$200 Million Dollars a Year Could Reverse Climate Change, Says Wave Energy Pioneer (bbc.com) 316
dryriver writes: BBC Future reports on a geoengineering technique called "marine cloud brightening" that makes marine Stratocumulus clouds -- which currently reflect almost 30% of total Solar radiation back into space -- whiter, causing them to reflect more sunlight away from earth. Professor Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University, a well-known 1970s wave and tidal power pioneer, has designed an unmanned hydro-foil ship, computer-controlled and wind-powered, which pumps an ultra-fine mist of sea salt toward the cloud layer, causing it to turn white: "'Spraying about 10 cubic meters per second could undo all the [global warming] damage we've done to the world up until now,' Salter claims. And, he says, the annual cost would be less than the cost to host the annual UN Climate Conference -- between $100-$200 million each year. Salter calculates that a fleet of 300 of his autonomous ships could reduce global temperatures by 1.5C. He also believes that smaller fleets could be deployed to counter-act regional extreme weather events.
Hurricane seasons and El Nino, exacerbated by high sea temperatures, could be tamed by targeted cooling via marine cloud brightening. Salter boasts that 160 of his ships could 'moderate an El Nino event, and a few hundred [would] stop hurricanes.' The same could be done, he says, to protect large coral reefs such as the Great Barrier Reef, and even cool the polar regions to allow sea ice to return. So, what's the catch? Well, there's a very big catch indeed. The potential side-effects of solar geoengineering on the scale needed to slow hurricanes or cool global temperatures are not well understood. According to various theories, it could prompt droughts, flooding, and catastrophic crop failures. Another major concern is that geoengineering could be used as an excuse to slow down emissions reduction, meaning CO2 levels continue to rise and oceans continue to acidify -- which, of course, brings its own serious problems."
Hurricane seasons and El Nino, exacerbated by high sea temperatures, could be tamed by targeted cooling via marine cloud brightening. Salter boasts that 160 of his ships could 'moderate an El Nino event, and a few hundred [would] stop hurricanes.' The same could be done, he says, to protect large coral reefs such as the Great Barrier Reef, and even cool the polar regions to allow sea ice to return. So, what's the catch? Well, there's a very big catch indeed. The potential side-effects of solar geoengineering on the scale needed to slow hurricanes or cool global temperatures are not well understood. According to various theories, it could prompt droughts, flooding, and catastrophic crop failures. Another major concern is that geoengineering could be used as an excuse to slow down emissions reduction, meaning CO2 levels continue to rise and oceans continue to acidify -- which, of course, brings its own serious problems."
this has been a pretty brutal winter. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Got colder? Thats all that climate change moving in.
Always a reason for a new project.
Re: (Score:2)
Any excuse will serve a tyrant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Gets warmer that's some powerful global warming. Got colder? Thats all that climate change moving in. Always a reason for a new project.
And it's soooo confusing some times!
I wasin Florida most of February. It was unusually hot. Upper 80's, humid, sunny. Ahhh - there's Global warming!
Came back to the Northeast, and snow! Freezing rain! Temps below or near freezing. So much for global warming!
Amazing that some folks debunk global warming by looking out the window and taking in maybe a square mile of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Butt butt... wait are you saying the world is not flat?
I think it depends on the granularity. On the coast of Florida or Northwest Ohio, it surely looks pretty flat. Here in the Ridge and Valley region of PA - it's hard to tell what level even is.
Re: (Score:2)
The last thing I'm interested in is trying to figure out a way to make it even worse.
It will soon be raining salt water .
Re:this has been a pretty brutal winter. (Score:4, Interesting)
It will soon be raining salt water .
I wondered that. How can we prevent the extra salt from travelling over land and adjusting the chemical composition of farm land. It almost seems like that could lead to a worse environmental disaster for places along the wind currents of these salt sprayers than global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not get it. Harder winters are one of the signs of global warming taking effect. Sure, things are getting warmer on _average_, but the real killer is that winters are getting colder and summers are getting warmer. This is well-known and not in dispute among the experts.
Re: (Score:3)
Second hottest February on record (hottest was 1990) in Denmark.
This is why the plural of anecdote is not data.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But peer-reviewed journals won't accept my data and continue to claim it's anecdotal.
