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."
Are we even sure that Global Climate Change is something that we need to stop?
Yes.
If this is all part of a cycle (all signs point to yes)
Liar. Reports of "decreasing" temperature, at the tail end of the hottest decade ever, do not imply that the fluctuations in average temperature during the past decade are merely cyclical, natural variations. They are certainly not. Although annual mean temperatures do naturally oscillate just as surely as daily weather fluctuates noticeably in most locations [not so much around the poles and the most barren deserts, but mostly...], if you check the data on noaa.gov and other sites that compare recent years and decades to the average over the past 150 years, instead of cherry-picking comparisons only against 1998 and others among the top-10 hottest years, you'll see quickly and unarguably that more recent oscillations are about a progressively higher median. That is because of the greenhouse effect and it is proven.
... unless you can explain where the additional heat goes when it is not radiated, because of CO2.
CO2 insulates by inhibiting infrared radiation. Infrared wavelength photons correspond to the quantity of energy-per-atom responsible for the atomic oscillation known commonly as "heat." Industrial-scale petroleum and coal combustion have dramatically increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Q.E.D.: CO2 pollution is directly responsible for global warming
Are cars and mankind contributing to the change in climate? Yes.
Great detective work. Wanna cookie?
Has the earth been going through a similar climate change every few thousand years for as long as we can tell? Also yes.
Liar-liar-pants on fire! I thought that Exxon-Mobil fired all you shills. Are you working pro bono now or being paid under the table?
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
If the icecaps shrink its caused by melting due to global warming. If the icecaps grow its caused by increased precipitation due to global warming. If its warmer in the winter its the increased heat due to global warming. If its colder in the winer its the increased climate variation due to global warming. If there are more hurricanes its due to warmer waters due to global warming. If there are less hurricanes its due to increased windsheer in the atmosphere due to global warming.
Translation: Everything you can measure we can pin on global warming, so we need to heavily regulate all industries, before its too late!
"His name was James Damore."
Play logic games if you want, the fact of the matter is that the environmental movement is political, not scientific. They use, or misuse, science to bolster their cause as they see fit, but well-meaning intent does not automatically mean that their interpretation of the science is correct.
Climatology is immature in the sense that we don't have a solid base of data that reliably tells us the consequences of a schemes like the one proposed in TFA. A simple check of the accuracy of your local weather forecast reveals the likelihood of a given outcome, e.g. rain, is expressed in percentages. This is a simplistic example, but reflects our current inability to accurately predict even common climatic events. Additionally, these predictions are based more on direct observations rather than an abstracted mathematical model that accurately predicts climatic events - that model just doesn't exist.
Why bet the planet if there is no way to prove a geoengineering scheme will work? It's hubris at it's worst! The climate has changed before and will change again regardless of human actions. Personally I'd much rather focus on things we can prove are dangerous like the presence of toxic industrial effluent in the water supply. The focus of global warming has detracted from many other legitimate and PROVEN hazards that can be more easily and directly dealt with. Besides, the simplest and most direct method of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions is to reduce them, not introduce a new and untested variable into an extremely complicated system. You DO know the difference between dependent and independent variables, don't you?
My point was not about money, but the potential negative planetary effects of an untestable geoengineering scheme. I'm not biased against environmentalism but rather the confusion of politics and propaganda with hard science.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.