Slashdot Log In
Scientist Patents New Method To Fight Global Warming
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Dec 19, 2008 04:02 PM
from the and-we-will-need-an-additional-10,000-coal-plants-to-power-this dept.
from the and-we-will-need-an-additional-10,000-coal-plants-to-power-this dept.
SUNSTOP writes to tell us that a relatively unknown Maryland scientist has proposed a public patent that he claims could combat global warming. The proposed plan would require massive amounts of water to be sprayed into the air in an effort to bolster the earth's existing air conditioning system. "First, the sprayed droplets would transform to water vapor, a change that absorbs thermal energy near ground level; then the rising vapor would condense into sunlight-reflecting clouds and cooling rain, releasing much of the stored energy into space in the form of infrared radiation. Kenneth Caldeira, a climate scientist for the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University whose computer simulation of Ace's invention suggests it would significantly cool the planet. The simulated evaporation of about one-half inch of additional water everywhere in the world produced immediate planetary cooling effects that were projected to reach nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit within 20 or 30 years, Caldeira said."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Public (Score:5, Funny)
A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Public
YES! We have a new winner for most descriptive Slashdot headline EVAR!
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously - how long does it take to write a dozen thoughtful words, then check it??
Find out in the upcoming /. article "Slashdot Editors Have Checked"
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:5, Funny)
The OP is a brilliant literary artist.
I kept waiting for the second half of that sentence, but then *BAM* period. End of sentence. I was all like, "WOAH! This guy's messing with my brain by defying the convention of the written word!"
If you don't understand the OP, then you don't appreciate avant-garde literature.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:4, Funny)
When are you grammer nazis going to learn, english doenst have rules of grammer, they are more like suggestions than rules.
Same goes for spelling and punctuation, I suppose.
Parent
..ACCIDENTLY THE WHOLE THING (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What scares me is that genuine concern over global warming could spur popular support for one of these crackpot schemes.
"Green" activists, in their self righteous zeal to save the planet, have latched on to global warming as a means to further their anti-pollution, anti-industrial political agendas. These self appointed do-gooders *know* they're right, since their well-meaning desire to help others justifies any means to their end. This movement echos the "silent spring" hysteria used by the environmental
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, if you live in a very dry, desert climate, this works. All across Sun Valley in arizona (Phoenix, Scottsdale, etc), you'll find misters, a kind of out door A/C which sprays mists of water into the air. It uses very little water, but makes a very noticeable difference in temperature. The temperature in coverage area becomes comfortable enough for out door dining in summer. On a small scale, this works well... so isn't this prior art?
Parent
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:4, Insightful)
Because a chemical in small quantities inside a house can have very different effects from that same chemical in the atmosphere.
Just look at ozone: in a house, it is toxic with no benefits unless you want to sterilize a room.
In the upper atmosphere, it is a very important protection against UV.
Parent
Chemical? (Score:3, Informative)
Although I understand most folks do use dihydrogen monoxide [dhmo.org] in their evaporative coolers and misters. Not that is scary stuff! I sure wouldn't want to aspirate too much of it.
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more fun, wator vapor provides the vast majority of the greenhouse effect (95%?). CO2 is more like 2% of the greenhouse effect. Somehow, combatting CO2 emissions by adding water vapor emissions doesn't quite seem like the right answer.
Parent
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:5, Insightful)
The other thing is that clouds are highly reflective, so the sunlight would never even reach the ground in the first place.
So I can see how these two effects would offset the greenhouse effect.
In any case, doing this would be catastrophic for another reason : what goes up must come down. And where will all this water vapor come down as and where, exactly ? Does southern asia really need more rain ? Does buffalo need more snow ? Can an arid region cope with a high increase in rainfall without causing massive mud slides and other nastiness ? What other unforeseen consequences will putting vast amounts water vapor in the atmosphere have ? These are all questions I hope we never have a definite answer for.