Just more mainstream cuck liberal data scientists who won't consider data that conflicts with theirs just because I live free in the proud conservative state of Mississippi.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been counting the number of polar bears in my back yard since the early 90's. They have shown no significant decline.
I suspect that the polar bears in your back yard are locally extinct. Thus showing we're long overdue for reform.
Re: (Score:2)
Second hottest February on record (hottest was 1990) in Denmark.
This is why the plural of anecdote is not data.
Oz has been having a terrible time in the apparently chilly summer. Daytime highs of only 50 degrees....
Oh..... wait..... that's 50 degrees C. For the denialists, that's over 120 degrees F.
http://time.com/5506684/austra... [time.com]
Now I hesitate to do that sort of tit for tat comparison, as it is still weather. Brutal nasty scary weather.
But when the denialists point to a area suffering through cold as if it negates the physics of atmospheric energy retention, it isn't difficult to point out areas that at
Re:this has been a pretty brutal winter. (Score:5, Informative)
Second snowiest Feb ever ( well, since 1893) and about third or fourth coldest in Spokane.
Snow is more an indicator of high moisture than extreme cold. Also, it's called 'global' warming, not 'Spokane' warming.
Here, check the worldwide map for January:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis... [nasa.gov]
(next month you can go back and check world map for Feb)
Re: (Score:2)
Second snowiest Feb ever ( well, since 1893) and about third or fourth coldest in Spokane.
Snow is more an indicator of high moisture than extreme cold. Also, it's called 'global' warming, not 'Spokane' warming.
Here, check the worldwide map for January: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis... [nasa.gov]
(next month you can go back and check world map for Feb)
In the Eastern part of the US, there is an area called the "Snow Belt" It is warmer than areas north of it, yet gets more snow. How can this be???
As you note, it's moisture. While a fair bit warmer than it's northern neighbors, the temps hover around freezing, which makes for more moisture, and more likely snow storms. The resulting snow doesn't stay on the ground as long, but there is more of it.
If the denialists watched other than Fox News, they would hear more about the anomalously warm places. I d
Re: (Score:2)
Hence all that snow in Florida.
No, that's an anomaly. Of course, as you probably won't realize, the cold air in Florida is just Arctic air that has moved there. In return, warmer air flows into the Arctic. No heat has magically disappeared.
But below freezing temperature in Spokane area during February is normal. Combine that with higher moisture, and high amounts of snowfall is not a particularly shocking event.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that all those scientists distributed on a global scale, along with all of their weather stations, and the different organizations like the Federation of American Scientists, NASA, etc. who are collecting satellite information and sharing data, being reviewed by their peers and science magazines, etc. You think it is likely all of that is one huge conspiracy?
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that all those scientists distributed on a global scale, along with all of their weather stations, and the different organizations like the Federation of American Scientists, NASA, etc. who are collecting satellite information and sharing data, being reviewed by their peers and science magazines, etc. You think it is likely all of that is one huge conspiracy?
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people.
And only Fox News and Joe Bastardi stand in the way of the Conspiracy.
But a bright new day is coming - there are flat earthers all over the globe now.
Re: (Score:2)
the fundamental problem of climate change is some people wont beleive the data is accurate, since it can be easily manipulated
Not that easily. Data is collected by hundreds of independent organizations. And if you doubt them all, you can even set up your own weather station, and compare your local data with the officially published data in your area from your own weather service, or with global maps published by NASA or NOAA. You can go a step further, and organize a global network of amateur weather stations, and combine all the measurements. In the days of cheap internet technology, that should be pretty easy to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the people telling you that climate scientists are liars are themselves liars. Try tracking down what they say to what some scientists said. Most of the wild claims were the media, not the scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
As one who has been through temperatures that would have been unusually cold here when I was young, you're welcome. We're Minnesotans. We can take a polar vortex for the team.
Sure, it *could* reduce net warming. (Score:5, Insightful)
But it wouldn't reverse all the effects of climate change, such as ocean acidification. You'd also continue to have increased solar forcing in places with fewer clouds, and a different amount of sunlight of all wavelengths in other places.
I would make sense to try something like this if we were demonstrably on the brink of some kind of runaway thermal effect, but it wouldn't maintain the status quo or return the status quo ante. You'd still see major and widespread ecological disruption.
