Anything that absorbs solar radiation will then dissipate it as heat here on earth. Anything that reflects solar radiation so that it reradiates to space will reduce the net insolation. So let's build lots of mirrors and white surfaces...and increase our total albedo. Is this what you have in mind?

A lot of people have thought about it. One guy in particular is Bjorn Lomborg. He wrote a book about it.

http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Warming-Vintage/dp/030738652X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275758408&sr=1-1

You mean the nutcase guy?

There are some nutcase guys around, but Bjorn Lomborg seems not to be one of them.

Everyone has their own definition but he is a bit overboard on the denial side to suit me. İ don't believe the case made where the world we know it is coming to an end but İ also don't believe the case made that nothing is wrong and 'be happy'. All the crap we concentrate and dump into the earth, water and air is certainly not positive.

You're right about that, but I don't think Lomborg would disagree. He is not so much a "denier" but rather is looking for the best bang for the buck in addressing real concerns vs. hype.

I should add that Lomborg wrote his book long before 'Climategate'. Now that the hoax perpetrated by the Hadley Research Center has been exposed, it is difficult to still claim that global warming is a certainty, let alone man-made global warming.

"Climategate" was a failed propaganda campaign. Better luck next time.

There is a great deal of information out there regarding the "heat island" effect of major metropolitan areas. It is up to the reader to determine if the information is valid, and each of us must make our own assessment as to the possible impact on global warming after filtering out the hype from the available information...And both sides of the "debate" appear more intent on generating hype than actually addressing the real issues.

İ live in a village on the coast near a city. We really don't enjoy going downtown in the summer due to the heat (the heat island effect). With any small breeze it remains comfortable at our house while in the city the mass of concrete in the city plus lack of air circulation is too noticeable.

Hi Drewsky,

Are we venturing into geoengineering (which I find every interesting)?

From Scientific American:

The first category of approaches typically includes things like: putting giant satellites in space to deflect sunlight away from Earth, putting tiny particles in the stratosphere, whitening clouds over the ocean, or perhaps whitening roofs or planting lighter [colored] crops. They are all attempts to deflect sunlight away from Earth.

The second allows more heat energy to escape.

There is one more category that some people propose: that we might take heat that exists near the surface of the Earth and stuff it down deep into the ocean. This hasn't been looked at very much. But it's another way of altering Earth's surface temperatures.

And from Nature:

"Be very careful." The warning, from Robert Socolow, a climate researcher at Princeton University in New Jersey, came at the end of a meeting last week that aimed to thrash out guidelines for the nascent field of geoengineering...

Climate is very poorly understood - no one really knows and the best are making educated guesses only. Geoengineering is leagues behind the climate as far as our understanding goes. İn ten years time many of today's best ideas will be laughed at as either being very silly or very dangerous. Hope we can muddle through for the next 50 years until things are a bit better understood.

Granted. Just providing some meteorological food for thought.

We need to be thinking and scheming - you are 100% correct. I just hope we don't have to do anything until our knowledge level reaches a slightly less primitive stage.

"Be very careful"... indeed!!

Some of these ideas seem downright dense to me - more especially the cloud whitening. At least, putting halogens (from salt water) in the atmosphere is a dumb, dumb idea. Global climate change/ozone loss caused by CFCs in stratosphere: answer, salt the clouds to reflect away the nasty UV????

Heck, the stratospheric ozone isn't doing its job, why not replace ozone with something my company the earth has a surplus of....

".. plant lighter crops.." hahahahahaha. um, shouldn't that be, darker crops?

I do like the idea of white roofs though. The 'heat island' phenomenon is a fact. Pavement especially has an obvious effect even in the microclimate. Full employment painting the streets for summer... or how about, yellow brick roads?

I think the BP oil spill as it plays out over an ever increasing area will have a very large effect, much greater then the Iceland volcano.

The oil will heat the surrounding water mass and retain the heat 24-7, unlike the ash which is small in area and is airborne thus quickly dissipating the heat.

