Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bill Gates Funds Seawater-Spraying Cloud Machines

Posted by Soulskill on from the blue-sky-of-death dept.

lucidkoan writes "Environmentalists have long argued about whether geoengineering (using technology to alter the climate) is a good way to tackle climate change. But the tactic has some heavy hitters on its side, including Bill Gates. The Microsoft founder recently announced plans to invest $300,000 into research for machines that suck up seawater and spray it into the air, seeding white clouds that reflect rays of sunlight away from Earth. The machines, developed by a San Francisco-based research group called Silver Lining, turn seawater into tiny particles that can be shot up over 3,000 feet in the air. The particles increase the density of clouds by increasing the amount of nuclei contained within."

17 of 403 comments (clear)

  1. What could by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, let's ignore for a moment the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas responsible for up to 76% of the greenhouse effect (as opposed to CO2 which is responsible for 1/3) of that. Let's also ignore the magical energy source required to pump all this water into the air. What could possibly go wrong? Where can I buy stock? /sarcasm

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:What could by yariv · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know it's slashdot, but I would still like to point out your remarks have nothing to do with the technique described. Besides that, 76% + 1/3 > 1, so you should go over your numbers again...

      They talk about producing clouds, not water vapor. Clouds are made of liquid water in tiny drops, forming from vapor around some sort of nuclei, it's actually mentioned even in the summary! The energy issue need not be that much of a problem. Energy is needed, but how much? Probably nothing relevant to global warming, so it's just a matter of cost.

      The problem of salt is also insignificant, given the task is done deep in the ocean. The salt will not get carried for 5,000 kilometers without a huge drop in concentration, if at all.

      Having said all that, further tests must be carried out, of course, we still have no backup planet. From what I understand, that is the whole point in investing in research.

    2. Re:What could by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey, I'm all for blocking more sunlight. That way we can just acidify our oceans in peace. Who needs those pesky "corals"?(/snark)

      Any global warming "solution" that doesn't involve actually lowering the CO2 level of the atmosphere isn't a solution. And I agree with those who are concerned about the ramifications of this. Increased planetary cloudcover. Less sunlight reaching the surface. The temperature drop being only masking and contingent on the continued operation of an ever-increasing number of devices with finite lifespan. What could go wrong? ;)

      --
      As it says in the Constitution, Lenin is in my shower.
    3. Re:What could by mollog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I actually studied this as part of my Master's. IIRC, the number is around 13 watts per square meter overall (this is a net loss of energy, aka cooling). This number includes the net heat gain from the clouds at night. (Clouds at night prevent IR radiation from escaping into space, thereby warming the Earth.)

      Alrighty, crank up those machines after the night air has cooled, stop them before sundown.

      What Gates is funding is research. All the hypothetical problems suggested here are valid, but will be tested during the research.

      --
      Best regards.
    4. Re:What could by SpzToid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, Wired had an article about this years ago. It might be considered a good idea on islands near very cold deep water, because the condensation from the pipes is also a source of fresh water. These same islands often find fresh water extremely hard to come by otherwise. Haven't heard of this advancing beyond a lab-stage though.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    5. Re:What could by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Geo-engineering is basically our only option at the 'we are fucked' stage of global warming. Otherwise I agree with you.

    6. Re:What could by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Insightful

          No, I think the expected results are pretty much a given. Being that Bill is in Seattle, but it's rainy there about 340 days of the year, he'll have the operation set up from San Diego to San Francisco.

          The winds there tend to go East. So now you're sending what is great seeding for rain clouds over the desert Southwest United States.

          I argued for cloud seeding and other methods for adding rainfall into the desert regions, which could make them more habitable. Freshwater rivers and lakes would be replenished. More plants would be able to grow. Several people pointed out that there is an existing and viable ecosystem there already. It's not as dense as we're used to seeing in forest areas, but it definitely exists.

          Lets not forget what happens to Southern California when they get more than 3 days of rain in a row. The "Los Angeles River" (I quote that, and you'll understand why if you've ever seen it) becomes a fast moving deathtrap that frequently overruns its "banks", and sweeps the occasional car or kid into it. Mudslides wash away hills, houses, and even close interstates. That's always national news. So, instead of it happening occasionally, it would be a regular event. In time, we'd grow accustom to it, and people (the survivors) would migrate to safer areas. The mudslides would become less of a problem as the loose soil washes away and plants and trees begin to grow. Then again, the massive wildfires of Southern California would be less of a problem, since it would rain frequently.

