© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/reflections-on-global-warming/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
An interesting idea in reducing global warming has been suggested by a reader of New Scientist magazine. Mike Follows Willenhall from England points out that if the roofs of all of the buildings on Earth were painted white, the amount of sunlight reflected back into space may be increased, which could reduce global temperatures by an average of 1 degree Celsius. This would almost exactly cancel out the global warming that has taken place since the start of the industrial revolution.
From the article:
The Earth has an albedo of 0.29, meaning that it reflects 29 per cent of the sunlight that falls upon it. With an albedo of 0.1, towns absorb more sunlight than the global average. Painting all roofs white could nudge the Earth’s albedo from 0.29 towards 0.30.
There are risks in tampering with Earth’s climate in this way… but it’s an interesting idea, worthy of further study. As a side benefit, this could also reduce air conditioning costs in warmer climates, since white-topped buildings would reflect away more heat. On that note, perhaps dark shingles that lighten in color as temperature rises would be a good compromise… they would absorb needed heat in the winter, and reflect unwanted heat in the summer. How about it, science?
© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/reflections-on-global-warming/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
I’m not an expert, but I’m pretty sure no one would do that, or that it would help, or that global warming is actually an actual change in the Earth’s climate as a whole. Honestly, is there any hard evidence that the temperature is rising in the great scheme of things. For all we know, the changes could be minor variations in the climate that are completely unaffected by CO2 levels. But hey, I’m no expert.
I’d be really surprised if merely painting the roofs of buildings white would affect the Earth’s albedo to
such an extent (.29 to .30). The Earth’s surface composes a LOT of surface area, and, despite the number
of buildings that man has built, I’d be really surprised if it even comes close to a few millionths of a
percent of the Earth’s surface (Think about all of the surface area composed of oceans, and deserts, and
fields, and forests, and, well, you get the idea.).
Still, it might make a measurable effect in cities, which are measurable warmer than the surrounding
countryside. This effect is primarily attributed to the solar energy absorbed by roadways and parking
lots, although roofs would certainly contribute a portion.
Note that white objects emit less radiation than black objects (black body theory and all that), so it
might even help to improve the insulation in houses in the winter by minimizing heat leakage through
the roofs, especially at night (although I rather doubt that the effect would be enough to measure).
In any case, it’s an imaginative solution.
Dave
The article says:
The Global Rural Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP), undertaken by the Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York, shows that roughly 3 per cent of the Earth’s land surface is covered with buildings.
That’s land area, not total area, but it’s still a surprisingly large number.
Of course, if your goal were to destroy the Earth instead, you could just dust the polar icecaps with a thin layer of soot.
I’m wondering what would happen if roofs were painted unevenly, mostly on one side of the planet. Let’s say China or the U.S. decided not to sign the Comprehensive Roof Painting Treaty on Global Warming and Climate Change. Would the Earth tilt out of orbit and fall into the Sun? It may seem improbable, but I for one am not willing to take that risk.
Futurist K. Erik Drexler (champion of nanotechnology) envisions a future where roads and rooftops are paved with durable solar energy collectors. This lovely solution would eliminate most greenhouse gas problems, BUT…
There’s no getting away from the second law of thermodynamics. The harvested energy will be distributed and used for human purposes, and will inevitably become waste heat. If we imagine unlimited industrialization of Earth, soon we could have global warming of a more direct sort. The problem is exacerbated if humans harness fusion energy. Even Drexler acknowledges that solving chemical pollution problems doesn’t eliminate heat waste; the “smokestacks” emit clean air, but it’s warm air.
In his excellent Ringworld, Larry Niven imagines an alien race that actually has to move its planet further from the parent star to deal with the excess heat of industrialization. Could this be humanity’s ultimate fate? Or will we paint all of our rooftops silver and go back to bamboo rakes?
