Solar Radiation Management

It seems the latest controversy in the climate debate is whether or not we should be studying Solar Radiation Management (SRM). As Stoat points out, there is a new National Academy of Sciences report on Reflecting Sunlight, which seems to have divided some people. It turns out, I also have a previous post about Solar Radiation Management.

There seem to be two related criticisms of SRM. One is that studying SRM might be seen as promoting an alternative to actually reducing emissions. SRM researchers do, though, make clear that they’re not proposing SRM as an alternative. The other issue is that SRM, itself, might be risky. It works by reflecting sunlight, which will clearly lead to cooling. However, it doesn’t exactly reverse global warming, so there are potential effects that are possibly difficult to predict. It also does little counter ocean acidification. Additionally, if the impact of SRM is large, there’s the risk of what is called a termination shock if the SRM level isn’t maintained.

On the other hand, if we don’t study SRM and we end up in a situation where we might want to seriously consider some kind of geo-engineering solution, we could end up using something like SRM without having a particularly good understanding of the potential impact. Also, as Andrew Dessler has argued, if we do think that negative emission technologies are viable, then SRM could be used to suppress a relatively small amount of global warming, until negative emissions technologies can be implemented at a suitable scale.

As a researcher, I tend to be biased in favour of understanding things. However, I’m also in favour of being aware of the potential implications of developing that understanding. When the research is specifically aimed at understanding a technology that we could end up developing, then I do think it’s important to have some kind of governance arrangement. Partly because I don’t think it’s the researchers alone who should be making these decisions, and partly because I don’t think it’s in their interests to do so.

So, I am generally in favour of studying SRM but I am slightly concerned that some of the narrative is shifting towards being more positive about its use, which I do not think is a good thing. I still think that we should be prioritising emissions reductions and that SRM should not be something that we should be seriously considering. Maybe there will come a point where we might consider implementing it, but I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that yet.

Links:
Reflecting Sunlight – Stoat’s post.
Solar Radiation Management – a previous post of mine about SRM.

This entry was posted in Climate change, Policy, Research, Scientists, The philosophy of science and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Solar Radiation Management

  1. Geo engineering is like borrowing on one’s credit card when suffering a shortfall in income.

  2. Bob Loblaw says:

    What worries me is that the “cost” of SRM will be calculated ignoring any of the externalities. Sort of like the way that the fossil fuel industry has managed to avoid the external costs related to their business.

  3. Eventual_Horizon says:

    There’s an entertaining and informative video on space shades I’ll paste a link to below. In short, it’s almost a non-starter from a logistical, material and financial standpoint.

    Spraying SO2 might work for a bit but the perpetuity of the effort is highly problematic before you consider all other possible knock-on effects.

    If we’re going to research geoengineering I wish we’d look at more terrestrial options like ocean fertilization. Unless, of course, that runs the risk of “messing with nature.” Wouldn’t want to do that.

  4. mrkenfabian says:

    Who would pay for it? Mostly what is being done to reduce emissions is on a “must not cost more than NOT reducing emissions” basis, with a corresponding caveat on subsidies – “must not raise taxes”, ie must be at the expense of some other government expenditure.

    My view on carbon pricing/taxes is that if they work like they should revenues must decline until no-one pays them; they can’t be counted on as an endless source of revenue – although for fossil fuel producers some may imagine that agreeing to funding such things can substitute for having to reduce production and support it on that basis… although agreeing to that will be a clear sign that Doubt, Deny, Delay is not working for them, so I would count it as a desperate grasping at straws.

    The shift to wind and solar is the most cost effective action currently on offer. Better grid reach and capability, batteries, pumped hydro, demand management and even Hydrogen capable gas plants (that can shift to zero emissions backup) offer actual and increasingly (decreasingly?) cost effective options.

  5. Russell Seitz says:

    johnrussell40 says:
    March 31, 2021 at 7:23 pm
    “Geo engineering is like borrowing on one’s credit card when suffering a shortfall in income.”

    An ecomium worthy of John Podesta’s PR staff. The reality is closer to selling bonds to fund R&D on better ways to paint the White House roof white.