          With increased plant growth, our atmospheric CO2 levels would drop. Humidity in these areas would also rise, and non-native animals would migrate into these areas.

          So, it sounds like a win-win situation, with the exception of the arid environment ecosystem which would be totally destroyed.

          The problem with that is that we would essentially be terraforming significant areas. I know we haven't learned quite yet that man playing god isn't a great idea, as we're still very primitive (no offense, but we are). The bigger problem would be that to sustain the terraforming, the system would have to remain in place forever. Without the system, the area would return to its previous state. Since you'd eventually have vast woodlands where there was just desert before, that would die off, and a single wildfire would become a world wide disaster. Imagine an area consisting of New Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California burning. That little volcano pop in Iceland would be nothing in comparison.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    7. Re:What could by fredmosby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any global warming "solution" that doesn't involve actually lowering the CO2 level of the atmosphere isn't a solution.

      I don't see why that is the case. Thinking rationally involves deciding which actions give you the greatest probability of achieving your goals. Looking in to all our options gives us the best chance of stopping global warming.

    8. Re:What could by the_womble · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That was exactly my reaction.

      I live in a (tropical) seaside town and people several km inland have problems with sat corrosion - this stuff can stay in the air.

      Bringing salt inland (e.g. for prawn farming) has already had a severe impact in some places.

      Now, this is apparently going to all happen out at sea, but even so it could have an impact (on precipitation) and it could get carried further than we think (if volcanic ash can get from Iceland to Africa, how far can atomised salt go?),

  2. How about... by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about we fund research into not messing up the biosphere instead? Reforestation and pollution cleanup will go a lot further towards restoring nature's balance than spraying a bunch of water into the air.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:How about... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is, nature is never in a "balance". Forest fires, wild fires, volcanos, tsunamis, global cooling, ice ages, global warming, desertification, floods, forestation, those things all happened before, during and after man.

      I'm from South Dakota, so I've looked alot at the geological history there. It used to be under the sea, under glaciers, partially under glaciers, burned by wild fires that crossed the entire region, forested, then less forested, it used to have volcanos, it's been covered by ash from other volcanos, it will be covered by ash when Yellowstone cooks off.

  3. Re:You know what this reminds me of? by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Precisely! On the other hand, we've rather fallen into climate engineering, and we really have no choice but to blunder around not knowing what we're doing. If we could quick scrub carbon dioxide from the air, and put it back to what it was in 1850 and keep it there, we could take this slowly and with proper experimentation.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. From tfa by shoehornjob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Many methods of cooling the planet, collectively known as geoengineering, have been proposed. They include rockets to deploy millions of mirrors in the stratosphere and artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide from the air.

    You're joking...right? Rockets deploying millions oof mirrors into the stratosphere? Artificial trees??? What about the real one's which do the job just fine? Seriously though, who let the mad scientist out of his lab?

    --
    "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
  5. Is this a joke? by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this a joke?

    The rate of evaporation from the oceans is about 400,000 cubic kilometers per year.

    To increase that by just one percent would mean pumping 4,000 km^3 of water.

    Just raising that much water to 3,000 feet would take approximately, oh let's see, carry the 0x100,
    about 1,651,445,966.51 horsepower. One Point Six BILLION horsepower.

  6. Re:This is useful for other things by pegasustonans · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So everything Gates does is evil... unless it help's keep your lawn green...

    Well, for those of us who enjoy asparagus, strawberries, artichokes, apples, blackberries, raspberries, peaches, apricots, rice or any of the other agricultural products grown in the western United States, creating a more sustainable source of water is a good thing for more than just lawn maintenance.

    --
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  7. Re:No evidence that Gates thinks about technology by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not sure there's a consensus on what being a "heavy hitter" means, and people can find lots of reasons for hating Bill Gates, but let's not pretend that he doesn't know anything about technology.

    He wrote Basic interpreters in several assembly languages which is something that probably 75% of Slashdotters have never done the equivalent of. Nor was he born with a silver monopoly in his mouth - there was a lot of work and smart decisions made before Windows was classified as a monopoly.

  8. See, Gates isn't really a good marketer by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gates should have paid Steve Jobs to propose it. That way the summary would have said something like "Jobs discovers breakthrough solution to global warming".

    Hmm. Now that I think about it the iPad displays are pretty large and shiny. If we spread a million of them across the sky...