Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cooling the Planet With a Bubble Bath

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the rubber-ducky-optional dept.

Earth 219

cremeglace writes "A Harvard University physicist has come up with a new way to cool parts of the planet: pump vast swarms of tiny bubbles into the sea to increase its reflectivity and lower water temperatures. 'Since water covers most of the earth, don't dim the sun,' says the scientist, Russell Seitz, speaking from an international meeting on geoengineering research. 'Brighten the water.' From ScienceNOW: 'Computer simulations show that tiny bubbles could have a profound cooling effect. Using a model that simulates how light, water, and air interact, Seitz found that microbubbles could double the reflectivity of water at a concentration of only one part per million by volume. When Seitz plugged that data into a climate model, he found that the microbubble strategy could cool the planet by up to 3C. He has submitted a paper on the concept he calls “Bright Water" to the journal Climatic Change.'"

cancel ×

219 comments

Tiny Bubbles? (4, Funny)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632358)

Has he cleared that with Don Ho?

Re:Tiny Bubbles? (0, Troll)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633208)

if i remember right soap is made from fat and as such when it dissolves would create a word wide oil slick besides we Shouldn't be fucking the plaint mechanics god knows what we would fuck up and actuarially cause global damage to the earth unlike the global warming myth.. the plaint has its own carbon filter sure we are affecting the plaint but global warming is nothing but a myth find out what the plaints eat then well talk about doing something

Re:Tiny Bubbles? (2, Informative)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633304)

This has nothing to do with soap.

Artificial solutions will not satisfy "greens" (-1, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633630)

One must be completely blind to the obvious to think that the greens are actually worried about the planet. Or rather, to think that they are somehow more worried than any normal guy. Rather, the greens, nearly uniformly lefties, see this as their great excuse for social engineering.

The purpose is to push their idea of utopia on the rest of us. There are countless examples of green legislation backfiring, the most obvious being the spectacular failure of nature preserves to ... preserve nature (this is an old problem). Nature preserves are basically large gardens, where humans interfere in everything and protect the balance "of nature", mainly with guns (by enforcing size limits on predator populations, for example, or exterminating "invading" weeds. Of course nothing about those size limits or exterminations is natural).

Likewise several other green projects have backfired spectacularly. The most recent blatant example is "green" fuel. It has been shown to be a disaster for all involved. Not only does it drive up the cost of fuel, cost jobs and lives (because thanks to the greens the price paid to keep humans alive, agriculture, has to compete with fuel prices. Many people, needless to say, cannot pay such a price and go hungry, and die).

But other than the cost in lost prosperity, lost jobs and lost lives it has also been shown to be spectacularly bad for the environment, due to the subsidized acceleration in the destruction of natural land to be replaced by farms. This effect is beyond obvious in Brazil, but you can see the same happening in California, and certainly farmers will tell you this is happening.

So you'd think that greens would have repealed this sort of subsidies and legislation. But no, they have done in fact the opposite, they've increased the mandates and the subsidies. Needless to say, you'd have to be an utter buffoon to believe they're so totally disinterested in the real world they have not seen the consequences of their action.

But the purpose of these legislations is the real source of the problem of understanding. It is logical : the "greens", who live in enormously concentrated cities where the only green is prepared gardens and weeds growing next to the road, are not interested in changing the large, great world that they never see. Rather, they're interested in redesigning their own environment, and while that may mean roads, public buildings in small quantities, it means changing the people.

The purpose of global warming legislation is not cooling the earth. It is totally independant of the condition of the earth (average temperature has shifted far more than 2 degrees in all centuries before the 21st, what everybody is so worried about is beyond me. Furthermore, we are not capable of stopping whatever nature has planned for us. While a certain (minimal) "due diligence" may be required in dealing with the environment, that is all that any reality expects from us).

The purpose of global warming legislation is to redesign people, mainly those living close to greens, in their image. Nothing more, nothing less. And if they have to obliterate the environment, kill faraway black and yellow children, and raise taxes to do it, they don't care about those anyway. Besides it's only the big "evil" companies, who are doing the bidding of those very same greens, who are actually starving children, obliterating forests and "stealing" money. It's their laws forcing this to happen, but of course they are innocent.

It is completely and utterly unfair to point out the consequences of their "social engineering" as being somehow their fault.