Parent
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't water vapor one of the biggest greenhouse gasses?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
A hitherto unknown scientist offers an easy solution to greenhouse gases that's actually going to wipe out humanity?
Where's the Doctor???
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Please state the nature of the medical emergency.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
some might call this vaporware
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Right here! [utexas.edu]
He cared deeply about the human dilemma and the rape of Earth.
He advocates killing 90% of the worlds population with the ebola virus.
http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-04-07/feature1p/index.html [sas.org]
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I may not agree with all you said, I do agree that we do not know enough about the problem to be suggesting cures. All that can be done is to stop doing what we suspect is helping to cause the warming problem, and even that has no guarantee of stopping the warming. So while we do what is possible to stop contributing to the problem, adaptation is a very smart thing to begin working on ... pass the tanning lotion, would you?
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
A more sensible fellow was interviewed on TV recently who said that most of our climate change is driven by the Sun
*All* of our climate changes are driven by the sun. What this plan does (and what greenhouse gasses do in general) is alter the dynamics of what happens to the energy that reaches the Earth.
Whenever people go on about how it's the sun, their motives are childish and selfish. "The problem is unsolvable, stop trying to fix it, and damn well stop asking me to help!" Of course it's the sun. What do we do about it? What can we do about it? These are valid questions. "Learn to adapt" is the last contingency (well, the last contingency is extinction, but we'll assume that's unacceptable).
Look at it like a river. Rivers flood all the time--it's part of their natural cycle. That doesn't mean we have to "adapt". People like living alongside rivers. Cities naturally form around rivers. Some flooding may be man-made (runoff side-effects of clear cutting, for example), most may be due to the nature of the river, terrain and climate. But we can, and have done something about it. We've built dams.
Thanks to dams, people don't have to "adapt" to the yearly floods. The cost of a dam is *huge*, even if you ignore the energy it generates. But the cost of *not* building a dam is larger. The lost productivity, the lost farm land and property development. The lost city infrastructure, or the added cost to make the infrastructure flood-resistant.
And not to mention, the cost of lost lives.
Rivers still flood, but our dams have essentially eliminated all but the 100-year and 1,000-year floods. Humanity is no longer required to endure the yearly floods that plagued our ancestors.
Whether global climate change is man-made or not is one question, whether global climate change is happening is another. In a certain sense, whether it's man-made or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether it's happening, and if so, what can we do about it. Only then does whether it's man-made truly matter. If it's man-made, that gives us more options. If it's not man-made, then the task is more difficult.
This proposal is, essentially, a dam in the sky, stopping energy from the sun from reaching us. Even if global climate change is due entirely to increased output from the sun, this plan, if it's sound, would negate the need to adapt. It would reflect that excess energy away from the planet.
There are many questions that need to be addressed. Is the proposal sound? What are the side-effects? The risks? The costs? But to say "do nothing" is not a proper response from the species that gave us Aristotle and Archimedes, that gave us Apollo and the Internet, that gave us dams, trains, cars and planes. "Do nothing" is the response of the dinosaurs. "Do nothing" is the response of an incapable species, or a cowardly, selfish species. But most of all, "do nothing" is the response of a doomed species.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, water vapor is the major green house gas only being augmented by carbon dioxide. This just points out that most of the people in the global warming camp know about as much real science as most kindergarten classes.
Normally I try to be more civil, but this calls for a "Hey dumbass, Ken Caldeira has forgotten more about climate science than you will ever know".
In particular, he is well aware of the greenhouse effect of water vapor. See here [slashdot.org] for more discussion.
