Please keep this debate among yourselves. I offered my physics in detail in the form of a patent publication mostly because I spent 10 years with the highest level scientists and I know the politics. My gift will be offered royalty free if even more profound cooling effects are proven by better modeling. What you need to worry about much more is the potentially flawed infrared spectroscopy behind the popular greenhouse theory.
I spent 10 years rubbing elbows with ~100 renowned molecular spectroscopists. The mathematics involved in rotational, vibrational, and translational energy transfer from excited molecules (i.e. atmospheric molecules which absorb infrared energy) - and transferring their absorbed energy to many other atmospheric molecules [such as nitrogen, oxygen and dozens of other gases], CAN re-radiate IR energy at different wavelengths, relatively un-impeded through the atmosphere into space. I call this radiation liberation theory the "kiss and go" theory where copious gaseous collisions transfer ENERGY and liberate it into space at DIFFERENT more transparent wavelengths. Thus, present super-computer climate modeling does not yet incorporate such extraordinary mathematics at all of earth's atmospheric temperatures and pressures. If it did include such extraordinary math [probably surpassing super computer capabilities], it just might PROVE that rather simple and very misleading satellite atmospheric absorption spectroscopy is far from adequate to quantify the IR ENERGY FLOW through the atmosphere. And thus, if indeed earth has never experienced thermal runaway when it easily could have thousands of times long long ago... if water vapor and CO2 do indeed couple the above three energy mechanisms to other molecules which do more freely liberate IR... then your greenhouse fear theory might well be very flawed and it might only be 1-10% of what you have been told in the lemming vine. Simple atmospheric IR absorption measurements are not that simple. Therefore, on the hypothesis that there really is an explanation for largely disregarding some or most of the greenhouse theory, then my water evaporative cooling proposal would be even more effective than I projected. Moreover, if the climate models are refined to more accurately reflect my exact northern hemispherical evaporation proposal, considerably higher cooling should result. Far above everything else contained in that the oversimplified "newspaper" release, I have tackled a solution to what I call NATURAL GLOBAL WARMING, which is 10-20 times hotter than mere human GW. And instead of committing trillions to human warming solutions, I recommend spending mere billions [three orders of magnitude less] to solve a one order of magnitude larger global problem. Thus, if you insist on spending ALL OUR BULLETS on CO2 and you run out of money and resources to produce negligible changes in the giant undisputed natural melt that we have been experiencing for 20,000 years, you might be quite red-faced. Four more comments before I depart: 1. I saw no one suggesting the use of desert sun energy to power my desert [arid] evaporators. It's in my patent petition. It's pretty obvious that arid locations are ideal for solar collection and power- pumping of seawater [net necessarily solar "electricity" BTW]. 2. I never suggested drawing salty seawater far inland to evaporate it. I also never suggested evaporating 100% of the salty water to leave salt dust behind. In fact, it's quite difficult to evaporate all the water form seawater [which grows more saline as water evaporates]. I simply suggested allowing the remaining super-saturated saltwater to run back into the oceans from literally THOUSANDS of miles of potential ocean coastlines all around the world - particularly north of the northern Hadley cell. 3. To those who groundlessly expect water vapor to simply endlessly accumulate in the atmosphere, may I suggest an old old colloquialism? What goes up MUST come down. And "what HAS gone up for billions of years HAS come down" on a reliable basis. 4 Finally, to be vividly clear, I never once suggested there is "no truth" to greenhouse effects. They ARE real. However, there are possible sound scientific explanations as to why greenhouse and thermal runaway effects are NOT as intense as cartoon computer generated movies suggest. Earth seems to have not one but TWO giant thermal feedback loops... one negative and one positive. Both feedbacks seem to be profoundly self limited and water-based. Makes many scientists crack open the bible, huh? Earth is robust. It is MAN who demands a more precise planetary thermostat. On her own, mother nature presents a highly precise thermostat... mankind simply "wants" ~ +/- 1C to protect our vital seaports [macro delivery food, energy, and materials]. So it shall be if or when we stop debating and take the correct benign paths. See my 2-hour personal video redacted to 4 minutes here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/greg_gordon/story/58124.html