Slashdot Mirror
Painting The World's Roofs White Could Slow Climate Change
Hugh Pickens writes "Dr. Steven Chu, the Nobel prize-winning physicist appointed by President Obama as Energy Secretary, wants to paint the world white. Chu said at the opening of the St James's Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium that by lightening paved surfaces and roofs to the color of cement, it would be possible to cut carbon emissions by as much as taking all the world's cars off the roads for 11 years. Pale surfaces reflect up to 80 percent of the sunlight that falls on them, compared with about 20 percent for dark ones, which is why roofs and walls in hot countries are often whitewashed." (Continues, below.)
"An increase in pale surfaces would help to contain climate change both by reflecting more solar radiation into space and by reducing the amount of energy needed to keep buildings cool by air-conditioning. Since 2005 California has required all flat roofs on commercial buildings to be white and Georgia and Florida give incentives to owners who install white or light-colored roofs. Put another way, boosting how much urban rooftops reflect would be a one-time carbon-offset equivalent to preventing 44 billion tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. 'For the first time, we're equating the value of reflective roof surfaces and CO2 reduction,' says Dr. Hashem Akbari. 'This does not make the problem of global warming go away. But we can buy ourselves some time.'"
Unfortunately, producing the massive amounts of white paint needed to paint all these surfaces and maintain them produces about as much CO2 as was saved by starting this excellent project.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Let's use solar shingles.
Personally, I wouldn't want to drive on a surface that bright; I'd be squinting even with my sunglasses on!
If you've driven on an interstate in the mid-west, chances are you've driven on cement. It really isn't any worse than asphalt.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Maybe there's some legitimate debate over how reversible it is, independently of whether or not it's happening.
No, that was accurate - the climate is changing all the time, and humans have caused various changes to accelerate in ways that are detrimental to the survival of our species (growth of deserts, loss of farmland, etc.)
What this is proposing, is a way to mitigate some of the detrimental changes.
That aside, why the snark? I understand that people of course have personal investment in their enviroment (it's where we live, after all), but for someone proposing a simple change like this that could have multiple beneficial results for our species, I'm not sure why you feel so threatened.
Or do climate-change types believe stuff whenever it's convenient for them?
yes
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Also, where is all this paint coming from? What are the environmental and economic impacts of making all of this paint?
That's nice for the hot countries. What about cold countries? Maybe we like having black roofs and roads to melt the snow faster if there's a little opening?
There might be some safety issues with making road surfaces reflect more light. . .things that come to mind:
* Increased road glare on sunny days - good sun glasses could largely deal with this, but if you don't happen to have a pair of sunglasses, you might be having a pretty hard time seeing on very bright days.
* Night driving: harder to see the painted lines and reflectors embedded in the concrete (I'm not sure if this would really be much of a problem or not, but maybe could be)
* Winter driving - In the winter, I'm sure that black pavement absorbing sunlight has some beneficial effect in the form of melting ice off the road sooner than light-colored pavement would. Lighter colored road surfaces might lead to ice lasting longer, or requiring more salt to be put on the roads by road crews.
Pffft, time to buy stock in companies that sell white paint.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Although this would reduce the amount of energy used for cooling, heating costs would go up. For most people, it takes far more energy to heat a house than cool it. It takes 1200 KWh to cool a house in a temperate climate for a year, but it takes 12000 KWh to heat one . It is more useful to look for ways to heat a house more efficiently than cool it.
Well, when hundreds of scientists who had their studies used by the IPCC in fraudulent ways of presenting the data to support global warming came out and many thousands more came out showing hard facts that man has not had as big of an effect on the climate as the alarmists want you to believe, they kinda dropped it. Oh, and the whole thing with the world going through a cooling period now probably has something to do with it.
Well, even if we can't reverse the process, there are other good reasons to lower our energy consumption.
Energy isn't free; by polluting less, you often spend less in the long run... It's not only good for the planet, it's good for the economy in general.
Both shouldn't be seen as incompatible things.
Or we could put solar panels on roofs and convert the sunlight, that would ordinarily be
converted to heat, into electricity which I am sure we could find a use for.
The idea has some merit, but Chu is yapping his face off about Global Warming in order to make sure his buddies get more dumptruckfulls of money to further "study" and "quantify" exactly how much this might help.
But yes, it does make some sense - if you want lower energy bills during the summer don't have a highly light absorptive roof heating up your building. This means your energy bill will be lower - because - you will use less energy (duh). But using less energy means (probably) a reduced carbon footprint - how much depends on how much of your electricity comes from burning carbon. But, I consider reducing energy bills a better reason for doing this than feeding more grant money to a bunch of paper-pushing prostitutes who only say what they are paid to say by the parasites who are busy looting the world economy for their own benefit.
Now as to why roofs and not pavement - who pays? Yes there is a lot more pavement, but recall that rather heavy machines move over it. Paint jobs won't last long at all. Heck, here in Texas, they build roads with light colored concrete, and then after a few years cover em up with nice black asphalt. Resurfacing with asphalt is a whole lot cheaper than trying to maintain concrete directly.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Don't you know? The wind blows one way, than the other. We're doomed, then not doomed. Followed by we're so guilty we're already screwed that we should just wipe out humanity for the next apex species.
