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?

[jackspenn]

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

Yes it is, but what do you expect? This guy is not a rocket scientist, he is a little known scientist.

Re:Huh?

[node 3]

A more sensible fellow was interviewed on TV recently who said that most of our climate change is driven by the Sun

*All* of our climate changes are driven by the sun. What this plan does (and what greenhouse gasses do in general) is alter the dynamics of what happens to the energy that reaches the Earth.

Whenever people go on about how it's the sun, their motives are childish and selfish. "The problem is unsolvable, stop trying to fix it, and damn well stop asking me to help!" Of course it's the sun. What do we do about it? What can we do about it? These are valid questions. "Learn to adapt" is the last contingency (well, the last contingency is extinction, but we'll assume that's unacceptable).

Look at it like a river. Rivers flood all the time--it's part of their natural cycle. That doesn't mean we have to "adapt". People like living alongside rivers. Cities naturally form around rivers. Some flooding may be man-made (runoff side-effects of clear cutting, for example), most may be due to the nature of the river, terrain and climate. But we can, and have done something about it. We've built dams.

Thanks to dams, people don't have to "adapt" to the yearly floods. The cost of a dam is *huge*, even if you ignore the energy it generates. But the cost of *not* building a dam is larger. The lost productivity, the lost farm land and property development. The lost city infrastructure, or the added cost to make the infrastructure flood-resistant.

And not to mention, the cost of lost lives.

Rivers still flood, but our dams have essentially eliminated all but the 100-year and 1,000-year floods. Humanity is no longer required to endure the yearly floods that plagued our ancestors.

Whether global climate change is man-made or not is one question, whether global climate change is happening is another. In a certain sense, whether it's man-made or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether it's happening, and if so, what can we do about it. Only then does whether it's man-made truly matter. If it's man-made, that gives us more options. If it's not man-made, then the task is more difficult.

This proposal is, essentially, a dam in the sky, stopping energy from the sun from reaching us. Even if global climate change is due entirely to increased output from the sun, this plan, if it's sound, would negate the need to adapt. It would reflect that excess energy away from the planet.

There are many questions that need to be addressed. Is the proposal sound? What are the side-effects? The risks? The costs? But to say "do nothing" is not a proper response from the species that gave us Aristotle and Archimedes, that gave us Apollo and the Internet, that gave us dams, trains, cars and planes. "Do nothing" is the response of the dinosaurs. "Do nothing" is the response of an incapable species, or a cowardly, selfish species. But most of all, "do nothing" is the response of a doomed species.

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:Huh?

[ionix5891]

some might call this vaporware

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.)

Doing your part

[_Sprocket_]

"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."

In other news

[Lije Baley]

Obama has appointed him as Secretary of the Absurd.

Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ

[RealErmine]

The OP is a brilliant literary artist.

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.

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.

If you wanted to know where "too far" was...

[erroneus]

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!

I wonder

[SnarfQuest]

I wonder if this idea will ever

..ACCIDENTLY THE WHOLE THING

[jpedlow]

"A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Public" .....And then he ACCIDENTALLY THE WHOLE THING

Re:A Little Known Maryland Scientist Has Made Publ

[elrous0]

I made in public once.