1,500-Ship Fleet Proposed To Fight Climate Change

Roland Piquepaille writes "According to UK and US researchers, it should be possible to fight the global warming effects associated with an increase of dioxide levels by using autonomous cloud-seeding ships to spray salt water into the air. This project would require the deployment of a worldwide fleet of 1,500 unmanned ships to cool the Earth even if the level of carbon dioxide doubled. These 300-tonne ships 'would be powered by the wind, but would not use conventional sails. Instead they would be fitted with a number of 20 m-high, 2.5 m-diameter cylinders known as Flettner rotors. The researchers estimate that such ships would cost between £1m and £2m each. This translates to a US$2.65 to 5.3 billion total cost for the ships only."

Comments

That's what?

[matt4077]

Two days of war?

Re:That's what?

[aliquis]

I'd think a bad idea.

What happens when we get the clouds at this and that location instead of wherever it would be generated without the ships?

Are we 100% sure how the weather will be affected by the ships?

Will richer countries try to get more water by controlling the rain?

What if mother nature takes care about the CO2 emissions without us interfering?

What if it doesn't affect things that much? Or much more than we believe?

Would it be like, you know, much "easier" and safer to stop using fossile fuel? Even if it would put development backwards "a bit" for the moment?

Re:That's what?

[stranger_to_himself]

Two days of war?

Or more to the point less than the cost of cleaning up after one hurricane.

Re:That's what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"a bit" is a bit of an understatement. Billions would die without fossil fuels.

Re:That's what?

[gregbot9000]

I wouldn't mind slowing development down to save the world, but I have a lot of things that I could do without. People in Africa or China might not be so keen on that idea though. People who are on the losing side of a statues-que don't really care a lot to maintain it, even if it is the current weather patterns.

Would it be cheaper to just mitigate the change? Build irrigation canals from Alaska and quadruple the levies on the Mississippi? I think we should do whatever is cheaper in the long run. I don't think it will be trying to change ourselves to fit the planet, I think we should embrace global warming and finally take control of the environment itself and put the final nail in Gia's coffin. Stories like this help give hope that there are people out there actually trying to solve the problem by moving forward instead of advocating a return to the 1930's

BTW to the "environmentalists" out there, their isn't a "natural" environment anywhere in the US, small things like the introduction of earth worms and bee's and fire suppression have dramatically changes the very nature of our forests, even before that, the Natives engaged in controlled burns and selective harvesting. The entire planet is a garden people have been modifying. I just want you to know that nature has been dead for a long time. when you protect the trees and the forest it is exactly the same as if you were debating whether or not to pull up the daisy's in your back yard. Environmentalism is a luxury like gardening. Though I still agree with you when it comes to green spaces in cities and arsenic and Mercury in the air.

Re:That's what?

[Fjan11]

The beauty of this idea is that you can start small, measure what happens and stop right away if it doesn't work as intended or if it turns out to have side effects.

The idea that China and India will stop their fossil fuel intake while the US uses 10 times as much is about as realistic in a geopolitical sense as, oh I don't know, sending an army to Irak and expecting democracy to appear.

Re:That's what?

[Damarkus13]

I agree with you. Every time I hear a story with a title something like, "We can FIX global warming by messing with some other aspect of the weather system!" It makes me cringe.

We don't really know what's going on (I would love it if someone has a link to an article about an accurate computer model of the weather system, but I've never found one.) We see the average global temp increasing along with greenhouse gasses (but now the Germans are telling us GW is taking a hiatus, which means most all of our previous models are wrong), so lets cut back on the greenhouse gases (hell, hopefully eliminate man-made greenhouse emissions), not screw with the weather system even more.

Re:That's what?

[ColdWetDog]

Build irrigation canals from Alaska and quadruple the levies on the Mississippi?

Oh, that ought to be just a cheap, quickie little fix ... The proposed cost of the Alaska Natural Gas pipeline which is supposed to run between 800 and 1000 miles is around 20-40 billion dollars. That's one weeney little pipe, not a canal. Going from Southeast Alaska / Western Canada (where all the water is) to anywhere in the midcontinental US (where is water isn't) has to go at least 1500 miles and through such minor obstacles as the Rocky Mountains.

Call me negative, but I don't think it will work.