    Note that the latest NAS report follows a decade devoid of experiments in the stratosphere- millions for model intercomparison and the study of governance and moral hazards to the existing regime of climate communication, but not one cent for research that empirically quantifies the issue.

    It may interest ATTP to know a propos of his earlier post on phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus that the inorganic explanation , the hydrolysis of phosphide minerals in meteorites, has resurfaced on Earth with the discovery of the main mineral in question ,schreibersite, in fulgurites– soil fused by lightening strikes – the new idea is that phosphine may have figured in the introduction of ADP into the primordial soup.

  6. We had dimming in the past. Heavy airpollution. It did work. Co2-levels were rising but temperatures not. But airpollution is killing people in large numbers so we stopped it and got brightening. CO2 levels were rising and so were temperatures. These attempts of geo enginering are not very assuring. They may do more harm then good. The Earth as a sytem is very complex and not well understood. We scratiching the surface and start to understand some solar basics but not nearly enough to start this kind of projects.

  7. Raymond,
    There’s little doubt that injecting aerosols into the stratosphere would lead to cooling. The issue is more that the overall response may not be easy to predict (it will not only impact temperatures, but also precipitation, etc). We do tend to have a habit of intervening in complex systems and then discovering that our intervention probably did more harm than good.

  8. Ben McMillan says:

    SRM actually looks pretty cheap, compared to most other things: that makes it attractive/dangerous depending on your point of view.

    If you think the difference between 1.5C and 2C is a big deal, then you might be willing to consider SRM, because 1.5C looks almost impossible otherwise. Certainly SRM looks more plausible than negative emission technologies for dropping temperatures on 50-year timescales.

    The negative side-effects of SRM are a lot less bad if you are using it to reduce temperature by 0.5C, than 2C. E.g. the amount of aerosol needed scales worse-than-linearly, so to counter 4x as much warming you need ~10 times as much aerosol. If you don’t try to cancel all the warming, it also likely brings precipitation closer to pre-industrial levels.

    Of course, talking about SRM in a context where we haven’t even peaked emissions, let alone brought them substantially down, is a bit ridiculous, but at some point, this is going to look like it might be a reasonable idea.

    Pretty much a classic trolley problem though. For some reason deliberate geoengineering is much less OK.

  9. Ken MacClune says:

    I feel it is essential that we do some research on SRM (new, softer?, terminology for me). As the next decades unfold the demand-side “to do something” will overwhelm everything else and it would be better to have the evidence in hand to make sure whatever was done was not the worst of choices.

  10. Russell Seitz says:

    As it appeared back in the day when overall anthropogenic radiative forcing was still around 1 watt/m2 , and the materialization of a decadal AGW signature problematic , the 1965 White House report on CO2 induced climate change chaired by Rogerrevelle had limited policy impact,

    It did however, precociously recognize the possibilitities of SRM as a response to future warming,
    It is noteworthy that Revelle and his coauthors,( including Keeling !) ventured SRM might be better accomplished by brightening the water than dimming the sun. Revelle & Co. proposed to offset greenhouse gas radiative forcing by suspending microscopic reflective particles in the hydrosphere , rather than the stratosphere,

    They estimated the annual dispersion of ~$500,000,000 worth of white paint pigment particles could offset 1 degree C of AGW. While dumping shiploads of acrylic latex particles into the ocean is not a fashionale notion in the era of microplastic angst, Revelle and his coauthors do seem to have done their Mie theory homework- as with stratospheric aerosols , submicron size translates into a staggering amount of surface area and proportionately low numbers for mass and cost .

    Their is however an interesting disparity between the optical physics of aerosols and hydrosols Water has a macroscopic refractive index, which air does not , so asperities, like bubbles suspended in water , can do the same job as particles suspended in air. Research on scaling up the extent and duration of water brightening using air as the scattering medium may be worthwhile because , apart from effectively dematerializing SRM, cooling surface water on even modest scales by raisng its albedo could be a useful intersectional tool for reducing heat damage to corals in the ocean and the ecology of rivers, as well as cutting reservoir evaporation in a warming world.

    Click to access Seitz_BrightWater.pdf

  11. Ben McMillan says:

    I’d be prepared to believe that you could do something useful to the surface of a dam with bubbles.

