How Does This Invention Tackle Climate Change Differently?
Conventional responses to climate change all aim to address its supposed causes, assuming that this will bring about the desired results. However, if you compare Global Warming to a fever in the human body, good Medical Practice will not only try to remove the cause perhaps with ‘antibiotics’, but will also try to reduce the temperature.
Ways to reduce the temperature of the human body include:
- Getting rest
- Drinking fluids
- Taking appropriate medication
- Ensuring an appropriate flow of cool air on the body.
Our new structures reflect similar aims for the planet, although present economic circumstances make the taking of rest difficult (Remember: work = heat). At least numbers 2. and 4. are paralleled by the new technology. (The Armadillo™ and the Fontana™ will act as artificial sweat glands and restart the hydrological cycle, while the OceanCoolingSystem™ and the power station cooling structures will ensure that the water and the air which surround us are not overheated.
Exploring the Cost-Effectiveness of the New Climate Change Solution
The sums of money which have been discussed and promised are so enormous that many people find it difficult to envisage them. When it comes to billions or trillions of dollars, euros, rupees, crore, roubles, pounds etc., people whose imaginations cannot realistically go beyond hundreds or thousands tend to feel everything is the same. However, these are the people who are going to have to pay for the work, and at the same time are being asked to give up things they enjoy, like diets including meat, travelling abroad and keeping cool using air conditioning.
Moreover, they will be expected to pay for things that have no clear outcome or history of success. All the expenditure on carbon reduction, carbon storage etc. has failed to deliver any reduction in heat. They will be expected to pay far more money than they can afford for new electric cars (with no convenient availability of charging points at present for anybody who does not have a home built on their own land!).
What we are offering can be prefabricated in factories for assembly on convenient sites. This will be especially suitable for the technology for cooling power stations, which already have industrial facilities – and planning permission – in position.
Our best estimate of the costs of ‘Net-Zero’ strategies up to and including yr. 2050 is $8,337,808,648,134. See the full costing below.
Our provisional costing for a worldwide system of global cooling structures for the same period is $50,419,118,209. This gives a saving of $8,287,389,529,925 or eight and a quarter trillion dollars – a figure which it is difficult to comprehend. However, it might be easier to understand, if one compares it with the current US national debt of 32 trillion dollars – or sees it as approximately three times the current national debt of the UK government…
If one divides the saving by the projected population of the world in 2050 (approximately 9.7 billion), one sees a saving per person of approximately $854. Given that very many of the people in the world will be ‘on the breadline’ and/or children, this is going to create appalling economic and political problems. At worst, it will create conditions leading to war (which is where, in my opinion, this whole problem originated – see – ‘What is the difference between our theories and Carbon Offset’).
To put it in another way: if you need to rush to the hospital, would you rather have a Rolls-Royce costing one million dollars (but with no engine), or a used Nissan Micra costing ten thousand dollars, with a fully functioning engine?
The Science Behind Removing Heat from the Air and the Sea
At the highest point of each structure, where the air surrounding the device is at its coldest, there will be a HeatLossVessel™. This is a simple, one-way, heat-exchanger, transferring heat from warm, low-level fluid (air or water), to the colder, higher-level air.
Like all technical equipment, this will start in prototype form. We have a simple design and procedure in mind. A scaled-down model of the planned design will be placed upside down on a bench inside a tank containing water maintained at the temperature of the ambient air. To simulate a 750-meter elevation, water will be poured into the prototype at a temperature 7.5 degrees centigrade higher than that of the ambient air, to simulate a 400-meter elevation, water 4.0 degrees centigrade higher than the ambient will be used. The temperature of the water leaving the prototype will be noted. If it is not as low as the ambient, we shall need to adjust the rate of flow and/or the area exposed to the ambient air and/or the material used for the HeatLossVessel™ prototype and/or the extent of the fins projecting from it. The relevant importance of these four variables will be checked during the testing.
