Stephen You make confident claims about the fate and flow of droplets emitted from your ships. I am unclear on several aspects :
How are droplets which have fallen onto the sea surface supposed to get off again? How windy will it need to be before breakers extinguish low or contacted droplets before they can be lofted again? Have you done detailed CFD modelling of microscopic flows? I'm particularly interested to see whether the droplets can settle overnight then rise the following day on thermals , as you describe. Have you modelled performance of the fans by CFD? I imagine that getting the drops to loft with fans will be more difficult in rough seas with turbulent winds around the chimneys than it seems on paper. An alternative design would be to use a greenhouse type structure to heat the droplet containing air, before or after spraying. How will you keep your ships free of mould, algae, etc.? The chimneys will be wet and well lit. Won't they end up clogged with greenery fairly quickly ? A On Aug 12, 2013 6:18 PM, "Stephen Salter" <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew > > It would be courteous of the person who showed a simulation of seawater > drops at the summer school to send me a copy. > > You write that drops sink to the water surface. I agree that this is what > happens initially but some readers might think that they sink INTO the sea. > and here I disagree. My analysis of the process is as follows: > > Spray will be blown up through the rotor by an air flow of 9 metres per > second, just less than the Weber coalescence velocity and emerge at a > height of 25 metres. It will be entrained with surrounding air and the > mixture will rise to a height of about 5 rotor diameters above the rotor > top. **** > > The relative humidity very close to the water surface will be nearly 100% > but his falls to typically 60% at a few metres and then rises slowly to > 100% at the cloud base. The very large surface area of the spray means > that evaporation of the spray plume up to 100% relative humidity will be > very fast leaving large numbers of liquid drops. The upward velocity > through the rotor will fall rapidly above 35 metres. For drop sizes of > 800 nanometres we have to increase the Stokes prediction for the still air > falling velocity from 19.8 microns a second to 23.8 microns a second [ ]. > However this is very small compared with the turbulent velocities in the > marine boundary layer, which are an appreciable fraction of the local wind > speed, which act in all directions but with a vertical component clipped at > the water surface. **** > > Latent heat for evaporation will initially come from the surrounding air > of the expanding plume. We can use psychrometric charts to get the > temperature drop. For an input humidity of 60% and a dry bulb temperature > of 15C the temperature drop in the wake will be about 3 K. The resulting > density increase will mean that the cooled plume will fall rapidly and > spread out over the sea surface taking heat from the water below for any > further evaporation. The air above the plume will cool at night but the > water below will stay at the same temperature causing most of the > subsequent rise. The Twomey effect will take place after sunrise the next > day. > > > **** > > For drops of 0.8 microns diameter surface tension and viscosity are > extremely strong. Think of sand in treacle. The drops are glued to the > air around them. If air cannot get through the water surface few of the > drops will. Indeed if a drop did hit the surface it could sit there like a > floating ball for a long period. If it is not raining he main loss > mechanism will be from plunging breakers.**** > > > I have tested pond foggers which make much larger drops than we will use > and the cloud sits over the surface of a tank for ages. With fresh water > the the main loss is evaporation. > > > Stephen > **** > > > > > On 12/08/2013 17:17, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > Seems a bit sloppy to say that MCB can be switched off when the energy > system has been decarbonized. The CO2 levels will be elevated for > centuries, and without the aerosols we'll be hotter still. We're in for the > long haul. > > Incidentally, simulations shown at the geoengineering summer school show > the droplets cool and sink to the water surface. They don't whoosh out of > the top of ships as typically shown. > A > On Aug 12, 2013 5:10 PM, "John Latham" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jim 7 all, >> >> Thank you for below, in response to which I add some further information >> which may be helpful. >> >> The idea behind Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) is to enhance the >> reflectivity of low-level >> very thin, all-water "marine stratocumulus" clouds by seeding them with >> large quantities >> of seawater droplets of somewhat less than a micrometre in size. These >> pasticles will >> be created by sprayers carried on small wind-powered ships sailing >> underneath the clouds. >> A good fraction of these will be carried by turbulence into the clouds, >> thereby producing >> additional cloud droplets. This causes the reflectivity of the clouds to >> increase (more sunlight >> bounced back into space), which produces a cooling which can become >> global. If most of these >> clouds are seeded the cooling could balance the warming from fossil-fuel >> burning for the next >> few decades. The associated increase in cloud reflectivity is around 10%. >> >> The only raw materials are seawater and wind. >> >> We have still to resolve some technological problems related to the >> sprayers. >> >> We do not intend the create new clouds (that would be impossible) or >> extend existing ones. >> >> This idea (like the stratospheric sulphur one) is simply a stop-gap, to >> be switched off >> when a new, clean form of energy has been developed globally. >> >> MCB would never be utilised if significant