Getting smaller
0 comment Tuesday, November 11, 2014 |
I saw part of a discussion on Cavuto's show about this story:
Obama plan: paint roofs white to save the world
Steven Chu, who directed the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and was professor of physics and molecular and cell biology at the University of California before being appointed by President Obama to be the U.S. Energy Secretary, says white paint is what's needed to fix global warming.
Chu, who according to the federal agency's website, successfully applied the techniques he developed in atomic physics to molecular biology and recently led the lab in pursuit of new alternative and renewable energies, has told the London Times that by making paved surfaces and roofs lighter in color, the world would reduce carbon emissions by as much as parking all the cars in the world for 11 years.
The DOE says Chu's areas of expertise are in atomic physics, quantum electronics, polymer and biophysics. According to the Times, he was speaking at the St. James' Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium, in which the Times partners for media events, when he described his simple and "completely benign" � "geo-engineering" plan.
He said building codes should require that flat roofed-buildings have their tops painted white. Visible sloped roofs could be painted "cool" colors. And roads could be made a lighter color. ''
My first reaction to this story was incredulity, followed by uneasy laughter. Are they serious? It seems like something out of The Onion, but they are serious.
The FReepers discuss the WND story here, and Rush Limbaugh's comments are quoted:
They don't want to stop at roofs. Making roads and roofs a paler color could have this effect. "It was a geo-engineering scheme that was 'completely benign' and would keep buildings cooler and reduce energy use from air conditioning." How much paint is this going to take, by the way? How much of a footprint does paint manufacturing leave? Here's the real question about this. I need a scientist to answer this for me. I understand how clouds at altitude can help reflect the heat. But I want to know how something white on the surface of the planet, where does that reflected heat go? If the road is white, and the heat reflects, aren't you going to boil if you happen to be walking on it in the summertime? Where does this reflected heat go? Are we being told here that reflected heat is not damaging at all but direct heat is? It seems to me if we had global warming wouldn't we want dark roofs to absorb the heat? Yeah, it may be cooling your house a little bit, but� This is all such gobbledygook.''
I'm no scientist, but it all sounds rather silly to me, and a few practical questions come to mind for me, as well as for some of the FReepers.
Commenter T Minus Four says
Oh for the love of Mike! Think of the epic paint fumes and the billions of dirty brushe, plastic drop sheets, cans and buckets clogging up the land fills. And who�s going to pay for all the paint? That stuff ain�t cheap. I am also unaware of any paint that will stick to asphalt shingles.
Wonder if white roofs will raise the cost of heating homes?
Don�t these people ever think past the ends of their noses?
Wow, think of the run on Lowes. Side note: do you ever wonder what all the people in a hurricane zone did with all the millions of sheets of plywood that were bought last hurricane scare?''
Another says
Anyone who has studied the GW hoax knows that part of the claim of those who support the GW propaganda is that it is manmade structures REFLECTING heat that gets trapped by the atmosphere and adds to the GW.
Painting roofs white would only (theoretically) increase this effect.''
That occurred to me, too.
And this:
Houses in the south had mostly white shingles on the roof, pre air conditioning, and they still do in Florida. So, this thinking is nothing new.
Trouble is, if reflective surfaces cooled the environment as a whole, and not just the surfaces, the Sahara wouldn�t be quite so hot, now would it?''
I am not a total unbeliever in ''climate change'', which I now understand to be the preferred term for what we are observing in our environment, but call me a global warming agnostic. I just think that the jury is out; there is some evidence that we are not in a ''warming'' phase but entering a cooling phase.
I do know that there is much that we don't know about long-term climate trends; we do know that the earth has always gone through cycles where climate is concerned. The people who lived at the time of the Ice Ages may have believed that the earth was going to freeze forever, and never warm up again. Why should we believe that the ''global warming'' trend will be long-term or irreversible?
While it's prudent to anticipate the worst and prepare accordingly, and to try to do all that is humanly possible to forestall any destructive trends in the environment, there is a limit to what is in fact humanly possible. If there is a dangerous warming trend underway, how do we know that any efforts we make will be enough to reverse it? And the length of time required to see any real change as a result of our human efforts is more time than we have -- if in fact the global warming believers are correct. Even if we returned to a much more primitive 'environmentally friendly'' lifestyle, which in fact would cause great economic and cultural disruption, if not chaos, we might not be able to reverse any warming trend.
The news media periodically run these alarmist stories about rising sea levels, melting glaciers and icebergs. They warn that we will have ''many millions of climate refugees'' who will have to be evacuated to Western countries to escape the flooding. What a handy coincidence that the only places for safety, apparently, will be in our countries, and the only 'climate refugees' will be the usual economic migrants and mendicants who are now looking for a chance to emigrate here.
Well, since it seems that the globalist plan is to resettle these people among us anyway, why not add the urgent 'global warming' refrain to the same old song?
If human beings are causing 'global warming', presuming there is a warming cycle going on, it would seem that we lack the time and the luxury of being able to effect the kinds of sweeping, disruptive changes that would be needed to even hope to reverse things.
Human beings have lived through climate changes in the past. European men in particular survived Ice Ages and have lived in every kind of climate, surely it does not befit us to react hysterically to the prospect of yet another climate cycle. Long ago my lefty anthropology teachers taught us that what differentiated human beings from other species was the ability to make cultural and technological adaptations to varying environments. If that's true, I have faith that at least some of us will survive any scary ''global warming'' scenario.
I am concerned not about a man-made global warming process, which may or may not be happening, but about a man-made transformation of the earth that involves moving populations en masse from the Third World to our world. I am worried about man-made global shrinking; the world was a much more hospitable and happy place when it was bigger. It's getting too small these days.

Labels: , , , ,