Ok what effect would this idea have? You build a very high structure or a porous thin metal or some other material that goes a few miles into the sky. The idea here is that clouds passing will hit the structure and turn to water and run down the structure to the ground. This would be placed in areas of low rain. Would this idea work? How high are clouds? How wide would the structure have to be to be effective? Could this help to turn desert into vegetation? Could this be combined with another idea that being a device place in the sea that causes spray (I’m not sure if this idea has been fully developed yet but I know its being worked on) These could be placed to help form clouds that would travel in the direction of the structure. Surely one of the best global warming soultion is to get more water onto land. This would cut sea levels and in turn it would create more clouds which deflect the suns rays. It would also grow more vegetation which would help with carbon dioxide levels! What are your thoughts?
Would the problem with this solution be that water coming into contact with a surface at high altitude creates ice? Even in the Desert?
The effects would (in my opinion) be minimal. As the issue of Global warming is a combination of many factors attempting to cure this one would likely change little, or nothing. Might make a pretty lake eventually though. Adding water to the surface of the earth is not an issue, as the planet is 2/3 surface water now. If we were to attempt an experiment on our atmosphere.....I can think of several more productive schemes, that may remove small portions of the contaminants we have placed there.
The way I'd do it is to send a device to a point in space then unravel it so that it opens to make a very large square shaped sunscreen. You would need a few depending upon the size they would open to. They would be placed at a distance that would allow them to track the Earth and sun to give the Earth a "sunscreen" if it were to partially block some sunlight from getting through to Earth. They would be powered by the sunlight itself to move with the Earth and be adjustable somewhat to increase or decrease the anount of sunlight allowed to hit Earth. We have the technology to this now.
I think it's generally not a good idea to experiment with our ecosystem not understanding it fully, i.e., what the consequences could be in long and short term. Russians loved to do this: reversing the rivers, making crazy aggregation, the result is many devastated regions and Aral sea dissapearing from the face of the Earth.
Extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and inject it into undeground reservoirs. Simple, capable of immense fine tuning, and it will keep all those rig crews occupied when they have no oil left to drill for. (Alternatively ban beans and beef.)
Signing Kyoto wouldn’t make any difference to CO2 atmospheric content. Kyoto main purpose (as devised originally by good old ENRON) was to create a market for trading CO2 emission quotas that they could control. ENRON second aim was promote alternative energy generation and increase their profits from their huge natural gas business, solar and wind industries. Everybody with high emissions would have to chose between really reducing their emissions (cutting electricity generation, transport, etc) and crashing their economies at the same time, or buy emission quotas from countries as Russia that didn’t generate what they were generating before (because their economic crisis and industry slowdown). And all this havoc in economies and suffering of their people for the net result of reducing just 0.02º C by the year 2100!! Insane. Obviously, assuming countries wouldn’t lie about their CO2 emissions, they would have to buy emission quotas while still emitting the same (or more CO2). The net effect would be higher power generation costs and therefore higher industrial costs, cost that would be passed onto users. You and me, who are the ones who are paying the bill for the warming festival. National economies would sink. Not a very bright option. But according to Kyoto (I don’t think anyone here has read the full Kyoto documents and how it will be implemented) countries are the sole responsible for reporting how much CO2 they have produced in any given year. There is no provision for a country or a special group to inspect or check if other countries are telling the truth. Countries are not forced to accept inspections. So the natural consequence is: everybody is going to lie, and will say “What, me, emitting a lot? No, sir, not me!” and will add, “I am emitting much less than last year so I have some credits for sale. Any takers?” But there is a one simply question: Why subtract CO2 from the atmosphere, in the first place? CO2 is food for all vegetation in the world. With elevated CO2 levels plants produce more biomass, that is, crops increase in tonnage for the same area cultivated. Still better, increased CO2 levels make plants withstand high temperature better and become resistant to droughts and pests. There are hundreds of scientific studies that proved this, so if someone is interested I can provide a long list of such studies. Signing Kyoto is for suckers (as all European countries) that are now facing the threat of really implementing CO2 reductions (that they have already said they cannot achieve), or devise another Global Scam in order to avoid ruining their economies. The USA, China, India, Brazil, are heading towards a direction the EU doesn’t like at all, and they see they have put themselves at a serious disadvantage by trying to convince the USA to sign Kyoto. They deserve it. Now has come paying time. That is the reason for the G8 decision to back up from Kyoto and try the “increase in energy efficiency” instead. Kyoto is about money and dominance of global markets, not climate change.
