good idea. Reduce the ocean’s ability to serve as our main energy storing/releasing source by reducing its ability to absorb SW infrared deep into the ocean where it builds, waiting to warm us when released to the surface.
What they and others, who want to reflect more SW in order to reduce anthropogenic radiated LW warming, don’t realize is that they will actually serve to bring about killing cold conditions.
Here is the bottom line of adaptation. We have to store up global provisions for periods of cold when the oceans act as net heat absorbers, and then plant, harvest, and preserve like crazy when the oceans act as net heat releasers. Look it up. It’s in the Bible. And while we are on that subject, what is with people when they build a house on the fricken sandbar cliff next to the ocean?????? That’s in the Bible too. You may not like what it says in other books and chapters, but by God it got it right regarding climate change and extreme weather.
Marco…Rubio…

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 7, 2016 9:39 am

Trump would be a travesty, Cruz is kinda crazy, Christie’s creepy and Bush is just too far behind, so Rubio remains.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 7, 2016 10:25 am

Rubio may have been dinged last night. Have to wait and see.
But in the meantime:
Grumpy and me in 2016!
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1734704/images/o-BERNIE-SANDERS-facebook.jpg

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 7, 2016 12:35 pm

The bite heard round the world from Christy is easily dispensed with. The issue of being a senator versus a governor candidate will bite governor candidates in the behind if they use this kind of jab. There is a statistical tie between presidents who have been governors versus senators. And there are plenty of examples of good and bad presidents who come from each background experience. It is a silly talking point easily brushed aside.
Marco…Rubio…

Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 7, 2016 12:41 pm

Wooo Hooo.
You is my kinda girl Pamela!
Doing anything next Saturday night?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 7, 2016 1:22 pm

LOL! Admiring my engagement ring. I am spoken for to a delightful man.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 7, 2016 2:40 pm

Aw shucks.
But I think I knew that.
I was hoping we could go vote together, early and often in South Carolina.
I shall vote with you in spirit instead!
Well, I am off to throw some rotten tomatoes at Chris Christie.
Ciao!

George Tetley
Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 8, 2016 2:27 am

A MAN with a history of making the right decision, who has so much wealth he is beyond corruption, that calls a spade a spade and if unsure asks for advice ?

David S
February 7, 2016 9:07 am

Wouldn’t this also reduce evaporation from the surface of the sea? Evaporation takes about 1000 btu of energy per pound of water evaporated. That cools the sea surface. The water evaporated is less dense than air and tends to rise in the atmosphere. It rises until it reaches cooler air where it condenses and releases the heat above the greenhouse blanket where the heat can be more readily radiated into space. So by reducing evaporation this plan would create a warming effect. Bad idea!

Pamela Gray
Reply to  David S
February 7, 2016 11:21 am

The stored heat would travel on ocean currents to where it is best evaporated away, at higher latitudes. So unless they soap up the Antarctic and Arctic ocean as well as soaping up lower latitudes, the net affect would still be to leave the planet without a recharged ocean.

February 7, 2016 9:17 am

I’d be interested, too, in the effect of a persistent surface layer of bubbles on gas exchange between the atmosphere and the sea water: might this interfere with O2 getting into the water and thereby inhibiting or suffocating sea life?
Eric Hines

Reply to  E Hines
February 7, 2016 12:43 pm

I am pretty sure the soap would be sufficiently bad, all by it’s lonesome, to be a major problem.

February 7, 2016 9:38 am

How about large quantities of lemon-lime Kool-Aid?
Add CO2 injection and we could make Salty Seven-Up!
C’mon good people! Let’s get on-board this nifty new green idea!
It’s like, totally, y’know, so… environmental!
After all, it’s no more loony than CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes.
🙂

Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 7, 2016 12:44 pm

This is actually the hardest I have laughed in a long time, and I laugh a lot!
Thanks Allen.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 7, 2016 2:43 pm

The biggest advantage of your lemon-lime Kool-Aid plan is that a little goes a long way.
But, speaking of Kool-Aid…I think the authors may have already drank it all.