A more sensible fellow was interviewed on TV recently who said that most of our climate change is driven by the Sun
Why is he more sensible? Because it supports the conclusions you want to reach? In particular, why is this fellow's claim more sensible given the large amount of evidence that most of the modern global warming is not driven by the Sun (e.g., here [nature.com], here [royalsociety.org]).
and that the best way for us to spend our capital in regards to climate change is to learn to adapt
We're going to have to adapt regardless, because we're already committed to some anthropogenic climate change even if there were no natural change, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't mitigate the problem. It's less expensive to adapt if you have a less extreme climate to adapt to. A real solution, as noted by pretty much every economist who works in this area, is a combination of mitigation, adaptation, and technological R&D. Read Nordhaus's latest book for a good lay overview of the policy problem.
The climate is composed of myriad systems that we still haven't enumerated, cannot properly inter-relate (since we don't know them all) and already contain enough energy that we couldn't drive them in a particular direction if we wanted.
We can't dial in an exact climate state, but we can drive the climate in different directions. We're already doing it with CO2. Reducing CO2 will reduce and slow the warming due to CO2. This is not a difficult concept. The system doesn't respond instantaneously, and it's not realistic to completely halt emissions, but we can slow them to mitigate the resulting climate change.
if somehow we did manage to force a change, the system would likely react in a way we wouldn't be able to foresee
It is not really that hard to figure out that returning CO2 emissions to closer to pre-industrial levels will direct the Earth system to closer to a pre-industrial climate.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't water vapor one of the biggest greenhouse gasses?
Yes it is, but what do you expect? This guy is not a rocket scientist, he is a little known scientist.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
It might not be the biggest, but it could definitely stand to lose a few pounds. Ba dum dum.
But seriously, the evaporative cooling effects and shielding of increased cloud cover would more than offset the greenhouse effects.. at least, according to their model. And unlike CO2, water tends to precipitate out of the atmosphere rather than hang around for decades.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so much Evil as Ignorant and/or Stupid.
Parent
Concerns: (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Where does the energy come from to spray this water?
2) Clouds are fickle where temperature is concerned. Depending on the type of cloud, they can either raise or lower the temperature. (The article, I see, also notes this.) This is one of the trickiest points of climate modeling, if memory serves.
3) Water vapor is also a particularly powerful greenhouse gas. Pumping a lot more of it into the air could exacerbate the problem rather than fix it. (Also noted in the article, but not actually discussed.)
Re:Concerns: (Score:5, Interesting)
you forget 4)
all projects for cooling the earth by redirecting the sun radiation have the same fault: they are bad for the plants and the plants are best co2 utilisers.
Parent
Doing your part (Score:5, Funny)
"No sir, I do not believe you are 'doing your part to prevent global warming.' Now please stop spitting. No, I don't believe the other patrons need to be cooled."
Less is more (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, let's fix the planet by changing the environment in more weird ways. That ought to work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Obama has appointed him as Secretary of the Absurd.
SNOW! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SNOW! (Score:5, Funny)
It also has the strange affect of causing the earths average temperature to drop over the last decade instead of rise.
Dam that global warming, it's a tricky bastard.
Parent
Did the simulation include ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless he has a carbon-neutral method of doing that, too...
Re:Did the simulation include ... (Score:5, Funny)
... the energy expenditure of putting the water into the air?
Unless he has a carbon-neutral method of doing that, too...
Duh! Hydro power!
With all the water he's spraying, there is bound to be some run-off. Dam those newly formed streams and rivers up and use the hydro power to power the pumps that will pump the water.
Parent
He could patent troll the Bellagio (Score:3, Funny)
I was there a few weeks ago. When the waters are in operation, the air gets noticeably cooler. This only works because Vegas has very dry air. He would get pretty much zero evaporative cooling in Washington DC during the summer.
If you wanted to know where "too far" was... (Score:5, Funny)
Someone has gone and done it. They have PATENTED vaporware! Now every company that promises to deliver software and never does will be sued by this clown!
Oh how I miss the good old days (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if this idea will ever
An alternative solution (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And as some comedian once pointed out: in the US, at least, if you did succeed in killing all the lawyers you couldn't even be convicted of a crime - there would be a lack of adequate representation in court.