3 ms·

Just spraying seawater upwards to make clouds might do the trick: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-conceptual-Flettner-spray-vessel-with-Thom-fences-The-w

Just spraying seawater upwards to make clouds might do the trick: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-conceptual-Flettner-spray-vessel-with-Thom-fences-The-wind-would-be-blowing-from-the_fig4_23223631 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-conceptual-Flettner-sp...

londons_explore 3y ago
Even if scientists agreed that spraying seawater upwards from every ship would mitigate say 10 years of climate change, can you imagine world governments coming to an agreement to do it, and how to fund it?
- notfish 3y ago
  Also, H2O is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, so this is prolly not really a great idea
  - tonymillion 3y ago
    To counter that, H2O has a really easy path to exit the atmosphere (straight down), and it’s not like we’re producing that much more… Unlike CO2 which has been nicely stored away from the atmosphere for millions of years…
  - jazzyjackson 3y ago
    water effects weather differently based on whether its vapor (traps infrared) or suspended droplets/crystals as a cloud (reflects infrared) sulfur is both a greenhouse gas and a condensate for cloud formation nature is full of examples where you can add more and more of a single factor and suddenly the effect will flip and contribute to the other direction, before reaching a further threshold and flipping the other way it is not possible to make blanket statements like "Adding water to the atmosphere increases average temperature" As I understand it, CO2 is one of the few factors that we can all agree is just straighforward, more CO2 more problems. But chaos is tricky, we can only simulate so much.
- rjmunro 3y ago
  If it helps e.g. local rainfall and other whether conditions it might be in the interests of coastal governments to invest in things like this, but if it only helps on a global scale, it's an issue. You could maybe equate it to an equivalent amount of carbon capture and pay for it the same way. I'm not sure I'd agree with that, though, unless it was only paid at a lower rate than true carbon capture / reduction schemes.

londons_explore 3y ago

Even if scientists agreed that spraying seawater upwards from every ship would mitigate say 10 years of climate change, can you imagine world governments coming to an agreement to do it, and how to fund it?

notfish 3y ago
Also, H2O is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, so this is prolly not really a great idea
- tonymillion 3y ago
  To counter that, H2O has a really easy path to exit the atmosphere (straight down), and it’s not like we’re producing that much more… Unlike CO2 which has been nicely stored away from the atmosphere for millions of years…
- jazzyjackson 3y ago
  water effects weather differently based on whether its vapor (traps infrared) or suspended droplets/crystals as a cloud (reflects infrared) sulfur is both a greenhouse gas and a condensate for cloud formation nature is full of examples where you can add more and more of a single factor and suddenly the effect will flip and contribute to the other direction, before reaching a further threshold and flipping the other way it is not possible to make blanket statements like "Adding water to the atmosphere increases average temperature" As I understand it, CO2 is one of the few factors that we can all agree is just straighforward, more CO2 more problems. But chaos is tricky, we can only simulate so much.
rjmunro 3y ago
If it helps e.g. local rainfall and other whether conditions it might be in the interests of coastal governments to invest in things like this, but if it only helps on a global scale, it's an issue. You could maybe equate it to an equivalent amount of carbon capture and pay for it the same way. I'm not sure I'd agree with that, though, unless it was only paid at a lower rate than true carbon capture / reduction schemes.