Mike the Morlock
February 7, 2016 9:42 am

Lets see, Dr. Julia A. Crook Has a fellowship with the “American Geophysical union” at Leeds college. I wonder who is funding the A.G.U. fellowship? Is Dr. Crook wasting just American or just British taxpayer monies? Or both?
Maybe its time that All of these exercises in stupidity are documented compiled and forwarded to the relevant congressional committee. So that next time President Obama wants to increase funds for fighting “climate change” congress can ask him first to explain stupidity like this.
One would expect something like this to come from the “Onion” . Journalist at the Huntington Post must be taking stupid pills every morning. Brilliant turn the worlds oceans into a vast “Bubble Bath”
http://www.mrbubble.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/bubblebath-original-all1-360×360.png
michael

Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 7, 2016 1:51 pm

Yet another solution to a non-problem from the Mr. Bubble Brains.
Of course, the tax payers will need to pay them for coming up with this “solution”.

indefatigablefrog
February 7, 2016 9:52 am

This may well be an ideal area of research and speculative analysis and modelling etc for the latest crop of rent seeking hangers on. It fulfills all the essential requirements:
1: It’s attention grabbing.
2. It will most likely never be tested in practice at any significant scale. (and thank crap for that)
3. Even if put in to practice it would be unlikely to solve the problem because:
3a. The problem is the product of delusional perceptions and voodoo science.
3b. Even if the problem was real, solving it would be a disaster for the rent seekers. Therefore solving the (imaginary) problem will not be permitted.
Hence, we can expect to hear a great deal more twaddle about this silly load of tosh for the next few decades. Touted, no doubt, as the next great example of “scientists” offering up their imaginative brilliance in league with Big Government/Big Corporations and now the Big Inter-Governmental Global Regime.
Who as we all know, plan to manufacture a perfect utopia of stable climate, zero poverty, zero war, and a single global race of gullible chocolate coloured clones.
Who is funding this surfactant plan by the way? Reckitt Benckiser or Smithkline Beecham? 🙂

February 7, 2016 10:07 am

The Alarmists are suggesting we use the slightly modified classic Mohammed Ali maneuver:
the “soap a dope”!

February 7, 2016 10:09 am

The best idea I have seen since diverting Amu Darya and Sur Darya for irrigation purposes. That is what central planning will do for you.

Reply to  lenbilen
February 7, 2016 12:37 pm

Ah yes! The Aral Sea Debacle!
I had a large successful project near Kyzl-Orda on the Syr Darya River in Kazakstan. Not only was the Aral Sea a disaster, the poor irrigation practices salted the fields far upstream along the Syr Darya.
Lovely place, the Central Asian Desert. We stocked antibiotics because there reportedly was bubonic plague in the area. Space junk littered the landscape, because we were down-range from Baikonur, the FSU ‘s launch site.
A few thoughts follow, on the enviro radicals who brought you global warming hysteria, and some of the past accomplishments of their heroes:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/28/newsbytes-world-cooling-to-global-warming/#comment-1020878
We should just listen to what the enviro radicals are actually SAYING and DOING.
Maybe they know their predictions of catastrophic humanmade global warming are false, but it suits their purpose to use global warming hysteria as a smokescreen to mask their true intentions.
The radical warmists have done everything in their power to starve the world of fossil fuel energy that is required for continued global prosperity.
They have squandered a trillion dollars [now many trillions] of scarce global resources on catastrophic humanmade global warming (CAGW) nonsense.
Investing these squandered resources in clean drinking water and sanitation alone would have saved the ~50 million kids who died from drinking contaminated water in the past 25+ years of CAGW hysteria.
Intelligent use of these scarce global resources could have easily saved as many people as were killed in the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.
50 million people died in Hitler’s WW2. Josef Stalin killed another 50 million of his own people in internal purges. Leftist hero Mao gets the prize, killing as many as 80 million Chinese during his Great Leap Backward.
The radical environmental movement has done equally well, rivaling Mao for fatalities caused by the banning of DDT and the misallocation of scarce global resources on the fraud of catastrophic humanmade global warming.
Since many of these enviro radicals are latter-day Malthusians, Club of Rome types, etc., it is reasonable to assume that THIS WAS THEIR INTENTION.
Is this proposal too extreme? Well, NO it is not: In addition to what the radical enviros DO, let’s EXAMINE what they SAY:
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”

If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute
”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
John Davis,
Editor of Earth First! Journal
**********************************
Excerpts above from
http://www.green-agenda.com/