When we feel that the principle has been tested and found acceptable with water (for the Ocean Cooling Tower™), we shall invert the prototype and duplicate the process, feeding in warm air through a controllably refrigerated heat-exchange device, and of course noting the results and the other relevant parameters.
We expect to be able to provide a formula to enable people to design their own structures by specifying the volume of fluid passing through the HeatLossVessel™, the rate of flow, the materials used, the surface area and volume of any fins, in order to obtain the reduction in heat required at the relevant location.
Our experience is that prototypes can normally reach 95% success at first. Further small changes (‘tweaks’) are normally needed, and, in fact, seeing actual results often leads to a change in requirement. Any suggestions from people ‘experienced in the art’ will be very welcome!
One of the advantages of the system is that the fans of the Fontana™s and the pumps of the Ocean Cooling Tower™s can be linked via the internet to computer control networks, which will ensure faster cooling in places where this is really important – avoiding dangerous high temperatures, for example. It is also suggested that (because cooler air normally has a lower pressure than warmer air) this system could reduce atmospheric pressure differences, moderating wind speeds and reducing the danger of hurricanes.
Busting Myths: An Alternative to the Carbon Theory of Global Warming
The total dominance of the carbon theory of global warming has very nearly killed us all! Decades of discussion of peripheral details, which ignore basic physics, have resulted in terrible heat increases, and waste of time and money. Perhaps this has been displacement activity on a global scale!
Recent extreme fires must surely be demonstrating there is something wrong with our present policies.
Please all consider carefully: the cause of our problem is heat; carbon is a by-product of the creation of heat; in itself, carbon does us no harm at all, but acts as a useful material for photosynthesis, the healthy growth of plants, and the creation of oxygen.
In physics, work equals heat. Our human existence is nowadays based on work – physical work, which needs activity and materials; intellectual work, which needs computer support and materials; the mixture of physical and intellectual work which is so much the basis of modern society, and which also needs electrically-powered technology and materials.
We cannot do without work – work in terms of pure physics, such as the turning of a cog or the creation of cold through the removal of heat, or our own ‘work-activity’. Without these, we would starve and suffer from cold or heat.
So we have no choice. We must find a way of removing heat from the areas where we live!
The GlobalCoolingandIrrigationSystem™ suggests ways to do this. Fortunately, I have experience in designing and commissioning equipment from scratch. After a little bit of refining, my inventions have all worked. So, we must press on quickly with making new prototypes in order to see what works well, and use it!
Stop press: 26 July 2023. I have an idea for a simple, cheap method of enabling farmers to irrigate their fields. I shall try to assemble my thoughts and put them in a Blog. The resulting technology should be easy and ‘do-it-yourself’.
The Future of Climate Change Mitigation: A Detailed Look at the New Invention
When I started working on this project, I received help from the British Antarctic Survey, and gradually learned how to read and understand the results of upper-air research by ‘radiosonde balloons’. Having abandoned the idea of simply using the conduction qualities of metals (in the form of spires), my thought was simply to move the heat within the fluid of air as far away as possible from the earth’s surface, so that it did not cause pain and distress. However, gradually realizing how much moisture is carried in the air, I asked their Head of Meteorology and Ozone Monitoring, Steve Colwell, what the result would be of carrying warm air upwards. His response was ‘precipitation’ – to the layperson, this is ‘rain’!
Suddenly I realized that if the rain could be contained, and brought to Earth in a controlled manner, the result would be an enormous benefit to us all. According to the book I was regarding as authoritative – ‘Inadvertent climate modification’ (1971) – 90% of the rain which falls on the Earth is lost to agriculture because of runoff and evaporation. Many countries are starting to suffer drought, which creates terrible problems with food supply and physical and mental health. From this, came the idea of bringing the rain (‘condensate’ in more technical terms) directly underground to prevent loss and to position it where the roots of vegetation can directly find it.
The strong vegetable growth brings coolness and food and promotes the hydrological cycle. Lack of food brings terrible misery, mental and physical health problems, and political disorder.
