President Obama’s energy adviser has suggested all the world’s roofs should be painted white as part of efforts to slow global warming.
Professor Steven Chu, the US Energy Secretary, said the unusual proposal would mean homes in hot countries would save energy and money on air conditioning by deflecting the sun’s rays.
More pale surfaces could also slow global warming by reflecting heat into space rather than allowing it to be absorbed by dark surfaces where it is trapped by greenhouse gases and increases temperatures.
In a wide-ranging discussion at the three-day Nobel laureate Symposium in London, the Professor described climate change as a “crisis situation”, and called for a whole host of measures to be introduced, from promoting energy efficiency to renewable energy such as wind, wave and solar.
The Nobel Prize-winning physicist said the US was not considering any large scale “geo-engineering” projects where science is used to reverse global warming, but was in favour of “white roofs everywhere”.
Newsweek seems credible enough to me.
#29
1) I don’t really care what you said because you were not talking to me.
2) junkscience.com is Steven Milloy’s site, though I am sure you read that on a blog somewhere and took it as fact.
3) If you have seen a more thorough analysis of historic climate data than what is presented in the link I provided, please share with the rest of us.
4) Please stop cluttering the blog with multiple comments which say the same thing over and over again, especially those which offer nothing of interest and consist simply of attacks and commands of people to give you links.
Saying that radiation emitted by the roof at night makes it a
Okay, here’s the deal. Visible light passes through the atmosphere pretty good. It is the infrared light that gets trapped by greenhouse gases.
Visible light from Sun hits roof. Roof absorbs. At night it emits infrared which is trapped by greenhouse gases.
A good reflective roof reflects visible light which CAN escape.
I find it amusing that people criticize the science of a Nobel Laureate while illustrating a lack of understanding of high school science (actually, this topic is covered in the GEMS Guide “Invisible Universe” which is targeted at grades 5-8).
I live in Tucson…lots of reflective roofs here (including mine which just got a new reflective coating a couple of weeks ago).
The sun drives ALL the weather, so yes its important.
The distance of the Earth to the Sun is relevant.
The amount of snow coverage is important.
The humidity level is important.
and on and on. I don’t know how many “variables” are in the IPCC model but what make the model complicated is the number of interactive variables.
Seems to me only an idiot, or a paid shill, would “assume” that HOOMANS pumping billions of tons of sequestered carbon into the air every years would have NO EFFECT?
Hah!!! Not likely.
Now, what CAN WE ACTUALLY DO to help?
Change the heat of the sun? Change our orbit? The humidity?
Stick your head(s) in the sand if you wish, but if you don’t follow the best science available, then what exactly are you following?
Junk Science. Why does it cover the Judge Sotomayor appointment?
An expert in all conservative issues?
Haw!!!
http://junkscience.com/
Please post a credible link showing evidence of Global Warming. (Hint: as a starter, the IPCC, James Hansen and Al Gore among others are not credible sources.)
Now please excuse me, Chu made me laugh so hard I pooped myself. I need to clean myself with environmentally unfriendly toilet paper. I’m going to use a lot more than I need then flush 3 times to waste water and piss off the Sierra Club too.
33, It seems that man-made global warming is a foregone conclusion when it’s still being hotly debated.
The IPCC computer models used to “prove” man-made global warming operate on the assumption that CO2 is the driving force. That has yet to be proven as well as how significant human CO2 contribution truly is.
Heck, the environmentalist wackos are already griping that the beef industry is contributing to man-made global warming and that we should all eat less beef.
If a loud, ignorant, industry funded, minority voice creates a hot debate, then I guess I have to rethink my position of evolution and whether or not women should have control over their own bodies.
Some Disagreement = Hot Debate.
Good to know.
Let’s just start by painting all belching and farting black cows white and see how that works.
Wow! What a fabulous idea.
Obama’s front man for the tree-huggers, Steven Chu, US Energy Secretary, says painting your roof white will offset the global warming effects of all the cars in the world for 11 years.
That sounds fantastic. It sounds like such an easy solution.