Michael D Smith
February 7, 2016 10:10 am

Incredibly dumb idea that will have no effect at all. It just highlights how little understanding so called “researchers” have of the climate system.
Albedo is controlled by convection, and is a result of / reaction to the earth’s temperature and evaporation. The earth’s albedo of 0.306 indicates a classical GHE of 33.7°C, but this includes the effect of clouds, which result to cool the earth. If you took the clouds away (reducing albedo to about 0.15), the GHE would only be 20.5°C (and temperatures would climb). In other words, the clouds are already reducing temperature by about 13.2°C by their active temperature control (increased but well regulated albedo), while the total of water vapor, CO2 and others accounts for about 20.5°C, the vast majority of which is water vapor. If you change the albedo of the ocean slightly, more energy is reflected to space, which will cool the earth, which will simply open the shutters a little more to compensate and warm it back up again. Fewer clouds will result and less precipitation will occur until the evaporation is increased again by surface temperature. You can’t change earth’s albedo significantly, it is a property of the water that evaporates and transpires here, at least in its current stable state. Darken the planet and it will quickly lighten itself with more clouds and precipitation due to the extra heat gained. Lighten the planet, and it will cool quickly, resulting in fewer clouds, thus making itself darker until the extra heat gain once again restores the cloud level. Albedo is very nearly immovable given the super fast reaction time of clouds (minutes to hours).

Bitter&twisted
February 7, 2016 10:14 am

This is a completely idiotic proposal, Brought to you by the usual suspects.
The morons who call themselves climate scientists.

markl
February 7, 2016 10:18 am

The worse part about this loony idea is that it received press.

Steve
February 7, 2016 10:49 am

Eeeeeh gads what a colossally stupid idea.

Walt D.
February 7, 2016 11:02 am

How much will this cost and who is going to pay for it. Who will get rich off of it – the usual cronies and big oil who supply the raw materials to make the surfactants.
This will be really helpful if we are in fact heading into another mini ice age.

February 7, 2016 11:39 am

In my opinion, it’s a bad idea. Almost all human interference with the oceans (I’m speaking about the unwittingly ones) ended badly and with huge repercussions over the entire planet. Here’s another example: human activity on the oceans during the World War II clearly influenced the climate – http://1ocean-1climate.com/wp-content/uploads/book.pdf.

HAS
February 7, 2016 11:53 am

However one place a bit of surfactant on board will help, is stick it in the fuel oil with a bit of water and reduce the fuel consumption a tad http://www.motorship.com/news101/fuels-and-oils/emulsion-fuels-target-market-acceptance

601nan
February 7, 2016 12:09 pm

Back in the day not long ago throwing stuff like this into the ocean, or even a little lake, would be considered as pollution. And another side-effect would occur when ocean-going ships suck up the junk into their water inlets to cool the engines! “BANG” oops another one down to visit Davy Jones! And then there is the consequence of the junk on the thermometers in the inlets used to record “ocean water temperature”. Thus another problem for the NOAA data-engineers to rig a new set of adjustments to the keep ocean temperature rising in accordance with Scripture.
Ha ha

