How will the Armadillo reduce problems with the ice-caps, the oceans, rising sea-levels?
By introducing cold water 24/7 into the local water, this will cause heat in the warmer water to lose its energy and become colder. A prototype has been made. See the desk-top prototype, made and introduced on video by Alec Duffield.
How tall does the structure need to be?
Until we have more practical experience of this technology we are assuming that a height of 750m (giving a temp reduction of 7.5c) will be a good standard structure. In order to create evaporation/condensation/precipitation the structure will vary from place to place depending on the water-content of the air, the temperature, and the availability of Peltier-cooling.This will vary from place to place depending on the water-content of the air, the temperature, and the availability of Peltier-cooling.
About 13,000 cubic kilometres Unlike water in rivers or under the earth’s surface, the airborne water cannot easily be dammed, diverted, or otherwise be monopolised.
These are names which describe the 2 types of cooling structure. The ‘Armadillo’ relies only or chiefly on the natural upward movement of warm, pressurised air. The ‘Fontana’ also has provision for upward-suction fans, in order to give control of cooling at different times and places.
The dominant responses to Climate Change at present are FEAR and DENIAL. Both of these are useless. As a result, debate on Climate Change has become adversarial . . .
Every generation seems to face its own unique set of challenges, and for us, the defining crisis is climate change. It may appear that recent centuries have been inundated with crises, but if we take a step back and look through the annals of recorded history, we can see that humanity has endured numerous hardships before.
In our ever-evolving world, fantasy has always played a significant role in offering solace during challenging times. It provides a refuge from the harshness of reality, often accompanied by eloquent prose or soothing melodies.
As someone deeply invested in the future of our planet, I can't help but reflect on the recent COP 28 summit. It's been a topic of heated discussion, often labeled a disappointment, stirring emotions ranging from despair to anger. Accusations of greed and negligence abound, but I believe the root of this failure lies in a series of misguided assumptions, both scientific and political.
The upcoming COP 28 conference, and indeed the entire COP series, stands at a crossroads. Revelations about COP 28 being used predominantly as a business venue cast a shadow over its integrity and purpose. This situation demands a critical reassessment: are we effectively addressing the existential threat of climate change?