The BP spill will be akin to adding highly absorptive land mass, potentially the size of Australia to the globe.

If the rate of 750,000 gallons of oil a day is correct, (and BP pat themselves on the back for a 6,000 gallon siphon).

Once the hurricane season starts, the oil may be able to travel inland changing large coastal areas for the foreseeable future, and the oil (thermal absorption) will have heated the waters of the Gulf intensifying the hurricanes.

The lack of ships in the Gulf skimming this oil and recovering as much as possible around the source is a crime.

Might try to get the numbers a bit more correct or people will think you are a 'green'. Presently the leak is being estimated at 12 to 19,000 bpd and they are apparently catching something like 10,000 bpd. Any references to back up the increase in water temperatures due to the oil? How many ships/boats are recovering oil at this time?

Your right, If you take 20,000 barrels per day times 55 gallons per barrel you have 1,100,000 gallons per day.

In the US we buy our oil by the quart in the store, our gasoline or diesel fuel by the gallon.

Yep it's a lot, if a tyranical world leader had threatened this we would have blown them away, is this deja vu, I recall somebody saying they would light the gulf on fire, that's right that was Saddam, wrong Gulf.

Not very "Green" to me, since it's been leaking for 7 weeks !

OK - you agreed the amounts you used were off by a gross amount. How about the number of skimmer boats or the effect on water temperature? Don't think anyone said it was green. My observation is that 99% of the comments on the net about the spill are total nonsense. Good information is out there but certainly not on Yahoo Answers!

I understand there are "dispersants" also being used to break up the oil.

Dawn, dishwashing detergent is a very good dispersant for oil or grease. I don't know what it does to fish, I expect the fish gills can't breathe with any dispersant or oil coating.

As an Agent Orange Vietnam Veteran, you ain't seen nothing yet is my thinking, this will condemn generations of fish and humans I fear.

BP is in company and share-holder protection mode, the US Government needs to get active in looking out for the US citizens and the sea-life we depend upon for a living and food source. i.e. there is no clean up, just live with the results I fear.

LOL,

Russ, I am attacking the lack of containment and clean-up effort to-date. The oil should never have reached any shores, the weather is typically calmest and driest in the month of May, as time and the spread of the oil cause this to become a greater threat to more areas, We will all hear about it.

This is a world class disaster and some people need to wake up. BP expects there liability is limited.

There is no defense for what has been allowed to happen. Ignorance is never an excuse.

Yep I do follow many news sources, but this is the only blog.

This post was deleted because it did not adhere to the behavioral policies of the site. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ about rules for posting.

This thread doesn't seem to be about the BP oil spill. Please take your argument to a private message or start a thread on your topic.

Anon

İt is a question of how many people approach the spill. I see people that seem to think if they scream and rant at BP loud enough maybe it will go away. There is an old saying that people would do well to remember, 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'. I am neither for nor against BP but the 'green' crowds BS and blather will not get the mess cleaned up.

FYI:

Throughout the world (afaik) Oil "Barrels" are 42 gallons, NOT 55 gallons

It seems that stopping airplane flights does reduce the temperature. Flying less should help in many ways.

Just paint everything white.

or make lots of white clouds when the earth gets to the required temprature get rid of the clouds.

or place a really large foil heat shield in space to cast a ginormouse shadow on the planet.

Here ya go:

Professor Steven Chu: paint the world white to fight global warming

Steven Chu, the Nobel prize-winning physicist appointed by President Obama as Energy Secretary, wants to paint the world white. A global initiative to change the colour of roofs, roads and pavements so that they reflect more sunlight and heat could play a big part in containing global warming...

I just use my tinfoil hat!

Love it! Can İ order a dozen?

You might want to order one of these, too. I think everyone should have one.

Hats or Signs ?

At least i know i was joking, I bet he was serious wasnt he ?

He is quite serious. Of course, he's not advocating whitewashing the entire planet. He does contend

"changing surface colours in 100 of the world's largest cities could save the equivalent of 44 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide — about as much as global carbon emissions are expected to rise by over the next decade."