P.S. Hey, all you brainiacs out there… Is it possible to use a black hole as a heatsink, or will Hawking radiation ensure that you can’t take advantage of it?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but reflecting solar heat won’t help the problem. Global warming is caused, allegedly(just for you sticklers for linguistic accuracy) by so-called greenhouse gasses which allow heat in, but trap it from radiating out into the upper atmosphere. You can reflect all the light you want, but the heat will still get stuck below the gasses, no? Venus’ cloud cover reflects gobs of visible light, but the infra-red still gets through basking the surface in balmy temps that make lead go all gooey. As a method of keeping things cooler indoors it sounds like a great idea, but I’m dubious of the global impact.
The GRUMP statistics you quote are different on their web-site:
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2005/story03-07-05.html
which states:
“GRUMP data indicate that roughly 3% of the Earth’s land surface is occupied by urban areas,
an increase of at least 50% over previous estimates that urban areas occupied 1-2% of the Earth’s
total land area.”
All urban areas aren’t necessarily buildings (Think of streets, roads, parking lots, parks, lawns, etc.).
It’s still higher than I anticipated, though.
Dave
Having revisited the subject in a college course on Statistical Analysis, I and my team found that CO2 concentration is waaay below any dangerous level, its increases do not have a corresponding increase in global surface temperature, greenhouse gases by obvious connection promote growth of plants, which EAT greenhouse gases, and the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles all on its own and has since before recorded history, without human assistance.
Air quality is provably better now than in the 1970’s and continues to improve. Alternative energy sources will help with that continued improvement, at least in the U.S. Third world countries are the worst polluters, followed by Russia, India, and China, not necessarily in that order, so those recommending we go back in technology are working against the cause of cleaner air and water.
A picture I saw on NASA’s daily pictures (in the archives now) showed a huge number of jet contrails over Georgia, USA. These artificial clouds reflect heat back to the Earth and reflect sunlight back out. What ultimate effect this may work on the environment, I have no idea. Food for thought.
Funny why no one mentioned about the snow in winter. Being white it has the tendency to reflect light and heat, hence why snow sportsmen wear sunglasses. Are not all the roofs of buildings covered in snow? All the ground as well? Yet this has not really had an effect on keeping things cold. Kinda throws water all over that theory don’t you think.
Most of the current research, that is legitimate, shows that cycles of solar activity are what causes the changes in temperature on our planet. The greenhouse gases don’t do anything. As Semperloco stated, CO2 is used up by plants and there are more plants now than there were in the past. Think grass, the largest user of CO2 and producer of O2 on the planet.
In relationship to the previous comment by swandog, I would agree that cycles of solar activity affects changes in temperature on our planet. I have no valid proof to refute the statement that green house gases don’t affect global temperatures. But I am truly perplexed by the statement that “there are more plants now than there were in the past”. What exactly is this information based on ?
Also, the comment that “grass is the largest consumer of CO2 and producer of O2 on this planet” sounds like a complete abomination. To the best of my knowledge (whilst having no authority in this field, mind you), the greatest producer of O2, and in turn consumer of C02 on this planet, are the oceans, via the photosynthetic activities of plankton.
Now, for Semperloco to say that “Third world countries are the worst polluters, followed by Russia, India, and China,” and completely disregard the role of the USA as a major polluter is a very un-diplomatic and rather chovenistic approach to the issue. If such was the case, why hasn’t the U.S.A signed the Kyoto protocol ? Do not misinterpret my opinion here, i certainly acknowledge that the U.S.A has made huge advances in ecological conservation, and are undoubtedly a prime example to that effect. But the truth remains, the U.S.A has consumption habits on an individual and national scale that far exceeds most other countries.
In general, I fear that too many of these comments can easily serve to disregard that the impact humans have on this planet remains a very real issue and cannot be taken lightly.
My first thought on reading this blog, was (sneezing and saying a male cattle’s excrement). After reading all the comments though, I was stunned. It’s unfathomable to me that anyone would even think of painting or having all the tops of man made objects white. What’s worse is that some one thinks that that endeavor would do anything about “global warming.”
Some people need to lighten up a little, of course everything impacts the environment, so what. If everyone on this planet spent the next year non stop farting, and the cows joined us, the earth wouldn’t miss a beat. Granted, smellier, but unchanged. Humanity may tax the earth with it’s endeavors, but we won’t break it. We should all put our focus on managing what we have.