Right?
But when you read the details you find out there is just one additional little issue to address.
He also wants all the black asphalt roads and highways throughout the world converted to concrete.
Hmmm, how much do you think that would cost?
And how much carbon would be produced with removal of all the asphalt roads, as well as the production and transportation of all that concrete?
What a buffoon.
Professor John Christy (lead author for the 2001 IPCC report) has this to say about the flaws of the IPCC: http://tinyurl.com/2lb4sn
Until science can prove a causal relationship and establish exactly how significant humans’ contribution is to the warming process, there’s no need to be a Chicken Little and use the force of government to modify everyone’s behavior.
That is unless you’re someone like GE, Philips, and Sylvania among others.
I’m all for supporting a woman to control her own body if you’re willing to meet me halfway and support men to have the right in denying financial support in the event she’s a gold digger and wants to keep the baby. That would be fair, no?
Living in Canada, I would assume that painting my roof white would disproportionately raise my energy usage to heat my home 7 months of the year. The best idea would be to invent a roof that changes colour for the season.
When I was younger (over 20 years ago) and full of shi…. enthusiasm, I put a white roof on my house to lower my cooling expenses. That was long before global warming climate change was fertilized.
Can I tell you what an eyesore that was? Can I even begin to try and describe the annoying comments and complaints? Meh. No noticeable change to my cooling costs until I unplugged the sucker and learned to enjoy sticky and sweaty.
#41–Guyver==fair link. Thanks.
Sad truth is, no one will ever “prove” human caused global warming or even lesser included factoids BECAUSE you can’t run an experiment with a control subject matching planet Earth.
Only “the best science available” can be our guide. What do you think the best science indicates?
Certainly when CO2 pollution is ALSO causing ocean acidification, lake sterilization, asthma, amphibian sex changes, and other ills, of course governments should act to “coerce” its citizens not to befoul the common resources of all. What do you think the legitimate role of government is?
I certainly “feel” the fairness of the anti-gold digger hypothesis and will meet you at she should be barred living off the child’s support payments AND the child should have full access to general tax supported programs of minimal support.
Bobbo, it’s now referred to “climate change” since Earth is currently on a cooling trend.
TIME MAGAZINE, 1974, “Another Ice Age?”:
“Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
VANCOUVER SUN, 2006, “Baffin Island a global warming hot spot.”
“Sea ice is disappearing from the waters around Baffin Island nearly four times as fast as the rest of the Arctic, according to new research published Tuesday.
The ice concentration around the island has decreased by 10 to 20 per cent per decade since 1979, the year when satellite records became available. The Arctic as a whole has averaged a three to five per cent per decade loss in that same time.”
Sorry, the /b didn’t work. Global warming pundit in 2006 claims that satellite data wasn’t available until 1979. Convenient, no? Climatologist George J. Kukla miraculously used satellite data in 1974 … but that data doesn’t support the “global warming” catch phrase, so lets just pretend it wasn’t available eh?
There was no “consensus” among qualified scientist in the 70’s that there was a long term trend towards cooling.
Once again: logically, would pumping billions of tons of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere most likely have no effect or some effect on climate?
What of acidification from CO2?
What is the best advice science has to give us today—and if you don’t follow science, what are you following?
I just had a terrible thought.
Maybe, just maybe, the science has improved over the last 35 YEARS. Maybe, as science oft does, someone discovered that they were wrong, because they discovered what was right.
I’ve got a climate change headache.
Bobbo, I agree that CO2 must have “some” effect on temperature. I also agree that CO2 causes acidification when dissolved in water.
What I don’t buy into yet is the skew caused by political interests and manipulation, the weakness of research tied to money and fame on the “hot” topic of the decade, the misrepresentation that because a paper is published and “reviewed” that it must be 100% right, but mostly I don’t like the smugness of the climatology community when they say that the debate is over, even though there is plenty of unaddressed, conflicting research, and being on the “wrong side” in this debate is subject to extreme criticism and/or career suicide.
