Scientists Propose Creating Clouds to Slow Warming

[ScienceRocks]

Scientists Propose Creating Clouds to Slow Warming

As unusually harsh droughts continue to grip much of the United States, and new record-breaking weather events seem to strike with increasing regularity, the push to find solutions to global warming has never been more urgent -- so much so that even the most unconventional ideas are being given a second look.

Scientists from the University of Washington recently unveiled a new take on an old proposal to cool the Earth by artificially producing cloud cover over swaths of ocean to reflect away light, part of a process known as 'marine cloud brightening'.

The concept is actually fairly simple: a fleet of boats equipped with sprayers large enough to project particles of sea-salt into the atmosphere where they would facilitate the formation of clouds. The resulting cloud cover, if dense enough, could to reflect enough heat-producing sunlight back into space to lead to cooling at the surface.


© University of Washington

Researchers say the process is similar to how contrails are formed in the wake of airplanes, wherein salt would act as the base of condensation, not particles of engine exhaust.

Atmospheric physicist Rob Wood and his team are hoping to test marine cloud brightening on a small scale at first, using just 10 ships along a 60 mile stretch of ocean, to see if the idea could actually be as effective at cooling as their hypothesis suggests. If it is, Wood says it could help alleviate some of the problems associated with temperature increases as more comprehensive reforms are made towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“It’s a quick-fix idea when really what we need to do is move toward a low-carbon emission economy, which is turning out to be a long process,” says Wood. “I think we ought to know about the possibilities, just in case.”

“What we’re trying to do is make the case that this is a beneficial experiment to do,” he adds.

Scientists Propose Creating Clouds to Slow Warming : TreeHugger

 

[Douger]

TRANSLATION : We need money.

 

[Mr. H.]

Facilitate formation. I like alliterations.

 

[mamooth]

It's worth looking at. But even if it worked, it could be impossible to implement on a political level.

Just getting everyone to _stop_ affecting the climate is incredibly difficult. This technique flips that about, and has us actively try to change climate. And change doesn't affect areas all the same. More clouds in one nation could mean less rain in another nation. How would the world work out that political mess?

 

[Old Rocks]

That is the real problem. We know what we could have done to prevent the present position we are in. But we haven't the slightest idea of the affects of various ideas concerning geo-engineering. Other than we can expect unforeseen consequences for sure.

I do not see the human race stopping putting GHGs into the atmosphere until the CO2 is well past 500 ppm, and, without a huge catastrophe, doubtful we will slowdown even then. At present, I doubt that even a gigaton burp of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean clathrates would wake the people that deny the science and observations concerning AGW.

 

[flacaltenn]

I prefer the Hunger Games method of selecting virgins to be sacrificed for the good of all..

If you keep your pants on for a few more more years, the clouds will return as the current solar cycle subsides. We should all remain seated until the climate change has come to a complete stop..

 

[Old Rocks]

I prefer the Hunger Games method of selecting virgins to be sacrificed for the good of all..

If you keep your pants on for a few more more years, the clouds will return as the current solar cycle subsides. We should all remain seated until the climate change has come to a complete stop..

Flatulance, what you really prefer is willfull ignorance and nonsense.

 

[Mr. H.]

That is the real problem. We know what we could have done to prevent the present position we are in. But we haven't the slightest idea of the affects of various ideas concerning geo-engineering. Other than we can expect unforeseen consequences for sure.

I do not see the human race stopping putting GHGs into the atmosphere until the CO2 is well past 500 ppm, and, without a huge catastrophe, doubtful we will slowdown even then. At present, I doubt that even a gigaton burp of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean clathrates would wake the people that deny the science and observations concerning AGW.

What is your idea of a "huge catastrophe" with respect to this scenario?

 

[Jroc]

I prefer the Hunger Games method of selecting virgins to be sacrificed for the good of all..

If you keep your pants on for a few more more years, the clouds will return as the current solar cycle subsides. We should all remain seated until the climate change has come to a complete stop..

Flatulance, what you really prefer is willfull ignorance and nonsense.

Man made global warming is nonsense

 

[Old Rocks]

Jroc is nonsense.

 

[Mr. H.]

I prefer the Hunger Games method of selecting virgins to be sacrificed for the good of all..

If you keep your pants on for a few more more years, the clouds will return as the current solar cycle subsides. We should all remain seated until the climate change has come to a complete stop..

Flatulance, what you really prefer is willfull ignorance and nonsense.

Man made global warming is nonsense

I'm in the business of contributing liquid hydrocarbons to the marketing stream, and even I wouldn't go so far as to say this. I've seen what I consider to be compelling evidence from both sides of the issue. Solutions posited by the Global Smarming crowd are extreme, but they shouldn't be taken lightly. Hyrdocarbons production must flourish because demand dictates it, as does the need for industrial output and an increased labor force.