Re:That's what?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Why don't you set the right example ? I'm sure there's a bridge near you. There's only one way to make sure you don't further contribute to the "CO2 problem" ...

Re:That's what?

[jcwayne]

We need to do enough research to make sure it won't cause a hurricane / tsunami first

You don't actually know what a tsunami is, do you?

Re:That's what?

[Sen.NullProcPntr]

We need to do enough research to make sure it won't cause a hurricane / tsunami first

You don't actually know what a tsunami is, do you?

Hey, it could happen. Those clouds can get pretty big! If one of them were to fall....

;-)

Re:That's what?

[mi]

Two days of war?

I'd prefer to look at it as every able-bodied living person obtaining a $0.99 rubber chicken and shaking it at the sky... Costs the same, involves the entire world community, and is just as useful.

Re:That's what?

[Tangent128]

Not to mention that the irrigation of the Sahara would be a ridiculously awesome piece of engineering.

Re:That's what?

[aliquis]

But then people say "hey it's no idea we can't get back to stone age!"

But uhm, we can do SOMETHING, we don't need a new computer every second year, we don't need new clothes all the time, we don't need local grown oil powered green house vegetables if there are some sun light grown somewhere else. Do we need that 340 watt lcd tv? Pre-cooked food, freezed and microwaved? Can't we take the bike a little more often?

But oh no, doing something must mean to stop everything!!

Re:That's what?

[daBass]

Tss, bullshit, the average american or european consume waaay more energy and resources than someone in china, why would they have to cut down the most?

And much of the energy used in China is used to manufacture goods for export - the things we consume too much off!

Re:That's what?

[TapeCutter]

"Germans are telling us GW is taking a hiatus, which means most all of our previous models are wrong"

The German paper used the same models but with slightly different assumptions and they arrived at similar conclusions about the long term trend (post - 2015). It's an interseting paper but the Germans themselves would agree it's complete nonsense to say it "means most all of our previous models are wrong".

"I would love it if someone has a link to an article about an accurate computer model of the weather system, but I've never found one."

There is no single accurate model and there never will be. Accuracy is a function of mankinds future actions, the precision of observations and the resolution of the numerical analysis amoung other things. The models themselves are basically Finite Element Analysis models, thus the need for very powerfull number crunchers. They account for forcings and some of the major feedbacks but cannot account for feedbacks we know very little about ( thus the hand-wringing about "tipping points"). It's generally agreed that at best they can only predict large scale climate changes (ie: continental proportions).

The MET office in the UK is a good source of info on models and even has a computer program you can tinker with yourself (I will let you find that yourself). Thier list of climate center sites is also very useful.

The IPCC site has become close to useless since it's last redesign and it is difficult to find stuff on it. However the MET office provides an accesible way to read the reports. The IPCC does not conduct science, it reviews it. The RANGE of conclusions in the report are derived from thousands of simulations from various models and are distilled down to worst, best and most likely senarios.

Yes I know the MET is a single source, it just happens to be a good one and will point you in the right direction. If you are looking for a good climate mythbusting site then you might want to try realclimate.

"[TFA] makes me cringe."

Ditto!

Re:That's what?

[electrictroy]

>>>you can die from global warming.

No not really. The Romans and early Middle Age citizens experienced global warming & they did not die. In fact, they grew grapes as far north as Scotland, so it was actually beneficial. Just imagine if Canadians & Russians could grow food in the once-frozen tundra. It would feed millions.

Perhaps you were thinking of pollution?

Pollutants like carbon monoxide & particulate matter from car exhaust can damage human lungs, but that's a separate issue from global warming (CO2 emission).

Re:That's what?

[genner]

When a certain species of animal overmultiplies, and Mother Nature brings a drought,

Oh sure bring religion into it.

Headline

[FuturePastNow]

I saw this on the Discovery Channel. The rotor-sails look very interesting.

One question for any Chaos Theory fans: what are the long-term effects of creating large, man-made clouds over the ocean?

Re:Headline

[Shakrai]

One question for any Chaos Theory fans: what are the long-term effects of creating large, man-made clouds over the ocean?

In Central Park you get rain instead of sunshine and a whole lot of people get eaten by prehistoric animals?

