Microbubbles and Sea Foam
Type
Solar Radiation Management
Areas of deployment
Marine and coastal regions
Proposal
Injecting tiny air bubbles or spraying sea foam to reflect light away from the oceans.
Featured project
Name: G4Foam Experiment
Location: USA
Show on map
Microbubbles proposals suggest that by injecting millions of tiny air bubbles into the ocean or spraying sea foam onto surface waters, the albedo of large areas of ocean could be increased, thereby reflecting more sunlight back into space.
Latest technology update
Show update
Description and purpose of the technology
Injecting microbubbles into water bodies or spraying sea foams onto the surface of seawater are theoretical solar geoengineering proposals which aim to reflect more sunlight back into space by altering the albedo (reflectivity) of water surfaces. These proposals aim to mimic and extend the lifetime of naturally-occuring whitecaps, which form on wave crests in windy weather, or white foam created as waves break on the shore, which are brighter and thus more reflective than calmer and darker water surfaces. The brighter the water surface is, the more of the sun’s energy will be reflected away and the less heat will be absorbed into the water.
Proposals to produce long-lasting microbubbles usually involve equipping ships with the means of producing large quantities of microbubbles, such as specially-developed nozzles or mechanical shakers, and stabilizing the microbubbles through the addition of chemical surfactants, such as amphiphilic nanoparticles or phospholipids. The production of artificial foam in order to create a layer of microbubbles on surface waters requires chemical foaming agents to be applied, such as gelling agents with cellulose ethers. [1]
If applied on a large scale, microbubble techniques could have negative effects on ocean food chains and reduce oxygen levels. A long-lasting surface layer of bubbles or foam would diminish the amount of solar radiation entering the water, thereby reducing the photosynthetic activity and growth of phytoplankton, the basis of the marine food web. The layer of bubbles may also inhibit gas exchange and therefore also reduce the oxygenation of the seawater, which would negatively affect marine biodiversity and productivity. Furthermore, the surfactants used may be toxic to marine life.
Actors involved
So far, research into microbubbles and sea foam proposals has been limited to modelling exercises and laboratory-scale tests, and the technologies have not been tested in the open-ocean. Notable developments include the following:
- Russell Seitz, a geoengineering physicist at Harvard, proposed “cooling the planet” by pumping great quantities of microbubbles into the oceans to increase reflectivity and lower surface water temperatures. Shortly after publishing the results of his computer simulations in 2010, Seitz tried to commercialize his solar geoengineering proposal and formed Microbubbles LLC. The company focused on the development of long-lasting microbubbles through the use of mechanical and chemical solutions such as compressed air and surfactants, but scarcely discussed the environmental implications of the proposed technology. [2]
- Researchers at the University of Leeds in the UK modelled the solar geoengineering potential of brightening ship wakes and published the results in 2016, proposing the addition of chemical surfactants to extend the lifetime of microbubbles created by ship wakes from minutes to days. [3]
- In the past decade, scientists at the University College London in the UK proposed increasing ocean surface albedo by enhancing whitecap formation with reflective foam. The climate effects of the large-scale application of foam were modelled and different foams were tested on laboratory-scale, which aimed to increase the lifetime of the foam on sea water. [4]
- The project G4Foam modelled the climate impacts of altering the ocean albedo by adding stable, nondispersive foam, in order to establish a layer of reflective microbubbles. The study, published in 2017, was conducted by researchers from the Rutgers University in New Jersey, in cooperation with the US Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. [5]
Impacts of the technology
Deploying microbubbles or artificial sea foam at the scale required to impact the climate could disrupt the entire basis of marine life, which is ultimately dependent on sunlight passing through surface waters, from phytoplankton to large mammals. This would have devastating impacts on the livelihoods of coastal communities that depend on marine resources for their subsistence, in particular artisanal fishing communities and seaweed growers.
A cooler ocean will also absorb carbon dioxide more efficiently, enhancing ocean acidification. Bubble clouds could change oceanic circulation and cause unexpected or unusual evaporation rates, which would in turn affect atmospheric heating, circulation and precipitation patterns. This also raises questions about the possibility of regional climate control, with the potential risk of the unilateral deployment and even weaponization of the technology. [7] Similarly, if microbubbles schemes were to be deployed through ship wakes, the fact that there are far more shipping movements in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern would need to be addressed, as it would otherwise result in a very uneven microbubbles distribution. This imbalance would need to be addressed somehow. [11]
The potential impacts of microbubbles deployment on human society was highlighted by research conducted by the Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals. Through modelling exercises, it found that geoengineering with oceanic microbubbles could affect two billion people through regional weather changes and extreme events such as floods and droughts. [8]
Microbubbles proposals involve the addition of large volumes of chemical “surfactants” to surface waters, which could reduce gas exchange processes and the oxygenation of the upper layers of the ocean, where most fish and other species live. [6] Although researchers point out that the surfactants would need to be ecologically benign, these chemicals may have unknown and undesirable impacts on ecosystems. For example, they can affect microbiological or photochemical processes, [9] and they can also be highly toxic.
The BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2011 is an example of this—the oil dispersant BP used was a mixture of two surfactants, which they claimed were safe, and the US Environmental Protection Agency didn’t require any safety testing prior to use. A record 1.8 million gallons were used to disperse the oil, and it is possible that the toxic components in the dispersants could have caused more harm to marine life than the oil would have done by itself. [10] This illustrates the potential practical consequences of this kind of “technofix”, especially if put in the hands of irresponsible companies or unscrupulous government agencies.
Reality check
Research into this technique has so far been limited to modelling and laboratory experiments.
Further reading
Geongineeringmonitor.org, Using ship wakes to fight climate change? Time to anchor climate research to common sense. www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2016/03/using-ship-wakes-to-fight-climate-change-time-to-anchor-climate-research-to-common-sense/
The Guardian, Reflecting sunlight into space has terrifying consequences, say scientists. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/26/geoengineering-could-offer-solution-last-resort-climate-change?CMP=fb_gu
ETC Group and Heinrich Böll Foundation, “Geoengineering Map”. https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
End notes
[1] Crook, et al. (2016) Can increasing albedo of existing ship wakes reduce climate change, in: JGR Atmospheres, Vol. 121(4): 1549 – 1558, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JD024201#jgrd52751-bib-0008; ETC Group and Heinrich Böll Foundation (2020) Geoengineering Map: Microbubbles and Sea Foams, https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
[2] Seitz (2010) Bright Water: Hydrosols, Water Conservation and Climate Change, in: Climatic Change, Vol. 105(3-4): 365 – 381, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-010-9965-8; Kintisch (2010) Could Tiny Bubbles Cool the Planet?, in: ScienceMag, published online: March 26, 2010, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/03/could-tiny-bubbles-cool-planet; Edwards (2010) Bright water proposal to cut global warming, in: Phys.org, published online: March 29, 2010, https://phys.org/news/2010-03-bright-global.html
[3] Ibid (Crook, et al. (2016)); University of Leeds (2016) Smaller, longer-lasting bubbles could reduce global temperatures, in: Priestley International Centre for Climate News, published online: March 2, 2016, https://climate.leeds.ac.uk/news/smaller-longer-lasting-bubbles-could-reduce-global-temperatures/
[4] Ortega and Evans (2018) On the energy required to maintain an ocean mirror using the reflectance of foam, in: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, Vol 233(1): 388 – 397,
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1475090217750442?journalCode=pima&; Rowland, et al. (2015) Sea salt as a potential ocean mirror material, in: RSC Advances, Vol. 5(49): 38926 – 38930, https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2015/RA/C5RA03469H#!divAbstract
[5] Gabriel, et al. (2017) The G4Foam Experiment: global climate impacts of regional ocean albedo modification, in: Atmos. Chem. Phys., Vol. 17: 595 – 13, https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/595/2017/acp-17-595-2017.pdf
[6] Ibid (Crook, et al. (2016), Gabriel, et al. (2017)); Evans, et al. (2010) Can oceanic foams limit global warming?, in: Climate Research, Vol. 42(2): 155 – 160, http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v42/n2/p155-160/; Robock (2011) Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble. An editorial comment., in: Climatic Change, Vol. 105: 383 – 385
[7] Ibid (Crook, et al. (2016), Gabriel, et al. (2017)); Evans, et al. (2010), Robock (2011))
[8] Carrington (2014) Reflecting sunlight into space has terrifying consequences, say scientists, in: The Guardian, published online: November 26, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/26/geoengineering-could-offer-solution-last-resort-climate-change
[9] Ibid (Crook, et al. (2016), Robock (2011))
[10] Sheppard (2010) BP’s Bad Breakup: How Toxic is Corexit?, in: Mother Jones, published online: September/October 2010 issue, https://www.motherjones.com/%20environment/2010/08/bp-ocean-dispersant-corexit/
[11] Ibid (Crook, et al. (2016))
Microbubbles and Sea Foam
TIPO
Solar Radiation Management
Zonas de despliegue
Marine and coastal regions
Propuesta
Injecting tiny air bubbles or spraying sea foam to reflect light away from the oceans.
