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."
A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Public
YES! We have a new winner for most descriptive Slashdot headline EVAR!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
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.)
"No sir, I do not believe you are 'doing your part to prevent global warming.' Now please stop spitting. No, I don't believe the other patrons need to be cooled."
clouds
Yes, let's fix the planet by changing the environment in more weird ways. That ought to work.
Obama has appointed him as Secretary of the Absurd.
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
As I dig out from several feet of snow, I'm not entirely sure I want the earth cooler.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
... 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.
I know, it's just as silly as dropping a big ice cube into the ocean.
The OP is a brilliant literary artist.
I kept waiting for the second half of that sentence, but then *BAM* period. End of sentence. I was all like, "WOAH! This guy's messing with my brain by defying the convention of the written word!"
If you don't understand the OP, then you don't appreciate avant-garde literature.
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
I was there a few weeks ago. When the waters are in operation, the air gets noticeably cooler. This only works because Vegas has very dry air. He would get pretty much zero evaporative cooling in Washington DC during the summer.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Right! We just rely on voluntary emissions reductions from the people of the world to counter global warming! Not an impractical crackpot scheme at all!
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Someone has gone and done it. They have PATENTED vaporware! Now every company that promises to deliver software and never does will be sued by this clown!
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.
I wonder if this idea will ever
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
"A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Public" .....And then he ACCIDENTALLY THE WHOLE THING
I made in public once.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake 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.
This project is simply another... Vaporware!
I think this gem earns a "whatcouldpossiblygoright".
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
I could swear it's December 19th but somebody is playing April Fool jokes. Really, the solution to global warming is that the earth will get too hot, humans will either die from the heat, kill each other for the little remaining habitable land, succumb to some terrible pandemic due to compromised immune systems, or starve because we can't grow any more food. In any case gobal warming will be solved because there will not be nearly enough humans left to screw up the world any more. So what's the problem? Nature will take care of things.
I'm not that this would work. Look at Venus, while it's atmosphere is not made of water vapor its cloudy atmosphere traps heat rather than reflecting it back into space. Why would water vapor clouds act any different other than that of a greenhouse environment that Venus exhibits?
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.
Capture a 150ft (50m) asteroid and throw it into the middle of the Atlantic. That will rise A LOT of water into the atmosphere. Remember, you heard it first from me.
Seriously - how long does it take to write a dozen thoughtful words, then check it??
Find out in the upcoming /. article "Slashdot Editors Have Checked"
He's the ee cummings of /. I never really appreciated the oppressive limitations that the English language forces on us until SUNSTOP opened my mind to the possibility of a new way!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I, a little know scientist, have invented a method to reverse global warming. Computer simulations suggest that it can reduce global temperatures by 2 - 3 degrees C in only 10 years.
If everybody would just stand in south China, then the accumulated weight of all those people will change the Earth's axis to point up and down making sunlight never hit the poles making them real real cold.
And this is my idea, which is mine, and I call it "My Idea".
I have another idea. I call it "My Second Idea". And it's mine.
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
I disagree, I think he's thinking things false. Once he starts thinking things true, then he'll wish he'd kept the whole thing to himself.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
And as some comedian once pointed out: in the US, at least, if you did succeed in killing all the lawyers you couldn't even be convicted of a crime - there would be a lack of adequate representation in court.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
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?
Thats because everyone here (obviously except you) knows about Kenneth Caldeira, which in one point during last year.
839*929
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 realize we are talking about water, right?
Although I understand most folks do use dihydrogen monoxide in their evaporative coolers and misters. Not that is scary stuff! I sure wouldn't want to aspirate too much of it.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
When are you grammer nazis going to learn, english doenst have rules of grammer, they are more like suggestions than rules.
Same goes for spelling and punctuation, I suppose.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Believe it or not, climate model physics includes thermodynamic heat transfer.
The point is that some of the heat in the water vapor gets radiated to space, when the vapor is lofted to higher and cooler altitudes. Also that it can induce sunlight-reflecting cloud formation.
Any sign of last year's expedition? They were supposed to build a bridge between the two peaks of Kilimanjaro.
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
30 years to achieve 1 degree cooling?
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.
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.
what goes up must come down
I seem to remember from my industrial gas engineering days that CO2 is heavier than air (that's why we'd put powered vents near the bottom of enclosures that air breathers might go into). Can we please all just move on to the next 'the-sky-is-falling' media-hyped scenario like the scarcity of fresh water? It's probably a scarier situation but many of the invested AGW people haven't caught on yet. Or at least not enough of them to build a "consensus" and unilaterally decide that the "science is settled".
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 ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Let's take a look at this. To be viable you would have to evaporate an amount of water that is significant compared to the water that is already evaporated. Given that a largish thunderstorm cell has energy content on the order of an H bomb, methinks that the budget is going to be a bit stretched.
For houses this works well. For planets, no.
Also evaporating water may drop the temperature, but it doesn't drop the heat. You're just storing it as latent heat of water vapor. In that form it can still play with the rest of the climate engine.
Even if it were possible, there are good reasons to think that it MIGHT be counter productive.
1. Water is a potent greenhouse gas, blocking different IR bands than CO2. Increasing the average water content of the atmosphere may well cause the average temp to go up.
2. Enough water vapour and you increase the number of clouds. Increasing the number of clouds can push the climate either way: Thick clouds tend to cool the earth, thin clouds tend to warm it. Last time I checked (some years ago) cloud modeling was one of the sticky points in climate models.
3. If you used fresh water for this, it's going to put a major drain on our fresh water supplies. If you use salt water for this, you will put a huge amount of cute microscopic salt crystals in the air. These act as condensation nuclei for water droplets. The formation of rain is dependent on the number of nuclei. Too few and you get a few large drops of rain that result in light rainfall. Too many and you get masses of cloud with drops too small to fall, or that evaporate on the way down.
A possibly more viable form of climate control would be to use H bombs to turn mountain tops into stratospheric dust. We have significant data that large volcanic eruptions can cool the atmosphere for a few years. I don't know if anyone has figured out how much of this is due to dust, and how much to sulfates. Sure this method increases the background radiation. But I think most people would take a 1-2% increase of cancer in 20 years rather than become a refugee of rising ocean levels.
(Caveat: I've not done the math. How many bombs a year does it take to do a Krakatoa? What is the radiation release of an H bomb designed to pulverize the maximum amount of rock and inject it into the stratosphere? I submit that the math for this is less than trivial.)
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.