As a next step, I suggest that wherever drought or inadequate rain has been a problem, a program of using meteorological balloons should be undertaken. Traditionally, meteorological balloons are released into the atmosphere and rise constantly, sending back reports of the atmospheric conditions by radio. They will provide valuable information enabling people specifying Armadillo™ and Fontana™ structures to know how tall they should be, and what throughput can be expected.
The recent invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated how dependent we all are on food growth, and the supply of food becoming a political bargaining point. With the easy supply of food becoming a reality, the political dimension will reduce, the costs will go down, and the concern over ‘food miles’ will drop away.
An even more significant development is in the prevention of wildfires. The new structures will feed fresh water into the ground, which will prevent trees and other vegetation from drying out. As a result, they will not burn easily, and the fertility of the ground will not be undermined by salt from seawater. This will save lives and property, and the enormous costs of insuring and rebuilding after forest fires.
The Economic Impact: Financing and Implementing the Heat-Removal Invention
The initial problem with any new development is obtaining enough finance for proper testing. Structures 250 – 750 meters high will obviously not be cheap. However, this project does have certain advantages:
- It will be easy to see whether air and water from lower levels have lost heat before they leave the structure. Simple temperature-logging equipment will track the results;
- Any results which are achieved will be easy to extrapolate to:
- More structures of the same size;
- Similar, lower or higher structures with increased throughput;
- Similar or higher structures with increased throughput and additional Peltier cooling.
- Because the structures are designed to be prefabricated, the cost of each structure should fall as the numbers increase. Moreover, as technology becomes better known, improvements in design and materials should follow with increased knowledge. Hopefully, easily available local materials, such as bamboo, could be used where appropriate.
- There should be an economic benefit to the communities which install them – partly, an employment opportunity, partly an improved economic situation because food is easier to grow and food transport costs are reduced.
- The alternative costs are so enormous (please see attached Excel file, which predicts that the costs of installing and maintaining these structures will be less than 1% of the costs predicted by the United Nations), that it would be very strange indeed if no relevant organization were to evaluate them.
- The structures will need routine maintenance. The costs of this are included in the Excel file.
Assessing the Efficiency: How Well Does the New Invention Work?
For whom does the Invention work?
At present, we are looking at the climate change problem in a simple, rather uniform, way. To people in Western Europe, for example, the problems until recently seemed rather remote. There seemed to be a growing number of people arriving as refugees: were they coming because the local politicians were corrupt, because there were civil wars or because there was no work and food was becoming scarce? According to our Christian or post-Christian morality, were we giving them a good enough welcome and support, or were we regarding them as a challenge to ourselves and our way of life? To what extent were they coming as a result of the threats and promises of people-traffickers, or in genuine despair because life had become intolerable at home? Was Global Warming an invention of self-boosting politicians? Were the Cop meetings an expensive, meaningless charade – a lot of hot air about hot air?
Now, in 2023, with many of the countries of both hemispheres on fire, the question of whether Climate Change is an invented scare story or not seems to be resolved beyond doubt – if only it were a made-up ‘con’… It is a very unpleasant reality!
Life now reminds me of what my parents told me, and I have read, about the 1930s. Everybody was frightened. Everybody could see what Hitler wanted – nobody knew what to do. When Virginia Woolf wrote, in ‘Between the Acts’ (Code for ‘Between the Wars’), about airplanes circling overhead, she was not foreseeing aerobatics, but bombers.
And, ironically, if you read https://www.solutions-to-climate-change.com/climate-change-data-analysis/
you will see that in my analysis of the history of the world’s temperature movements, I see the atomic bomb, and other fire-bombing activities of the Second World War, as having two negative effects:
- Creating an enormous burst of heat, which can be seen in the ‘spike’ in the late 1940s,
- Deluding us into thinking far too generally, that the world’s temperature can naturally go down as well as up. The reality is that the world, like any other system, gains or loses heat according to the amount added or subtracted. After the moment, human beings are adding to the heat all the time. Our aim is to subtract from it the right quantity to keep ourselves and other living beings alive and in comfort.