Hey Scrappy, i suppose the “lightenning up” was meant for me…
Certainly, I may tend to go on crusades at times, but my leitmotiv is not too out of whack. The internet is a fascinating source of information, yet more than too often the accuracy of the information is at best, questionable, when free. I very much love damninteresting.com, i spend hours on it. It’s a fascinating pool of knowledge (both the articles and the responses). In my quest for ideals I would simply like the information to be consistently accurate, as i am sure, the writers and masters of the web-site. It certainly doesn’t mean being over zealous about it, granted, and thus your comments on lightenning-up are truly well placed.
But the fact of the matter is, if I see someone on a beach eating a plastic-wrapped sandwich and that person chooses to abandon the wrapper on the sand or in the water, they would certainly be in no position to ask me to lighten up about it. I hope we agree.
“The Kyoto protocol called for a particularly high level of participation from the United States, as the nation with by far the largest fossil fuel consumption rate in the world.”
http://inside.bard.edu/politicalstudies/student/PS260Spring03/kyotocol.htm
But the United States is not the only “high impact” country to not have signed the protocol. Russia, India and China didn’t either. It seems, if you follow this link, http://ask.yahoo.com/20020906.html, that the obligations imposed on the USA are unfair compared to those on other countries, which would justify their refusal to commit to the terms. I am confident that the USA is concious of environmental issues and does contribute within the limits that are sustainable to it’s gargantuan economy.
But the largest gap in the ozone layer is above Antartica. Antartica…as in ice and snow, which are typically white.
ballaerina said: “But the largest gap in the ozone layer is above Antartica. Antartica…as in ice and snow, which are typically white.”
OH CRAP! then, let’s paint everything black! lol
you guys do understand an “ice age” can occur in less than 4 decades, right? Earth takes care of itself concerning the things within it’s envelope.
Marius said: “Correct me if I’m wrong, but reflecting solar heat won’t help the problem. Global warming is caused, allegedly(just for you sticklers for linguistic accuracy) by so-called greenhouse gasses which allow heat in, but trap it from radiating out into the upper atmosphere. You can reflect all the light you want, but the heat will still get stuck below the gasses, no? Venus’ cloud cover reflects gobs of visible light, but the infra-red still gets through basking the surface in balmy temps that make lead go all gooey. As a method of keeping things cooler indoors it sounds like a great idea, but I’m dubious of the global impact.”
To put it simply I think it lets light in and out easily while the heat gets trapped. The photons will reflect off the white surface more easily instead of being absorbed and turned into another energy form by for example black roofing. I might be wrong, thus I would like to be corrected that’s how I learn. As for the white roofing of the worlds housings, it might have an effect but I don’t know how large. If my English sucks I am sorry for it is not my native language.
The hole in the ozone has covered almost all of Antarctica and is spreading to South America. Is this any connection with the melanoma increase?
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part2.html#oct
The atmosphere traps in infrared radiation, while allowing visible light to pass through. Think of your car on a summer day. Light is absorbed by dark object, which latter emits the excess energy as infrared waves, so in theory, this might work.
That’s assuming that there is global warming at all.
Anyway, the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor. Better drain those lakes and oceans.
Am I the only one or is there anyone else tired of the “Global Warming” argument. The earth will take care of itself. We humans can believe we’re helping things by speeding up or slowing it down, but truth be known weather we nuke each other or keep on moving along, mother nature will have her way. Face it. It’s a vicious cycle, and we’re just the pawns in this game.
Just for the hell of it, lets all go to the paint store and test out this proposal. Surely would brighten things up. No pun intended.
Frankly, I don’t like these supposed fixes for global warming. The evidence, to me, is still fuzzy, but…I won’t get started into a debate.
Lots of great comments here but I have to put in my 2 cents…especially since it has been a few years since this article was written and 6 months since the last comment.
1) Recent scientific news articles are talking about global cooling. Yes, thats right, global cooling. It states that the avg global temperature is getting colder…and has been for the last 7 years.
2) It is pretty clear that most the people who started and vehemently support the global warming cause have an agenda and misrepresent facts to support their cause.