February 7, 2016 12:42 pm

They say “a 0.5 °C reduction of global mean surface temperature” as if this is a good thing. Nature will create disasters (for us, not necessarily the planet) at all temperatures.
Using NASA’s graph of surface temperature anomalies (http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg), a 0.5C reduction in current surface temperature takes us back to the 1950’s.
The perfect climate back then produced:
1950: “Climate Change – World Is Warming”
1950: No Snow In New England Region Devastates Winter Recreation Business
1950: European Countries Finance Antarctica Research To Investigate Warming Earth
1950: Strange Atmospheric Events Affect World’s Weather
1950: Hurricane Sweeps Along New England Coast – 60 MPH Winds, Mountainous Waves
1950: 1,000 Villages In Pakistan Destroyed By Flooding
1950: Cold Wind And Dust Storm Sweep Over Bombay, India
1950: Record Rain In Queensland, Australia
1950: Minnesota, N. Dakota & Nebraska Regions Swamped By Flooding
1950: Wild Bushfires Scorch 60 Square Miles of Colorado
1950: Pine Beetle Population In Idaho Forests “Building Up To Alarming Proportions”
1950: Floods In Brazil & Ecuador Take 150 Lives – Train Plunges Off Washed-Out Bridge
1950: Oregon Heat Wave Breaks Temperature Records
1950: Oklahoma’s Dust Bowl Region Struck By New Drought
1950: Nine Die In Midwest Dust Storm
1950: 3rd Dust Storm This Year Strikes Wheat States
1950: Scientists Say Earth Warming And Glaciers Melting
1950: Great Appalachian Storm Wreaks Havoc On 22 States – Massive Rainfalls and Blizzard
1950: Eroding Beaches In Australia Due to Rapid Sea Level Rises
1950: Rapid Warming In Greenland – Sea Temperatures Up By Several Degrees
1950: Six Nations Send Scientists To Arctic To Investigate Glacier & Ice Cap Melting
1950: Scientist Says Sidney, Australia Climate Getting Hotter
1950: “The World’s Weather Is Just Crazy”
1951: “Glaciers, Icebergs melt as world gets warmer”
1951: Slow Moving Blizzard Leaves Iowa City With 27″ of Snow
1951: MIT Scientist Correctly Predicts Global Cooling – Based On Sunspots, Not CO2
1951: Bone-Dry Texas Swelters From Heat Wave
1951: Bakersfield, California Life Halted Due To Blinding Dust Storm
1951: Warming of Greenland & Melting Exposes Medieval Farm-Homes Buried Under Ice For Centuries
1951: Hurricane Level Winds Lash America’s Midwest – Flash Floods, Snow & Heat Wave!
1951: Kansas River Flood Displaces Over 500,000
1951: Mississippi River Reaches Highest Level For 107 Years
1951: Floods, Drought Ravage China Over 3-Month Period
1951: Fierce Hailstorm & 40 MPH Winds Wreck Apple Crop In Australia
1951: Kansas City Crippled by Missouri River Flood Waters, St. Louis Next
1951: Mount Lamington Eruption Causes 3,000 Deaths
1951: Hurricane Charlie Blasts Jamaica – 150 Dead
1951: Philippines Loses 541 Lives To Typhoon
1951: 100 Degree Heat Wave Lasts For 7 Weeks In Texas
1951: Eastern Airlines Pilot Runs Into A Sahara Dust Storm 700 Miles From U.S. Coast
1952: March 23 – Hundreds Killed In Southern Tornadoes – Flooding On Lake Erie – Blizzard On the Plains
1952: “Worst Ever Seen” Dust Storm Covers The Columbia Basin In State of Washington
1952: Previously Submerged Town Behind Grand Coulee Dam Has Dust Storm
1952: Exodous Begins – Imminent Starvation Due To Drought Facing Mexican Families
1952: Missouri River “Savagery” Causes Massive Flooding In Iowa
1952: Mississippi River Floods – Record Crests In Minnesota & Wisconsin
1952: Norweigan & Alaskan Glaciers Shrunk 50% Since 1902 Says Scientist
1952: Arctic Scientist Says Polar Ice Cap Melting Threatens Australia’s Seaports
1952: Many Species Migrate Northward In Northern Hemisphere Due To Warming World
1952: July Extended Heat Wave – 104 Degrees In Norway – 106 In Italy
1952: March Earthquake, Tsunami And Snowstorm Hits Japan
1952: Another Severe Drought In Australia
1952: North East India Floods Submerge 391 Villages
1952: Alaska really is getting warmer
1952: Yugoslavia’s Agriculture Suffers From Repeated Drought
1952: Scientist Says Both Polar Ice Caps Melting At Alarming Rate
1952: Billowing Dust Storm Shrieks Across Southwest U.S.
1952: Massive Arctic Warming, Glaciers Lose Half Their Size, Seas Are Ice Free Most Of The Time
1952: Record Rain Pummels Texas After Record Drought
1953: Hurricane’s Sea Floods Kill More Than 900 In Europe – Worst Since 15th Century
1953: UK Floods Kill 300, Farmlands Made Infertile From Salt Water
1953: Consensus Among Meterologists: The World Is Warming
1953: Scientists Say Antarctica Ice Melting Rapidly
1953: Australia’s ‘Atomic” Port Struck by Hurricane – Every Single Builing Damaged
1953: UK Tornado – 89 Deaths
1953: China’s Authorities Report Severe Drought Impact
1953: Wisconsin Heat Wave Pales To Heat Wave They Had In 1936
1953: Choking Dust Storm Darkens Most of Texas
1953: Texas Drought Dust Falls In NY’s Times Square
1953: Severe Drought – Texas & Oklahoma Declared Major Disaster Areas
1953: West German Drought Close To Drying Up An Important Water Reservoir
1953 Multiple May Tornadoes Pummel Waco, TX – 115 Die
1953: May Tornadoes Roar Through Georgia & Alabama – 24 Dead
1953: 3rd Huge Dust Storm In 10 Days Blasts America’s Wheat Areas
1953: June Tornado Rampage Killed Hundreds In Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Texas
1953: Drought Dries Up Rio Grande River, Missouri River Is Flooding Montana
1953: Heat Wave Blisters U.S. East of The Rockies
1953: Sweden Takes Steps To Stop Paratyphiod Epidemic
1954: 100 MPH Blizzard Winds Howl Across Nebraska
1954: Scientists Tell Congress That The Arctic Might Be Navigable By 1979
1954: Arctic Permafrost In Canada Melting – Natives Have To Be Moved
1954: Mainstream Media Reports That Past Was Much Warmer Than Current Temperatures
1954: Melting Himalayan Glacier Flooding – 200,000 Homeless
1954: North African Earthquake Followed By More Tremors – 1,340 Deaths In Algeria
1954: Longest Drought Grows To Four U.S. States
1954: Heat Wave In Illinois Registers 112 Degree Temperature – Highest Ever
1954: Dixie First Hit By Dust Storms Then Tornadoes
1954: Drought Turns To Floods In Texas
1954: Worst Floods of Century Devastate Areas of Nepal
1954: Hurricane Carol Stampedes Through New England – 49 Dead
1954: Hurricane Edna Blasts New England & Canada
1954: Hurricane Hazel Strikes Haiti, U.S. & Canada – At Least 1,000 Dead
1954: 8 Hurricanes Wreak Havoc On U.S. During 1954 – Worst Year On Record
1954: Record Heat Wave Brings Death, Destruction
1954: 18 Die In Airliner Crash Caused By Mexican Dust Storm
1954: “UK, Europe Have Worst Summer For Years”
1954: Radioactive Dust Storm Injures 23 Japanese Fishermen
1954: Climate Scientists Say Summers Getting Cooler & Wetter In Australia

