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."

Comments

Huh?

[Shark]

Isn't water vapor one of the biggest greenhouse gasses?

Re:Huh?

[kpoole55]

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. A more sensible fellow was interviewed on TV recently who said that most of our climate change is driven by the Sun and that the best way for us to spend our capital in regards to climate change is to learn to adapt. 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. AND, if somehow we did manage to force a change, the system would likely react in a way we wouldn't be able to foresee. What was the line in that old Monty Python skit, about adapt and move on. That's our key to surviving, adapt to changing conditions and move on.

Re:Huh?

[jav1231]

His intentions are good. That's all that matters in politics. Wait this is science...no my bad. It's Global Climate Change so it's politics.

Re:Huh?

[zappepcs]

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?

Re:Huh?

[techno-vampire]

at first glance it seems to be more Evil than Good.

Not so much Evil as Ignorant and/or Stupid.

Re:Huh?

[Ambitwistor]

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 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, here).

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.

Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ

[Sefert]

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??

Concerns:

[CheshireCatCO]

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.)

Less is more

[plasmidmap]

Yes, let's fix the planet by changing the environment in more weird ways. That ought to work.

Did the simulation include ...

[damn_registrars]

... the energy expenditure of putting the water into the air?

Unless he has a carbon-neutral method of doing that, too...

Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ

[lgw]

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.

Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ

[ianare]

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.

Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ

[aurispector]

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.

Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ

[LandDolphin]

That's a feature

Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ

[corsec67]

On a small scale, this works well... so isn't this prior art?

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.