So it does not matter in the slightest possible bit for these idiots that methods are known to fix the problems we face. The only device that can "fix the environment", as defined by the democrat party of america, is a mind control ray. Seas, forests, co2, trees, flowers and even children are just words. Words that, due to lack of other means, have to take the place of the mind control ray, for better ...

or [yale.edu]
worse [newscientist.com] . (note how many of the "successes" are not animals living and breeding in the wild, but rather artificial conservation programs)

Re:Tiny Bubbles? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31633394)

Are you actually trying to undermine the global warming naysayers? I'm not trying to troll, but I don't see how anything you said does anything else. If English isn't your first language... Wait, no, even that wouldn't be a good enough excuse for what you posted.

Tiny Bubbles (2, Funny)

billstewart (78916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632366)

Too bad Don Ho's gone...

Re:Tiny Bubbles (4, Funny)

QRDeNameland (873957) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632804)

Difference between Funny and Redundant 1 minute. Duly noted.

Re:Tiny Bubbles (-1, Redundant)

QRDeNameland (873957) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632822)

should read Difference between Funny and Redundant < 1 minute.

Re:Tiny Bubbles (1, Redundant)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633602)

There's a reduntard mod on the loose today. I got marked "Redundant" when I answered a question someone asked about my post.

Cue Don Ho song... (3, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632386)

Tiny bubbles (tiny bubbles)
In the sea (in the sea)
Make me happy (make me happy)
Make me feel free (make me feel free)

Tiny bubbles (tiny bubbles)
Make me warm all over
With a feeling that I'm gonna
Love you till the end of time

So here's to the golden moon
And here's to the silver sea
And mostly here's a toast
To you and me

So here's to the ginger lei
I give to you today
And here's a kiss
That will not fade away

Poor guy, Don Ho... I haven't the heart to tell him, but all the women in his family are Hos!

Re:Cue Don Ho song... (4, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632642)

Don Ho:

Tiny bubbles (tiny bubbles)
Make me warm all over

FTS:

'Computer simulations show that tiny bubbles could have a profound cooling effect.

Either this physicist is full of shit, or Don Ho was.

Re:Cue Don Ho song... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31633538)

Either this physicist is full of shit, ...

or he's not the "Harvard University physicist" [harvard.edu] (implying a current association) that the Science blog post claims. Maybe he just received a some sort of degree from Harvard in 1991 and is now a self-appointed "thinker" blathering on about ocean bubbles and climatology.

Re:Cue Don Ho song... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31632748)

I did that at Trent's wedding. HAHAHAHA

Re:Cue Don Ho song... (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633084)

Tiny bubbles (tiny bubbles)

I never realized what a hip song this is until I started playing the tenor ukulele.

Seriously, if any of you would love to play music but don't want to spend 20 years becoming a virtuoso, pick up a halfway decent ukulele (spend about $100). There are dozens of excellent sites and organizations you can find on the web that will teach you how to play. You can start playing songs the first day. And it's better than prozac for chasing away the blues. And the ukulele is a cool instrument, played by musicians as diverse as Kurt Cobain, George Harrison, Elvis Costello, virtuoso guitarist Eric Johnson and many more.

Plus, chicks dig musicians. Go to a party, pull out your uke and do just about any tune, from some old Ink Spots to Nine Inch Nails. I guarantee you'll get laid.

Regarding the topic at hand, whenever I hear someone propose some mechanical method for reversing the warming of the planet, it makes me really nervous. Whether by putting gigantic mirrors into orbit or kicking up more dust than Mt St Helens, I always feel like they're not really thinking through all the possible ramifications. Bubbles in the Sea? It might be worth thinking about what that would do to ocean life. It might be perfectly harmless, I don't know. But please, let's get someone besides physicists involved in the discussion, too. I know some physicists and while they may be great people, they're not known for thinking through all the ramifications of their theories on living creatures.

Re:Cue Don Ho song... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633322)

I far prefer Brother Iz [wikipedia.org] to Don Ho.

I guarantee you'll get laid. You do realize you are speaking to slashdot readers, don't you?

I'm skeptical of the bubbles for the same reason many others have cited -- by cutting of sunlight to the ocean, you are depriving sea life of the base of it's foodchain, the plankton. Much better to simply paint all man made horizontal surfaces with silver paint (and keep them clean). Sure, it's bad on your eyes when you are driving, but it reverses the warming effect seen in urban areas.

Crazy (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632396)

What about the sea life that relies on that heat?

