Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientist Patents New Method To Fight Global Warming

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on 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."

4 of 492 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by Shark · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
    1. Re:Huh? by kpoole55 · · 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. 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.

    2. Re:Huh? by Ambitwistor · · 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 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.

  2. Concerns: by CheshireCatCO · · 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.)