Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates Funds Seawater-Spraying Cloud Machines

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."

28 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 Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's also ignore the magical energy source required to pump all this water into the air.

            I suggest unicorns on a treadmill.

              Brett

    2. Re:What could by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Informative

      How were you modded insightful? The simple fact is, that the h20 is not the issue. It goes up, it comes down. In addition, when water is in the form of CLOUDS, it COOLS the planet. It is when it has a high vapor, but not enough to form clouds, that you get warming. OTH, the CO2 is an issue because it stays around and around and around. As such, a VERY small amount goes a long ways. So, the global warming issue is just garbage.

      I will say that there are OTHER possible side effects, for example, the clouds WILL block sun from getting to the crops, so there will be less food. And I am sure that there are other ones that are not thought about.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:What could by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Water vapor concentration depends directly on the temperature of the air, and has a life cycle of about 2 weeks. In other words, it is not part of a positive feedback loop. If you pump too much into the air, it just rains out. Once the sun goes down, water vapor condensates out.

      You can make Global Warming worse by adding water vapor to the air, but if enough sunlight gets reflected back out through cloud formation, it's a good deal. The cost of putting enough water into the air though.... is a different matter. Not sure if that's a cost-effective way of going about it.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. Re:What could by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because last time I checked, when I stuck my tongue out when it rained, I didn't taste any salt at all, and I am 99.9% sure that the rainwater I drank used to be in the salty seas not too long before. Just because it seems to fulfil symbolic logic doesn't mean it's true.

            You obviously have never lived near the ocean. The rain isn't "salty" enough to be tasted, but there is salt in the air. Anything that can be corroded will be corroded faster near a body of salt water.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:What could by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Informative

      The rainwater you drink is condensed water that evaporated naturally. Unless they forgot to mention a filtering step they're talking about shoving atomized saltwater directly into the air.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    8. Re:What could by pseudofrog · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you'd put down the Ayn Rand book for a minute, you'd really that your statement is absurd.

      Wars? Civil rights? International relations? Law enforcement? Disaster rescue?

    9. Re:What could by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 4, Informative

      You, sadly, don't know what you are talking about. The air on areas which are adjacent to the ocean has a high concentration of chlorides which, if not designed with this in mind, can get reinforced concrete structures to completely corrode and crumble in a span of 3 to 5 years. The high concentration of chlorides in the air vary according to multiple parameters, including the topology and some papers have been written that show that high chloride concentrations can be found in areas which are up to 10m above sea level, which means that in some flat areas such as river deltas and flood plains you can find concentrations of chloride a couple of km inland which are practically as high as right in the beach.

      But never mind that. Just stick your tongue out, lick the funny rain and let the truthyness of that guide your reasoning. After all, who the hell needs those idiot scientists who have proven multiple times the exact opposite of what you claim?

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    10. Re:What could by RobertM1968 · · Score: 4, Funny

      when I stuck my tongue out when it rained, I didn't taste any salt at all,

      If I was choosing my nick again I would be the RTFT-TROLL (yes; that loud)

      Here it is; the article title again, but this time a bit marked up for those of you so bloody stupid you can't see it.

      First when I joined this site, it was read the summary, then it's read the article... now it's read the title too? Screw this, I'm leaving this site. I was more than content to just pick a word or three (changing a few) to base my wild speculation on (such as "Gates Salt(ing) Clouds")

    11. 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.
    12. Re:What could by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Heh, the best part is that we might be trapping more heat than we're reflecting...

      I'm doing a PhD in a climate area now, and the science is DEFINITELY not out on whether increased clouds hurt or help us. It depends on the height, location, water content, droplet size.....

      But I agree with Idiomatick below - it's clear that we're into at least 40 years of warming, even if we turned off every last CO2 source today! As I posted above, we're on the ride, while we're still building the track ahead of us. The first 40+ years of the ride has been completed. What the next 80, 120, 160 years looks like is still a bit up in the air. However, it's hotter, with climate like we humans have never seen since we invented writing.

      Our last chance to keep our climate like the last 10-15k yrs is to geo-engineer. Our only chance to get off this ride in the next 40 years is to put all our chips on 00 and spin the wheel. They aren't good odds, for sure....

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    13. Re:What could by Shihar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First, the fun thing this and nearly all of the serious geoengineer proposals that I have seen is that they are easily turned off. If there is some horrible consequence to making the ocean a little more cloudy? Ok... turn them off. We are already geoengineering through industrial pollutants. We might as well geoengineer some more to try and fix the problems. The path to using this techs is pretty clear. Start small, work up to the effect you want, turn it off if you don't like where it is going.

      As far as "masking" the problem, what is wrong with that? So we need to run a bunch of sprinklers in the ocean. Is it cheaper than the substantial costs of reducing CO2 output now? If it is, then we should seriously think about doing it. That isn't to say that we shouldn't work on removing CO2 in a more permanent way or work on emitting less, but it could be a hell of a lot cheaper and political far more feasible than the alternative. Do you have to maintain these and replace them? Sure, but that goes with almost any technology. It isn't like the fact that power plants wear out stop us from building an electrical grid. You just include replacement in the cost. It is hardly an insurmountable problem.