Re:Crazy (2)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632520)

Ocean acidification and overfishing will have killed it all off long before we finish building 1000 windmills to power this.

Re:Crazy (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633088)

windmills?!? with the cooling effect it produces, it'll all be coal baby!!!

Re:Crazy (1)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632538)

I'm not a scientist but I would think that the water temperature has been getting warmer and that the experiment would offset the increase in temperature. If on the other hand it makes the ocean a giant ice cube killing all marine life to cool the earth by 3 C then that would probably be a bad idea.

Re:Crazy (5, Insightful)

aurispector (530273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632830)

Geoengineering is such a spectacularly bad idea as to warrant armed revolt in order to prevent it. History has shown again and again that scientists understand far less about the complexity of natural systems than they think they do. Just look at the eggs: back in the day they were considered good, nutritious food. Then suddenly they were demonized for their cholesterol content. Oops! Guess again! They're a good source of omega fatty acids and really are good for you!

The law of unintended consequences comes into play as well. They guy is using a mathematical model. What's the model missing? "Garbage in, garbage out" is not a principle we want to apply to altering the global environment.

Any efforts to reverse "Anthropogenic global warming" should be confined to reducing the supposed causes. What's our incentive to stop polluting if we can "fix" it by blowing bubbles in the ocean?

Re:Crazy (1, Informative)

EdZ (755139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633022)

Any efforts to reverse "Anthropogenic global warming" should be confined to reducing the supposed causes.

All well and good, assuming that even instantly curtailing all anthropogenic CO2 emissions would make a jot of difference. If the climate is a feedback system [1], and enough CO2 has already been released for the runaway warming process to continue naturally as it has done many, many times in the past [2], then the damage is done. It's simply prudent to explore ALL the feasible geoengineering options available until it's clearly demonstrated they're not needed. Because if they are needed, they'll be needed badly.

[1] Yes, it is
[2] We don't know yet, our models are not detailed and broad enough, and we haven't got enough data to check them against to ensure accurate forward predictions, and probably won't until it may be too late

Armed Revolt? Really? (1, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633048)

Geoengineering is such a spectacularly bad idea as to warrant armed revolt in order to prevent it.

I'm as green as the next guy, but that's a bit harsh. It seems you are advocating violence against companies like Shell, Exon, Mobile, and others that are engaged in large scale geoengineering projects such as pumping gigatons of CO2 into the air. While I agree they need to stop, I think legislation should be the first step. Only if they won't take the hint should we send in the government with tanks and bombs and such.

Re:Armed Revolt? Really? (1, Redundant)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633266)

actually it's not shell, Exon or Mobile that are the CO2 emmiters, it's people like you driving their car to work and using electricity. so feel free to revolt against modern convienence anytime. i cringe when ever i hear about hair brained schemes to cool the planet. If people are honest, we don't even have a handle on what the current temperature trends mean or how they will play out or whats REALLY causing them. they have a hypothesis that it's CO2.

Re:Armed Revolt? Really? (0, Flamebait)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633542)

If people are honest, we don't even have a handle on what the current temperature trends mean or how they will play out or whats REALLY causing them. they have a hypothesis that it's CO2.

If you're still spouting this nonsense, I'm sure the following words are wasted. There is ZERO chance that increased CO2 in the atmosphere does not directly result in increased solar energy retention. It is a FACT that we release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

And I have a hypothesis that you'd staunchly oppose any action long past the time when any action could have been useful.

If it was raining hard for several days, and your yard was under a few inches of water due to flooding of a nearby river, with forecasts of continued heavy rain for the next week, would you wait and see if the rain is actually causing the flood before moving your belongings out of the basement and fleeing to higher ground? I mean, maybe there's a dam upriver that busted, and the flood'll subside before your house is underwater. Maybe an underground river carved a new path and now feeds into the local river, and this is just the new level when you factor in the water from the underground source. Or do you do the prudent thing, and evaluate options for preventing or mitigating the flood damage?

actually it's not shell, Exon or Mobile that are the CO2 emmiters, it's people like you driving their car to work and using electricity. so feel free to revolt against modern convienence anytime.

Good point, except that we are not the ones directly deciding by what means electricity is produced. You're falsely equating modern convenience with current levels of CO2 emission. That doesn't mean that Shell or ExxonMobile (you know they are one company now, right?)or any other energy producer is to blame... except they are, for continually lobbying to ensure that their interests in fossil fuel sources are protected, that their interests in selling fossil fuels are protected. Also true for the coal companies. They have made sure that economically, their sources of energy are the best choice for the consumers driving their cars, etc... because they have been able to externalize the costs of all their pollution.