I actually think the large foil reflectors would be easier and more effective, You could cast shadows over the desert areas and we could reclaim the desert.

and shadows over the ocean where noone would notice it.

or use solar arays in space to make electricity and reduce global warming.

to get the electricity from space to ground you could use microwaves ( no not the cookers)

That was discussed here awhile back---when someone (cba to look it up now, sorry) proposed an orbital solar station and microwave transmission of the energy to a target city in California. CR4-ers more knowledgeable than I (read: everyone) pointed out with some glee that this would result in some crispy citizenry, among other problems.

Yes there would be a slight problem with anything that flew ( a clue there) into the beam,

and if there was a misalignment it could be a very usefull way of reducing the population and cremation without contributing to even more global warming.

of course if the ground station was placed in the ( well on) the ocean it would reduce the crispy citzens problems

By the time those fish are cooked, the oil won't be the only thing thermally and chemically degraded, you can have my portion.

I am not the only one with wacky ideas.

This is going to sound selfish, But when I was a kid climbing over the snow drifts to school, breaking the ice in toilet (which was inside the house) and being able to ride on the frozen lakes in the local park, hearing that the sea on the coast had started to freeze, the fact that since those days I have not seen anything like that sort of winter in the last 30 years, is to me absolutely brilliant. I feel sorry for the islanders whose islands are underwater, but I will get over that.

Now if you want really cold, when my dad was alive he told me of the winter of 1947 when the local councils couldn't get rid of the ice on the roads and used tarmac to fill the potholes in the ice!!!!!

The river Thames had frozen over; ah the good old days of Rickets, Typhoid, Malnutrition, freezing to death in your own home, Tuberculosis, the black plague...

No free hospital treatment, no ambulance service, fog that killed thousands each year.

Ah yes, I miss the good old days. My dad was a bit of a cynic, I feel.

Now that the nasty winters have gone, we can stop the global warming.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/272103.stm

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002868.html

Weather extremes go in cycles, it may take 100 years for the extreme cold to return, but you can be sure it will return, and then maybe two or more years...

I will be long gone by then

1. The desert is not dead. Ask those trying to get permission to build solar farms in Death Valley- or, I should say, ask those environmentalists opposed to solar farms in Death Valley.

2. Shadows over the ocean will have a profound effect on the ocean. There is a lot of life in the ocean that relies on solar energy- like, at the bottom of the food chain. Furthermore, a great deal of the weather we enjoy (or hate) starts with the thermal cycles in the open ocean. People may not SEE the shadows over the ocean, but it is a sure bet they would notice the effect.

3. Others have covered the issue with space-based solar arrays, but have not mentioned the issue with protecting same from space junk collisions, space dust, gamma ray bursts, etc.

Go Nuke. No fossil fuels, waste is well-concentrated (and could be reprocessed, if you got the government out of technical decisions...)

But, since the gonvernment insists on participating, painting the world white is probably the least damaging thing they could do, and it would definitely help with the unemployment problem, since you would have to repaint every six months because of the dirt accumulation from automotive exhaust, etc...

And white goes with everything, so it would be aesthetically acceptable.

Considering my green-leanings, those who know me think I've really lost it when I mention the virtues of nuclear power. Overcoming the mindset of the average Jane and Joe is going to be awfully difficult...

Ive got to admit nuclear does seem like the best way forward, If the US or Russia could make enough of them and loan them say to china or India and stop them from generating electricity by using coal and oil.

if all the countries that use fossil fueled power generation could be persuaded to switch to nuclear the problem would be under control a lot quicker

My plant just put down a new white membrane roof on top of a gray one. I wonder how long Google Earth will take to update its pix. Just doin' our bit!

1. The desert is not dead

Most of the shahra isnt grow crops and as such is dead.

cast shadows over the area to reduce evaporation and the deforestation in the amazon could be offset by planting in the desert areas to get the plants to to assist the earth in processing the CO/2

There are ants living in the Sahara. I do not know what they eat, but there must be something for them to eat...

