I note a paper supporting the hypothesis that bushfires can cause rainfall. They do this by fertilising the ocean (smoke and ash) and causing phytoplankton blooms. These increase rainfall by trapping more heat in the ocean surface and via the cloud seeding effect of the dimethyl sulphide produced (along with other volatile sulphur compounds).

This raises the question of whether it might be feasible to create rainfall events artificially. If viable, it could become a means of preventing disaster, helping farmers, and perhaps even making oceans more productive.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721058538

The UN currently has a ban on ocean fertilisation, a mindset even more idiotic than Australia's nuclear ban. So next time the bush is ablaze, thank the UN for banning research that might prevent disasters and save lives.

Hi Fester,

Humans have messed with nature enough, and look at the disaster that has caused world wide. Extreme heatwave conditions, periods of up to 7 straight days or more of very high temperatures (40C plus) over most of the continent, such as we are experiencing now. Extreme heatwaves were occurring about once in 20 years, now its once every 5 years, and increasing. There is no doubt this is the result of global warming, there is no argument. No messing with the oceans.

Hi Paul,

Would you ban modern agriculture? The use of fertilizers? Did you know that numerous marine species have to compete with human fishing?

What is wrong with research? It would determine whether there could be benefit or harm?

"Humans have messed with nature enough"

The earth supports eight billion humans thanks to human ingenuity. Ingenuity is what keeps us alive.

Fester,

I don't think Paul was arguing against research or human ingenuity. That framing feels like a distraction or a strawman.

The actual question is whether deliberately perturbing coupled ocean-atmosphere systems at scale is meaningfully comparable to local, bounded interventions like agriculture or fertiliser use. They differ in scale, controllability, reversibility, and risk levels.

That’s why governance and precaution enter the discussion - because Earth systems don’t respond linearly when you scale up small effects, Not because people are anti-science or anti-human.

If ocean fertilisation can reliably, predictably, and safely influence rainfall in ways that matter on land, that case has to be made explicitly. Analogies to farming don’t do that.

Strawman? You do research to understand and define, that way you might determine if something is worthwhile. The oceans are always being fertilised one way or another (dust (storms), smoke, river outflows, vulcanism), so it's not as if any significant harm is likely.

Also, saying that something should not be understood because humans have meddled enough with nature is an absurdity. Several hundred thousand years ago there were perhaps only a few thousand human beings as a result of climate change (ice ages).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-ancestors-nearly-went-extinct-900-000-years-ago/

When I consider such things I think how silly to believe that humans are better off not understanding things. Unless the research is done, no one can say whether or not ocean fertilisation might bring advantage, but is is known that natural events can cause rain and provide nutrients for marine life. So why discount an idea that could be as significant for humanity as the use of fertilizer for agriculture?

Fester,

No one is arguing against understanding natural systems. That's also a straw man.

The disagreement is about risk at scale. Saying "the oceans are always being fertilised" doesn't establish that intentional, sustained, and scalable intervention is low-risk. Natural background processes aren't evidence of safety when you change magnitude, timing, or spatial concentration.

You've now asserted that "no significant harm is likely", but that's exactly the claim that would need to be demonstrated before advocating anything beyond tightly controlled experiments. History is full of interventions that looked benign by analogy and turned out not to be.

So the unresolved question isn't whether humans should understand nature. It's whether deliberately perturbing coupled ocean–atmosphere systems can be done predictably, reversibly, and with acceptable risk, and who decides that threshold.

That's the crux.

There was a project a decade or three ago to fertilise the oceans to encourage plankton growth. The thinking was that massive plankton plumes would soak up massive amounts of the dreaded CO2 and thus save us from whatever the scare du jour was.

When rooly-trooly scientists ran the numbers they realised there wasn't enough fertiliser on the planet to achieve the aims. Still those who made the claims got some publicity and those who debunked them got all sorts of grants to look into it. So all's well... except for the taxpayer who had to fund the merry-go-round.

That history doesn’t actually support the conclusion you’re drawing from it, mhaze.

Ocean fertilisation wasn't abandoned because someone "ran out of fertiliser". It was constrained because the carbon drawdown was limited and transient, ecological side-effects were uncertain, and scaling effects were hard to predict or verify. In other words, because the system didn't behave linearly when tested.

Negative results aren't a failure of science, they're how boundaries get mapped. They're also why claims about new benefits, whether carbon sequestration or rainfall modulation, still have to engage questions of scale, predictability, reversibility, and governance rather than being waved through by analogy or dismissal.

That's the issue under discussion here.

There's a lot of fertiliser here - horseshit.

"Ocean fertilisation wasn't abandoned because someone "ran out of fertiliser". "

Oh good. Lucky I didn't say it did. But standard JD. Make up my views and then tell me how wrong I am to have said something I didn't say. When you have to make these things up, you've already lost.