We do not need to get our electricity from fossil fuels. We could use nuclear. We could use a combination of sources like nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, hydro. But decades of lobbying have ensured that we are waaaay behind on implementing alternative energy sources.

Re:Crazy (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633232)

Any efforts to reverse "Anthropogenic global warming" should be confined to reducing the supposed causes.

You need to reduce that "supposed causes" to "certain causes" else you're just engaging in another badly thought out geoengineering project.

Re:Crazy (2, Insightful)

glavenoid (636808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632670)

Not only heat but the specific spectra of light that reach below the water surface. Seems to me that affecting the surface reflectivity would by necessity change the light that reaches into the sea, and who knows what effect that would have on photosynthetic aquatic plant life.

Re:Crazy (5, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632798)

Actually you would not need to go to the spectrum. Since the bubbling water reflects more sunlight (which is what the cooling effect is based on), less sunlight enters the water. Less sunlight = less photosynthesis.

Less photosynthesis means less production of biomass, which I'd guess has a negative effect on the ecosystem. But less photosynthesis also has the effect of less consumption of CO2, so at the end this idea may actually have the opposite effect from what was intended.

Re:Crazy (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633080)

It depends on where the bubbles are. The article mentions subsurface bubbles. If the bubble layer were BELOW the layer where phytoplankton live, the reflected light would allow them to 'double-dip', and INCREASE the rate of photosynthesis. Of course, keeping the bubbles low enough before they dissipate on their own may prove a challenge.

Re:Crazy (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633212)

If the bubble layer were BELOW the layer where phytoplankton live

It would then be completely ineffective. The bubbles need to be on or near the surface.

Re:Crazy (1)

severoon (536737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633216)

No. It gets dark fast underwater. To reflect a lot of light, you have to be where the light is, which is near the surface. Somehow, it doesn't seem like a great idea to me, when we're looking for alternative sources of energy (all of which originate with the sun) to start kicking a large chunk of that energy back into space. Less energy staying on earth = less biomass & other energy sponges for us to tap to solve the source of the problem. Then again, maybe there's so much abundant energy here that it just won't move the needle in terms of what's available for us to exploit to get us off nonrenewables.

Re:Crazy (1)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633082)

Or the sea birds that need to see through the surface to find fish.

Re:Crazy (3, Insightful)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633206)

I heard that the actual planet was going into an ice age, and that the recent global warming by man saved us all from 1000 years of frozen hell.

Seriously though, more heat is better than less heat, a run away cooling/frozen world is real bad, nothing grows at sub zero temps.

But a hotter planet with more co2, well plants grow faster, and who knows cows could grow to the size of dinasours :)

Re:Crazy (1)

bdeclerc (129522) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633508)

Basically, you heard wrong. Yes, we are going into an ice age, but not for at least 10,000-20,000 years.

And while some plants grow faster/better at higher CO2 levels, the plants that profit most are actually called "weeds", even those crops that grow faster apparently end up bigger but with fewer nutrients (so more, but less nutricious).

And in most situations, CO2 is not the limiting factor in crop growth, things like water and fertilizer tend to be what determines how fast and how big plants grow.

Re:Crazy (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31633568)

Wouldn't the constant pumping raise the concentration of atmospheric gases in the water? I doubt the sea-life will ignore the sudden abundance of oxygen/nitrogen in the water.

I still say we just move the Earth (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31632398)

It can't be that hard... Just put some giant rockets on one side, and boom! What could go wrong?

Re:I still say we just move the Earth (1)

bluesatin (1350681) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632726)

They'd have to be moving rockets because of course the earth rotates, and as most of earth is covered in oceans we'll have to use some sort of ocean bearing vessel.

I personally suggest we use frickin' sharks with frickin' rockets attached to their frickin' heads.

Re:I still say we just move the Earth (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633248)

Just put a railroad track (with bridges) around the equator and have a train travel from east to west such that it will make one round the world trip per 24 hours. Stick a rocket on top, and you're golden.

Re:I still say we just move the Earth (4, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632826)

Don't move the earth. Instead reduce energy production of the sun. Besides countering global warming, it also has the effect of increasing the sun's lifetime, because it uses up its fuel more slowly.