adverse consequences were >> identified. >> >> Its deployment would need to be internationally approved. >> >> Silver iodide seeding relates to ice formation in higher-level clouds, >> with >> concomitant (hoped for) increase in precipitation. We have no involvement >> with this topic. >> >> Our principle objective of MCB is to maintain the global average surface >> temperature, >> and the polar ice coverage. >> >> It may also be useful in (1) preserving coral reefs, by cooling the >> surface waters in their >> vicinity, and (2) reducing hurricane energy (producing less damage) again >> by cooling >> propitiously located oceanic surface waters. >> >> The downwelling surface water cooling technique for hurricane weakening, >> suggested >> by Stephen Salter and developed further with Nathan Myhrvold & colleagues >> has the >> same objectives as the MCB one. >> >> I attach a recently published detailed account of our MCB work. >> >> I hope all this is helpful. >> >> All Best, John. >> >> >> >> >> >> John Latham >> Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000 >> Email: [email protected] or [email protected] >> Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429 >> or (US-Cell) 303-882-0724 or (UK) 01928-730-002 >> http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham >> ________________________________________ >> From: Jim Lee [[email protected]] >> Sent: 12 August 2013 05:38 >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: John Latham; [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Playing God With the Planet - The Ethics & >> Politics of Geoengineering >> >> I stand by the heading for the following reasons: >> >> 1. The title is loosely based on this title from TechDirt: Bill Gates' >> New Career? Patent Troll For Nathan Myhrvold?< >> http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete> and this on from The >> Guardian: The man who would stop hurricanes with car tyres< >> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/nov/04/stephen-salter-tyre-hurricane-sandy> >> "British scientist Stephen Salter and Bill Gates patent scheme to prevent >> huge storms" >> 2. Geoengineer refers to those who study and/or advocate >> geoengineering SRM (I have little concern for biochar, sequestration, oif, >> etc). I too hate the term, what should I refer to men of your craft as? >> 3. Protection for Cash refers to these lines from United States Patent >> Application 20090177569< >> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0177569.html> : >> >> 15. A method of ecological alteration, comprising: receiving money from >> at least one government entity; and funding at least one of purchase, >> operation, or maintenance of ecological alteration equipment at least >> partially through the money collected from the at least one government >> entity, wherein the ecological alteration equipment includes wave driven >> water property alteration equipment. >> >> 22. The method of claim 15, further comprising: creating different risk >> or reward zones based on a known placement of the ecological alteration >> equipment; and developing different payment amounts based on location >> relative to the risk zones. >> 23. The method of claim 15, further comprising: developing different >> payment amounts based on at least one of potential property risk or >> potential change in property valuation. >> 24. The method of claim 15, further comprising: developing different >> payment amounts based on location. >> >> >> In yet another aspect, a method of managing risk includes operating >> ecological alteration equipment. The method also includes receiving at >> least one payment from at least one interested party. Further, the method >> includes receiving a request from the interested party to provide >> ecological alteration. Further still, the method includes causing changes >> in the operation of ecological alteration equipment in an attempt to cause >> ecological alteration. >> >> In still yet another aspect, a method of managing risk includes operating >> storm suppression equipment in response to a request to attempt to alter at >> least one storm. The method also includes alerting at least one interested >> party as to the potential for storm damage. Further, the method includes >> providing information to the at least one interested party of the cost and >> likelihood of reducing damage for the at least one interested party. >> Further still, the method includes receiving at least one payment from the >> at least one interested party and receiving a request from the interested >> party to provide storm protection. >> >> In yet still another aspect, a method of managing risk includes selling >> an interest regarding areas to be protected by ecological alteration >> equipment to a group of members. The method also includes funding at least >> one of purchase, operation, or maintenance if the ecological alteration >> equipment at least partially through payments collected from the selling. >> Further, the method includes determining the amount of ecological >> alteration in a predefined situation. Further still, the method includes >> paying the members of the group an amount dependent on the amount of >> ecological alteration. >> >> This returns us to Mr. Gordon's statement above for a moment: "local >> climate modification not weather control" >> In the above quoted patent, IT is referred to as "ecological alteration" >> which I must say is catchy. >> >> So which is it? >> >> * geoengineering >> * weather modification >> * weather control >> * climate modification >> * ecological alteration >> * climate engineering >> >> These are terms that are loosely defined< >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y2aazcmk2E&list=PLF928FDE0FD764621>, and >> from a public awareness< >> http://climateviewer.com/public-relations-fear-mind-control.html> >> standpoint, are synonymous if not ethereal. In my daily discussions with >> the average Joe, I say "Did you know they can make it rain, and have been >> altering the skies for over fifty years?" 