Reply to  John in Oz
February 7, 2016 12:49 pm

Yeah, but we get that hypothetical 0.5 degrees for the low low price of poisoning the worlds oceans.
Who can pass that up?

jorgekafkazar
February 7, 2016 1:05 pm

Publish or perish.

H.R.
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
February 7, 2016 4:57 pm

In this case, it would be nice if they did both, jorgekafkazar ;o)

February 7, 2016 1:43 pm

If you really wan to exercise your ulcers, watch the CBC Network (Canadian Broadcasting on Communism Network) on February 18, 2016. Should get a few people’s juice flowing.

DEBUT
This Changes Everything
Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12 PM on CBC-TV
Filmed over 211 shoot days in nine countries and five continents over four years, This Changes Everything is an epic attempt to re-imagine the vast challenge of climate change.
Inspired by Naomi Klein’s international non-fiction bestseller This Changes Everything, the film presents seven powerful portraits of communities on the front lines, from Montana’s Powder River Basin to the Alberta Tar Sands, from the coast of South
India to Beijing and beyond. Interwoven with these stories of struggle is Klein’s narration, connecting the carbon in the air with the economic system that put it there. Throughout the film, Klein builds to her most controversial and exciting idea: that we can seize the existential crisis of climate change to transform our failed economic system into something radically better.

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/this-changes-everything
I am “re-imagining” how history will judge these people … and where does all the money come from? George Soros et al?

willhaas
February 7, 2016 1:46 pm

To have any effect at all they would have to add giga tons of bubble bath the the oceans at least. If enough is added, wave action alone would be enough to create the bubbles but the bubbles created will not last very long since they get destroyed very quickly by any form of wind and sea spray. If they are really serious about this they should start with a small pond and see how quickly the bubble bath kills the fish and what it does to algae formation. Right now there are laws against dumping bubble bath into the ocean. A better use of materials would be to paint land surfaces bright white. How much would their effort cost? What would be the effect of all the dead fish on the Earth’s albedo? The bubbles might also have an insulation effect and actual cause warming.

February 7, 2016 1:55 pm

The surest to know if this plan is going be implemented would be to see if Al Gore has invested in bubble bath.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Gunga Din
February 7, 2016 2:31 pm

Geo-engineering to reduce climate warming is likely an R&D department of a subsidiary of any number of companies whose sole purpose each is to be awarded grants to study bubble bath in a tub. And the likely supporters of this approach would be the Clintons and the Obamas. And their sole purpose is to garner votes.

February 7, 2016 2:22 pm

This must be Stupid Geo-Engineering Idea #343 by now. Why not just throw all our old junk, plastic stuff, polystyrene, and old bottles into the sea! This would reduce evaporation and reflect all that nasty heat out again! These ideas make as much sense as hitting your broken watch with a hammer in the hope that the sudden re-arrangement will make it start to work well again.

Reply to  ntesdorf
February 7, 2016 2:47 pm

As for that broken watch and hammer trick…it is all in the wrist.
Might work better to throw the watch into soapy sea water.
We are gonna have plenty.

Adrian O
February 7, 2016 3:35 pm

In 1975 there was a letter from climate scientists to President Nixon, suggesting that we cover the Arctic in soot, to stop man made global freezing…

Reply to  Adrian O
February 7, 2016 6:49 pm

That would work too…right up until it snowed next.

Verified by MonsterInsights