We just have to find the knob where to change the setting.

Re:I still say we just move the Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31633498)

Unfortunately, it's near the center. Maybe if we made a plane out of the material the black box is made of we could survive long enough to get to it?

Re:I still say we just move the Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31633462)

I recall an old Discover article that had a pretty good idea even for a light-humored bit whose purpose was nothing more than a thought experiment.

The idea was not to move the Earth (since that kind of force would crumple the crust and cause all sorts of unpleasant disasters such as ruining the atmosphere and tsunamis and the like) but to move the moon and use that mass to alter Earth's orbit over time. Mind you this was just a musing of ways to avoid getting baked in 5 billion years when the sun goes into red giant mode. As for how we'd move the moon, well, that was iffy. Might have been anti-matter, might have been mass drives. Also, might have been anti-matter powered mass drives.

Didn't he hear the new problem? (1)

AmazinglySmooth (1668735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632416)

Everyone knows the new problem isn't warming; the new problem is acidification of the oceans. Ugh. Keep up, please.

Re:Didn't he hear the new problem? (2, Insightful)

ebuck (585470) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632558)

Neither problem is new, nor has either problem gone away. It's just that the public mind can only contain one global issue at a time. I would try to prove it, but you've proved my point better than I could.

Re:Didn't he hear the new problem? (3, Informative)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632596)

the public mind can only contain one global issue at a time

And that's on a good day.

Re:Didn't he hear the new problem? (3, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632952)

Never mind the fact that ocean acidification is caused by warming oceans, not just an ancillary effect of increased atmospheric CO2.

When you increase water temp, you decrease the dissolution rate of CO2 in the ocean, but you increase the amount of CO2 that is converted to H2CO3. The second impact is larger than the first.

Re:Didn't he hear the new problem? (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633306)

so your saying one day we will have oceans of sprite? cool.

Re:Didn't he hear the new problem? (3, Informative)

twitcher101 (1712418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632576)

Acidfication caused by too much carbon, which is also causing the warming, which means the same solution is required, not an adaptation.

Re:Didn't he hear the new problem? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632858)

About your sig:

Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so- Zaphod beeblebrox

That was Ford Prefect, not Zaphod Beeblebrox.

No mention of (5, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632432)

a rubber duck. It's not a proper bubble bath without a rubber duck.

Re:No mention of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31633550)

Don't worry, the tagline has you covered.

Re:No mention of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31633600)

Here you go!

Same problems (4, Insightful)

Bozzio (183974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632440)

Don't all these crazy "reflect back light somewhere in the ocean" have the same problem?
Whether you're covering the ocean with a white tarp, stretching tin-foil over a large number of floaters, or creating loads of tiny bubbles you're still depriving the ecosystem of light it is most likely dependent on.

No light, no plankton, no life.

Am I wrong?

Re:Same problems (1, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632602)

No light, no plankton, no life.

Well, bubbles might also mean no oxygen exchange. So we'll wind up killing 80% of the planet's ecosystem off when the oceans die, to stop global warming. Yeah. That makes sense.

Re:Same problems (3, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632876)

It makes a lot of sense. If there's no life on the planet, no one cares about the temperature. Problem solved.

Re:Same problems (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632938)

It makes a lot of sense. If there's no life on the planet, no one cares about the temperature. Problem solved.

Yeah. Well, life will repopulate after we've fucked up the planet. And millions of years from now, that life will wonder what happened during this brief 20,000 year segment of history on this rock, chalk it up as a mass-extinction event like all the others, and the universe will have forgotten all our hopes and dreams.

That's "problem solved".... It makes you wonder if it hasn't happened before.

Re:Same problems (3, Insightful)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632946)

Well, bubbles might also mean no oxygen exchange. So we'll wind up killing 80% of the planet's ecosystem off when the oceans die, to stop global warming. Yeah. That makes sense.

Yeah... this is why people put bubble-making aerators in fish-tanks: to starve the fish of oxygen.

/sarcasm

Re:Same problems (1)

twitcher101 (1712418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632624)

And while part of the problem is the IR energy stored in the oceans, the problem is still that too much radiation is trapped by the atmosphere. This solution would only work if the sun was the problem, rather than the atmosphere.