Yeah, seriously this stuff gets old pretty quick. Half the reason why you can't take stalk in most of it.
Om, nomnomnom...
You're worried about nighttime light pollution from white roofs reflecting more sunlight? (I doubt moonlight would be significant enough to be a factor.)
uhh, in the winter your roof is covered by snow anyways, so the color your roof is not going to make any difference. And for states/countries where it doesn't snow in the winter, you probably also don't need 12000KWh to heat them up.
-- the cake is a lie
In the winter, a dark, hot roof doesn't heat a house very effectively (heat rising and all that- plus there's less incident solar energy).
In the summer, there's a lots of solar energy hitting your roof; and a hot roof leads to a hot attic, which retards flow of heat/hot air in the house (heat rising and all that).
So, a light-colored roof has a much more profound impact on cooling than on heating.
A metal roof will help both heating and cooling- and snow slides off them- but they are not cheap!
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Is it likely to be reversble if it isn't happening?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Go look at google maps. Zoom in on a major city like San Francisco. The percentage of man-made dark surfaces are very tiny. I'd be stunned if it equaled a fraction of a percent world-wide. And personally I'd like to see some actual numbers on this before we start strip-mining for the titanium compound that makes white paint.
What's up with this box everyone has to think inside of or outside of? Why does there have to be a box?
Uhmmm, even painting the all the cities in the world mirror silver won't achieve anything. The world is much, much larger than the cities. Three quarters of the globe is covered in water. A miniscule part of the 25% that is land mass is covered in cities.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Asphalt has it's issues in cold climates.
Up here in Toronto, highways are concrete (yes concrete) with an asphalt layer on top.
Every summer the asphalt has to be repaired, leading to our two seasons.
Winter, and Road Repair.
Things may be similar in the midwest but I am only speculating.
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
"I don't want to get too technical on this black paint versus white paint and reflection of heat and so forth because it misses the point."
He always says something like that and what it really means is "I don't want to get too technical on this [Inser topic] becasue there are no technical aspects to my argument that are true.
Fight it on the rights issue, but don't fight it on a science issue when you do not understand the science.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
it could be possible that the global climate change is just part of a natural cycle, and is actually a good thing. But hey, let's just ignore that possibility and try every idea no matter how stupid that we can possibly think of to "fix" it.
Seriously, if science has taught us *anything* it's that tampering with things we don't understand almost always makes them worse. Even when - actually, maybe that should be especially when - we're trying to "correct" a "mistake we've made".
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
I know this is going to sound like a self-serving political statement from a hardcore Democrat -- but well done, President Obama.
My cynicism knows no bounds, which gives me to think what the Democratic response to this might have been if a Bush Administration official had proposed it. I'm betting something to the tune of, "Oh those damned Republicans they want to use band-aid technological fixes so they can go on driving their SUVs over baby polar bears for another ten years!"
I think this is a good idea, and if Chu can make it happen (again, colour me cynical) it'll be a good thing, particularly because of the reduced energy demand aspect, which will help with the whole peak oil deal.
But I can't help thinking about how mindless partisans (not necessarily you) would have reacted if the Offence rather than the Defence had suggested this (both parties are ultimately on the same team, of course, representing the plutocrats united against the people.)
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
What you have to understand is that there's climate change, and the movement to save the environment. Then, there's "global warming" and the movement to sell you yet more products that can "save the environment!!" (despite the fact that selling unnecessary products and not living simply enough is the main cause of damage)
Wouldn't it be better to simply plant grass instead? Ignoring the problem of having to reinforce roofs that is...
It depends on where you live. Completely.
First off, your home insulation should be good enough that you'd only see a modest benefit from the solar heating. Second, living that far north (above say, pennsylvania (39 degrees north/south for you furriners)) and the amount of daylight you get is pretty low in the winter anyway.
I live in the South, and I run the AC between 6 and 8 months of the year, and, thanks to a big tornado earlier this year, I heated my house for most of our short winter using free firewood. I'd definitely be open to having the roof resurfaced with something lighter colored.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
No, it isn't. It's a theory. You can debate how well supported the theory is, but to claim it is a fact is a sign of religion seeping into science.
You might look up the difference between "causality" and "correlation".
and it's generally accepted that this warming will continue until 2100.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
However, that's no reason to continue the behaviors that caused the warming. Any steps we can take will slow the warming and contribute to an eventual slow reversal.
Taking low-cost steps that reduce energy use is quite practical. Demanding that the US cut energy use by 80% is not.
and gestures that look like a drop in the sand to us are necessary to eventually reverse the tide.
I wonder, when the tide "reverses" because of the Maunder Minimum, will those who cried wolf admit they cried wolf, or will they use the reversal as proof that they were right? And do those who talk about "reversing tides" recognize the name Xerxes?
Are you sure that it's detrimental?
In general, the warmer periods in Earth's history coincide with a vigorous growth in the biosphere. More energy is available. Yeah, we lose Texas. but we gain large swaths of Canada and Siberia.
Just remember: Change isn't always bad. Climate change might be bad, might be good; most likely it will be a mix.