Re:Headline

[FuturePastNow]

They didn't mention that on the Discovery Channel.

Huh?

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

Where's the obligatory whatcouldpossiblygowrong tag?

I mean, come on, use your imagination: a autonomous robotic fleet of cloud spewers gone astray?

Futurama

[asills]

And here I thought dropping an ice cube into the ocean was a really far fetched idea and nobody would take it seriously.

Re:Futurama

[ypctx]

Don't forget to add Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg and Eminem for greater effect:)

Re:Futurama

[pak9rabid]

Fortunately our handsomest politicians came up with a cheap, last minute way to combat global warming.

A Bad Doctor

[Adreno]

A bad doctor treats symptoms without addressing the underlying ailment. With China and India (1/3 of the world's population), and other parts of the world booming, the release of greenhouse gasses is only going to accelerate. If we took this money and invested it into researching and implementing green alternatives to our current fossil-fuel infrastructure instead, more progress would be made in the long run.

Re:A Bad Doctor

[belmolis]

But it is also a bad doctor who treats the underlying cause without treating the symptoms if it will take a long time for the disease to go away and the symptoms are bothersome. Techniques like this should probably be used in conjunction with attempts to eliminate the causes of global warming.

It isn't as if this is so expensive that no money would be available for other approaches. Sure, $5 billion sounds like a lot, but it is only 0.5% of the what the US has spent on the Iraq War so far.

Re:A Bad Doctor

[Anonymous Coward]

A good doctor treats the symptoms as well as the ailment - more so when the ailment itself can't be cured. Quality of life is important.

This is a plan that could in theory be put into practice tomorrow, partially relieving those symptoms while longer term cures are being put into place.

While the relatively rich first world has the money to build new infrastructure - to work towards that cure - development takes time, and current alternatives don't have the capacity to meet current energy demands. That *WILL* change, but not for some time. Here in the UK, there's a lot of emphasis on making this change at the moment, but even if we start replacing everything today it will be decades before we can completely phase out our existing coal plants. In the US, it's even worse as your grid needs to be redesigned and rebuilt from scratch to accomadate wind farms and their ilk. No small task.

The only countries for which this will be 'easy' are those able to tap geothermal reserves.

For the second and third world these green alternatives are currently too expensive, and will likely remain so until the technology is being produces in such quantities as to be considered a commodity. Even then, the third world will likely be unable to afford anything except used hand-me-downs from the first and second.

So, what do you do?
A) Treat the symptoms and buy the time for all of this to happen - affirmative action

B) Treat the symptoms and forget to treat the ailment - what you think will happen

Or

C) Treat the ailment and ignore the symptoms - your suggestion

For the record, taking action C would also be more expensive financially, as treating those symptoms also reduces the amount of damage inflicted.

I admire the idealism, but you need to consider the reality of the situation at the same time or you end up making popular, but ultimately bad decisions.

Re:A Bad Doctor

[Adreno]

Uh huh... try convincing the public to dedicate such government funding to a scheme that would place 1500, 300-ton boats on open waters. You're now talking about higher frequency of ocean collisions; increased wreckage after damaging storms (and thereby increased maintenance costs all around); the energy expenditure (and CO2 release) required to produce such ships in the first place; and so many other counterproductive scenarios. Copper is being stolen from facilities across the U.S. as prices rise even today - what's to stop someone from going out to salvage an unmanned ship in international waters if it is constructed of materials desired? Our Coast Guard can't even track many drug-runners in the Caribbean, and you want to place 1500 ships on the ocean and cross your fingers that no one touches them? There are many other, more direct paths to solving this global problem, than the construction of a huge fleet of water-spraying ships that *may* increase sunlight reflectivity by a significant amount while likely instigating numerous practical issues in its implementation.

Re:A Bad Doctor

[GayBliss]

You're now talking about higher frequency of ocean collisions;

Do you realize how big the oceans are? The chances of any ship even seeing one of 1500 ships scattered around the globe is practically zero unless they are placed near a port or on shipping lanes. Ships go from one port to another on very specific routes, they don't wander around the oceans. Keep them out of the shipping lanes and nobody will ever see them.

increased wreckage after damaging storms (and thereby increased maintenance costs all around);

Negligible

the energy expenditure (and CO2 release) required to produce such ships in the first place;

Negligible

what's to stop someone from going out to salvage an unmanned ship in international waters if it is constructed of materials desired?

