“Amid all the talk of cutting carbon emissions, we never hear about the simple solutions that can make a vast difference to temperatures.”
The Guardian: ‘Paint it white’
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
He is right. Furthermore, as I have said a number of times on this blog, floating cities with highly reflective roofs will change ocean albedo from 3.5% to a massive 93.5% and do some very serious cooling. This is especially so if the floating city is in the band of high pressure (desert) zones around the world where cloud albedo is minimal.
Brisbane has a vast sheltered waterway at its door that is ideal for houseboat living. The floating district in Vancouver is one of the finest pieces of urban development I have ever seen. And the cost of flotation (pontoons etc) is substantially less than the cost of urban land.
It is also far easier to maintain services and infrastructure to floating houses because there is no need for digging up streets to fix pipes etc.
Sounds good doesn’t – but what area are we talking about – does it make any difference to the global climate. I don’t know.
Convince me it’s a big area.
Basically you need to MacPaint all the cities to high albedo in a GCM and see if it makes diddly squat difference.
Ian’s going to be popular turning Moreton Bay into Hong Kong harbour – don’t worry about a bridge to Straddie – you’ll be able to walk along the sampans. Great. First southerly drifting AGW tropical cyclone and you’ll have junks rammed up your junta.
Lomborg – goes for the big try-on in his article. ooooo ooooo – cities have warmed everyone had coped so WTF. Well that’s it for blondie’s knowledge of climate science. Yes it’s isn’t about the average temperature – it’s about changes in extremes of heat, drought, storms etc etc. Major changes in the world’s circulation systems.
So when you’re in a drying Amazon it’s simple – Bjorn mate will turn up the air-con, turn on the irrigation, and call an ambulance for the ecosystem.
Next ….
Luke, as usual, is an expert in doing nothing practical. People like him never miss a chance to tell us we must all do our little bit to help but if that little bit does not fit with his ideological baggage then it is dumped on for not being sufficient to do the whole job. And as usual, Dopi Wan can only visualise a concept if it is taken to extreme. The classic intellectual limits of a born lance corporal.
If oceanic albedo is only 3.5%, and insolation is 1000w/m2 then that ocean is absorbing 965w/m2 just to maintain current temperature. Put a roof over part of that ocean and albedo will be 93.5% with only 65w/m2 being absorbed by the roof and none by the water column below with the remaining 935w/m2 reflected back into space.
The water column beneath will absorb heat from the surrounding water and thereby reduce temperatures over a larger area.
There is no time at present to do the detailed maths to allow us to compare the measurable cooling that would result from a roof over water with the extremely vague speculation on the warming impact of the 25t annual CO2 emissions of the residents inside the house.
What we can say with certainty is that one will be real and measurable while the other will be bull$hit speculation.
you’re right Ian, reducing emissions would be bad for the economy – as you have allude to so often. It is emintently more sensible to have floating reflective cites. WTF??????????
Anthony, do the numbers if you can, for a 200m2 houseboat moored over a hectare of coral reef. On second thought, don’t bother, you’d be right out of your depth anyway.
These dumb turds still don’t get it. If there is a problem requiring solutions, why would anyone, other than a complete vegetable, need to see those solutions as mutually exclusive?
Here is a really new and fascinating concept for you guys. Why don’t we try both? Yes, boys, two whole variables.
Surely, if the situation is anywhere near as serious as the gonzoscenti would have us believe, then how come they still think we can afford the luxury of ignoring solutions that will cost nothing and reduce adverse impacts?
Or do they seriously think it will need substantial government financial assistance to get people to live on houseboats in sheltered sub-tropical waters, close to a major city.
The fact is, the green position only makes sense when one realises that they are, collectively, as dumb as duck $hit. They are so far removed from a practical solution that they would not recognise one if it was dry humping their leg.
Damnit, don’t you wish we had a resident cartoonist?
Vintage stuff – I kacked.
But getting back to it – how much of the Earth’s surface are you painting white. What’s your number.
For those who believe in the precautionary principle, we obviously need to immediately legislate to paint our roofs white. After all, if it saves just one life-
Can’t be any less effective than putting a windmill on the roof of Parliament House, as our loony Premier has done.
Mottsa, you are still scarred from that thread where you got hammered for not being able to understand the CO2 lag – I think the reference to comprehending multiple variables is a bit of catharsis for you, no?
