Among the various interventions proposed to remediate the health and security effects of climate change by solar radiation protection is the proposal to enhance natural ocean whitecap formation. Compared to other solar protection interventions, this is technically simple and quickly terminated. However, it has a drawback: even if the energy be obtained from wind or wave, the power demand to maintain a foam raft determines the capitalization of equipment. The average power demand is inversely related to foam lifetime which can be prolonged by surfactants preferably derived from ingenerate resources. Here, we estimate the associated energy and power demands by identifying the parameters that can be adjusted to moderate the capital cost of implementation. Before dividing by efficiency factors, the range of power demand for an intermediate areal energy requirement of 5 MJ/km2 of ocean varies from 6 to 30 W/km2 for foam lifetime of 10–2 days. The most likely route to deployment is through merchant ship lubrication using bubbly liquids which both reduces fuel consumption and creates an extended wake and is perhaps an example of technical symbiosis.
CostelloAAbbasMAllenAet al. Managing the health effects of climate change. Lancet2009; 373:1693–1733.
2.
WattsNAdgerWNAgnolucciPet al. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. Lancet2015; 386: 1861–1914.
3.
SullivanGR. National security and the threat of climate change. Arlington, VA: CNA Corporation, 2007.
4.
O’SullivanTMRamsayJ. Defining and distinguishing homeland from national security and climate-related environmental security, in theory and practice. J Homel Secur Emerg2015; 12: 43–66.
5.
HsiangSMBurkeM. Climate, conflict, and social stability: what does the evidence say?Climatic Change2014; 123: 39–55.
6.
Moreno-CruzJBKeithDW. Climate policy under uncertainty: a case for solar geoengineering. Climatic Change2013; 121: 431–444.
7.
ScheerDRennO. Public perception of geoengineering and its consequences for public debate. Climatic Change2014; 125: 305–318.
8.
CornerAParkhillKPidgeonNet al. Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environ Chang2013; 23: 938–947.
9.
KeithDW. Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Ann Rev Energ Environ2000; 25: 245–284.
10.
RodheHCharlsonRCrawfordE. Svante Arrhenius and the greenhouse effect. Ambio1997; 26: 2–5.
11.
BudykoMI. Climate changes: American geophysical union. Washington, DC: John Wiley & Sons, 1997 (English translation of 1974 Russian volume p.244).
12.
CrutzenP. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulphur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma?Climatic Change2006; 77: 211–219.
13.
EvansJRGStrideEPJEdirisingheMJet al. Can oceanic foams limit global warming?Climate Res2010; 42: 155–160.
14.
SeitzR. Bright water: hydrosols, water conservation and climate change. Climatic Change2011; 105: 365–381.
15.
WhitlockCHBartlettDSGurganusEA. Sea foam reflectance and influence on optimum wavelength for remote sensing of ocean aerosols. Geophys Res Lett1982; 9: 719–722.
16.
StabenoPJMonahanEC. The influence of whitecaps on the albedo of the sea surface. In: StabenoPJMonahanEC (eds) Oceanic whitecaps. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1986, pp.261–266.
17.
DevetzoglouMAEvansJRG. Diffuse reflectance of foams. J Mar Res2014; 72: 19–29.
18.
AndreasELMonahanEC. The role of whitecap bubbles in air-sea heat and moisture exchange. J Phys Oceanogr2000; 30: 433–442.
19.
GatebeCKWilcoxEPoudyalRet al. Effects of ship wakes on ocean brightness and radiative forcing over ocean. Geophys Res Lett2011; 38: 48819.
AzizAHailesHCWardJet al. Long-term stabilization of reflective foams in sea water. RSC Adv2014; 4: 53028–53036.
22.
RowlandTHailesHCEvansJRG. Sea salt as a potential ocean mirror material. RSC Adv2015; 5: 38926–38930.
23.
CrookJAJacksonLSForsterPM. Can increasing albedo of existing ship wakes reduce climate change?J Geophys Res: Atmos2016; 121: 1549–1558.
24.
CvijanovicICaldeiraKMacMartinDG. Impacts of ocean albedo alteration on Arctic sea ice restoration and Northern Hemisphere climate. Environ Res Lett2015; 10: 044020.
25.
GordonHRJacobsMM. Albedo of the ocean-atmospheric system: influence of sea foam. Appl Optics1977; 16: 2257–2260.
26.
ShepherdJ. Geoengineering the climate: science governance and uncertainty. Policy document 10/09, The Royal Society London, London, 2009.
27.
McNuttMC. Climate intervention: reflecting sunlight to cool earth. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2015, pp.128–130.
28.
SalterMEUpstill-GoddardRCNightingalePDet al. Impact of an artificial surfactant release on air-sea gas fluxes during deep ocean gas exchange experiment II. J Geophys Res2011; 116: C11016.
29.
PolovinaJJHowellEAAbecassisM. Ocean’s least productive waters are expanding. Geophys Res Lett2008; 35: L03618.
30.
MäkiharjuSAPerlinMCeccioSL. On the energy economics of air lubrication drag reduction. Int J Nav Arch Ocean2012; 4: 412–422.
31.
JohnsonBDCookeRC. Generation of stabilized microbubbles in seawater. Science1981; 213: 209–211.
32.
JohnsonBDCookeRC. Organic particle and aggregate formation resulting from the dissolution of bubbles in seawater. Limnol Oceanogr1980; 25: 653–661.
33.
WeaireDPhelanR. A counter example to Kelvin’s conjecture on minimal surfaces. Philos Mag Lett1994; 69: 107–110.
34.
GabbrielliR. A new counter-example to Kelvin’s conjecture on minimal surfaces. Philos Mag Lett2009; 89: 483–491.
35.
ChalkleyDT. The tetrakaidecahedron as the basis for the computation of cell volume and density. Science1953; 118: 599–600.