Reductions in consumption, efficiencies of utilization, and a market-driven transition to alternative enviro-friendly energy sources are the most practical short term approaches. Artificially forced transitions away from hydrocarbons have the potential to do more harm than good to the overall health of economies and quality of living.

 

[Staidhup]

So scientists think the creation of clouds will slow global warming, interesting, and all along they said all we need to do is stop burning fossil fuels and that would be that.

 

[ScienceRocks]

That is the real problem. We know what we could have done to prevent the present position we are in. But we haven't the slightest idea of the affects of various ideas concerning geo-engineering. Other than we can expect unforeseen consequences for sure.

I do not see the human race stopping putting GHGs into the atmosphere until the CO2 is well past 500 ppm, and, without a huge catastrophe, doubtful we will slowdown even then. At present, I doubt that even a gigaton burp of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean clathrates would wake the people that deny the science and observations concerning AGW.

What is your idea of a "huge catastrophe" with respect to this scenario?

5 year droughts over the food producing area's of nations that are 1,000 year event occurring every decade.

20 inches of rain over large parts of a continent every few years. 500-2,000 years floods around the rivers.

Arctic sea ice melting by July

Extreme warmth occurring in some summers up to 2-3 times avg

It really depends on the setup within a random year.

 

[skookerasbil]

That is the real problem. We know what we could have done to prevent the present position we are in. But we haven't the slightest idea of the affects of various ideas concerning geo-engineering. Other than we can expect unforeseen consequences for sure.

I do not see the human race stopping putting GHGs into the atmosphere until the CO2 is well past 500 ppm, and, without a huge catastrophe, doubtful we will slowdown even then. At present, I doubt that even a gigaton burp of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean clathrates would wake the people that deny the science and observations concerning AGW.

What is your idea of a "huge catastrophe" with respect to this scenario?

The alarmists have been talking about this for decades!!! In the last 5 years or so, people have tuned them out.


I heard a story once when I was a kid..............."The Boy Who Cried Wolf". Evidently, the radical k00ks missed that one in class.

 

[Jroc]

Flatulance, what you really prefer is willfull ignorance and nonsense.

Man made global warming is nonsense

I'm in the business of contributing liquid hydrocarbons to the marketing stream, and even I wouldn't go so far as to say this. I've seen what I consider to be compelling evidence from both sides of the issue. Solutions posited by the Global Smarming crowd are extreme, but they shouldn't be taken lightly. Hyrdocarbons production must flourish because demand dictates it, as does the need for industrial output and an increased labor force.

Reductions in consumption, efficiencies of utilization, and a market-driven transition to alternative enviro-friendly energy sources are the most practical short term approaches. Artificially forced transitions away from hydrocarbons have the potential to do more harm than good to the overall health of economies and quality of living.

Liberals would have us back in the stone age if they thought it would decrease Co2 in the atmosphere. The fact is that modern technology has helped to clean up our environment and anyone who thinks that if the planet in actually warming we can reverse it is delusional

 

[Mr. H.]

Man made global warming is nonsense

I'm in the business of contributing liquid hydrocarbons to the marketing stream, and even I wouldn't go so far as to say this. I've seen what I consider to be compelling evidence from both sides of the issue. Solutions posited by the Global Smarming crowd are extreme, but they shouldn't be taken lightly. Hyrdocarbons production must flourish because demand dictates it, as does the need for industrial output and an increased labor force.

Reductions in consumption, efficiencies of utilization, and a market-driven transition to alternative enviro-friendly energy sources are the most practical short term approaches. Artificially forced transitions away from hydrocarbons have the potential to do more harm than good to the overall health of economies and quality of living.

Liberals would have us back in the stone age if they thought it would decrease Co2 in the atmosphere. The fact is that modern technology has helped to clean up our environment and anyone who thinks that if the planet in actually warming we can reverse it is delusional

Maybe... maybe not. The air is much "cleaner" than it was in the 1970's. And no thanks to alternatives, renewables, or ethanol. But much thanks reductions in consumption, efficiencies of utilization, and-more recently- more natural gas burning rather than coal burning. I do however agree that Liberals in general are off their fucking rockers and two-faced hypocrite lying bastards.

But Ol' Rocky's reference to a "huge catastrphe" may be exactly what the world needs via a wake-up call. I consider it to be more of a cleansing or a purging. It may very well be inevitable and personally I think we'll see it in my lifetime (what's left of it LOL). We will as a species survive. It won't be pretty, but like the Phoenix we'll rise from the ashes. And from the ashes we will build a better day (queue Moody Blues).