Well adapted to the extreme conditions of their habitat, Sahara desert ants can tolerate surface temperatures of 60 °C (140 °F) or higher for short periods, making them one of the most heat-tolerant groups of insects known. Long legs allow them to move rapidly and elevate their bodies above the scorched sand and salt-pan terrain as they forage for dead insects.

Not Grass or crops, So for my comment dead i did of course mean crops wheat etc.

Your turn.

My principal contention, which I haven't mentioned as yet, is that there is really nothing that can be done that won't have some sort of negative impact on the environment. I do not have a whole lot of sympathy for species that are poor adapters to environmental changes (spotted owls, kangaroo rats, snail darters, and such), but others do express such sympathy. Life is all about extracting resources (energy and nutrients) from the environment, and excreting waste into the environment. ALL life does this, from the tiniest prokaryote to the gray whale and elephant. It is not possible to extract resources and excrete waste without having an impact. Humans have, of course, taken this business of Life to the ultimate extreme. We also suffer from the fact that we have eliminated most of our natural enemies (preditors and diseases) without adjusting our rate of reproduction to compensate for a much gentler world. Sort of like rabbits in Australia...

No matter what you propose as a solution, someone is going to come up with an argument against it, most likely based on the need to preserve biodiversity or endangered habitat.

Bottom line is, consume less, or go extinct.

What is inevitable is that the human race will have to impose some sort of birth control.

the planet is infinite and so is the food so unless we find away of colonising another planet, Action will have to be taken soon.

any attempt to control global warming etc is just a delaying action for the inevitible.

In the past we had wars, that along with floods etc controlled the population a little, But its getting a little out of control now

http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment/how-much-human-life-can-planet-earth-sustain/

You said: "the planet is infinite and so is the food."

In my version of English this means that there is in fact no need for the human race to impose some sort of birth control.

After all, the planet is infinite, and so is the food...

Let me know which nearby planet has all our food...

Milo

Other ants, snakes, rodents, lizards, burrowing critters ...

I tested the black part of the bitumen road as well as the white line marked portion of the hot road in the mid sunlight day, hoping that the white surface could be cooler.

But both surfaces were equally hot

White can prevent U.V rays and nothing to do with IR rays it seems.

Maybe start a new fashion trend to beat the heat!

Ok, sorry for abandoning my thread for so long.

My intention was to talk about the houses I saw in Turkey that often had grape vines growing up to a canopy above the house. The plants will absorb a measure of the sun's energy and not release it like other materials. Or instead of plants, solar panels could be converting the sun's energy to electricity but that would probably be released as heat in one way or another as it is used.

I am not convinced about the whole global warming issue, but I do know large cities are sometimes 10° warmer than surrounding countryside. If buildings had grass or other foliage covered roofs how much would it affect the city temp? Solar panels would be better though.

I like the idea of plants or solar panels better than a white world. In the Southeastern U.S. the Kudzu vine could be used to cover roofs (as long as it could be contained and prevented from growing into the buildings).

Drew

Your premise is right Drew - plants make cellulose and sucrose, doing "work", to store solar.

Photovoltaic used for "work" achieves the same outcome. Photo voltaic, not used for work, but for heat, is exactly the same as burning firewood.

But both "total energies" = biosphere energy neutral.

Most solar goes into oceans - resulting in "work".

The flaw in Man's thinking is digging up stored "work" - be that fossil or uranium - would not restore biosphere "work" levels to a Man incompatible state.

"Warming" judged by "temperature" is a dumb-ass measure.

Energy Total is - Ocean speed is - Ice melt is - WORK is.

So the question becomes - what do you do with a plant that stores a great deal of energy in 'growth' - given that growth may threaten 'home owners' - so become 'landfill', or if edible, farts, so methane? (or firewood, or a bunch of other scenarios)

Bottom line - as CW alluded - is "curtail the Greed".