Other than that, please feel free to debate this for 50 more years. I've done all that I care to. I'm not included in this debate. Have a great day. Ron Ace On Dec 20, 6:15 am, Stephen Salter <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All > > The evaporation from the Ron Ace spray will certainly remove latent heat > from the atmosphere but exactly the same amount of heat will be returned > when the vapour condenses as rain somewhere else. While it remains as > water vapour it will be adding to amount of the greenhouse gases and so > working in the wrong direction. However if it condenses to form clouds > where there were none before then these will reflect solar energy back > out to space and will be doing what we want. If it adds to the liquid > water content of existing clouds by making the drops in them bigger it > will make them less reflective. Finally the cooling of the lower > atmosphere will make it more stable and will reduce normal evaporation > from the sea downwind of the spray source so reducing both vapour and > cloud cover. One large eddy study, by a top-class atmospheric physicist > who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of ridicule from less able ones, > showed that the stability effect overrode the evaporation one but it > would be useful to compare results. We need to know the balance between > all four effects. > > If anyone knows Ron's email please point him to the five files in > > http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Failed%20rain%20maker/ > > Stephen Salter > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design > School of Engineering and Electronics > University of Edinburgh > Mayfield Road > Edinburgh EH9 3JL > Scotland > tel +44 131 650 5704 > fax +44 131 650 5702 > Mobile 07795 203 195 > [email protected]http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > Alvia Gaskill wrote: > > I don't think this would make any clouds at all. You can have very > > humid air and no clouds or rain. As far as the evaporation of water > > itself releasing sufficient IR to space, the levels of the water > > injection are too low: 20-200ft. Finally, I don't think the energy > > costs are correctly estimated. It should take a lot more than the > > electricity from a 550MW power plant to simulate the flow of the > > Mississippi River. Am I right or all wet, so to speak? > > >http://www.physorg.com/news148887530.html > > > Inventor's 'refrigeration system' for planet shows promise, but > > scientists are skeptical > > > December 19th, 2008 in Space & Earth science / Earth Sciences > > > *Ron Ace says that his breakthrough moments have come at unexpected > > times - while he lay in bed, eased his aging Cadillac across the > > Chesapeake Bay Bridge or steered a tractor around his rustic, > > five-acre property.* > > > In the seclusion of his Maryland home, Ace has spent three years glued > > to the Internet, studying the Earth's climate cycles and careening > > from one epiphany to another - a 69-year-old loner with the moxie to > > try to solve one of the greatest threats to mankind. > > > Now, backed by a computer model, the little-known inventor is making > > public a U.S. patent petition for what he calls the most "practical, > > nontoxic, affordable, rapidly achievable" and beneficial way to curb > > global warming and a resulting catastrophic ocean rise. > > > Spray gigatons of seawater into the air, mainly in the Northern > > Hemisphere, and let Mother Nature do the rest, he says. > > > The evaporating water, Ace said, would cool the Earth in multiple > > ways: 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. > > > McClatchy Newspapers has followed Ace's work for three years and > > obtained a copy of his 2007 patent petition for what he calls "a > > colossal refrigeration system with a 100,000-fold performance multiplier." > > > "The Earth has a giant air-conditioning problem," he said. "I'm > > proposing to put a thermostat on the planet." > > > Although it might sound preposterous, a computer model run by an > > internationally known global warming scientist suggests that Ace's > > giant humidifier might just work. > > > Kenneth Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution's > > Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, roughly simulated > > Ace's idea in recent months on a model that's used extensively by top > > scientists to study global warming. > > > 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. > > > "In the computer simulation, evaporating water was almost as effective > > as directly transferring ... energy to space, which was surprising to > > me," he said. > > > Ace said that the cooling effect would be several times greater if the > > model were refined to spray the same amount of seawater at strategic > > locations. > > > He proposes to install 1,000 or more devices that spray water 20 to > > 200 feet into the air, depending on conditions, from barren stretches > > of the West