3) One volcanic eruption puts out more greenhouse gas than the entire world has since the begginning of the industrial revolution (1 natural event vs 100 years of industry)
4) Global warming/cooling is more closely tied to solar activity.
5)The painting of rooftops white is a fun idea :D jk. But i have long daydreamed about some other types of resurfacing that, while not helpful to “fixing” global warming, could be helpful in other aspects.
a)the pavement solar cells idea in the article is something I hadn’t thought of but if, possible, is pure genius.
b)using white cement (and white tires to help keep them white) instead of black asphault would help some cities cool off in the summer. Phoenix would be my first candidate.
c) Large Domes over public parks, etc that are comprised of 1000’s of triangles. The triangles each would deploy a solar cell that could be retracted to let light, air, water (the elements) through them onto the park below or could be deployed to block the sun/heat and turn it into electricity. Each cell would be individual controlled and run by a computer that would intelligently deploy/retract each cell to creat the appropriate/desired amount of shade or rain cover. The under sides would need to be somewhat sturdy but lightweight (perhaps the metal used to make our f15 jet fighters). Even if it didn’t produce any useful amount of electricity, it could be engineered to be somewhat selfsufficient and allow residents of the desert to enjoy a public outdoor area without immediately baking to death (I lived in phoenix several years and had small children at the time).
d) I also imagine cars with a similar scheme. Covered in solar cells, the energy would be used to recharge a batter (albeit a small amount). There wold also be retractable covers (over the windsheild and rear window as well making it pitch black inside the vehicle. This owuld maximize the solar cell surface area and limit the heat entering through the glass. I do not know the math, but perhaps the energy could be used in a small condenser to keep the car at a temp below 135 degrees (not uncommon for a car sitting in the summer heat). The Window screens alone help keep the interior of a car at a low temp.
All that being said, even if global warming is 100% proven false (i.e. human greenhouse gases are going to kill us all) that doesn’t mean that we need to go and use up all the resources, dirty every lake, litter every where, trash everything, etc. We have a great responsibility to keep our world clean.
I find what our Govt has done with nuclear energy and testing to be a far worse crime against nature and humanity than industrial air polution. How many nuclear multi-millenia tombs must we create?! Reading about them makes me cringe.
I would think white roadways, parking lots, etc. would lead to a higher accident rate (glare and eye fatigue) and an increase in incidents of sun burn. Other than that, it seems a rather novel idea.
The domes you suggest seem prohibitively expensive, and I’m not a big fan of the “if we cover it in solar panels, it has to make sense” mentality (please note that I’m not accusing you of thinking this way, it just seems that this ideology has made its’ way into our collective consciousness).
The same arguments (or backwards mentality {on my part}) apply to your ideas for the car. Although I must admit that a passive cooling system for a car is a great idea.
I’d just like to say that there is nothing inherently “un-natural” about nuclear fission. Natural nuclear explosions have happened. Also, the more recent generations of nuclear reactors produce far less waste (and use fuel far more efficiently) than previous designs have. Nuclear power is much cleaner than any of the reasonable alternatives (solar and wind simply won’t fly in the long term… supplemental energy, yes… primary power source {especially taking into account peak power usage and loss due to transmission as well as reliability}, no) and with a much more reliable fuel supply than anything other than coal. Additionally, stockpiling of fuel requires far less volume.
For a look from the other side of the fence, check out http://depletedcranium.com/ . It’s another interesting site with intelligent, educated contributions from the peanut gallery.
Please don’t take this post as an attack, nuclear power is just something that I feel fairly strongly about.
I painted my roof white with Hy-Tech Cool Roof Coating, it has Hy-Tech ceramic micro spheres (nano hollow ceramic spheres) and my energy bill is an incredible 35% to 45 % less. It will pay for it self this summer!
If snow reflectivity helps the Albedo, (Cooling down due to reflecting light/heat back into space.) then my white reflective roof is not only using less energy, less C02 footprint and keeping money in my pocket to allow me help the economy a little, it’s also helping the Albedo cooling of the earth 365 day a year!
What the hell are you waiting for? Be the first on your block to show how smarter you are than you are fashionable.