It comes in many forms;

There are a number of instances in various parts of the US where people are experimenting with "Green Roofs"- some architects are beginning to consider this in their designs. It is a good idea, and helps with more than just the heat issue- potentially, if enough people were to adopt the idea, it could help improve air quality, and quality of life (think of a roof garden where one could relax in a "green" environment). I doubt, however, kudzu would be a proper plant for this. Not only is it uncontrollable, there is some evidence that it contributes to air pollution.

There are many ideas available for reducing energy consumption through proper design. Central heating and air conditioning are actually quite recent adaptations- it wasn't too many years ago that people knew how to increase the comfort level without consuming all this energy. For instance, here in Panama, when one examines older construction, one sees high ceilings, open ventilation, and lots of external shade (trees and covered verandas on all sides of the house). Quite comfortable for the tropics. Newer construction? Tight, sealed boxes that are unlivable without air conditioning...

Again, the solution is to figure out how to use less (and not just energy- less of EVERYTHING) if we are to avoid extinction...And growing things on your roof has the potential to help reduce energy consumption, if accomplished in a sound manner (I don't think moss-covered ceramic tile would have the same effect as, say, a herb garden, but I haven't done a proper analyis to say for sure...)

The buildings built like those an Panama would be good in many places, but not where square footage is a premium, or where large trees don't grow well, that is why I like the vine plant solution. In West Texas where the wind blows hard enough to damage large trees and threaten those living under or near, vines would be the best solution.

Problem is, how do you keep them from growing into the buildings and damaging the construction?

Drew

white surfaces that reduce cooling costs for the building could also be used to reflect solar energy to collectors... or would solar panels as roofing (instead of white) also reduce heat absorption by the building?

vines are certainly nice.. first blooms on this honeysuckle today.

The smell of a honeysuckle covered skyscraper would be divine...bee allergy sufferers would worry though. Although the bees would love it too!

Drew

Absorption and desorption seems to be instantaneous reactions.

More plants/ green cover means more moist air which is a good heat exchanger.

More building structures replace green cover, interfere natural air passage and add to heat apart from all anthropogenic emissions.

Natural air quality is affected, leading to change in its properties the ultimate result being disturbances in air passages, climate changes and so on.

urbanization, deforestation and carbon emissions are typical catalysts for desertification.

Saline sea water temperature raises, glacier melts and the other damages.

Some how the coolant sea water discharges into seas from nuclear plants is not much spoken out? Are we deliberate?

So many big words, I had to look them up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic

So Drew - moving on from 58,

If you bury the plants rather than 'use' them for energy, you sequester the energy from the biosphere.

I.e. reinstating the sequestered energy of fossil released.

This is a distinct advantage in remediation of climate energy levels, that photovoltaic can't provide.

It is of course just a token;

As to put back the coal equivalent in plant form, runs to burying around 50 x 40' containers, jammed packed with organic material, per second, just to equal current mining.

But it is something.

And you can do a sod roof and photovoltaic combo, cutting the 'air-conditioning' power and grid load - so get to 'climate energy neutral' - not adding to the problem.

Then it just falls to Nature to 'resolve' the reintroduction of tens millions of years sequestered solar. She is picking up Her work rate quite rapidly now. Giving Her less work would be a good idea.

I was kinda thinking of making everyone's work easier. Nature solved how to keep the forest floor cooler long before man ever thought of cooling their houses.

When I finally finish college and return to the work force and buy my own home, one of the things I will look into is planting my roof...I like the grass idea, but with only a thin layer of soil, irrigation will be important. Weeding will be difficult, I know grass can choke out weeds if kept trimmed, perhaps i could make an automatic electric trimmer to run over the roof weekly to keep it looking good.

Drew

Interesting figures for plant burial vs mining... but unless you buried deep or in a sealed casket, I have doubts about containing any release of carbon compounds into the atmosphere.

On the other hand, as long as plants are kept alive, they keep taking carbon dioxide out of the air. And the bigger they get, the more they do that, so the extra biomass is a benefit not a problem. Perennial vines are a good idea for the house cover, and trees of course for shade and carbon sequestration over a lifetime.