African coast, bluffs on deserted Atlantic Ocean isles, > > deserts adjoining the African, South American and Mediterranean coasts > > and other arid or windy sites. To maximize cloud formation, he'd avoid > > the already humid tropics, where most water vapor quickly turns to rain. > > > "It does seem like evaporating water outside the tropics would be more > > effective," Caldeira said. > > > The spraying would be targeted mainly at higher, northern latitudes, > > where Ace thinks that air currents known as Ferrel Cells could deliver > > heavy snow to the Arctic, offsetting the melting of the polar icecap. > > > It stretches the imagination - and perhaps credulity - to suggest that > > a solitary inventor with no government support could solve global > > warming, especially a man who never earned a degree despite studying > > physics for much of a decade at the University of Maryland. > > > Several scientists who reviewed Ace's patent petition for McClatchy > > reacted with caution to outright derision over its possibilities, but > > some softened their views upon learning of the computer model. > > > Ace's invention rests on some unconventional theories. > > > He contends that the planet is 5 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit too hot to > > stop the meltdown from the last ice age 20,000 years ago, not a couple > > of degrees too warm, as government scientists say. He proposes to > > lower the temperature by 3.5 degrees to 4 degrees, leaving a cushion > > to avoid tipping toward another ice age and always retaining the > > option of turning the sprayers down or off, if needed. > > > He suspects that deforestation is a major cause of global warming, not > > just because trees absorb carbon dioxide, but also because a > > large-leaf tree can wick up and evaporate hundreds of gallons of water > > in a single day. Ace said that the absence of tens of billions of > > trees, destroyed by southward-creeping glaciers thousands of years ago > > and again by man's recent timber cutting, has left the planet > > "slightly dehumidified," reducing cloud cover. > > > Ace points to recent research that found snow cover is shrinking even > > at below-freezing altitudes on Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro and other > > mountaintops, a change that's attributed to declining snowfall. > > > It would be relatively easy to design spraying equipment to carry out > > his plan to fill that water vapor deficit, but it would take a major > > international effort to install 1,000 large spraying devices, or > > thousands of smaller ones. If fully deployed, the 15,800 cubic meters > > of sprayed water per second would be equivalent to the flow at the > > mouth of the Mississippi River and would require enough energy to > > power a medium-sized city. > > > However, spraying only a portion of that amount for a decade would be > > enough to cool the equivalent of current man-made global warming, > > estimated to range up to 0.76 degrees Fahrenheit, Ace said. Such > > cooling, he said, could buy mankind decades of time for more research > > and precision. > > > Depending on its scale, the water evaporation scheme would cost > > anywhere from hundreds of millions of dollars to billions of dollars a > > year, but Ace said it still would have "a net positive financial > > effect." It would prevent global warming-related damage, he said, and > > the extra rainfall would provide the cheapest way to transport water > > to drought-stricken regions, counteract desert expansions, increase > > natural irrigation for crops and boost the output of hydroelectric > > power plants. > > > Added rainfall also would reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, > > because cold raindrops carry more carbon dioxide back to the oceans > > than is released when water evaporates, he said. > > > Caldeira's computer results could surprise many scientists because > > water vapor is a greenhouse gas widely recognized to be more powerful > > than carbon dioxide. The simulation suggests, however, that water > > vapor's cooling effects overwhelm its heat-trapping properties. > > > Ace has his doubters, partly because he took the patent route rather > > than submitting his idea for scientific peer review. A patent > > certifies that an invention is unique, not that it would work. > > > Douglas Davis, an atmospheric chemist at Georgia Tech University who's > > known Ace for years, lauded some of his inventions but called his > > global cooling idea "big-time speculation" because so little is known > > about the behavior of water in the atmosphere. > > > "In the case of the computer models that are used for global warming, > > I know that the hydrological cycle is a critical component of those > > models, and the hydrological cycle is not well understood," Davis > > said, stressing that he's not a climate expert. > > > David Travis, a University of > > ... > > read more ยป --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