      If you really believe that climageddon is upon us, geoengineering really is shaping up to be the only way to level off the warming. The cost to reduce CO2 emissions now at levels high enough to stop global warming are through the roof. The political cost is even higher (if not utterly unpayable). We are going to fail at reducing CO2 emissions in the short term. Why not deploy technology to counteract our unintentional geoengineering at a fraction of the cost of "fixing" the problem. Don't stop working on the problem, just give the world some breathing room. Transitioning over to clean and renewable energy is the direction we want to go regardless, making it so that we need to make the transition in a few generations rather than a few years results in a drastically reduced cost.

      Frankly, I think that geoengineering makes hardcore environmentalist pissy because it snatches away the best issue that environmentalist movement has had in decades. When it comes down to it, reducing CO2 emission with today's technology boils down to reduced consumption and energy usage. You can tie those two things to pretty much anything in the environmentalist cause. Global warming makes an good proxy in any fight over the environmental. Arguing that coal is bad because it pumps out toxic crap in the PPM range is a very hard argument to make to your average uneducated dolt. Simply declaring coal is a going to cause climageddon on the other hand is much much easier to understand and get worked up over.

  2. 300 HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

    finally, he's acting like a proper evil mastermind...

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:300 HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS! by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 4, Funny

      seawater-squirting cloud machines, now with 'SquirtsForSure'!

      Off to register 'squirtsforsure.com' Soon to the the hottest pr0n site on the internet.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  3. Fatal flaw by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    Unfortunately, the machines are solar-powered.

  4. I just blew a seal... by deathcow · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...700 feet into the air

    1. Re:I just blew a seal... by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      This Eskimo is having engine problems, so he takes his car into the mechanic to investigate. While it's being worked on, he wonders next door to the ice cream parlor and has a vanilla ice cream cone. When he returns, the mechanic solemnly says to him "It looks like you blew a seal,", to which the Eskimo replies, "No, no, no... I was just eating ice cream!"

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  5. Vaporware by owlnation · · Score: 5, Funny

    Vaporware -- the perfect business for him to be investing in! He has some experience.

  6. 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.

  7. $7 billion is peanuts to stop global warming by wonkavader · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article says that 3 ships is nothing. We need $7 billion worth of ships to stop the temperature from increasing.

    WHAT? We can stop warming in its tracks for just $7 billion? That's very little money.

  8. This is useful for other things by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here in the west USA, we have long droughts. We count on reservoirs having enough water. The problem is that we have also been depending for far too long on aquifers. So, we regularly talk about pipelines. Well, there is ZERO chance that an economical large pipeline can be developed. HOWEVER, this has the ability to put a lot more moisture in the air. When it is known that a cold front is going to hit an area, then we simply bump up the amount of moisture in the air. It will mean LARGE snow dumps, but that is needed. It will allow us to fill the aquifers as well as reservoirs.

    Generally, I think that Gates is causing more issues than solving (trying to stop hurricanes is a HORRIBLE mistake; it brings up nutrients from deep down; likewise, killing mosquitoes may actually stop evolution), but this one will help bring fresh water throughout the world as well as temporaly help with the global warming issues until we switch off of fossil fuels. Interestingly, if China, the worlds largest polluter of nearly everything, was to clean up their h2so4, then it would raise global temps quickly. With the clouds, it allows us to not worry about temps, while we go back to encouraging all nations to clean up their act.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  9. 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.

    1. Re:Is this a joke? by Bamfarooni · · Score: 4, Informative

      Fortunately, they're not suggesting that increased evaporation is the important part. It's an increase in cloud cover.

  10. Re:Isn't water vapor... by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. But putting more water vapor in the atmosphere will not contribute to global warming, because any excess water vapor put into the atmosphere precipitates out as rain, snow, or dew within about a week. In other words, water vapor is not a forcing.

    Excess carbon dioxide, on the other hand, can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. That's why burning fossil fuels has the effect of increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to warming.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  11. Cloud Services, LOL by lcreech · · Score: 4, Funny

    No relataionship to the Microsoft Cloud Services advertized here on /.

  12. Re:Bill Gates misunderstands by amirulbahr · · Score: 5, Informative

    No. It will be down moderated because it is a moronic post, and it uses way to many words to convey the BS.

    The Yellowstone Caldera will take many years, probably hundreds of smaller eruptions before any major super-volcanic eruption. Your statement that it is 40 thousand years overdue is not based on any reasoning and no geologist would agree with you.

    Global warming is real. It is caused by humans contributing shit-loads of Carbon to the atmosphere. It will have consequences on the human race. There is probably a tipping point where the changes in the planet will be dramatic.

    p.s. It serves me in no way to be taking this position other than the fact that I kind of give a shit about the future of our species.