Cloud-seeding ships could combat climate change

[BenBurch]

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35693

It should be possible to counteract the global warming associated with a doubling of carbon dioxide levels by enhancing the reflectivity of low-lying clouds above the oceans, according to researchers in the US and UK. John Latham of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, US, and colleagues say that this can be done using a worldwide fleet of autonomous ships spraying salt water into the air.


This is a great idea, actually. My only question is whether this will change the evolution of weather systems for the worse.

Still, this is a CHEAP proposal, we could build it, run it for a few years, and if it does not work, or creates problems we can shut it down with no more money wasted than we have wasted on Bush's insane war since the first of this year.

[JohnG]

Very well, Mr. Burch. Make it sow.

[rjh01]

Could make the situation worse.
- The energy used would add to the CO2.
- The water would only go a few meters into the air.
- There would be a lot of salt in the water. You want sat water rain?

[FireGarden]

The worst thing about this is that it could solve the problem! It would be the Y2K bug all over again.

Who would win the argument?
Won't some please think of the Children!

[BenBurch]

Could make the situation worse.
- The energy used would add to the CO2.
- The water would only go a few meters into the air.
- There would be a lot of salt in the water. You want sat water rain?

They are wind-powered...

[GreyICE]

Could make the situation worse.
- The energy used would add to the CO2.
- The water would only go a few meters into the air.
- There would be a lot of salt in the water. You want sat water rain?

You are aware that it's absolutely impossible for vaporized ocean water to contain salt, right? I mean where do you think all the rain comes from now? A bit of it (a very SMALL bit) from the lakes, sure.

[PixyMisa]

They are wind-powered...
Yes, but you have to build them first.

[DavidS]

Could make the situation worse.
- The energy used would add to the CO2.
- The water would only go a few meters into the air.
- There would be a lot of salt in the water. You want sat water rain?
Without endorsing the original proposal, consider:

- The process proposed need not produce any direct CO2 emissions at all; it's essentially independent of the primary energy source. Nuclear reactors are a well-proven power source for ships, where cooling water for ordinary operations and emergencies is easy to come by. Alternatively, even outfitting oil-fired trade vessels with generators might increase their emissions only negligibly while they're running across the sea anyway to bring you the newest purple iPod cases.

- It's not the water put into the air that's important; it's the miniscule salt particles left wafting on the breeze when the seawater evaporates. Whether any of those particles eventually gain enough altitude to impact cloud formation is left as an exercise for the reader (and noted in the article as prerequisite research).

- If by "the water" you mean resulting rain, that's an extremely generous use of the term "lot of salt". Disregarding that any saltwater rain falling back into the ocean would hardly be a problem, I expect that salt particles from ordinary ocean spray already contribute quite a bit to nucleation in clouds.

Feasible? Effective? Maybe not. Except for the already-noted question of how many (salt) particles would reach cloud-forming altitudes these aren't exactly compelling objections.

[BenBurch]

Yes, but you have to build them first.

Give me a sufficient budget, and priority on a drydock at a decent shipyard, and I'll have you a prototype, launched and operational in 6 years.

[Giggywig]

Six years? Just how big is this boat? it takes half that to build a freaking Nimitz class supercarrier.

[Smackety]

Well, we are not quite at the point where we need to devote our Naval shipyards to combating global warming, and it is prototype after all, probably some research and testing to do first....

[AgeGap]

Won't it need power to turn the Rotors?

[BenBurch]

Six years? Just how big is this boat? it takes half that to build a freaking Nimitz class supercarrier.

New technology.

[Giggywig]

So could you ballpark "cheap" and "sufficient budget"?

[BenBurch]

So could you ballpark "cheap" and "sufficient budget"?

Cheap = 10 billion for whole program.

Sufficient Budget = guessing 800 million-ish for first prototype. (much less thereafter, obviously)

If successful this would mitigate global warming for the whole planet for less than the cost of 15 B-2 bombers - so it would have a major payback.

[Giggywig]

Time to start writing your Congressperson then.

[Spud1k]

As I said on a previous thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4016146#post4016146), my biggest concern is that the immediate perturbations will be limited to the regions where the ships are operating. This creates the potential for knock-on effects on ocean currents and weather patterns. While the desired effect on global temperature may be achievable, I don't think that the coupled climate models we currently have are sufficient to predict the localised effects with enough certainty, so the project is doomed to fail the instant some random country blames their next hurricane on whoever operates the boats.

[mhaze]

As I said on a previous thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4016146#post4016146), my biggest concern is that the immediate perturbations will be limited to the regions where the ships are operating. This creates the potential for knock-on effects on ocean currents and weather patterns. While the desired effect on global temperature may be achievable, I don't think that the coupled climate models we currently have are sufficient to predict the localised effects with enough certainty, so the project is doomed to fail the instant some random country blames their next hurricane on whoever operates the boats.

Take the least understood part of the GW equation - cloud dynamics - and let a bunch of naive save the worlders monkey with it.

Suuurrreee.

[PixyMisa]

Give me a sufficient budget, and priority on a drydock at a decent shipyard, and I'll have you a prototype, launched and operational in 6 years.
Sorry, that wasn't my point.

The ships would be CO2-free in operation, but definitely not in the shipbuilding process.

Still worth exploring, I think.

[BenBurch]

Sorry, that wasn't my point.

The ships would be CO2-free in operation, but definitely not in the shipbuilding process.

Still worth exploring, I think.

The CO2 required to build a fleet of ships is tiny compared to the annual output for all other things.

[Spud1k]

Personally, I think the ships are too outlandish. You'd be able to do the same thing with existing technology with minimal additional environmental impact. That'd certainly be what you'd want for any pilot study.

It seems to me that the biggest effect the boat designs are having at the moment is generating interest in the project. For instance, the closest they've come to a physical prototype was funded by the Discovery Channel (IIRC).