I think ships are made primarily of steel and not copper. It would be a whole lot cheaper and easier to just raid the local junkyard.

Our Coast Guard can't even track many drug-runners in the Caribbean, and you want to place 1500 ships on the ocean and cross your fingers that no one touches them?

They could track them very easily if they knew where they were in the first place. I seriously doubt they are just going to let these ships wander around aimlessly through the oceans with no way to find them and identify them except by searching for them. If such a plan were implemented, I'm sure they would know exactly where they are at all times.

There are many other, more direct paths to solving this global problem,

Really? This seems like a very cheap and direct solution if it indeed works.

than the construction of a huge fleet of water-spraying ships that *may* increase sunlight reflectivity by a significant amount while likely instigating numerous practical issues in its implementation.

If the best experts agree that it might work, it's worth testing on a small scale and see what happens in terms of cloud reflectivity and any adverse effects. It could probably even be tested to some extent without building a single ship.

Genius

[OpenSourced]

Pure genius. Take a system you don't really understand, but depend on for living, and drastically modify a variable to see what happens.

At least, after that, the farmers affected with drought, or torrential rains, or whatever, will be able to sue somebody.

Re:Genius

[Waffle Iron]

Pure genius. Take a system you don't really understand, but depend on for living, and drastically modify a variable to see what happens.

That's exactly what we've been doing for more than a century now.

Thus

[CSMatt]

solving the problem once and for all.

ONCE AND FOR ALL!

There was an old lady who swallowed a fly.

[martinw89]

It will be interesting to see if this idea gains more ground, and if there will be a general scientific consensus on this proposal. Personally, I wonder if this method could actually cause MORE problems. But I have absolutely no credentials and nothing to back this up with. So, what will the consensus be?

Ahoy there matey!

[Hognoxious]

Am I the only one who assumed that these would be pirate ships?

Re:Being as WATER VAPOR is the #1 greenhouse gas..

[Samantha Wright]

Sometimes, only RTFA can help you.

Re:For every action...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh? They're talking about enhancing the reflectivity of low-lying clouds above the oceans, not moving CO2 into the oceans.

And Newton's Third Law's reaction to spraying salt water into the air is to push your ship a little deeper into the ocean.

She will.

[BitterOldGUy]

What if mother nature takes care about the CO2 emissions without us interfering?

One way or another, she will. But the kick in the balls is, we may not like how she takes care of it.

Re:She will.

[RedWizzard]

The reality is that all co2 that is stored in oil comes from the athmosphere. Therefore even if we burned all of the oil in all of the earth's crust right now, we'd only recreate the athmospheric situation of the age of the dinosaurs, a time when animals roamed over more regions of the earth than they do today.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen modded to +5. The carbon stored in oil was locked up in plants and animals before it became oil - it wasn't ever all in the atmosphere at the same time. And it didn't suddenly all become oil at the same time either.

It would be perfectly liveable, and probably even more comfortable, for humans.

Since that amount of carbon has never been in the atmosphere at once we have no idea what it would be like. It may be enough to tip the atmosphere into a runaway state that would result in a Venus-like atmosphere. But that's beside the point. The question is not whether increased global temperatures would be liveable or comfortable. The question is whether the economic costs of adapting to the new conditions outweigh the costs of try to reduce or prevent the change.

Re:She will.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong about the fish and algae.

Read here, about algae blooms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom

As water heats up, the amount of oxygen it can contain decreases (which is why trout prefer cold/mountain water.) If it gets too warm, then the water may not hold enough oxygen to support life (e.g. fish)
http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/solutions/faq/predicting-DO.shtml

If a lake gets too warm/shallow during summer, it can kill all of the fish in it.

Note that really large game fish, e.g. tuna, prefer cold, deeper, water than warm water. If you're thinking that "look at all the pretty fish" in warm tropical water means fish do well in warm water, you probably need to rethink your strategy because if the water becomes too warm, they'll die as the reefs do:
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/25/nation/na-coral25

Given that your comments about water are completely wrong (and I'm afraid my comments will never be seen since they're anonymous), I'm very afraid for the accuracy of the rest of your comments.