    The ocean mixed layer is tens of meters deep, though; and a plain vanilla micron-scale or smaller bubble takes less than 10 milliseconds to dissolve…

    Can these bubbles somehow survive for weeks due to a stabilising layer of organic crud? Some (quantified) evidence for this would be useful before trying to construct a climate mitigation scheme based on them.

  12. Chubbs says:

    If climate policy fails, after decades of scientific warnings, its hard to be optimistic about the well reasoned use of geoengineering,

  13. Whatever happened to painting roofs white? White road surfaces? I know there’s a lot more water than land, but there would appear to be very little downside to whitewashing existing built-up surfaces.

  14. Russell Seitz says:

    Ben:
    ” a plain vanilla micron-scale or smaller bubble takes less than 10 milliseconds to dissolve…”

    That is true of distilled and deionized water in a clean room, but not true for plain vanilla water- the Pascal pressure approximation only works if the water is highly purified to elimnate the formation of organic monolayes at the air-water interface.

    Natural bodies of water , fresh and salt , and even plain vanilla tap water , all contain enough dissolved organic matter ( hundreds to thousands of milligrams per cubic meter) to generate what approximates more to an oil slick than a Langmuir -Blodget monolayer surrounding bublles Gas diffusion is far slower across such natural surfactant layers, which is why the observed lifetime of microbubbles in natural waters is several orders of magnitude higher- tens of seconds in tap water , and longer still in biologically active waters, witness thatsea foam lasts long enough to blow ashore.

    This is discussed at some length in the Climatic Change paper linked above.,

  15. Ben McMillan says:

    Yes, there is a lengthy discussion, but what would have been useful is some numbers; you need about 7 orders of magnitude. Micron-sized bubbles surviving a week 10m or more underwater is not the same as centimeters-thick sea foam surviving days on the surface.

    Seems like not that hard an experiment to do if you have a big tank that you can fill with ocean water.

  16. Russell Seitz says:

    Ben, the half-life required to maintain water brightening on practical scales is not a week.

    It ranges from ten to 100 seconds for brightening pools, irrigation ponds and canals by surface sprinkling, which overlaps the natural range of variability , to 100 to 1000 seconds for scales of hectares to square kilometers. The near term R&D goal is a one or two order of magnitude gain , not seven,

    The Climatic Change paper cites three others :

    Johnson BD, Cooke RC (1980) Organic particle and aggregate formation resulting from the dissolu- tion of bubbles in seawater. Limnol Oceanogr 25:653–661

    Johnson BD, Cooke RC (1981) Generation of stabilized microbubbles in seawater. Science 213:209– 211

    Johnson BD, Wangersky PJJ (1987) Microbubbles: Stabilization by monolayers of adsorbed parti- cles. J Geophys Res 92(C13):14641–14647

    which report that natural ocaen microbubbles from wave action may survive for hours or days when biosurfactant concentrations are high ,because as they shrink, the organic layer at the air-water interface increases in thickness, and decreases in gas permeability.

    The argument for the feasibility of scaling hydrosol water brightening to larger scales rests on the sucess of the amphoteric surfactant R&D that has already produced the stabilized microbubbles used to extend the stability and storage lifetime of everything from ice cream to cosmetics.

    The delay in funding for even modest experiments like the one you propose may relate to the NAS having taken a decade to decide that albedo mitigation is anything more than a moral hazard to the progress of decarbonization.

  17. Ben McMillan says:

    Russell:
    What I’m finding hard to swallow is being able to do anything useful in the open ocean, where water is getting dragged around vertically by 10s of meters. Autoassembly of a parts-per-million soup of microscopic submarines is a bit of a feat; requiring a uniform engineered bubble and not a random agglomeration of gunk.

    In the last Johnson paper, the structures get rapidly crushed 4m below the surface. And for ocean applications, the lifetimes had better be pretty long, or you are going to need a lot of bubbling machines, and a lot of surfactant.

    I seem to remember there being lots of industrial applications for bubbles in mining and materials processing, but I guess they are mostly interested in bigger bubbles that don’t stick around that long.

    Kind of wondering what happens once you put these things in a swirling mass of water, bubbles tend to get dragged to the centers of vortices due to centrifugal forces. i.e. do they all just end up sticking together? Would potentially look really interesting, especially since micron-sized bubbles should be quite colorful.

