Scientist Patents New Method To Fight Global Warming 492
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."
Let global warming do it (Score:1, Interesting)
Bad Idea (Score:1, Interesting)
I see a few problems with this:
1. where does the energy come from to spray gigatons of water in the air
2. any cooling from vaporization of water would be local since the heat absorbed through vaporization would be released as it condenses.
3. water vapor that does not condense immediately acts as a greenhouse gas
4. the increased relative humidity across the entire planet would likely cause more extreme weather
This kind of idea is why the sensationalism of global climate change is evil.
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.
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Thick'n Hot as Venus's Atmosphere (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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?
Meh (Score:2, Interesting)
While I'm glad that people are thinking outside of the box for solutions to global warming, if world powers became REALLY serious and adopted all the "Radical R's" on this site then, as Al Gore stated, we could have a serious shot at getting OFF the fossil fuels in 10 years. We would of course probably need 20 or so to become truly carbon neutral but at least society would be heading in the right direction, living "light and local".
Then with Biochar sequestering 6 gigatons of Co2 a year (according to Tim Flannery's estimates as stated to BeyondZeroEmissions) we'd gradually REVERSE global warming. Not only that, we could have rebuilt our cities, be living with far less traffic and far less cars, be independent of world oil markets, have a healthier, slimmer population, have richer community lives, trendier cities, energy security, healthy local ecosystems and farming, and be enjoying a "Cradle to Cradle" or "Waste = food" society where all "waste" (outdated concept) becomes an input into the next product.
Burning through energy to spray water for a 1 degree lower temperature seems trite by comparision.
Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ (Score:3, Interesting)
And lets not forget that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Making this the equivalent of trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline onto it.
There's always been small tornadoes outside of tropics. They're rare, short-living and too weak to doo much damage besides damaging some roots, but they exist. Of course, even real tropical storms would likely be less of a problem here in North, since the structures tend to be sturdier in the first place; however, I wonder if tropical and sub-tropical regions simply become unlivable ? You can't rebuild New Orleans every year, and most big cities of the world sit on a shore, so they would also flood when hit by a major storm. And, since most scyscrapers seem to have an exterior made entirely of glass, they'd be ruined; the superstructure would withstand wind forces, but the insides would become a gutted skeleton.
Should us on the subarctic begin stocking up with weapons and supplies to deal with the hordes of refugees from the warmer regions ?