Re:She will.

[DeadChobi]

I agree with the sibling post. The data is in. I've heard it explained very succinctly by a climate scientist. We know what to expect. We just don't have a plan to fix it that won't cause other major problems. The trouble isn't the problem of global warming, it's the problem of the loss of the polar ice caps, the flooding which will result, the destruction or change of ecosystems, the resultant loss of animal life, and the whole host of problems that that will cause for man.

Your statement about scientists not being able to predict the climate is an extreme generalization. It's difficult to predict where a particular patch of clouds will be at a particular point in time, but it's not hard to develop a model that closely approximates a number of environmental conditions over the entire Earth and then apply it to make predictions about trends based on current conditions. We have a decent understanding of what's generally going on, how fast energy is being radiated out into space versus how fast its being absorbed, and the factors which affect this. To say that the model isn't a good approximation is to ignore years of good research into the global environment.

Re:She will.

[Tumbleweed]

That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen modded to +5.

*pft* Hell, I can beat *that*! Just check out some of my comments. I expect an apology.

Re:She will.

[RedWizzard]

That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen modded to +5. The carbon stored in oil was locked up in plants and animals before it became oil - it wasn't ever all in the atmosphere at the same time. And it didn't suddenly all become oil at the same time either.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen modded to +4. The carbon stored in oil was all in the atmosphere at the same time before it became locked up in plants and animals.

Think. We're talking about the conditions when the oil we're digging up now was formed. The plants and animals it came from didn't appear overnight. It wasn't all carbon in the atmosphere one day, half of it in the biosphere the next. Life has been locking carbon into the crust since it appeared. I.e. the last time all the available carbon was simultaneously in the atmosphere was the end of the Hadean eon 4 billion years ago.

The suggestion that we can burn all the oil in the crust without regard for the consequences just because that carbon was in the atmosphere 4 billion years ago is moronic in the extreme.

Since that amount of carbon has never been in the atmosphere at once we have no idea what it would be like.

It would be like the conditions when life first started.

The surface temperature then was about 230 degrees C. The atmospheric pressure was high enough to allow liquid water despite the temperature. Does that sound attractive to you?

It may be enough to tip the atmosphere into a runaway state that would result in a Venus-like atmosphere.

Unless you believe in abiotic oil creation, we will not reach Venus scale Atmo.

That's only true if the sun's output is the same now as it was 3 billion years ago. But it's believed that the sun was 1/3 dimmer then. The fact is that we don't know what it might end up like. We do know it wouldn't be good for us.

Re:She will.

[jimdread]

The carbon stored in oil was all in the atmosphere at the same time before it became locked up in plants and animals.

No, it wasn't all in the atmosphere at the same time. Most of it was in the ocean, same as most of the carbon dioxide is in the ocean now. Isn't this how the scientific theory goes: There was heaps of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Primitive plants developed, which absorbed the carbon dioxide, and produced oxygen. This switched the atmosphere over from a mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen into a mix of oxygen and nitrogen. Therefore, before the plants, the atmosphere had a huge amount more carbon dioxide than it has now.

And yet, despite the much higher levels of carbon dioxide than we have now, life flourished. Mosses and ferns grew to gigantic sizes in the carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere. Then they died and got squished and turned into coal and oil. So if anybody tells you that we have to "save the planet" from carbon dioxide, ask them why the planet wasn't destroyed when the carbon dioxide levels were much higher than now. Where did the coal, oil, and all fossil fuels come from? From plants and animals which got their carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the ocean. Isn't that the standard scientific theory?

The objection that "it wasn't all in the atmosphere at the same time" is interesting. It implies that back in the olden days, when the coal seams and oil reservoirs were forming, the carbon dioxide was "somewhere else". Where was it then? How did the plants and animals get it into their bodies? Surely it must have been in the ocean or the atmosphere for a plant to absorb it, and from there an animal could eat the plant to get it.

The objection also implies that if we burn coal, oil, and gas, that all of the carbon dioxide will end up in the atmosphere at the same time. Of course, that won't happen. Think about the carbon dioxide from all the coal people have burned in all of human history. Where is it? Is it all in the atmosphere right now? No it isn't, a lot of it has been absorbed by the ocean, by plants, and by rock formation. Therefore, all the carbon dioxide we've released into the atmosphere isn't all still in there. So it can't all be in there at the same time, can it?