  18. Why are all of these solutions hopelessly bad? We don’t live in space or the atmosphere or the oceans. That would appear to leave our real options to land based (or reasonably near shore) solutions.

    The potential time scales are at least millennial in nature (ice sheets and atmospheric CO2).concentrations) for BAU or continued inaction.

    The easiest solution possible is significant population degrowth (but try selling that idea to the natives who see their only real purpose in life as the continuation of their own genetic bloodlines).

    Other than that, humanity will keep on keeping on regardless of the actual outcomes.

  19. an_older_code says:

    “We do tend to have a habit of intervening in complex systems and then discovering that our intervention probably did more harm than good.”

    i seem to remember reading that there is some evidence regarding oil spills – when highly interventionist polices are compared with more nature based ones – the “let nature take its course” approach yields better results for environmental recovery over the long term

    I am sure it is more complicated – but that seemed the high level takeaway, nature often knows best

  20. Mitch says:

    Making or brightening clouds in the subtropical regions can really increase albedo without cutting out solar insolation to agriculture. I agree that doing a geoengineering approach is a last ditch solution, but something like cloud brightening could be studied safely. See:
    https://www.washington.edu/news/2017/07/25/could-spraying-particles-into-marine-clouds-help-cool-the-planet/

  21. Russell Seitz says:

    Ben, :
    ” Autoassembly of a parts-per-million soup of microscopic submarines is a bit of a feat; requiring a uniform engineered bubble and not a random agglomeration of gunk.”

    I have no idea what you are talking about. Hydrosols are , optically speaking, nothing more than clouds turned inside out, and the microbubbles that comprise them no more require autoassembly or engineered uniformity to backscatter solar energy efficiently than cloud droplets in Brownian motion.

  22. Ben McMillan says:

    I’m not claiming that the bubbles won’t scatter light.

    But to get something that will survive a significant length of time, you need the kind of structures Johnson was looking at, which are bubbles ‘coated’ in a shell of lumps of solid material. Or micelle-like objects, where there is a layer of surfactant. These are ‘autoassembled’ when bigger bubbles shrink, clumping together the lumps/chemicals on their surface.

    In undersaturated liquids the gas in these ‘armored bubbles’ is at lower pressure than the surrounding liquid, and the shell resists the mechanical pressure (i.e. like a submarine) but is actually permeable to vapor. Resisting the pressure gets increasingly hard as the bubble gets pushed deeper in the water column. The coating needs uniformity and strength because they are thin-walled vacuum vessels, under an atmosphere of pressure if they get pushed 10m deep.

  23. Dave_Geologist says:

    Unintended consequences and doing more harm than good, an_older_code.

    I do recall, post-Exxon-Valdez, studies that said the aggressive clean-up did more harm than good. That was particularly true for heavy oil (not very mobile in near freezing conditions but full of nasty aromatic hydrocarbons and stuff that get out if you break it up with detergent). OTOH tar balls, however (mostly) harmless, are pretty damn unsightly. There was also an issue with dredging tarred beaches and adding back clean sand. Life grows so slowly there that it took decades for ecosystems to restore. Sometimes the least bad thing to do is let wind and tides bury it. There was also an issue with the particular detergents used being unsuited to cold water and rocky shores. Probably developed and most experience had in the Gulf of Mexico.

    North Sea regulations and practices were changed in recognition of the Alaska experiences. That came up in Deepwater Horizon with claims that the clean-up chemicals used were banned in the North Sea. That was a red herring because the reason was cold water and rocky shores: there was decades of experience in the Gulf with warm water and muddy or sandy shores. A separate question is whether deploying them on such an industrial scale crosses a threshold into more-harm-than-good. The same could be said for geoengineering, even at ground level. Changing the albedo of thousands or millions of square miles will have weather and climate and wildlife impacts you probably didn’t think of.