95% of the time they refuse to >> believe it is possible, even after I show them my website full of >> documented facts. Therefore you gentlemen operate in a vacuum, as the >> entire weather modification industry has for years. I wouldn't doubt that >> many of the failings of Senator Hutchinson's weather modification bills >> were due to other Senators not believing a word she was saying -- that >> can't be real. >> >> My intention of the title is to tell it like it is, no fluff. >> >> Let me clarify my position: >> >> 1. I believe that cloud-seeding can be a good thing: like the >> Moscow/Chernobyl rainmaking< >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html>, >> Rocky Mountain snowpack augmentation<http://youtu.be/MpCk7yHj0Qw?t=3m43s>. >> Hopefully cloud-seeding was deployed after Fukushima. >> 2. I think that Mr. Latham's boat will be more effective than silver >> iodide in creating clouds and subsequent rainfall. I also think it is >> safer. =) >> 3. I believe our climate is in a bad state, and I too do not see >> polluting corporations changing without stiff regulation, which will not >> come as they control the puppets in Congress. >> 4. I believe the technologies you gentlemen are creating will probably >> be necessary given the current state of methane release< >> http://climateviewer.com/pollution-map.html#methane-release>. >> 5. I believe there is a long history< >> http://climateviewer.com/weather-control.html> of men altering the >> skies, bad things happen, and nobody wants to take responsibility. >> 6. I fear military interests< >> http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada539515> in creating cloud >> cover< >> http://rezn8d.net/2013/03/31/us-army-test-technology-symposium-weather-modification-1997/> >> to defend against surveillance and space-based directed-energy weapons< >> http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ada539515> (mostly lasers) >> coincides with your goals to create cloud cover to reflect sunlight. >> 7. I think that much like Frankenstein and the Ford factory lines, >> sometimes we create things that become uncontrollable. I think this is >> exemplified by all the "Playing God" title references. >> 8. I do not think any of the "geoengineers" are nefarious >> >> In my imagination, the group listed on the patent met at one of >> Myhrvold's parties similar to the one mentioned in the TechDirt article. >> Based on the date of the first application, I assume it was a New Years >> Day party. I also assume that after the first filings, some careful nudging >> occurred to prompt the Department of Homeland Security to just into the >> steering hurricane business. Next came the discussions at the AMS Weather >> Modification Conference, appropriately titled: New Unconventional Concepts >> and Legal Ramifications. Then came more revisions to the patent app, a >> Congressional hearing, NOAA tells DHS they're crazy, and DHS plows ahead >> with HAMP. Of course I don't state that on my website, that's speculation. >> >> However, inquiring minds want to know... >> >> 1. What is the origin and intent of the patent >> 2. Is the DHS currently using/deploying any of this technology? >> 3. Is/has any other entity (Intellectual Ventures, Atmocean) >> deploying/testing this technology on active storms? >> >> Thanks to Mr. Salter and Mr. Latham for being so helpful, respectful, and >> forthright with their research. I appreciate what you do Ken, as well as >> your colleagues. I find this topic fascinating, frightening, and promising >> all at once. I hope I was able to clarify my position, and hope you will >> clarify this hurricane mitigation patent technology's current status. >> >> ~ Jim Lee >> http://climateviewer.com/ >> >> >> On Sunday, August 11, 2013 4:56:58 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: >> Jim, >> >> What are you attempting to imply by sending out something under the >> heading: >> Bill Gates and world's top Geoengineers collaborate on patents< >> http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=searete>: Hurricane Protection for >> Cash! >> 1. Is your implication that Bill Gates sees geoengineering as an easy way >> to pick up a little extra cash, and that he is acting out of self interest? >> Do you really believe this? >> >> 2. A headline like this implicitly questions motivations. Is there a >> chance that Bill Gates is consistent in trying to explore ways to reduce >> suffering and improve well-being, especially among the poorest in the world >> and that this might be a primary motivation for his work in this area? >> >> 3. Exactly who are you referring to as "world's top Geoengineers"? As far >> as I know it, nobody in the world is engaged in geoengineering. Would you >> say "the worlds top tennis players" if nobody ever played tennis? There >> could still be tennis researchers, but a tennis researcher is a far cry >> from a tennis player. >> >> 4. When you send out a post with a headline like this, what are your >> motivations? I see two main possibilities: >> >> (i) Your intent is to give people false impressions, so as to advance a >> political position you hold; >> (ii) Your intent is to give people accurate impressions; you actually >> believe that the headline gives an accurate impression of both Bill Gates's >> motivations and the character of the people he has worked with, and that >> the false impression given is thus a consequence of your false beliefs. >> >> So the question is: Are misleading intentionally, or are you misleading >> inadvertently? >> >> Best, >> >> Ken >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > -- > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University > of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland [email protected] +44 > (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