So the answer to my question ‘For Whom does the Invention work?’ should be: It must work for all human beings and other creatures that we value.
Another Point: Perhaps the rather self-centered attitude which I have referred to in Western Europe, ignores another possibility: that different people in different localities and with different cultural backgrounds would need rather different situations.
E.g. an inhabitant of northern Alaska might like to be a bit warmer – or not… One of the theoretical advantages of the new structures is that, within limits, it will maintain a climate locally to the liking of the local community! (Obviously, factors which are not within the control of human beings, like the angle of that particular area to the sun, would make it very difficult at present for e.g. northern Norway to be warmer than Italy!). The community will need to decide, and it may be that in the future, individuals will decide to leave the community because they do not like the choices made.
I am assuming that we shall all want to go on with the benefits of electricity and the power provided by machinery. On this basis, heat will continue to be generated and work will continue to provide food and other products of civilization (please remember: work equals heat). For human beings to continue to live without disaster, we shall need to continue to lose heat at a rate equivalent to or more than the amount generated – our exhaust system must be big enough for our engine! If alternative energy sources enable us to reduce the size of our engine, we shall need to reduce the size of our exhaust system. At present, it’s not nearly big enough!
Challenges and Opportunities: Implementing the Heat-Removal Technology Globally
Remembering that heat always moves from hot to cold, we have attempted a pair of classic ‘before’ and ‘after’ diagrams.
The hottest part of the globe is the equator because the sun’s rays fall most directly there. Since the 1970s, the sun’s heat has increasingly been supplemented by heat from power stations, internal combustion engines, travel, and forest fires.
The following diagram shows a few of these heat sources and heat flows. On the right of the picture is a set of icons indicating the main sources of heat. Not surprisingly, the ultimate destinations of these heat flows are the two coldest places on the Earth – the North and South Poles. The ice which has been building up for millennia in these locations (due to the lack of direct sunlight) is melting fast, causing flooding and an overall rise in sea level. At the same time, the land surfaces are being dried and scorched by the heat.
So our immediate aim will be to install Ocean Cooling Towers™ along the North and South coasts of the land masses nearest to the poles. Using simple temperature measurement and liquid flow calculations, we shall aim to slow the heating as fast as possible and cool the water again until the ice begins to re-form.
Simultaneously, we shall equip power stations with suitable cooling. Power stations are cooled either by air or water. Use the ‘search function to look at the designs we suggest for each sort.
We also plan to install structures of the Armadillo™ and Fontana™ types, starting with a few prototypes for evaluation. It should be possible to calculate what is required to reduce the global average temperature to 1971 levels (approximately 0 degrees centigrade). This seemed quite tolerable at the time…
The types of structure which we are suggesting can be seen in the column beside the following picture of the world ‘after the introduction of Global Cooling Technology’.
The main challenge at present (2023) is that the received wisdom is a 50-year-old theory based on a misinterpretation of global average temperature figures established at the end of a one-off cooling time following the extreme heat generated in the Second World War by nuclear and conventional bombing.
Ancient theories can be very damaging. I have a book published in 1906 that gives a chronology of the world, assuming it started 6,000 years beforehand. Charles Darwin’s great work ‘On the Origin of Species’ was published in 1859, 47 years earlier! So this is obviously a pattern!!!
One of the problems, then and now, is that people support their opinion so vehemently… even to the point of overlooking real dangers. This may be because of a tendency to use ‘Displacement activity’ when we do not know what to do.
The Net Zero Theory is dangerous because IT MEANS DOING LESS and doing less leaves us vulnerable – to starvation, disease, misery, and conflict.
How to organise it will be a challenge, but I’m sure that once the prototypes have been seen to work, it will be easy to know how the responsibility can be distributed.