Slashdot Mirror
Scientist Patents New Method To Fight Global Warming
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."
Isn't water vapor one of the biggest greenhouse gasses?
Mind the frickin' laser...
and as for the idea itself, omfg what could go wrong? luckily such crack pot schemes don't get off the ground.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
That really does take the cake for a poorly written title. Seriously - how long does it take to write a dozen thoughtful words, then check it??
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.)
Yes, let's fix the planet by changing the environment in more weird ways. That ought to work.
... the energy expenditure of putting the water into the air?
Unless he has a carbon-neutral method of doing that, too...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Ok but what about side effects. How will it effect rain fall if we are adding to the current evaporation. Also it seems like this would or could possibly change the ecosystem of the areas it is done in. And finally who would foot the bill and what would be an approx. cost on it. The story paints a nice pic but there isn't enough info to tell if this is even realistic other than the "practical, nontoxic, affordable, rapidly achievable" comment there isn't much info on what his comparisons are.
When a loner who suggests altering the weather in a massive unpredictable manner would be a mad scientist from a crappy b-flick.
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Water has one of the best heat transfers, so by having the water evaporate, you cool the surrounding area. This is what happens when you sweat, for example.
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.
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 movement to ban DDT in the 1960's & '70's. In that case, while increased regulation of industrial chemicals was undoubtedly a good thing, unscientific hysteria designed to move public opinion at all costs was definitely not.
Planetary climatology is an extremely immature science at best, and I sincerely doubt that any climatologist worth his salt would back any action other than reduction in the gas emissions believed to contribute to climate change.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
That's a feature
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
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.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
You don't actually know what the net effect is until you calculate it. Caldeira calculated it, in a state-of-the-art climate model, and found that the net effect of the latent heat release coupled with cloud albedo outweighed the heat trapping effect. It's possible this model is wrong, but proving it would require a much more nuanced calculation than "clouds trap heat".
"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.
I'm not sure I know anyone who is "pro-pollution", but clearly you are directly insinuating that "Green Activists" are anti-industrial. Are you aware that what this person is proposing would probably create an industry - even if it is a crackpot scheme? Are you unaware that you are making the illogical assumption that all industry necessarily creates pollution? Are you further aware that you are insinuating that all "Green Activists" are attempting to "stop our economy", as evidenced by your association of "anti-pollution" with "anti-industrial"?
My guesses to questions, in order, because I doubt you will answer them: No, Yes, Yes.
Planetary climatology is an extremely immature science at best, and I sincerely doubt that any climatologist worth his salt would back any action other than reduction in the gas emissions believed to contribute to climate change.
Uh, you mean as immature as Physics right? Climatology started a long time ago - 10th or 16th century, depending on who is counting - about when people started studying that thing we sometimes call "Gravity" (again, depending on who is counting).
/.) is pretty "immature" in itself.
Just because a Science is not as popular as other sciences (which is usually caused more by economic incentive rather than the merit of the science itself) does not make it "immature". There is a lot of evidence to back up many of their claims.
It's really sad that your point - a concern over waste of money fostered by a skeptic attitude towards the effectiveness of the method - was completely clouded by very obvious under-supported biases against environmentalists, environmentalism, and all related sciences. Because honestly, I share that concern. But to voice your concern in such a manner (and yeah, I know, its
Uh, you mean as immature as Physics right? Climatology started a long time ago - 10th or 16th century, depending on who is counting - about when people started studying that thing we sometimes call "Gravity" (again, depending on who is counting).
Oh please. You know what he meant by "immature". He means that the climate is not understood well enough to predict the climatological effects of the industrial revolution, much less how deliberately trying to counter those effects will affect things.