Location Location Location (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31632672)

Nearly all sea life resides within a few dozen miles of land. The vast majority of oceans are empty and vacant, even of microbes like algae and krill. True, there are a few organisms that travel the large open expanses of water, but most stay near the coastlines.
 
  light however, hits indiscrimnately. The end result is that in the right locations (far away from coastlines and major currents), large areas of bubbles could be made with no significant effect on any sea organisms.

Obligatory Big Lebowski Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31633278)

No, you're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole.

No plankton! (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633356)

Soylent green is people! It's People! Ahhh you'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead, bubbly hands.

--
Toro Heston

(Alternately, for the younger generation, "Wrong! No plankton, more money for Mr. Crabs!")

wheres the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag? (0, Redundant)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632466)

some1 forgot

Re:wheres the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag? (0, Troll)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633218)

wtf who modded this redundant?! There was no whatcouldpossiblygowrong tag on this when I wrote this.

Obviously someone saw my post, realised the insightfullness of it, and added the tag afterwards. _|_

And how many bubbles do you need (1)

raymansean (1115689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632468)

Now all someone has to do is figure out how make all the water on earth have a concentration 1ppb bubbles.

Re:And how many bubbles do you need (1, Informative)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632498)

Hey, I'm doing MY part... I'm sitting in the hot tub and passing gas as we speak!

Re:And how many bubbles do you need (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632936)

However, farts contain methane, methane is also a greenhouse gas, so you may very well be offsetting your bubble contribution. O cursed bubbles, we never know if you're good or evil!!

Good idea (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31632516)

Now all we have to do is build huge industrial complexes and ships to spend huge amounts of energy pumping tiny bubbles into the entire world ocean.

Well, I guess we've solved global warming. That was easy.

Yesbut... (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632524)

It would also increase evaporation and thusly the amount of water vapor in the air. Water vapor is more effective than CO2 at increasing global warming.

Have you thought of that? No? Didn't *think* so!

He also says that energy is not a limiting factor. He's a kook.

--
BMO

Re:Yesbut... (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632692)

What is more likely, that a climate scientist at Harvard has overlooked a simple yet obvious factor in his experiment, or you are too lazy to read the article?

As a matter of fact the article mentions evaporation, suggesting that bubbles actually reduce the evaporation. If anyone is a kook in this situation, I would put odds on you (but it's more likely you're just lazy).

Re:Yesbut... (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633224)

I read the article.

He says the bubbles would slow down evaporation in lakes and streams (i.e., where he's not using the system). This is only because he's increased overall humidity from the evaporation of the ocean with his bubble toy.

Ever see bubbles burst with fast film? They create droplets which increases surface area. Evaporation is dependent upon surface area, temperature, vapor pressure, and barometric pressure. Increase any of these and you increase the amount of water vapor in the air. Doing this over a large area increases the surface area for evaporation to happen by a large amount

It's like you people have forgotten the most basic physics.

And yes, he's a kook. Only a nutjob would come up with something as ridiculous as this.

--
BMO

Re:Yesbut... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31633242)

A) Harvard isn't known for it's scientists.
B) What happens when we kill all the marine life (eg: food, O2 generation, food's food, etc) because someone took this dipsh*t's idea and blocked out their light?
C) The issue is OZONE depletion - we can make that already and routinely do in water purification - why don't we just patch the damn hole using technology since we used it to make it in the first place.
D) If you fix 1 issue with a round about solution you have a new issue, especially when you don't know the damned system, and until we have a model that predicts every last raindrop's exact velocity, trajectory, landing point, starting point and resulting reactions (in a tree or ground or mixing with windshield wiper fluid) for the next 1000 years with perfect accuracy WE DON'T KNOW THE SYSTEM.
E) Just focus on fixing what we screwed up, not fixing the undesired effects.
F) For the love of god, never trust someone from an Ivy league school, wealth is built upon lies.

Re:Yesbut... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633302)

B) What happens when we kill all the marine life (eg: food, O2 generation, food's food, etc) because someone took this dipsh*t's idea and blocked out their light?

It doesn't block out all their light. If it introduces oxygen and CO2 into the sea water, we might even see an increase in bioactivity, depending on the location.

C) The issue is OZONE depletion - we can make that already and routinely do in water purification - why don't we just patch the damn hole using technology since we used it to make it in the first place.

No way. It's like you haven't read the article. This is a fix for global warming by increasing the albedo of the oceans. And the ozone hole forms over Antarctica which it might do naturally (we don't know to the contrary) no matter what we dumped into the atmosphere.