I think the sod roof idea is hillarious. Cooler house yes, but are you suggesting to bury the grass clippings? Drew, if you get one, please post pix of you mowing the roof. Or perhaps you could keep a cow some rabbits up there.

I was thinking of an electrified wire that would pass over the grass killing the ends of the blades with sufficient heat. or just going for a field-grass that will grow to a few feet and choke out all weeds.

Might have to use poison to keep out pests though, squirrels and birds are ok...although I did have a squirrel chew through the drywall and stick its head through at me when I was a kid in Florida...

It would be nice to see a suburban sprawl of grass covered houses and ivy clad buildings.

Drew

Here in Panama, there is a variety of grass, thin-leafed and forming a very dense mat, that does not require cutting- although it apparently is tolerant of cutting as well. It does not grow high, and left without cutting, forms a surprisingly uniform height of maybe 3 inches or so. It does well in both direct sun and shade, but is very thirsty. The dense mat chokes out virtually every other plant, including other grass varieties. I have never seen it bloom or go to seed- it is propagated by cutting "plugs" or squares from an existing stand. It can take over an entire yard in very short order, if adequately watered. The texture is very fine, and it makes for a wonderful cushion to lie upon while star-gazing, cloud-watching, or romantic interludes. I have never observed animals grazing on it- it may not be very good as as food for stock like cows or goats.

This would make a really beautiful, maintenance-free covering for a roof, and would not require a very deep soil level (the root system apparently does not extend much more than two inches into the ground). Unfortunately, not being a horticulturist, I haven't the slightest idea what it is called, or whether it would be adaptable to other climates...

Hi Artsmith; If you like some 'unbelievable numbers' look up how many tons of coal are used by the US and multiply by 4, (US is ~25% of world consumption) then, given about 30 feet of compacted plant makes a foot of coal, so 4 containers high per foot of 'seam'...... The other thing you might realise is it's frigging inefficient as a process and takes forever. Or by comparison, biofuel is the cheap one and way more 'affordable' in every possible measure.

The thing behind the burial idea comes from using plankton for atmospheric CO2 reduction, and pouring it down old mines. All terrific until they realised the scale and cost - and no profit for several millennia, went against the grain.

sod roof;

hey 34point5

I'm impressed with your ability to calculate even a rough estimate of this sort of thing - bring it on! It was incomprehensible numbers (tons of CO2 kept out of the atmosphere) that made me switch to CFL's back in the 90's. I stand to learn....

"..until they realised the scale and cost - and no profit for several millennia, went against the grain". HOOT. Ah yeah. People balk at the concept we might want to leave something for our children... On millenial scales, NO one gives a damn..

I actually forgot to mention the 200 years of use as a multiplier - but the thing that galls in this, is the waste of the finite fossil resources on electricity and transport when we have alternate technology. We needed the age of steam and coal power to get to that technology - but why do we still insist on this ridiculous addiction to a hopelessly wasteful and antiquated methodology, that measured 'full system' is around 0.05% efficient recovery of the original solar input? A 10% efficient panel and a 50% efficient storage/re-generator, kills it 100 fold.

However to beat this drum serves to again derail Drew's thread - so I'll shut-up.

But it would be good if everyone aimed at energy neutral - so coal demand died except for steel and similar 'necessary' uses... Um - ok - now I'll shut-up again.

Back to Drew aiming at energy neutral....

The down side of sod is water demands. But the average house "wastes" say 100 liters/head/day - 'grey water' - which can/should be used for promoting growth.

Storing this full volume over any time frame is quite expensive. What can be done with minimal storage is drip irrigation. As growth, (photosynthesis of water and CO₂), only occurs in light, drip irrigation is a natural marriage with solar pumping. Bright and hot = more water. Cloudy and raining = little or none.