Secondly, all of the carbon dioxide from all of the oil, gas, and coal won't be in the atmosphere at the same time, because we haven't burned it all yet. We don't even know where all of it is, and of the stuff we do know about, we haven't dug it all up and burned it. There is still heaps left. For example, you may have heard of coal fields with hundreds of years of supply left. If we've got hundreds of years of coal left, obviously all the carbon dioxide won't end up in the atmosphere at the same time, because it's still locked up in the coal, in the ground.

So what's different about now than in prehistoric times? One difference is that there are much more efficient plants living here. Back when the coal was formed, it was giant moss and suchlike that were dominant plants. Look at moss now, it only grows a few millimetres high. Now we have plants like C4 plants and CAM plants, that can really suck the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. They are best at absorbing carbon dioxide from even very low concentrations, and when it's hot. When carbon dioxide concentrations are high, then even the not-so-efficient C3 plants can easily absorb it.

Therefore, if we burn the fossil fuels, we should expect to see increased plant growth. If we collect up things like plant fibres and use them for long term things, this will store the carbon from the fossil fuels in a non-atmospheric form. One technique for doing this is to build a house and furniture out of wood. We could grow plantations of trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Then we could cut down the trees and use the wood. So if we have plantations of various plants which produce large amounts of carbon-rich fibre, we can harvest the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Pretty simple huh.

Or we could believe all the doom-and-gloom merchants.

Re:She will.

[jbengt]

IANAAS (I Am Not An Atmospheric Scientist) but from what I recall,

High CO2 levels and "high" temperatures are not exactly new and will cause 2 effects

Only 2?

increase in plant mass due

Probably, but hard to predict, and different in in some areas than others.

Antarctica was once lush forest . .

Sure, when Antartica was near the equator, many, many millions of years ago.

Less permafrost will allow forests to expand . .

And release large quantities of methane, which, pound for pound, has a more powerful greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.

Likewise the top layer of the ocean will heat up, leading to more algae (and *slightly* more storms), more fish, and more O2 production to countermand CO2 production

Not at all clear that those will occur. E.g., one of the main ways that nature actually is limiting the carbon dioxide buildup so far is by dissolving carbon dioxide. This changes the PH of the ocean, and affects the marine life. Also, since when does more algae and more fish go hand in hand, and how in the heck does oxygen countermand CO2 production?

The reality is that all co2 that is stored in oil comes from the athmosphere

The reality is that all of the carbon came from somewhere (comets, asteroids, volcanoes?) before some of it entered the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, and also that all that carbon locked up in fossil "fuels" may have never been in the atmosphere all at once. It is not at all clear that we would only recreate the past by burning all the fossil fuels. In fact, in eras past (not sure about dinosaur times) Oxygen levels were much greater than they are now.

Re:She will.

[Aglassis]

How did this comment get modded +5? It didn't once talk about actual timescales or carrying capacity. Do Slashdot moderators really know this little about how the planet will respond to global warming?

Yes, as the CO2 concentrations increase, plant respiration will become more efficient and some locations will see denser plant growth. But at the same time, some of the most efficient places on Earth for plant life will become converted to grasslands or deserts, releasing their stored carbon by plant decay. And the rapid rise in CO2 will also cause acidification in the oceans which will counteract much of the positive gains in biomass due to temperature rises. But in any case, these numbers are really insignificant. There is about 600 Gt of carbon in all of the biomass on the planet. There is about 760 Gt in the atmosphere. There is about 37,000 Gt dissolved in the oceans. There is about 10,000,000 Gt stored in sediments on the ocean floor. And there is about 40,000,000 Gt stored in limestone.

Any description of changes in CO2 needs to take into account all three carbon cycles: the organic carbon cycle, the inorganic carbon cycle, and the geochemical carbon cycle. To the climate scientists who have actually done the calculations with knowledge of all three cycles, there is virtually no support that plants and algae are going to have any significant effect. The consensus is that the method that CO2 will eventually be removed is by slow sedimentation. The efficiency of this will be slightly reduced by increased weathering of carbonates and will be almost completely unaffected by the organic carbon cycle. The timescale for optimists is several thousands of years.