    Fundamentally, the dispersed spill underwater is really not all that different from any other dead zone: what kills the fish is lack of oxygen because it’s all consumed by the population explosion of critters that eat the oil and gas. And after the first munching all that is left is dissolved gas and that’s what spreads the farthest. Is that better or worse than filling the sea with chemicals that have unknown metabolic effects months or years later? You’ll only find out years later. Ditto dredging beaches or digging out tar balls. The only acceptable number for a tourist is probably zero. But what does all that disturbance do to ecosystems, long-term beach health and fisheries? As somebody once said, prediction is hard, especially about the future 😉 . Prevention is better than cure. Then you don’t have to predict.

  24. Russell Seitz says:

    Ben, you’re ignoring the scale of the micelle remnants sescrved by Johnson et al .

    They are not the result of microbubble decay, but the un-shiny end-point of the shrinkage of reflective natural ocean bubbles produced by whitecaps, whose ambient population averages around 30,000 / M3 in the 20 to 60 micron size range globally. All of which is set forth in the CC paper- so please read the whole thing – and do a little dimensional analysis based on the graphs before dissecting its references .

    The takeaway on those relatively coarse ambient microbubbles is that they add up globally to the low-angle mixed layer “undershine ” of the oceans Although they occupy only a part per billion or so of the surface water column by volume, they contribute measurably (tens of milliwatts/m2 of solar energy) to ocean albedo.

    As they do so by accident — their size is not optimized for Mie scattering efficieny, but contingent on the hydrodynamics of surface macrobubble jetting and collapse , the question is therefore how much the contribution of microbubble undershine can be amplified by design.

  25. Ben McMillan says:

    Well, even if I’m not convinced that this would actually be practical in the oceans (I’m clearly not the only one who think this), it is an interesting idea, and stirred up some reactions in the literature. Thanks for discussing it. There seem to be a few people now looking at using surface foam to do the same kind of job.

    More to the point of the OP, there is the question of whether messing with the ocean that way is really OK. I’m definitely in favor of people studying these kinds of schemes. Probably you just find out that you really shouldn’t do any of these things, even if you can. Seems worth pursuing a few long shots and explicitly acknowledging that they probably aren’t going to pan out.

    At least you hopefully learn interesting things along the way… e.g. how bubbles/foam impact marine chemistry.

  26. David B Benson says:

    Passive radiative cooling:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03911-8
    Ought to help in sunny climes.

  27. Russell Seitz says:

    The media focus on global stratospheric aerosols has closed the Overton window on incremental SRM,

    This is doubly unfortunate because some of the worst impacts, environmental and human, of AGW are distinctly regional. The “global” problem of high latitude polar ice loss creating a warming feedback proceeds from peripheral melting of young sea ice and local degradation of ice cap albedo.

    Because global population is at once heavily urbanized ( ~ 50-55%) and coastally concentrated, urban and litoral surface reflectivity , or the lack of it , can seriously amplify the thermal stress experienced by people and their water supplies. It follows that just as white roofs can economically mitigate urban heat island effects, raising the reflectivity of urban water features and adjacent waters can lower their average temperature enough to mitigate average temperatures night and day. The methodology that has advanced understanding of the social cost of carbon ought to be focused on the externalities of our albedo footprint as well.

  28. Ben McMillan says:

    Here’s Bangalore (accidentally) modifying the albedo of its waterways. Not sure the effect would be noticable in the temperature record of local weather stations. Be interesting to compare it to similar nearby places on the same day that didn’t have a non-optional toxic foam party.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2015/oct/01/lake-toxic-foam-bangalore-india-in-pictures

  29. Russell says:

    Here, Ben i’s very short video of high reflectivity hydrosol generator in action.

    As you can see,

    1. It’s capable of cutting the energy flux , solar or floodlight , by an order of magnitude without adding surfactants

    2 It has nothing to do with floating foam or suds. What you see in this clip is simply fog turned inside out.

  30. Ben McMillan says:

    Some Harvard researchers getting into trouble with a geoengineering project in Sweden:

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-geoengineering-sweden-idUSKBN2BN35X

  31. Ben McMillan says:

    Russell: the problem is that stable hydrosols require a specific set of conditions. Usually some combination of oversaturation or enough surfactants. (saturation/pressure might be why the bubbles at the bottom of the tank disappear first, rather than because they are drifting upwards)

    Oversaturation of anything except a thin surface layer of a real body of water is not possible normally, so the bubbles have to be coated in surfactant.