An approach like this could keep the *average* temperature increase around the globe down, but in fact that average temperature increase is not that dramatic -- its only about 2 degrees. But that represents a vast amount of total energy, and the changes that energy will bring to air and moisture circulation is what is going to be dramatic. Doing something like this will introduce different, perhaps nearly as dramatic changes in global weather patterns.
Re: (Score:2)
It also doesn't do anything to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oceans are becoming less alkaline, not acidic. (Score:5, Informative)
In oceanography a reduction of pH is called "acidfication".
Re: (Score:2)
such as ocean acidification
Ocean water does not become "acidic", it simply is less alkaline [wattsupwiththat.com] (huge, huge distinction).
Not a distinction at all. Decreasing the pH of a solution makes it more acidic, regardless of whether it's on the alkaline or acid side of the centerpoint of the range. Likewise, increasing its pH makes it more alkaline, regardless of its current position. If you prefer "de-alkalinization" to "acidification", or "de-acification" to "alkalinization" the words are synonyms, so pick whatever you want.
This is just ordinary chemistry terminology that you should have learned in high school.
Re: (Score:2)
It's somewhere, we just don't know at precisely what point.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then the criteria for geoengineering on a massive scale are fulfilled, and we should be doing that immediately.
Look at the motive here (Score:5, Funny)
Of course a guy named "Salter" is going to have a vested interest in spraying salt.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Super villian detected
Re:Look at the motive here (Score:4, Funny)
I "spray salt" almost daily and it just leaves me short of breath and one more sock to wash.
Re: (Score:3)
I "spray salt" almost daily and it just leaves me short of breath and one more sock to wash.
Look at the flash git with his fancy sock. Just wipe it on the curtains like everyone else.
Unintended Consequences? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're working off of computer models of climate. Those get validated by taking past data and running them into the models which are built on past data. The idea of messing with the weather on a planetary level scares the bejezzus out of me. See "Law of Unintended Consequences."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thankfully the clouds of misted water dissipate quickly and don't have any byproducts, unlike other suggestions, aerogels, etc. So it can be done in a pretty safe and stoppable way if some unforeseen consequence emerged.
They're just artificial clouds, it's just water. Where and when they do this and how the wind carries it, monitoring all of that, it's not simple but it is pretty straightforward. Certainly less risky than some alternative proposals.
But your fear is warranted of course.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of messing with the weather on a planetary level scares the bejezzus out of me.
So it should. But the fact is that we are heading toward the point where it will be less risky than doing nothing.
The time for relatively easy, safe solutions to global warming is rapidly passing, if it has not already.
Even though we are just beginning to feel the consequences.
Climate engineering will be nasty for many, but it will probably mitigate the worst predictions for our grandchildren.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Those get validated by taking past data and running them into the models which are built on past data.
Never seen a single quote on how precise they are on predicting current climate on the past data.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. But we are running out of options fast. We will have to chance things like this. Not good.
Re: (Score:3)
Too late, we're already messing with climate on a global scale.
Re: (Score:2)
We're have deforested half the planet and are well on the way to clear up the remaining part. The CO2 and many other gasses we already pumped in the sky aren't going to go away any time soon. The sun is always changing.
Pretending there is some 2000 year natural equilibrium which can be maintained if we just try hard enough is ludicrous at this point in the face of population growth.
We can force an equilibrium or accept change.
Re: (Score:2)
island nations having to move because their islands become flooded!
Which island nation is that?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
$92 trillion over what time period and how much of that would be spent anyway?
My understanding is that much of it is healthcare and would be spent anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Did a bit of research. It's a number calculated by a right wing thinktank with little credibility, and doesn't include any of the savings vs. doing nothing, or compare costs of alternative plans.
Re: (Score:2)
Would reduce domestic air travel in favor of high-speed rail. Electric planes are a possibility, but...electric planes are a difficult engineering task due to weight and power requirements. There are some promising ones out there, and the engineering issue of heat is easy enough (big radiator, come on, it's a plane).
You won't see trans-Atlantic in the next decade; it'll be more like from south California to north California. I'm not sure about a massive rail network in 10 years, either; we should have
Re: (Score:2)
The solution for cows may be anything from some change in diet or a supplement
That'll work fine for CAFOs but not so well for grazers. There's already a supplement.
or somehow capturing the methane and burning it, possibly for energy.