D) If you fix 1 issue with a round about solution you have a new issue, especially when you don't know the damned system, and until we have a model that predicts every last raindrop's exact velocity, trajectory, landing point, starting point and resulting reactions (in a tree or ground or mixing with windshield wiper fluid) for the next 1000 years with perfect accuracy WE DON'T KNOW THE SYSTEM.

This is such a retarded observation. Fine, we'll never KNOW THE SYSTEM to your satisfaction no matter how good we get at modeling this stuff. Setting up a condition that is impossible to achieve just means you don't have a credible opinion.

E) Just focus on fixing what we screwed up, not fixing the undesired effects.

Screwed up what? You got evidence to back up that bluster?

F) For the love of god, never trust someone from an Ivy league school, wealth is built upon lies.

Lies like say doing research that has value to us?

Re:Yesbut... (4, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632862)

Excess water vapor in the atmosphere quickly precipitates out as rain or snow. Consequently, you can't increase global warming significantly only by attempting to add water vapor to the atmosphere. If the temperature increases, that can cause humidity to increase, and that can cause additional warming. In climatology, you say that water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.

Yes, I know, I'm ruining everybody's fun by mentioning facts again. What a party pooper!

Re:Yesbut... (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633522)

Excess water vapor in the atmosphere quickly precipitates out as rain or snow.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. This is a fact known by everyone who has even glanced at a list of greenhouse gases. It's also very effective.

Adding water vapor to the atmosphere increases the amount of heat the atmosphere can hold.

As you raise the temperature of the atmosphere (because you've added to the heat trapping ability of the atmosphere) you can evaporate more water.

Tell me where this is wrong.

I'll wait right here.

As for snow and rain, how much do you like your floods and blizzards?

Going down this road, I can see where this can cause an ice age. Taken too far, this can create a runaway greenhouse effect to the point where the oceans give up enough water to the air to where it becomes a dark-and-stormy-night for a thousand years because we've increased the cloud cover (increased albedo) enough to start global snowstorms. Indeed, this might explain the global temperature curves that describe the "hot planet, cold planet" cycles because the transitions are not gradual. I'd like to see more research into this.

And we haven't even discussed the ecological effects of reflecting sunlight from the oceans or the effects of oxygenating the ocean. This is a *bad idea* by a kookjob who has not looked even once at the unintended consequences of what he's proposed.

No. Just no. This is a bad idea from all sides.

--
BMO

You know what that means... (1)

drumcat (1659893) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632528)

Everyone, jump in the pool and fart... for Science!

simpler solution (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632550)

Destroy the Sun. There, I fixed that for you.

"Since the dawn of time, Man has yearned to destroy the Sun."
- C. Montgomery Burns

Re:simpler solution (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632900)

Destroy the Sun.

But then we'd get a global cooling problem. :-)

Re:simpler solution (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632968)

> Destroy the Sun.
But then we'd get a global cooling problem. :-)

You liberals and your global cooling conspiracies!

Bermuda Ocean (5, Interesting)

engineer_uhg (880695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632552)

Tiny bubbles are also good for sinking ships. Decrease the density of the water, decrease the buoyant force on the boats. Source [wikipedia.org]

Re:Bermuda Ocean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31632996)

One part per million might not be enough.

Before you muck about ..... (4, Interesting)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632562)

Before you start mucking about with geo-engineering the temperature, you'd better make damn sure you can UN-muck it or we're all seriously mucked!

What this means is:

1) Thousands of gyroscopically positionable mirrors in space allowing you to control sunlight = Good!

2) Planting oodles of trees everywhere we can do distribute the heat that we do have = "Well, OK, it'll work for most of the planet as long as you don't plant trees that are disease vectors for other organisms."

3) Throwing thousands of tons of [Insert favorite substance here] into the atmosphere/Ocean/Volcanoes and hoping it works and not having a clue as to the knock-on effects down the road = BAD, BAD, BAD.

Cheers!

Re:Before you muck about ..... (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633096)

Before you start mucking about with geo-engineering the temperature, ...

I'd give you a time machine you could use to deliver that advice if I thought people would listen. (The former part of that statement being only slightly less plausible than the latter.)

Re:Before you muck about ..... (3, Funny)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633174)

Don't you remember? You DID give me the time machine to warn everyone by posting on Slashdot. Remember what you said in the bunker?

