A wild idea to protect the Great Barrier Reef

So, we&#x27;re well into geo-engineering territory now, with all the uncertainties that brings. Preventative measures to avoid catastrophe have (predictably) failed, so we&#x27;re now having to spend our energy to mitigate the symptoms of climate change. Has anyone run the numbers on the efficacy of this approach? As in, how many MJ of energy must be spent to avoid a MJ of heat reaching the coral? Is it even possible to offset the heat transfer of an ocean current by cooling water in its path? What are the long-term consequences of salting the air? It&#x27;s all fine that the water surrounding the reef is relatively still, but how do you keep the air from moving?<p><i>The team is investigating powering their operations without burning fossil fuels.</i><p>My suggestion: look into nuclear-powered vessels. Good mobility, no dependence on external energy sources (using solar panels if your goal is to increase cloud cover may not be very useful). As a bonus, using nuclear ships to protect the coral reef is sure to send Greenpeace into a fit.

There have been recent discussions that we were doing that kind of geo-engineering accidently, in the Atlantic shipping lanes, for many years, when ships burned high sulphur fuel oil. The sulphur dioxide in the exhaust was shielding the ocean from solar radiation keeping the water temperatures cooler.<p>We changed the fuel regulations for ships in 2020.<p>The atlantic ocean near North America is now at all time high temperatures. Could be related. ?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.carbonbrief.org&#x2F;analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.carbonbrief.org&#x2F;analysis-how-low-sulphur-shippin...</a>

I hope they can find something that works. I’ve visited the reef (same spot each time) twice, once in the late 1990s and once in 2016; the difference was shocking.

There isn’t much point to cooling the reef to prevent bleaching when acidification will also kill it. That is much harder to prevent. The only solution is to lower CO2 in the air and water.

Putting aside potential detrimental side effects, would reducing sunlight over the reefs even work?<p>Aren&#x27;t there ocean currents and tides and things? Does ocean water really &quot;sit still&quot; for long enough that the temperature could be reduced for weeks, without warmer water from further away flowing in?

Why are these ‘experts’ credible when so many experts have been wrong?<p>Topics like this that impact more people deserve much more open scrutiny.

Are we protecting the reef because of its effects on the wider planet, or because we like it and think it’s pretty and believe it would be tragic to lose it?<p>For example, it seems pretty clear that we would have major problems everywhere on Earth if we clearcut the entire Amazon rainforest. That seems to me to justify saving it.<p>In short: does the Great Barrier Reef’s existence have similar far-flung implications, or is this effort based on status quo bias?

On a somewhat tangental note, I&#x27;ve wondered about doing something like this in a desert area: piping seawater into a hot and arid climate, spraying into the air but managing salt collection to avoid salting the earth.<p>My (limited) understanding is that there&#x27;s a feedback loop (both positive and negative) between vegetation and rainfall -- so why not kickstart it in the positive direction?

This kind of stuff never works long term and often causes some kind of fallout, like an economic bubble when it finally pops.

<i>There were formidable ethical questions, too. If clouds are used to cool the planet, what incentive is there to reduce greenhouse gas pollution?</i><p>Whatever the ambient temperature, I&#x27;m fond of breathing without pain and without drugs.<p>Maybe I&#x27;m weird. Or maybe other people have this same quirk and would like pollution levels to go down anyway.

It wasn&#x27;t totally clear to me in the article whether the mist is entirely made up of sea water. It mentions how small the most important particles are, but is that an effect of the missing process or an additive mixed in while atomizing the sea water?

If you give me $444 million AUD from the fed and 3.5 mill. from the state, I&#x27;m sure I can come up with a solution to all my problems.

I wonder if off-shore wind could act as a water mister when there is wind&#x2F;energy surplus?

Just release sulfur dioxide from a stationary location instead

Species go extinct, it is part of natures way.<p>New species will evolve to take over the niche.<p>Control is a powerful drug.

Has anyone tried DMT focus groups to get information on CO2 removal and reef regeneration?

As a bonus, once perfected this method will also help defend against AI if it starts acting up. Just so long as no one turns me into a battery or something crazy like that.