Paint the world's roofs white and Global Warming will be forestalled!

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Once again the reality of science does not meet the perception of this administration.

This idiot doesn't take into account the amount of carbon emissions which would be created by such a program in which he espouses the painting of all roofs and the resurfacing of all roads to "more of a concrete type of colour".

Whadda buncha maroons this administration is appointing.

SOURCE

Obama's green guru calls for white roofs

President Obama's energy adviser has suggested all the world's roofs should be painted white as part of efforts to slow global warming.


By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:33PM BST 27 May 2009

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".

He said lightening roofs and roads in urban environments would offset the global warming effects of all the cars in the world for 11 years.

"If you look at all the buildings and if you make the roofs white and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of colour rather than a black type of colour and if you do that uniformally, that would be the equivalent of... reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years – just taking them off the road for 11 years," he said.

The three day Nobel laureate Symposium will end in a memorandum that is likely to influence any international agreement on climate change at the end of this year in Copenhagen.

Environmentalists insist the developed world must commit to cutting carbon emissions in order to set an example for poorer countries.

Secretary Chu said he was optimistic the US could lead the way through energy efficiency measures and boosting the use of renewables like solar, wind, nuclear and clean coal.

"The US will move, inevitably it will move first, as a more developed country we should be moving first, and I hope China will follow," he said.

The symposium has gathered some 60 scientific experts and 20 Nobel Laureates to talk about climate change.

The high level meeting, hosted by the Royal Society and the Prince of Wales, is likely to influence any international agreement on climate change at the end of this year.
 
...doesn't take into account the amount of carbon emissions which would be created by such a program in which he espouses the painting of all roofs and the resurfacing of all roads to "more of a concrete type of colour".
okay. and those emissions would do what? or is just this your armchair assertion?
 
okay. and those emissions would do what? or is just this your armchair assertion?

It takes power, transportation, materials, mining, pigments, chemicals; all of which create pollution; all of which create CO2.

But I don't care particularly because I don't believe that AGW is real. It is a farce. It is a fraud.

What all of this activity, painting the roofs and repaving the roads, will do is further bankrupt the economy. It will be a makework project to further distract the masses from what the government is really doing; and that's no armchair assertion.
 
so lemme see if I gots this right:
the yellow guy hired by the black guy
in the white house wants it painted
white?
do I got it right?
 
so, then, jim, it is armchair speculation from someone (you) who self-admittedly has a very strong opinion on the issue coming into it. right. and let me trust louis farrakhan's speculation on what white people are up to. 'cuz he's a disinterested observer, too. right after that i'll ask tipper gore about rock and roll, a firebrand minister about homos, and someone from PETA about meat lover's pizza.
 
Yet another idea tossed onto the table :shrug:Unlikely to be implemented, any more than the other ideas like greening up the roofs of skyscrapers. No harm, no foul.
 
I can at least understand the idea of white roofs and using less air conditioning. Wouldn't light-colored roads be a waste, though, since there are no houses underneath these roads to keep cool? o_O I don't buy that the heat would be reflected back into space... it would be reflected back into the atmosphere.
 
I can at least understand the idea of white roofs and using less air conditioning. Wouldn't light-colored roads be a waste, though, since there are no houses underneath these roads to keep cool? o_O I don't buy that the heat would be reflected back into space... it would be reflected back into the atmosphere.

We have a winner.


BTW, remember a little while back when the worry was the earth's cooling would slow the molten iron core of the planet and cause the magnetic fields to collapse?
 
so, then, jim, it is armchair speculation from someone (you) who self-admittedly has a very strong opinion on the issue coming into it. right. and let me trust louis farrakhan's speculation on what white people are up to. 'cuz he's a disinterested observer, too. right after that i'll ask tipper gore about rock and roll, a firebrand minister about homos, and someone from PETA about meat lover's pizza.

Oh, okay, I see. This proposal will have no effect whatsoever monetarily, economically, or ecologically. Got it! Thanks for clearing that up for me. I stand corrected.

I'm gonna go out right now and buy a new armchair. The old one doesn't seem to be serving me that well any more.
 