#50–JimR==I can agree with your slightly overstated concerns, but really==you are dealing with almost the political side show and not the science.
Don’t ever confuse the sideshow with the substance.
“dealing ALMOST ENTIRELY with the political side show”
#49–Ah Yea==there is the kind of intelligent posting I admire you for. Do you know there was someone here last week who stole your nick?
Unfortunately the line between politics and science has become blurred on this subject. The credibility of this particular group of scientists has been damaged in many ways for me and others… an example is the lie in the Vancouver Sun article “1979, the year when satellite records became available.” (post #46)
Bush administration said use plastic and duct tape for a “terrorist attacks” and the Obama administration gives us tire pressure and paint our roofs white for “global warming”…
Wow, our goobermint at work, makes ya’ feel proud to be an Amerikan…
Here’s a thought – what about painting parking lots white with black lines? Could reduce heat by a lot.
Considering that most of the Earth is brown and green with dark blue oceans one could conclude their conclusions are WRONG. But by all means paint your roof white. Screw it, let’s paint everything white cause it’s worked for Antarctica and the North Pole. Obama has some real dim bulbs working for him.
#41 “Until science can prove a causal relationship and establish exactly how significant humans’ contribution is to the warming process, there’s no need to be a Chicken Little and use the force of government to modify everyone’s behavior”
I’m sorry this is quite possibly the stupidest statement posted here by someone other than Alfred1.
You anti-AGW folks just like to confuse the issues with hyperbole that idiots will buy, but us science savvy thinkers, see right through this bullshit.
Fact 1: Global warming is happening, and has been happening for 150 years or so. Tons of scientific evidence to back it up. Denying Global Warming is happening is like denying water is wet.
Fact 2: CO2 is one of many “green house” gasses that cause Global Warming to happen. Now deniers like to point out methane and other natural gasses are far bigger green house gasses than CO2 is and that is true except the amount of methane and other natural gasses has not increased by any significant measure in the last 150 years to account for GW. This is the key question to understanding the root cause of Global Warming, not “how much?” but “what’s going up?”. Deniers purposely get these two questions mixed up to confuse stupid people.
Fact 3: CO2 is the one green house gas that has increased significantly in the past 150 years to account for the observed Global Warming. The significant increase cannot be accounted from natural processes. Natural sources of C02 are very well known and are not increasing in significant numbers, except for the population of human beings that is, who expel CO2 every time they breathe. There are also known destroyers of CO2 gas, primarily plant life, ocean algae etc., that have not increased significantly to meet the increase in CO2. This is another denier story “CO2 is a naturally occurring gas that is good for plants”, yet another misnomer about the difference between “how much” and “what’s going up?”
Fact 4: The one source of CO2 that has increased at the same rate as the observed increase in CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels, in particular coal and oil — a purely human activity.
The causal correlation of these facts is heavily supported in hundreds of scientific peer reviewed studies.
So the first part of your statement Until science can prove a causal relationship and establish exactly how significant humans’ contribution is to the warming process is a lie. The “until” part was 15 to 20 years ago.
Which of course makes the second part of the statement “there’s no need to be a Chicken Little and use the force of government to modify everyone’s behavior”, which is a lie unto itself, even more pointless. This second part is an amazingly ignorant statement of basic moral philosophy. For example:
“Until we prove that drinking under the influence of alcohol kills people, there’s no need to be a Chicken Little and use the force of government to modify everyone’s behavior”
Using less energy is an obvious good thing, cleaning the air is an obvious good thing, we do not need to wait until every anti-science “ditto head” is convinced to start taking action that will obviously benefit everybody in the long run.
Cheap.
Easy.
Why not?
#58 keeps mentioning the past 150 years as though it is the Holy Grail of Global Warming alarmists.
He conveniently sidesteps the continuing cyclical nature of the atmosphere. The world had a similar warming spell during the middle ages. But that is avoided because it conflicts with the believers of the religion of Global Warming.
#23 – Patdick,
What an excellent comeback. Did you have to think long and hard about how to counter the great many points on my blog with that hollow statement?