Ha ha no. You can't stick a probe up a cow's ass for gas without it getting clogged with shit. But in feedlots you can at least put the shit into a bioreactor (read: big bag) and capture the methane of its decomposition...
Re: (Score:2)
Methane from cows is a serious problem
That is true, but most of the cow methane comes from belching, not farting.
Re: (Score:2)
The Methan the cows produce would also be produced if the plants they eat would simply rot.
What if the plants are grown specifically for the cows to eat ?
Re: (Score:2)
The Methan the cows produce would also be produced if the plants they eat would simply rot
Actually, when the plants simply rot, they decompose in a high-oxygen atmosphere. When you combine methane with oxygen, you get heat, H2O, and CO2. Methane is CH4, hence C (CO2) and H (H2O).
Decomposition to methane provides less energy than decomposition to water and carbon dioxide. Anaerobic fermentation produces methane because of a dearth of oxygen: at least we can pull some energy from the material, but not as much as if we had oxygen. Cows don't pump oxygen into their digestive tracts, as only t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, SCIENCE says cows are a massive problem, and people like Bill Gates agree. Your opine doesn't matter.
While you're correct, career criminal and non-biologist Bill Gates' opinion is irrelevant too, unless he funds a GM fix for bovine flatulence.
We should probably get rid of the cows and bring in more goats. They're already the most popular meat in the world, and they can eat practically any plant. And they're plenty tasty if you know how to cook them, too.
Part of the dialogue (Score:4, Insightful)
I see a lot of unanswered questions and potential limitations, but I like that someone is thinking about dealing with climate change in terms of solutions that are feasible technologically, economically, and politically.
My guess is that this would be at best part of the solution, but it's better than believing the only possibilities are to deny the existence of the problem or to naively hope people will casually give up their standard of living.
Most dystopian movies (Score:2)
Fluid Karma? (Score:2)
We've seen how this ends. Oh wait a second... maybe not. The movie bombed.
Salter's paper on the sea-going hardware (Score:5, Informative)
Quite a lot of detail here [researchgate.net]. He also includes calculations for required levels of spray to achieve the desired albedo increase, methods for assigning vessels to the areas with the highest effect, etc.
"Geoengineering" is an idiotic substitute (Score:3)
for the thing that needs to be done - which is actually reducing the CO2 output.
Why? Because it will not address the issue, and will add further stress to the biosphere, the thing that we're allegedly worried about.
We only recently had that story about another space cadet and their rig that was supposed to "clean" the oceans of plastic garbage, which proceeded to become plastic garbage instead.
So, nope, how about we address the real issue, and have the solution paid for by the people who have profited most from it.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying the salt water pumps should be turned to spraying coal power plants, lobbyists, corrupt politicians, their mansions, and NIMBYs?
How much money can we get for this project?!
Re: (Score:3)
It is very funny how the staunchest proponents of "capitalism" and "personal responsibility" start screaming "Marxism" whenever personal responsibility means they have to actually pony up for their own mess.
It is also funny how they blabber about "world ending crap that never happened" and drop in the "ozone hole" or the risks of nuclear war or acidic rain, all of which are real and were removed or significantly reduced by policy.
It is even funnier how they mix up real problems (like water shortage, hunger)
Re: (Score:2)
for the thing that needs to be done - which is actually reducing the CO2 output.
Why? Because it will not address the issue, and will add further stress to the biosphere,
Nope. There is no evidence of any other ill effects of CO2 emission than increased greenhouse effect.
The problem is that any effort to counter the CO2 greenhouse increase is not going to cancel it out evenly across the globe, and across the seasons.
So while global warming can probably be reversed by foreseeable technology , local effects will remain.
Maybe destabilising the subcontinental monsoon, leading to drought, and India and Pakistan heading for war in a climate of mass starvation. Lets
Re: (Score:2)
There is no evidence of any other ill effects of CO2 emission than increased greenhouse effect.
That you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't there.
any effort to counter the CO2 greenhouse increase is not going to cancel it out evenly across the globe, and across the seasons.
So what? CO2 distribution isn't uniform and has never been. The effects of increase of CO2 are also not uniform. That doesn't make removing CO2 any less important, and one reason is that increasing warming has a lot more potential
Re: (Score:2)
There is no evidence of any other ill effects of CO2 emission than increased greenhouse effect.