Re:She will.

[MacDork]

Since that amount of carbon has never been in the atmosphere at once we have no idea what it would be like.

There have been many times that amount of C in the atmosphere. About 500 million years ago, Earth went through an ice age with CO2 levels 8 to 20 time higher than they are presently.

The largest sink of carbon on the planet is not organic. It is limestone and dolomite. Those two absolutely dwarf the C locked in fossil fuels. All the fossil fuels on Earth sum up to about 9x10^15 grams. Total mass of C in limestone on the other hand is around 3x10^22grams. Soooo, about 3 million times as much C in limestone as in fossil fuels. Most of that was in the atmosphere. Most of that is now in the ground as a result of plankton and ocean sedimentation.

It may be enough to tip the atmosphere into a runaway state that would result in a Venus-like atmosphere. But that's beside the point.

It isn't beside the point... it is one of the stupidest thing you could possibly say. Who fed you that? Just saying something like that damages any credibility you might have. The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2. The atmosphere of Earth is roughly 380 parts per million (0.038%). In a hundred years of burning fossil fuels non stop, we've witnessed a rise in atmospheric CO2 of about 100ppm (0.01%). In the link above, you'll see that if you burned all the known fossil fuel reserves today, it would add roughly 77% more CO2 to the atmosphere for a total of what.... 0.07%? That's not even close to the Ordovician atmosphere, much less the Venusian.

Re:She will.

[Eivind]

The data is very thoroughly in. There's some uncertanity about the finer details, but the basic idea is as valid as it's going to get.

I don't get the US obsession with ANYTHING other than changing own behaviour. It's not as if you need to live poorly to significantly cut emissions. Sweden, for example, has a living-standard and GDP on the same level as USA, despite actually harsher climate, and their emissions are aproximately HALF of American levels pro capita.

Hell, some of the changes bring significant ADVANTAGES to standard of living. It's not as if it's a BENEFIT to live in a poorly insulated house where the wind blows trough, more or less. (okay okay, I'm exagerating, but it's a fact that the building-standards are substantially better in Sweden than in the US)

And it's not as if Sweden couldn't also be doing more with reasonable simple changes.

It's not infact hard to cut 2/3rds. That is likely to bring significant advantages over the current US-alternative which seems to be pretty close to "do nothing".

Re:She will.

[1u3hr]

water expands when frozen, and 90% of an iceberg is below water... any flooding that occurs isn't going to be of the magnitude most people seem to be expecting

The ice in Greenland and Antarctica is kilometres thick. It's not in the ocean. When it melts, it will be. Then the sea rises my several metres.

Ok, go ahead

[thermian]

But say goodbye to the Caribbean Islands before you do.

Millions of tons of sand from the Sahara are carried across the Atlantic and deposited on the Caribbean Islands every year. Start seeding more then the normal amount of clouds in the Atlantic, and you risk blocking this sand transport mechanism.

If that happens, erosion will soon destroy those Islands.

Mind you, if these hurricanes continue, they'll cease to be habitable anyway, so it may be they're screwed whatever happens.

Umm... No. Different ship, different tech.

[denzacar]

You are thinking of Alcyone. A turbosail ship.

Flettner's rotor ship was quite similar to that.

Only thing is... neither ship was powered by these "tube sails" alone.
Both Alcyone's and Buckau (renamed later to Baden Baden) used some other engine to POWER THE SAIL.
So, it does not go on windpower alone.

Alcyone was supposedly using about 30% less fuel then conventionally propelled ship of that size... but that is it.
And Flettner's Buckau was reported as having "less efficient than conventional engines".

My guess is that whoever is planing on building this "cloud seeder" fleet is probably thinking of combining rotor sails with solar and gasoline/diesel powered engines.
Which would probably run on gas/diesel most of the time (how much sun are you getting when you are in business of making cloud cover?) - except when the crew is giving interviews to the press.

Dear people of earth

[narcberry]

You guys don't trust your expert meteorologist's weather over the next several days. Please stop trusting your politicians about weather over the next several decades.

Re:Much worse

[sg_oneill]

If she doesn't like it we may have to kill her to save ourselves! :(