Proyecto destacado
Nombre: G4Foam Experiment
Localización: USA
Mostrar en el mapa
Microbubbles proposals suggest that by injecting millions of tiny air bubbles into the ocean or spraying sea foam onto surface waters, the albedo of large areas of ocean could be increased, thereby reflecting more sunlight back into space.
Última actualización de la tecnología
Mostrar actualización
Descripción y propósito de la tecnología
Injecting microbubbles into water bodies or spraying sea foams onto the surface of seawater are theoretical solar geoengineering proposals which aim to reflect more sunlight back into space by altering the albedo (reflectivity) of water surfaces. These proposals aim to mimic and extend the lifetime of naturally-occuring whitecaps, which form on wave crests in windy weather, or white foam created as waves break on the shore, which are brighter and thus more reflective than calmer and darker water surfaces. The brighter the water surface is, the more of the sun’s energy will be reflected away and the less heat will be absorbed into the water.
Proposals to produce long-lasting microbubbles usually involve equipping ships with the means of producing large quantities of microbubbles, such as specially-developed nozzles or mechanical shakers, and stabilizing the microbubbles through the addition of chemical surfactants, such as amphiphilic nanoparticles or phospholipids. The production of artificial foam in order to create a layer of microbubbles on surface waters requires chemical foaming agents to be applied, such as gelling agents with cellulose ethers. [1]
If applied on a large scale, microbubble techniques could have negative effects on ocean food chains and reduce oxygen levels. A long-lasting surface layer of bubbles or foam would diminish the amount of solar radiation entering the water, thereby reducing the photosynthetic activity and growth of phytoplankton, the basis of the marine food web. The layer of bubbles may also inhibit gas exchange and therefore also reduce the oxygenation of the seawater, which would negatively affect marine biodiversity and productivity. Furthermore, the surfactants used may be toxic to marine life.
Actores involucrados
So far, research into microbubbles and sea foam proposals has been limited to modelling exercises and laboratory-scale tests, and the technologies have not been tested in the open-ocean. Notable developments include the following:
- Russell Seitz, a geoengineering physicist at Harvard, proposed “cooling the planet” by pumping great quantities of microbubbles into the oceans to increase reflectivity and lower surface water temperatures. Shortly after publishing the results of his computer simulations in 2010, Seitz tried to commercialize his solar geoengineering proposal and formed Microbubbles LLC. The company focused on the development of long-lasting microbubbles through the use of mechanical and chemical solutions such as compressed air and surfactants, but scarcely discussed the environmental implications of the proposed technology. [2]
- Researchers at the University of Leeds in the UK modelled the solar geoengineering potential of brightening ship wakes and published the results in 2016, proposing the addition of chemical surfactants to extend the lifetime of microbubbles created by ship wakes from minutes to days. [3]
- In the past decade, scientists at the University College London in the UK proposed increasing ocean surface albedo by enhancing whitecap formation with reflective foam. The climate effects of the large-scale application of foam were modelled and different foams were tested on laboratory-scale, which aimed to increase the lifetime of the foam on sea water. [4]
- The project G4Foam modelled the climate impacts of altering the ocean albedo by adding stable, nondispersive foam, in order to establish a layer of reflective microbubbles. The study, published in 2017, was conducted by researchers from the Rutgers University in New Jersey, in cooperation with the US Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. [5]
Impactos de la tecnología
Deploying microbubbles or artificial sea foam at the scale required to impact the climate could disrupt the entire basis of marine life, which is ultimately dependent on sunlight passing through surface waters, from phytoplankton to large mammals. This would have devastating impacts on the livelihoods of coastal communities that depend on marine resources for their subsistence, in particular artisanal fishing communities and seaweed growers.
A cooler ocean will also absorb carbon dioxide more efficiently, enhancing ocean acidification. Bubble clouds could change oceanic circulation and cause unexpected or unusual evaporation rates, which would in turn affect atmospheric heating, circulation and precipitation patterns. This also raises questions about the possibility of regional climate control, with the potential risk of the unilateral deployment and even weaponization of the technology. [7] Similarly, if microbubbles schemes were to be deployed through ship wakes, the fact that there are far more shipping movements in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern would need to be addressed, as it would otherwise result in a very uneven microbubbles distribution. This imbalance would need to be addressed somehow. [11]
The potential impacts of microbubbles deployment on human society was highlighted by research conducted by the Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals. Through modelling exercises, it found that geoengineering with oceanic microbubbles could affect two billion people through regional weather changes and extreme events such as floods and droughts. [8]
Microbubbles proposals involve the addition of large volumes of chemical “surfactants” to surface waters, which could reduce gas exchange processes and the oxygenation of the upper layers of the ocean, where most fish and other species live. [6] Although researchers point out that the surfactants would need to be ecologically benign, these chemicals may have unknown and undesirable impacts on ecosystems. For example, they can affect microbiological or photochemical processes, [9] and they can also be highly toxic.
The BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2011 is an example of this—the oil dispersant BP used was a mixture of two surfactants, which they claimed were safe, and the US Environmental Protection Agency didn’t require any safety testing prior to use. A record 1.8 million gallons were used to disperse the oil, and it is possible that the toxic components in the dispersants could have caused more harm to marine life than the oil would have done by itself. [10] This illustrates the potential practical consequences of this kind of “technofix”, especially if put in the hands of irresponsible companies or unscrupulous government agencies.
Visión realista
Research into this technique has so far been limited to modelling and laboratory experiments.
Lectura complementaria
Geongineeringmonitor.org, Using ship wakes to fight climate change? Time to anchor climate research to common sense. www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2016/03/using-ship-wakes-to-fight-climate-change-time-to-anchor-climate-research-to-common-sense/
The Guardian, Reflecting sunlight into space has terrifying consequences, say scientists. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/26/geoengineering-could-offer-solution-last-resort-climate-change?CMP=fb_gu
ETC Group and Heinrich Böll Foundation, “Geoengineering Map”. https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
Notas finales
[1] Crook, et al. (2016) Can increasing albedo of existing ship wakes reduce climate change, in: JGR Atmospheres, Vol. 121(4): 1549 – 1558, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JD024201#jgrd52751-bib-0008; ETC Group and Heinrich Böll Foundation (2020) Geoengineering Map: Microbubbles and Sea Foams, https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/
[2] Seitz (2010) Bright Water: Hydrosols, Water Conservation and Climate Change, in: Climatic Change, Vol. 105(3-4): 365 – 381, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-010-9965-8; Kintisch (2010) Could Tiny Bubbles Cool the Planet?, in: ScienceMag, published online: March 26, 2010, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/03/could-tiny-bubbles-cool-planet; Edwards (2010) Bright water proposal to cut global warming, in: Phys.org, published online: March 29, 2010, https://phys.org/news/2010-03-bright-global.html
[3] Ibid (Crook, et al. (2016)); University of Leeds (2016) Smaller, longer-lasting bubbles could reduce global temperatures, in: Priestley International Centre for Climate News, published online: March 2, 2016, https://climate.leeds.ac.uk/news/smaller-longer-lasting-bubbles-could-reduce-global-temperatures/
[4] Ortega and Evans (2018) On the energy required to maintain an ocean mirror using the reflectance of foam, in: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, Vol 233(1): 388 – 397,
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1475090217750442?journalCode=pima&; Rowland, et al. (2015) Sea salt as a potential ocean mirror material, in: RSC Advances, Vol. 5(49): 38926 – 38930, https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2015/RA/C5RA03469H#!divAbstract
[5] Gabriel, et al. (2017) The G4Foam Experiment: global climate impacts of regional ocean albedo modification, in: Atmos. Chem. Phys., Vol. 17: 595 – 13, https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/595/2017/acp-17-595-2017.pdf
[6] Ibid (Crook, et al. (2016), Gabriel, et al. (2017)); Evans, et al. (2010) Can oceanic foams limit global warming?, in: Climate Research, Vol. 42(2): 155 – 160, http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v42/n2/p155-160/; Robock (2011) Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble. An editorial comment., in: Climatic Change, Vol. 105: 383 – 385
[7] Ibid (Crook, et al. (2016), Gabriel, et al. (2017)); Evans, et al. (2010), Robock (2011))
[8] Carrington (2014) Reflecting sunlight into space has terrifying consequences, say scientists, in: The Guardian, published online: November 26, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/26/geoengineering-could-offer-solution-last-resort-climate-change
[9] Ibid (Crook, et al. (2016), Robock (2011))
[10] Sheppard (2010) BP’s Bad Breakup: How Toxic is Corexit?, in: Mother Jones, published online: September/October 2010 issue, https://www.motherjones.com/%20environment/2010/08/bp-ocean-dispersant-corexit/
[11] Ibid (Crook, et al. (2016))