That you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't there.
Russell's teapot? https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
The effects of increase of CO2 are also not uniform. That doesn't make removing CO2 any less important,
No kidding. Read it again: I said "counter". The point is that it is much better to not emit in the first place, than to try cooling by other means to offset.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that it is much better to not emit in the first place, than to try cooling by other means to offset.
Well, thanks for agreeing with my original point, then. But since we've already emitted a lot, it is better we stop and consider how to remove it rather than try other, even more nefarious schemes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the West only the US - the largest cumulative emitter of CO2 in the world - is opposed to comprehensive CO2 reduction policies. The EU has managed a significant decrease [europa.eu] over the last two decades, and is going on with more efforts in the next two decades. Even China is on board with reduction measures.
There is absolutely no need for risky "geoengineering" bullshit, when there are proven CO2 reduction strategies that work.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as countries like the US, Russia and the rest of the modern world refuses to fund
Out of curiosity, why Russia highlighted? They're not even in the top 10 economies and even lower down the list when compared to per-capita income. Russia is far off the pace when it comes to modern wealthy economies.
Re: (Score:2)
"Geoengineering" is an idiotic substitute for the thing that needs to be done - which is actually reducing the CO2 output.
I'm afraid you'll have to show your work. Decades of hand wringing hasn't reduced the CO2 output. Maybe it's time to also try something else.
Re: (Score:2)
everything that can be done should be done.
Yep, let's, as someone suggested upstairs, start a nuclear war in the hope of a nuclear winter.
reducing CO2 to acceptable levels will take decades
We've had warning for decades. People like you helped block any action. Thanks.
something needs to be done to reverse/mitigate those effects.
Yes, please. Make CO2 emissions costly.
Your approach is stick your head in the sand and pray for salvation that will never come.
Yeah? You positive? What facts do you base this conc
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the European Union, where the policies of reduction, which I support, have lowered the CO2 emissions by more than 20 percentage points [europa.eu] since the early 1990s. The US, on the other hand, has seen no reduction of CO2 in that time. It is therefore a fact that reduction of CO2 emissions is both a possible and affordable course of action. That is, you're lying.
Only greed and obstinacy prevent similar policies from working elsewhere in the developed world.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately 20% is next to nothing...
"Only greed and obstinacy prevent similar policies from working elsewhere in the developed world."
Check this graph to see what happened outside the developed world since the nineties:
https://ourworldindata.org/upl... [ourworldindata.org]
Now imagine we want to go back to pre-industrial levels. Good luck with hat...
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately 20% is next to nothing...
Yet it is a lot better than nothing at all.
what happened outside the developed world since the nineties:
They copied the irresponsible US stance on the issue one to one. Thank the US for the "leadership".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the EU myself, but that doesn't stop me from despising blatant anti-Americanism.
Re: (Score:2)
By all means, tell us how you really feel, but I don't see the connection between your comment and the one you reply to.
It is pretty hard not to notice that the US is and has been staunchly opposed to any global CO2 reduction policy, and that their attitude has been adopted by many other nation states, which find the precedent convenient. I'm sorry if you don't like facts, but your dislike for them ain't going to change them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this bullshit "addresses" the completely unrelated issue of the total incident radiation. The increasing global temperatures are not increasing because of the incident radiation, it is quite constant. Therefore this is a non-solution. This crap proposes that we further modify an already untenable situation in the hope that two wrongs will make right, without any serious study of the consequences.
But the sales pitch makes this sound to the less educated bunch like a silver bullet for a low, low price, so
Whether this or something else ... (Score:3)
Whether this or something else ... it's going to be technological solutions. It's not going to be solved by everyone going stone age,
Re: (Score:2)
Whether this or something else ... it's going to be technological solutions. It's not going to be solved by everyone going stone age,
And your technological utopianism is the problem. Energy is not free. Reversing entropy is very expensive. "Technological solutions" are what got us here in the first place.
Both of you are both right and wrong. Reducing CO2 output and energy consumption is best done through technological solutions. But what's needed to make them happen is the will to bend technology away from yacht-buying, towards ass-saving.