I live in a house without A/C, so my energy bill for cooling is still 100% less than yours ;-)
It’s still agreeably cool in the summers, but the heating bill in the winter is a bother. Your roofs can’t help with that though, can they?
That’s wonder full Mirage GSM. I live on the Texas Gulf Cost. Winter is short and the climate here is hot and humid. On the Heat index Chart @ 98 deg. F and 70% relative humidity it can feel like 130 deg. When you sweat, and then it evaporates, it takes with it the heat from your body. Your sweat will not evaporate into the atmosphere already saturated with water (humidity). So you feel hotter. The A/C not only cools down the house, it removes humidity. I grew up down hear with out A/C, but if I went back to not using A/C, ether I would dye form the heat, or from my wife who would kill me for getting rid of it.
I don’t think Hy-Tech Cool Roof Coating would help you in winter. Unless the ceramic spheres were the size of baseballs. That might not look quit right. In principle though, Insulation would mean everything.
You can also paint all roads white too. That plus the roofs would cover a lot of surface area. I think painting the roof is more beneficial to society than reducing the global temperature by 1 degree. The chain of reaction of everyone using less energy to power their A/C’s would be beneficial to Earth enough.
You wrote this here Coolreflection so it proves that it actually works, and in response to the comment of,
“” Mirage_GSM on 19 June 2009 at 01:05 am
I live in a house without A/C, so my energy bill for cooling is still 100% less than yours ;-)
It’s still agreeably cool in the summers, but the heating bill in the winter is a bother. Your roofs can’t help with that though, can they?””
I would suggest that if you have a black roof you could place white panels on your roof with a sliding mechanism in the Summer and remove them in Winter time, so you would get advantage in both seasons.
IN REPLY TO ALAN’S ARTICLE HERE,
He was way ahead on highlighting the benefits of white roofs, as you can read at a recent link here below
it is back in the picture again to work on the white roof benefits.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35125043/ns/us_news-environment/
And as I am a avid handyman / painter i would love the idea to paint or place panels on roofs, lol.
It would be a win,win situation for everyone even the little bits would help is my motto.
There is an interesting proposal here from November 2008 see link, that i would like to share with you all.
It puts you to thinking why it takes so long for everyone not to implement these facts more in a faster mode.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-999-2008-031/CEC-999-2008-031.PDF
Frank G
Not that anyone cares, but….
I support spending less money on energy for cooling buildings, et cetera. Really, who doesn’t like saving money?
I support self-control in the use of natural resources, be they renewable or otherwise. Notice that I say self-control, not government control. Energy comes from natural resources. The more slowly we use resources, the longer they’ll be around (and less expensively so) for us to use.
I support clean air and water. Pollution, be it solid garbage or smog or whatever, is disgusting and harmful – to us as well as to most of the other beasties with whom we share the planet. If the air were clear and the water drinkable – except in the ocean, unless you’ve got salt-flushing capabilities – that would be ideal. And there’s no denying it’s mankind’s fault that’s not the case.
I support global warming. Not fighting it. I oppose fighting it. I think the planet could stand to be a bit warmer and to have less ice. Blasted ice age making a quarter of the planet uninhabitable. I’m all ready to move to Antarctica once it thaws out.
I support carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If it contributes at all to the warming – of which I have my doubts – then great. Even if not, we’d be running dangerously low without the supplements from combustion and concrete manufacture. It’s taken the photosynthesizers of the world just a couple billion years to use up all the atmosphere’s original CO2. Yes, all. What little is left isn’t even as much as has been added by volcanoes and such since the advent of photosynthesis. They’re running out! There’s only a few million years’ supply left, if that! Ideally – it seems to me – we would run our technological world on clean combustion that produced only CO2 and H2O.
Now, there is some argument about carbon dioxide acidifying the oceans and dissolving the shells of the mollusks or something. I haven’t heard enough of this argument to have a qualified opinion, but it’s the one thing that could sway my opinion back toward the “CO2 is bad, global warming is evil, we must stop” side of the debate, so if anyone wants to persuade me, I’m listening.
Somewhat off-topic rant over. MacAvity out.