    Doing this in clean fresh water thus inevitably involves regularly adding surfactant as you add more bubbles (unless/until the water becomes soapy enough). This can rapidly get up to quite high concentrations if your bubbles pop too often, to the point where surface foams are a real risk.

    Presumably the surfactant in the foam is not particularly toxic, but it tends to concentrate all the other nasties in the water and foam everywhere looks a little messy.

    You calculate the cost of surfactant, but it is quite cheap to buy enough surfactant to cause a problem. I think most people would be more worried about coating everything in soap rather than the energy or monetary cost of the procedure.

    (actually, the worst bit is probably that changing the light profile in the water is going to radically impact pretty much every chemical and biological process)

  32. Russell says:

    Ben, I wan;t kidding about the need to do a little dimensional anaysis to understand these phenomena.

    Look at the rise time figure in the CC paper, and you can see that micron scale bubbles take days to rise one meter, and devaporate ( ought to be word by now) and dissapear long before they surface. Stokes law cuts both ways : most micron scale cloud droplets likewise remain suspended in Brownian motion , and evaporate rather than coalescing into raindrops.

    Why would anyone add surfactants to bulk water to extend reflectivity half-life? Only parts per million by volume of microbubbles are required to double surface reflectivity, but they can be generated at bulk concentrations of ~5%. Since such concentrated hydrosols can be diluted by four orders of magnitude, a four order of magnitude reduction in surfactant use can be achieved by putting them directly into the feed water of the microbubble generting system.

    Soap is not on the menu either- the focus is on the biomolecules, notably algin and other natural polysaccharides , responsible for microbubbles lasting so much longer in the first place

    As to light scattering and the shape of the euphotic zone, check out the CC paper’s ResearchGate-page : its citations outnumber its references, and the impact on photosynthesis ic complicated by the backscattering- upwelling light

    If OTOH, you just want the subject to go away, please cut directly to But Microbubbles Can’t Stop Ocean Acidification , or Revise The Rules of Climateball, and note the absence of the word ‘geoengineering ‘ from the title and text of the CC paper–

    What on Earth would become climate pollitics if all geoengineering were local?

  33. izen says:

    @-Russel
    “I wan;t kidding about the need to do a little dimensional anaysis to understand these phenomena.”

    The oceans cover around 360 million sqr km.
    If you could aerorate 1000 sqr km of ocean in a week it would still take 7000 years to fill the total surface of the oceans with microbubbles.

    Dimensional analysis would seem to indicate that this is a theoretical solution at the lab scale, but when faced with a realistic area to cover would take a massive investment of resources.

  34. Ben McMillan says:

    After dilution (in the paper, 1000-10,000 times) that is still a lot of surfactant, because you keep having to add it every time your bubbles pop, along with the new bubbles.

    If they pop every 5 hours, then you add bubbles 1000x a year, and the surfactant lasts a year, you are back at levels suitable for a bubble bath. Also, natural bodies of water tend to concentrate stuff, depending on winds etc.

    The thing is, clean fresh water doesn’t have much stuff in it, so this is quite a big change. Even sea water only has about 1 part-per-million of dissolved carbon. So regularly adding 10 parts-per-billion of surfactant to fresh water is a big deal.

    No doubt the question of how changing the light profile influences biology/chemistry is complicated.

    I’m actually pretty positive about geoengineering compared to most. I’d be more impressed with a slightly more careful approach than full-throttle advocacy though. From my point of view, you don’t even seem to be asking the right questions to understand what might go wrong.

  35. Russell says:

    Izen:
    “If you could aerorate 1000 sqr km of ocean in a week it would still take 7000 years to fill the total surface of the oceans with microbubbles.” Climate modelers beg to differ- the Southampton group considered the impact of brightening shipping lanes alone, and concluded that amplifying wake reflectivity could largely offset radiative forcing from marine transportastion CO2

    As I just wrote :” note the absence of the word ‘geoengineering ‘ from the title and text of the CC paper–” It’s ‘Bright Water : hydrosols, water conservation and climate change ‘

    Ben” So regularly adding 10 parts-per-billion of surfactant to fresh water is a big deal.”