And far LESS expensive in the long term.
The answer to that is better insulation. It will help in the summer as well.
I'm socially liberal and despise the GOP, and my response to Bush proposing something like this would have been pure dumbfounded shock.
You just didn't get good sensical ideas like this out of his administration.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
They are just the flip side to some environmentalists (like the moron in TFA).
There have been white roof coatings and light colored roofing material available for decades.
In very hot areas they are in common use.
The whole article is just hot air in the first place so its tempting to 'piss in the punch' with a loaded question for the 'circle jerks'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There is a tipping point to the cement argument which is why you don't see it in truly cold locations like Canada. Cement roads have a longer lifespan than asphalt and it works out to be cheaper in some locations. In other locations ,due frost, the ground moves too much to see the return on investment. In Canada where there is heavy frost every winter a cement road would still be required to be repaired every year but at a much greater cost due to the cracks caused by frost. This is why you see more cement roads in the southern states and less in the northern. Asphalt's lower cost to install and repair makes it a better fit in colder areas. Neither is a perfect solution but each serves it's purpose in it's place. The perfect solution, as always, is to give us our flying cars.
This signature would be better if I was creative.
I wonder what kind of an environmental impact making, transporting and maintaining all the white paint would have.
Rush Limbaugh does sound like a doofus when he tries to talk about science, but he is no racist. He consistently agrees with Dr King's ideal of judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Rush agrees with and supports people who agree with his political viewpoint regardless of skin color, and opposes those who disagree in like kind. A man who had a problem with black people would not let Dr Walter Williams guest host his show so often, would not interview Justice Clarence Thomas on his program, etc. It saddens me that politics has become so polarized that it is considered normal for people who never listen to Rush Limbaugh to "know" that he is a racist, plus get modded funny based on that smear.
Ever heard of the Autobahn? Its Cement and its a a place as cold as Canada. The fact of the matter is the US doesnt build roads to the same quality (27inch depth) of the Autobahn so of course they're going to goto shit with 1 freeze.
Besides, when crude oil prices go back up, asphalt will be as expensive as cement anyhow
There is a certain appeal to flying cars. I would love a flying car but what about reliablity or a practical back up incase of power loss? Parachute? It seems like an impractical (but cool) dream with todays technology. However with the less than stellar drivers on the ground would you really want them in the air?
I can imagine the spectacular failures already such as sitting in the living room and having a wreck come through the roof. The plus side is that the insurance industry would love this.
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
It's not "the" Autobahn. "Autobahn" just means highway. It's like their version of the interstate. Some sections of Autobahn have speed limits too.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Sorry buddy.
President Bush received a striking 78% of the votes of white evangelicals in 2004, up 10 percentage points from 2000 and by far his highest level of support from any demographic group in the population. As he began his second term in office, the president had an approval rating of 72% among evangelicals, compared with 50% in the public as a whole.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/78/evangelicals-and-the-gop-an-update
I read a little bit of your site. Your total lack of knowledge of Latin American history is quite impressive. The next time you wonder why the entire region is so poor, you should read the documented and declassified accounts of the CIA training terrorists to kill civilians in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Brazil, and many other places. Or look back at our wholesale invasions of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Cuba... I could go on.
The point about political power doesn't mean I like one or the other. But Obama is going to hire people who fit a well educated liberal's idea of qualified, and McCain would have picked someone who graduated from Jerry Fallwell's Liberty University. You can look back over the last 8 years and see how well that worked out.
Oddly enough, I just read that "Liberty" University closed down it's Campus Democrats chapter. At least they know where their funding comes from.
They can scrape & repave large sections of a highway in a weekend if using asphalt, compared to weeks for cement. Of course, if they're doing cement it usually means they're tearing up the whole road and rebuilding it from the bottom up. Also, when the top layer of cement wears out, they often throw a layer of asphalt over it to extend the road's life a few more years.
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
The idea has some merit, but Chu is yapping his face off about Global Warming in order to make sure his buddies get more dumptruckfulls of money to further "study" and "quantify" exactly how much this might help.
So the idea has merit, but anybody that tries to study it is just in it for the money?
Because of the stupid way government budgets work... If you don't spend all of the budget you've been given, then you get less the following year, so by the last month of the financial year the surplus needs to be gotten rid of in any way possible.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Here are a few of Rush's "non-racist" comments that he's made. My favorite: "You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray (the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King). We miss you, James. Godspeed."
The man is an idiot blowhard. He has repeatedly shown that he is a ratings whore that will say anything to get people angry, and seems to have no grasp of complexity or subtlety in any form. His audience is mostly working class and middle-class whites, and he knows that he can use racially loaded comments to exploit racial stereotypes and fears that are latent within a substantial portion of that population. Just because he occasionally interviews a black guy doesn't absolve him from the idiotic and hurtful comments he has made over the years.
Whoever modded that insightful is a fool. Maybe he's right, but he's added one word to the conversation, which was in answer to a rhetorical question. That's not insightful. If anything, it's inciteful. Moderations aren't about how much you agree with the speaker, but about how much they add to the discussion: especially the insightful mod.
Look out!