Tell me mottsa, are you going to relocate existing cities or build new ones? Will you extend distribution lines for gas, fresh water, electricity out to the barrier reef? or produce on site – choice of technologies? how will you deliver supplies or will you grow local? Let me guess… eco tourism is the primary industry, but what are you burning to get out there? How will the kiddies get to school on the mainland or are we building a floating school? Exactly what % of the sea are you envisaging we cover up? Whats the market like for people wanting to drop everything to occupy houseboats?
I’d really need to see the detailed plans before I do the numbers Motty, I’m sure you can whip up a quick feasibility study.
Anthony, If you go back over the entire record you will find that it was I who first raised the issue of dealing with multiple variables. Luke then borrowed the term (without acknowledgement) about six months later.
And once again, you seem to assume that the proposal is to entirely relocate cities to the GBR when a few hundred thousand retirees would be a more than worthy contribution.
Just a hint, Anthony, work out the total amount of warming from 275ppm of CO2 (a doubling), multiply by 5.2Gt to get total CO2 increase, then divide that by the sum of 25tCO2/personyear x 2.6 people/house x 100 years and you will have the minute fraction of global temperature change that a normal house is responsible for.
You could then use that fraction to determine the area of the worlds oceans that would be the nominal responsibility of that household. Then get to work on the basic insolation changes and you will be in the ball park.
O/T, but Jimi Hansen is such a fine fella this little exchange deserves to be noted:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/NMAletters_20071121.pdf
And remember people, tomorrow you’re voting so save our planet. You know you want to!!!
ahhh…….so = to, goddammit!
Shouldn’t we be painting our cities black in preparation for global cooling?
“Damnit, don’t you wish we had a resident cartoonist?”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/issuecartoons/2007/11/26/cartoons_20071119?slide=5#showHeader
Good grief: “it was I who first raised the issue of dealing with multiple variables”
Mottsa, you’ve assumed the CO2 footprint for a house on the water will be the same as for a house on land. Is that reasonable?
I think you have also assumed away how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere – you will have to work out the total emissions over the lifetime of the home and compare that to how much ‘cooling’ you are producing from your houseboat. You are only ever going to produce a fixed amount of cooling, but the amount of warming you produce will be ever increasing.
You have also assumed away issues such as peak oil and peak gas, the former likely to affect how your retirees motor to an from their floating palaces.
Do the thought experiment, could you increase emissions and increase houseboat coverage forever?
In the meantime on planet Earth, boats which are especially designed for plowing through Antarctic ice, are hitting icebergs and sinking. Here I thought that sort of thing was going the way of the Dodo.
Tell you what we should do. Let’s all go skiing. Let all that white powdery stuff take care of the albedo.
I lived on my yacht for over 12 of the 19 years I owned it, so I reckon I have scored enough brownie points to drive my V8 sports car as often as I like. Well, as often as I can afford.
After I got some sense, & threw out the wind generator, & solar stuff, I charged my 12 V lighting system with 2.5 liters of fuel per week, with a Honda gen set.
My fridge & cooking were supplied with under 7 Lbs of gass per month, I used about a gallon of outboard fuel per week, & less than 20 gallons of diesel a year, in the main engine.
It was a sailing boat, after all. I only had to replace one of them, in that time.
And now I learn I was reducing global warming as well. That must be extra points.
So come on Luke, equal that for treading, or floating, lightly on the planet.
While I was in Sydney I had a continual fight with authorities, all of whom wanted to make me move into some bloody great high rise or some such, so they could count me.
Hey Motty, how about we make everyone in China wear a reflective white conical hat? I reckon that’d contribute at least another 5 degrees celsius of cooling.
Spot on, Hasbeen. Melaleuca could use his conical dunces hat as the design standard, but, alas, he was even pipped at the post for that title too.
Wrong Anthony, the houseboat continues to cool for as long as it remains afloat.
Reckon the queues for flotilla island are going to massive guys.
Taking a dump in the Bay from 100,000 house boats might make things a little crappy though.
Motty, I didn’t say the houseboat will stop cooling, I said the amount of cooling it produces is fixed. (I sense the need to understand multiple variables coming on)
In 10 years time, the amount of instantaneous cooling will still be the same as it was today, whereas the amount of warming will be equal to however much CO2 was released over the course of the 10 years minus however much was absorbed. My understanding is that CO2 has a lifetime of over 100 years in the atmosphere.