"...everyone takes warnings posted on Slashdot seriously, so we put you in the time machine and...."

Re:Before you muck about ..... (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633516)

Of course he doesn't remember, because he hasn't said it yet.

Re:Before you muck about ..... (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633436)

Planting oodles of trees everywhere..

More like, "let's put back the forests we've destroyed over the last couple hundred years, then plant some more"

Re:Before you muck about ..... (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633640)

Just so you know, there are currently more trees in New England than before the settlement of the English.

The English settlers wouldn't have had a chance had it not been for the people living here hadn't had already cleared the land.

--
BMO

El Nino connection? (1)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632610)

"I’m emulating a natural ocean phenomenon and amplifying it just by changing the physics—the ingredients remain the same." This makes me wonder if cycles of bubbles on a very large scale (and changes in reflectivity) could be a contributing factor to oceanic El Nino / La Nina cycles? Don Ho had it when he sang "Tiny Bubbles."

desperate (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31632630)

this is more desperate grasping for grant money.
"When Seitz plugged that data into a climate model" - no one has a climate model that can even predict climate that has already happened. Especially not the CRU/IPCC.

Al Gore and his Stepford-Warmists are looking more ridiculous every day.

Great stock tip! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31632638)

I just put all my money in Mr Bubble futures!

other CO2 side effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31632712)

Ok, so that takes care of one effect of having high CO2 content in the atmosphere. Guess we'll just ignore the acidification of the oceans? And any other effects?

The problem with treating symptoms is you leave the original cause in place. Not the best idea in the world, although kudos for a clever solution to that particular issue.

Let the oceans warm enough to release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31632718)

the stored methane and it will make the bubbles for you...

What an idiot (0, Redundant)

holophrastic (221104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632746)

Dimming the sun is a crazy and interesting idea, that has a great benefit -- you can stop.

Water covers most of the earth, so why would you want to introduce something that you can't ever clean up.

1 part per million is enough to do real damage when there are that many millions. I don't care how many simulations you do, you'll kill something and you'll ruin osmething else. To be clear, that's all fine. I'm ok with killing a few million fish if that what you want to do. But when you want to stop, you've got to be able to do so. And there's just no way to remove 1 part per million.

Easy-to-do, difficult-to-undo is stupid. Difficult-to-do, easy-to-undo is the proper goal.

Re:What an idiot (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633000)

No, the proper goal is: easy to do, easy to undo.

No problems (0, Offtopic)

Bugamn (1769722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632850)

If it goes wrong, we can shoot equal colored bubbles in the bubbles so they explode.

What if the planet is already getting Colder? (2, Interesting)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 4 years ago | (#31632872)

What if the planet is already (or on the near verge of) getting colder?

Personally, I'm far more concerned about global cooling than global warming.

Global warming, on the whole, is more favorable to growing food / living things. Anyone doubting that need only read up on the effects of the various ice ages in the relatively extremely recent geological past. Even a very minor cooling period, such as the "little ice age" in the mid 1600s, while very minimal, had horrendous, adverse effects for humans...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age [wikipedia.org]

The "climate change" folks seeking to cool the earth should be wary - nature may respond with far more cooling than they'd bargained for!

Ron

Re:What if the planet is already getting Colder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31633132)

is more favorable to growing food / living things

It may be more favorable to growing living things, but anyone who thinks it'll improve our food supply should stop and ask a farmer what'll happen to their crops if Summer gets hotter.

Re:What if the planet is already getting Colder? (1)

carolfromoz (1552209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633230)

Personally, I'm far more concerned about global cooling than global warming.

I met this really interesting permafrost expert on a plane last year - boy did he have some great stories! He was also of the opinion that global warming is preferable to global cooling.

How about solving the CAUSE?? (3, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633102)

Sounds like someone banging his head against the wall all the time, and coming up with the “solution” of taking painkillers... while continuing to run against the wall.

I am baffled by the amount of elaborate ignorant high-level idiocy it takes, to come up with such thoughts.

Hero of the moment gone.... (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633384)

Where's Lawrence Welk and his Fantastic Bubble Machine when you need him?

Reflectivity (1)

Fishbulb (32296) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633484)

Wouldn't higher reflectivity of the ocean lead to an increase in the heat absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere, being that a given reflected photon would have twice the chance of striking a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere?

Bubble druggies (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31633532)

So the day we stop inputting the bubbles, we're all toast, except faster and crispier?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...