" It's whether deliberately perturbing coupled ocean–atmosphere systems can be done predictably, reversibly, and with acceptable risk, and who decides that threshold."

But weather systems are chaotic, as are natural fertilisation events. Also, experiments are done on a small scale (unless you are a dumhead Aus government building a wind and solar grid), and as mhaze pointed out, the purpose is not to remove CO2 as that would be world wide and there is not the fertilizer. The purpose would be to observe the effect on marine life over an area of ocean and to monitor for increases on dimethyl sulphide, cloud formation and rainfall.

mhaze,

I didn't attribute a quote to you, I addressed the conclusion you were advancing.

If you disagree with that conclusion, you're welcome to explain why the historical constraints on fertilisation don't still apply here.

That you chose not to and opted to nit-pick instead is... telling.
_____

Fester,

Saying weather systems are chaotic doesn't remove the issue, it is the issue. If the effects are inherently chaotic, then claims about influencing rainfall in useful ways become weaker, not stronger.

At the same time, shifting the discussion to small-scale observational experiments quietly abandons the original claims about helping farmers or preventing disasters, which depend on effects being scalable, directional, and policy-relevant.

No one is arguing against small, permitted research. The unresolved question is whether observations at limited scale can justify confidence about outcomes when magnitude, duration, or spatial extent change. That's where predictability, reversibility, and governance still matter.

Until that gap is addressed, appeals to "ingenuity", natural analogies, or past funding debates dont resolve the substantive disagreement.

Hi Fester,

Its not that the world suffers from a food shortage, its more a case of a distribution problem. A crises where half a billion go hungry due to localised droughts, floods, wars, climatic conditions, affordability issues, logistical issues etc. World food production has been increasing at a steady rate for the past 200 years, but still millions starve. Any increase in production may not see a decrease in starvation levels, which have grown by 40 million in the past 5 years.

Hi Paul,

Yes, I agree that food production on land is more than sufficient to prevent hunger, but over fishing is creating a hungry ocean.

https://oceana.org/reports/hungry-oceans-what-happens-when-prey-gone-0/

John

"The unresolved question is whether observations at limited scale can justify confidence about outcomes when magnitude, duration, or spatial extent change."

That is why you do experiments. By their nature the outcome is not certain, which is why you start small. If that approach were taken with wind and solar Australia's power grid would not have been such a mess.

"If the effects are inherently chaotic, then claims about influencing rainfall in useful ways become weaker, not stronger."

True, but an effect could still be determined. Determining an effect on marine life would have far less randomness to deal with.

Yes Fester, I agree that over fishing is a major problem, although commercial fish farms may help. I know my Fijian "family" has suffered greatly as fish stocks are depleted by illegal foreign fishing boats in local waters. The Fijian navy have little effect, as it is badly under resourced. That's an area Australia and NZ can offer assistance with more high speed patrol boats, and well trained locals to man them. People tell me that at one time they were able to sell the excess (after family was taken care of) from their small catch, using the cash to buy much needed staples, not no more.

That's fine, Fester, and I don't think we're far apart on the narrow point.

Small, controlled experiments to understand marine ecological responses are uncontroversial and already occur under existing frameworks. But that's a much more limited claim than the original suggestion about influencing rainfall, preventing disasters, or materially helping farmers, which depend on effects being scalable, directional, and decision-relevant despite atmospheric chaos.

Once the discussion is confined to "can we observe an effect on marine life at small scale?", the argument for broader climatic or hydrological outcomes simply isn't being made anymore.

At that point, it's a question of basic research scope, not a suppressed solution or a blocked pathway to large-scale benefit.

Hi Fester,
This is above my pay grade,
But how do we create something (more water) from nothing?

I do watch some videos from time to time on efforts to slow down desertification and revegetate and rejuvenate them.
Here's one I watched a day or so back.
http://youtu.be/77VTMpc6gLc

Hi Paul,

That is sad when local communities suffer because of commercial fishing. With agriculture there is no question that the nutrients need to be returned if land is to remain productive. Yes, nutrients do return to the oceans, but could the process be more effective? That is where research could be useful.

John,

I think that people tend to greatly overestimating the harm from experiments while being oblivious to the great harm from things like pumping raw sewage into oceans.

Hi AC,

I enjoyed your video. As ttbn observed, nearly all speculation, scientific or otherwise, is horseshit, but the tiny fraction that wasn't has left humanity with an immense and valuable legacy. I enjoy natural history, like this vid about early earth with 1000 foot tidal tsunamis every three hours and 1000+ kmh winds. No wonder geologists are often unimpressed with global warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygdO1WRkVmI