OK Jeff Bezos (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OK Jeff Bezos (Score:5, Funny)
Jeff Bezos give 1 billion dollars a year for climate change, even if you live a 100 more years you will never go broke! Problem solved!,
That depends on how many times he gets divorced...
Which would be a bad idea (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
No, $200 Million Dollars a Year Would Not Reverse Climate Change
Sounds too good to be true (Score:2)
In that case, it usually is. But we may have to look at options like these to find the one that actually pans out, because otherwise we are ultimately screwed as a race.
don't feel like (Score:2)
i don't feel like spending the rest of my life riding around the planet on a train, we've all seen snowpiercer.
And if they go too far? (Score:2)
Morpheous: We dont know who struck first, but we do know we were the ones to blacken the sky.
Aside from the issue of wanting to harness solar power, dont clouds also trap heat? The clearest winter skies are usually the coldest.
At one point city planners brought in a bunch of hawks to deal with a pigeon problem. Apparently this has created a new problem of attacks on small pets. Not enough influence and you do not get the desired effect. Too much influence and your likely to overshoot and create new unforsee
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:3)
Ok. Redo - how about Ice Ages from Niflheim. (If you're into Norse Mythology and all that. )
And yeah. I had to look it up. I can't remember things I can't pronounce.
Re: (Score:2)
Scots Wha Hae.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, wait, wait, you used the word "math" and then you calculated the cost of moving cargo based on the retail ticket prices of airline travel? What?
Stop there. Stop using numbers. You have to figure out what the different correct parts are before you can calculate things.
Re: (Score:2)
The mind boggles at the idea of creating salty rain on purpose. Wind blows the wrong way unexpectedly and it rains salt water on high value crops, turning them into rotting vegetation, wow, whom ever makes and runs those ships runs the risk of coming under military attack for what would be an ecological attack.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is lacking in details, but it looks like the idea is to just spray sea-water high enough in a fine mist. So no logistics issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Hose technology is cheap and well understood.
Most efficient decryption system known.
Re: (Score:2)
Salt Lake City?
Re: (Score:2)
This duck doesn't quack.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Salter is, like, the Buzzard of wave power.
I wouldn't take his claims to produce usable power to the letter.
Re: (Score:2)
s/Buzzard/Bussard/.
Re: (Score:2)
Salter proved himself to be a nutter back in the 1970's. By now he must be a geriatric nutter. Don't take any notice of him.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's all the salt going to come from?
Where is all the salt going to go to ?
Re: (Score:3)
Salted rain ? What could possibly go wrong with that ?
Not much. It is 10 m^3/sec of seawater. On a global scale that is an infinitesimal amount of salt, and is harmless.
Re: (Score:2)
Salted rain ? What could possibly go wrong with that ?
Not much. It is 10 m^3/sec of seawater. On a global scale that is an infinitesimal amount of salt, and is harmless.
Which is great, if it were evenly spread out across the globe- but it wouldn't be. It would be concentrated where the machines to produce the salt spray are located. This could result in permement ecological damage to specific areas. We could try putting them where weather conditions USUALLY take the salt away from land- but we know how unpredictable weather systems can be, and we also should know that we can't predict how sending so much salt water up into the atmosphere at localized sites might impact
Re: (Score:2)
So you object to throwing some salt water into the air which would wash out in days when you stop as a mad scientists plan.
You would prefer streaming iron into ocean surface waters slowly changing the ocean's mineral make up permanently.
Re: (Score:2)
THis is another proof the flood of the bible didnt happen. Consider all the salt that would have destroyed the good land after the flood waters disappeared.
I'm not a Christian, and I certainly don't believe in the bible or the flood story. However, surely any being that could create the earth, and flood the earth, could also keep the salt from the oceans from blending with the "water flood" that covered the land.
If you consider how large the earth is- and how high some of the mountains are... that's a crap load of water and would not come from natural sources- that's more than all the water in the atmosphere added to the oceans; so for it to happen it would
Re: (Score:2)
The floods which likely form the basis for the worldwide flood myths are probably Outburst Floods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] in particular from the end of the last ice age. Some of the floods that we know about covered some areas of land that were otherwise dry in hundreds of meters of water. Sure this isn't exactly the same as the Noah flood myth where even the mountains were covered, but exaggeration in a story passed down from more than 10,000 years ago is hardly surprising.