SOURCE

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

The Science Behind White Roofs [Greg Pollowitz]

It turns out that three huge proponents of the idea to paint the town white are former colleagues of Secretary Chu from the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (LBNL) and they're looking for their share of stimulus loot:

It's also well timed. Akbari pointed out that by his and his colleagues' calculations, the plan could save Americans $2 billion annually in unspent air conditioning, even after taking into account the increased need for heating in winter. Moreover, he argued, it dovetails with the president's economic and environmental goals.

The Obama administration has made it clear that it wants a substantial portion of the stimulus package to go toward creating a greener economy, but that desire has to be balanced against the imperative to immediately circulate cash and create jobs. Painting or resurfacing roofs or pavement, Akbari said, would nicely fulfill both objectives. The technology exists and is readily available, and since a substantial portion of the country's home and commercial real-estate owners are going to need to re-roof at some point in the near future anyway, it's about as shovel-ready as any proposal currently on the table.

Akbari has thus far not heard back from the government, but he's holding out hope that his funding proposal will be folded into the energy-efficiency provision of the stimulus package.​

Why does LBNL need to share in the stimulus funding, exactly? How complicated can the proposal be? Buy paint. Buy rollers. Paint roof. Clean and/or repeat when necessary. Look, ma — I'm a scientist!
 
If that's not an 'assassinate the messenger' argument, I've never heard one.

If Chu and the LBNL were roofers or construction companies, I'd be worried..

As it is, having a lighter roof means that your roof doesn't warm up as much as a paler coloured roof. :shrug: Ever go walking on a tar roof in August? It's friggin' elementary.

What impact, if any, this would have on GW is a whole other story.

PLANT MORE TREES!
 
I'm a big proponent of the roof top gardens myself. Neither a reflector nor an absorber be. Rooftop greenery is a converter. Takes all that nasty heat, converts it into Co2 trapping wood, sweet tomatos, pleasant shade and attracts wildlife that keep the cats happy and well fed. Win-win-win all around.
 
Oh, okay, I see. This proposal will have no effect whatsoever monetarily, economically, or ecologically.

i didn't say that.

if i were saying that, i'd be just as much a neurotic armchairsman as you.

jesus jim if you could only calm down and stop swinging to extremes for a spell....
 
If that's not an 'assassinate the messenger' argument, I've never heard one.

If Chu and the LBNL were roofers or construction companies, I'd be worried..

As it is, having a lighter roof means that your roof doesn't warm up as much as a paler coloured roof. :shrug: Ever go walking on a tar roof in August? It's friggin' elementary.

What impact, if any, this would have on GW is a whole other story.

PLANT MORE TREES!

Trees attract and hold heat. The Northern Hemisphere has warmed as the number of trees has increased.

The CO2 they trap is re-released as they decay.

Zero sum gain.
 
Trees attract and hold heat. The Northern Hemisphere has warmed as the number of trees has increased.

The CO2 they trap is re-released as they decay.

Zero sum gain.
Except where they cut the wind, retain topsoil and stop erosion, eh.
Shade homes and streets, cut other pollutants, and they make cities a damn sight better looking.

Not to mention the cost is a hellova lot cheaper than any other CO2 reducing 'plans' out there.
 
You 'exhaled' more CO2 while typing that than a tree did all night....

I admit to not knowing the numbers, but I suspect you're probably quite wrong on that. Typing as quickly as I do, it's entirely possible that I manage to complete that post without even having exhaled once. Not to mention that humans are notoriously wasteful about breathing, using only around 10% of the O2 per breath. With O2 making up less than 30% of the volume of the atmosphere, that means that less than 3% or each breath is actually consumed and converted to Co2. The rest only serves to supply media for flapping gums.

You might get that information from here, but no promises.
 
It's more like they release unused CO2 that hasn't been converted through photosynthesis during the daylight hours..during their last 'breath', so to speak. They aren't creating O2 or CO2 at night because of the lack of processing. Basically, no sun, no change.

They are more likely to drop leaves at night tho' - which rot and release a certain amount of CO2.

Doesn't matter to me. I'm not into blaming CO2 for GW. I want to reduce emissions of other more noxious chemicals into the air, water, soil. Reducing CO2 is a nice fringe benefit of more efficient cars, factories, power-generation AND keeps the uber-greenies quiet.
 
Back
Top