If one wanted to go further - compost the sewerage and clippings - harvest the methane for cooking - use the spent material as fertiliser - grow food, (eat the goat)

In this manner the household also impacts all the external carbon tonnage in food transport.

Even though you have by now cut back your laundry detergent use, the machine water total is fairly concentrated. Plants actually like the organo-phosphates, but too much can 'burn' them. Maximised dilution is advisable.

There are also useful nutrients in grey water. It is not that difficult to separate shower, bath basin, sink, laundry water from sewerage lines. You need a grease trap ahead of interim storage and basic filtration ahead of any pump and drip system.

A 100 litres is equivalent to 6 mm of rain over 17 m² area per day, or 117m²/week. Or in American; each 26 gallons can irrigate about 12.5 squares of house area roof, at 1" per month rainfall equivalent.

A washing machine (60 litre/full cycle) - used once a week - would do about 1¼ squares @1"/month equiv.

As people tend to wash more in hot dusty areas, more water is used, but equally evaporation is greater at the plant end of things.

Mind you; some sources say water consumption per capita in the US is 2-300 litres/day and some 575 litres/day

So there is a fair bit of irrigation going down drains.

Have fun filtering and pumping grey water - also using it in drip systems. It is not recommended to store it for more than a day or so as it starts out gunky and tends to get real nasty. In California for example it must be released underground, not on the surface. For a roof İ feel it is generally better to just use good insulation and lots of it - go to R49 for example.

As far as I understand, the global warming that we are experiencing is thought to be caused by excess C02 and Methane in the atmosphere. These and other greenhouse gasses capture heat (energy in the form of IR and/or visible light) rather than reflecting it back out into space.

So, in a simple sense, anything that reflects energy back to the sky (and beyond) should help the situation. But I think that little of this captured energy is making its way to the earths surface, as much of it is more likely absorbed in the atmosphere before coming within the range of tall buildings, trees, etc. Also, what's to stop the atmospheric green house gasses from absorbing the reflected energy as well before they reach the harmless bounds of space.

The key point was mentioned earlier. Most of the CO2 and methane currently in the atmosphere was for millions of years locked away beneath the earth's surface. Safely. We were at a nice equilibrium, plenty of energy leaving the planet and not so much greenhouse gas capturing it. Lately with the increased use of fossil fuels, the concentration of greenhouse gasses is such that that equilibrium has been tilted toward the capturing of excess energy causing increased atmospheric temperatures.

If we single out green house gasses as the cause. We can approach the problem in two ways. We can try to change the amount of energy collected in the atmosphere. We can do this with reflective roofs. I'm not convinced that it would be enough to counter the imbalance caused by the green house gasses and as I said before, how much is absorbed on the way back. We might try reflective materials in the atmosphere. I'm personally a little skeptical of such an approach, I think it may reflect our problem back at us.

The other way is to reduce the green house gasses in the atmosphere. This would be done by capturing the carbon and storing it once again beneath the earth's surface. I haven't a clue as to how this could be done, but it would fix the problem.

My initial thought was about the 'heat island' effect around urban areas. There is a scene in the movie Evan Almighty where Morgan Freeman takes Evan to a hillside showing him what it looked like before development. I visualize a city before and after development and think about the materials exposed to the sun versus the trees and plants that were there before and think it might neutralize the difference if we used materials and science to make the urban areas more like they were before development.

Think of tall buildings with solar panels or climbing ivy on the sides and plants on the roofs all working together to nullify the effect of development. This would not have much effect on reflecting energy back out into space, but the plants would sequester some carbon from the air and should also put some oxygen into the cities. I just don't know if we can find plants hardy enough to survive the urban environment and it's smog.

(oh, and I thought of a long hedge clipper blade stretched across the roof to keep a bermuda grass roof nice and tidy the plumbing vents would have to be relocated to the ridges)

Drew

Even if adding more plants to modern cities does not significantly alter the heat island effect, it does make cities more livable. Grass is prettier than green concrete. Or white concrete.

Adding plants to urban environments may not be the ultimate solution, but it can do no harm, so let's do it...