Hence, you need to look at the net impact of the houseboat over its lifetime.
Wrong, Anthony. The current ocean albedo (3.5%) is what is required to maintain existing temperatures so a change as fundamental as the turn around from 3.5% to 93.5% will produce a cumulative cooling, albeit on a scale that may be limited. The fact that ocean currents will diffuse that cooling effect will not mean the cumulative impact is negated.
The ultimate test will then be to compare the warming effect of a one tonne column of atmospheric CO2 with cooling effect of 1m2 of rooftop. The next step is to compare the cost of preventing the CO2, but not with the cost of the roof. For the people in the house will need a roof anyway so the point of comparison is with the cost of building a roof over water instead of over land.
And as the cost of urban land is already $200,000 for a 600m2 block in Brisbane, for example, then there is actually a clear financial gain from building over water. Pontoons can be constructed for only a fraction of the cost of land, leaving more than enough change for associated services like sewerage, etc.
But people actually value waterfront or canal estate land much higher than ordinary suburban land (at least double) so there is not the slightest doubt that key modifications to human settlement patterns can be achieved in a way that will substantially reduce and offset their “warming deficits”.
And who knows what sort of other mitigation works could be funded by the taxed capacity of water based housing approvals?
what can I say ian, I’m convinced, where can I get pontoons and white paint
I reckon all this reflecting business from old Klu Klux clan uniforms will create a cyclonic like vortex over Moreton Bay. Mottsa is setting up a mega-gradient as the surrounding warm air flows into this mega-Mottsa-marina. Very powerful magic.
Luke, your contribution to this thread has been at a level normally expected from the village idiot. Shouldn’t you be bonking a goat or something by now? Run along now, there’s a good fellow, I think the DG is calling you.
Well gee Ian – what do you think happens when you create an intense area of differential temperature and pressure like you will with you mega-marina. You haven’t done the calculations have you. And have you considered the airport hazard from the glare – worse than laser beams…
It is interesting to note that Byron Shire, the supposedly greenest council in the country, stipulates that highly reflective roof material may not be used on all new dwellings. It seems “every little bit” is contrary to the party line.
Which highlights the stupidity of Luke’s last post. Not too long ago highly reflective roofs were the only material available. Aeroplanes also flew lower and cities were more concentrated. But did we have any pilots blinded by roof tops? Of course not.
And what actually happens in the supposedly “intense area of differential temperature” is that cold water sinks and warm water flows in at the top, thereby ensuring that the water is never too cold nor under circulated.
Indeed, there are currently a number of sites on Moreton Bay that have outbreaks of noxious “fireweed” that are a direct consequence of localised warm water. And one must wonder how many house boats, at what density, it would take to lower the temperature by the 1 or 2 degrees needed to prevent the outbreak taking place.
But that, of course, would be a practical solution and Luke just likes having his leg humped.
Well gee that will be good – hey dude let’s moor your new Mottsa sampan over the toxic Lyngbya outbreak – don’t get any on your or you’ll get skin rash, fever, burns, blistering, asthma, and gastrointestinal disorders. Should be popular.
But elsewhere of course the waters will be shaded and black – no phytoplankton and no photosynthesis for the sea grass. And with the occasional cyclonic vortex spinning out of control while blinded jet liners crash into the sunset.
Just another day in the Mottsa engineered new udopia.
If Luke were a naturalists armpit he would know that the sun moves through the day and the bit in shadow in the morning is in full sun in the afternoon. And sea grass will continue to grow in the same way that pasture still grows under woodland trees. That is, plenty of phytoplankton and plenty of photosynthesis for the sea grass.
And to top it off he returns to the classic green scarenarios with cyclonic vortex spinning out of control and blinded jet liners crashing into the sunset. What a sad little plodder.
But this is the mega Mottsa marina with 100s of sampans. No gaps – cheek to jowl junks.
Not enough sampans – not enough effect. Surely you’re trying to have a major impact.
Oh look I give up – I just wanted to see if you were stupid enough to argue the point.
Yeah, right Luke, remain, at all times, in shallow water. You have a serious lack of intellectual ballast.