    Algae and marine animals have been doing that on a daily basis for eons, but soluble polysaccarides are highly biodegradable— witness the ppm equilibrium that is the state of nature in the hydrosphere .
    The numbers are a fit topic for marine and limbic bio research, so please address your concerns to them– this is a highly interdisciplinary issue , and I have my hands full on the radiative forcing side!

  36. Willard says:

    > The numbers are a fit topic for marine and limbic bio research, so please address your concerns to them– this is a highly interdisciplinary issue , and I have my hands full on the radiative forcing side!

    Would that give them a right on your patent, Russell?

    I think it’s important that you mention your commercial interests.

  37. Russell says:

    Willard, are you an amateur philosopher , or do you own your own IP?

    Why would a third party asking biologists about biological consequences give them rights to anything? Bright Water has been (under) funded through a LLC , Disclosures have been filed, but no patent has issued.

  38. Ben McMillan says:

    Yes, I agree that this is a highly interdisciplinary issue, because you are talking about making large perturbations to pretty much every chemical and biological system in the wet environment. Not sure that trying to downplay the issue with a side-serving of “someone else’s problem” is the most helpful response. Interdisciplinarity, when done right, means people in different fields having an effective engagement with each other.

    Your paper gives the impression that these are small chemical perturbations; maybe because you never asked anyone, you thought that parts-per-billion meant you could ignore it. Although I would not be surprised, when the issue has been brought up, if you’ve repeatedly handwaved it away or rolled your eyes about dimensional analysis.

    Now you are simultaneously implying that this kind of level of addition of surfactants is ‘natural’ while insisting that I direct my comments elsewhere because you aren’t the right person to ask.

    I get, though, that you are mostly interested in radiative physics, that was already pretty clear from your paper.

    (I had also noticed the bit where you’d founded a company to push this: agree with Willard that disclosure would have been a better approach)

  39. Russell says:

    The hostile is strong in this clique,
    The hydrosol research LLC, was founded and funded by one of Bill Clinton’s bien pensant EPA Deputy Administrators.

    Ben scores an Own Goal by insisting
    :”Your paper gives the impression that these are small chemical perturbations; maybe because you never asked anyone, ”

    Asy dozens have reponded to the questions the 2011 Climatic Change paper raises by publishing peer reviewed papers in responses to them the decade since .

  40. Willard says:

    > Why would a third party asking biologists about biological consequences give them rights to anything?

    Because to have “hands full on the radiative forcing side” means little when the whole ordeal needs to be settled on the biological side, Russell.

    You patented bubbles. Talk about hostile behavior.

  41. Russell says:

    I certainly agree with Ben that ” disclosure would have been a better approach” because I well and truly disclosed the praxis of microbubble water brightening after I wrote and submitted the Climatic Change paper for publication-

    Thanks for the link Willard/
    If you read to its end :
    Application EP10759157A events
    Application filed by Russell Seitz 2010-04-02
    Priority to PCT/US2010/000995 2012-02-08
    Publication of EP2414478A2 2012-11-14
    Publication of EP2414478A4
    Status
    Withdrawn

    you will see that no one has “patented bubbles” :

    Further answers to many of your FAQ’s may be found at:
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXpotupJanKti1t1Nuj3gZA

  42. Willard says:

    Thanks, Russell.

  43. Russell says:

    Why go in search of enemies ,when two new crusaders have joined the Alt.Climate brigade?
    Friday on Fox News, Ted Nordhaus and Tucker Carlson warned of a vast conspracy headed by Bill Gates, bent on inflicting bad haircuts and nuclear winter on the world:

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/04/what-do-tucker-carlson-carl-sagan-have.html

  44. Russell,
    Are you confusing Nordhaus and Shellenberger (and, if so, is it intentional?).

  45. Russell says:

    My bad ATTP- I fixed it. Nordhaus and Shellenberger are respectively chairman and president of the Breakthrough Institute, , and coauthored “The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World.”

  46. Yes, although Shellenberger left in 2015.

  47. David B Benson says:

    3 liquid phases in some aerosol-like particles:
    https://phys.org/news/2021-04-scientists-liquid-phases-aerosol-particles.html

    Who woulda thunk it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.