Anyone give thought to the fact that the earth will be incinerated when the Sun goes supernova in about 5 billion years? Damn I'd like to be around for that one.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is the real problem. We know what we could have done to prevent the present position we are in. But we haven't the slightest idea of the affects of various ideas concerning geo-engineering. Other than we can expect unforeseen consequences for sure.

I do not see the human race stopping putting GHGs into the atmosphere until the CO2 is well past 500 ppm, and, without a huge catastrophe, doubtful we will slowdown even then. At present, I doubt that even a gigaton burp of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean clathrates would wake the people that deny the science and observations concerning AGW.

What is your idea of a "huge catastrophe" with respect to this scenario?

What we damned near had in 2011. A weather system was stalled over the middle of the nation that fed warm wet air all the way up to Montana. The Fort Peck dam is an earth fill dam. The spillway was taking many times the designed amount of water through it. To the point where some concrete has started chunking out. There are several more very large earth fill dams downstream on the Missouri and Mississippi. Had the Fort Peck spillway failed, the dam would have failed, and that would have taken out every dam downstream. Earth fill dams do not take well to water running over the top of them.

Another would be dust storms from Phoenix to Billings.

I repeatedly posted the lecture of Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University for a reason. She gave a very good lecture on how the declining ice is affecting the speed at which weather systems move. This is a very good explanation of the weather events of the past three years, and explains how there might possibly be more severe events in our future.

 

[westwall]

That is the real problem. We know what we could have done to prevent the present position we are in. But we haven't the slightest idea of the affects of various ideas concerning geo-engineering. Other than we can expect unforeseen consequences for sure.

I do not see the human race stopping putting GHGs into the atmosphere until the CO2 is well past 500 ppm, and, without a huge catastrophe, doubtful we will slowdown even then. At present, I doubt that even a gigaton burp of CH4 from the Arctic Ocean clathrates would wake the people that deny the science and observations concerning AGW.

What is your idea of a "huge catastrophe" with respect to this scenario?

What we damned near had in 2011. A weather system was stalled over the middle of the nation that fed warm wet air all the way up to Montana. The Fort Peck dam is an earth fill dam. The spillway was taking many times the designed amount of water through it. To the point where some concrete has started chunking out. There are several more very large earth fill dams downstream on the Missouri and Mississippi. Had the Fort Peck spillway failed, the dam would have failed, and that would have taken out every dam downstream. Earth fill dams do not take well to water running over the top of them.

Another would be dust storms from Phoenix to Billings.

I repeatedly posted the lecture of Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University for a reason. She gave a very good lecture on how the declining ice is affecting the speed at which weather systems move. This is a very good explanation of the weather events of the past three years, and explains how there might possibly be more severe events in our future.

Interestingly enough all of that has happened many, many times before. And, amazingly enough, man has not only survived but prospered. Pretty amazing huh? Man I mean.

 

[daveman]

I'm in the business of contributing liquid hydrocarbons to the marketing stream, and even I wouldn't go so far as to say this. I've seen what I consider to be compelling evidence from both sides of the issue. Solutions posited by the Global Smarming crowd are extreme, but they shouldn't be taken lightly. Hyrdocarbons production must flourish because demand dictates it, as does the need for industrial output and an increased labor force.

Reductions in consumption, efficiencies of utilization, and a market-driven transition to alternative enviro-friendly energy sources are the most practical short term approaches. Artificially forced transitions away from hydrocarbons have the potential to do more harm than good to the overall health of economies and quality of living.

Liberals would have us back in the stone age if they thought it would decrease Co2 in the atmosphere. The fact is that modern technology has helped to clean up our environment and anyone who thinks that if the planet in actually warming we can reverse it is delusional

Maybe... maybe not. The air is much "cleaner" than it was in the 1970's. And no thanks to alternatives, renewables, or ethanol. But much thanks reductions in consumption, efficiencies of utilization, and-more recently- more natural gas burning rather than coal burning. I do however agree that Liberals in general are off their fucking rockers and two-faced hypocrite lying bastards.

But Ol' Rocky's reference to a "huge catastrphe" may be exactly what the world needs via a wake-up call. I consider it to be more of a cleansing or a purging. It may very well be inevitable and personally I think we'll see it in my lifetime (what's left of it LOL). We will as a species survive. It won't be pretty, but like the Phoenix we'll rise from the ashes. And from the ashes we will build a better day (queue Moody Blues).

Anyone give thought to the fact that the earth will be incinerated when the Sun goes supernova in about 5 billion years? Damn I'd like to be around for that one.

World socialism is the only thing that can save us from the sun going nova.