Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation
Share conversation: Share via:

Michael Maccracken

May 2, 2013


1 |
Share via:
A question that is often asked when discussing human induced climate change is why scientists do not also consider the release of water vapor (the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect) and heat when considering how combustion of fossil fuels are affect the climate. For heat, it turns out that the heat released from combustion of a ton of coal is about the same (within a factor of 2 or so) of the infrared energy captured by the emitted CO2 over the first year. What makes CO2 so important is that the perturbation to the CO2 concentration persists, at least in part, for centuries to millennia (and some longer). For the injected water vapor, the average lifetime of water vapor in the atmosphere is 8-10 days or so (calculated by dividing the amount of water in the atmosphere by the average global rainfall rate); in addition, adding water vapor to the atmosphere increases the atmospheric concentration, and this tends to suppress the natural rate of evaporation, which is driven by the gradient between the surface and the atmosphere. The proposal here is to add water vapor to the atmosphere to the extent that super saturation occurs (this is why there are clouds). Well, the proposed addition of water vapor would persist for a relatively short time until the natural removal processes readjusted the water vapor concentration and cloud cover back to what is determined by the atmospheric circulation (removing the excess by precipitation and reducing evaporation). Thus, the cloud creation would have to be sustained and would only have a relatively limited areal extent. One thing it would be interesting to have the proposal include a comparison to the amount of water vapor that is injected as a result of combustion of fossil fuels. So, roughly 10 Gt of C are burned each year. For each C atom, one could make an assumption of how many H atoms would be released (so from methane, one would get two water vapor molecules for each CO2 molecule released; etc.). To have a noticeable effect, one might have to do a good bit more--and one could estimate how much fuel the helicopters would need to carry the water to the volcanic magma. Off-hand, it is not clear that a net benefit could be generated.

Johnnie Buttram

May 4, 2013


2 |
Share via:
The Exploiting Volcanoes 101 Proposal is designed to demonstrate how the wasted energy of a natural occurrence may be beneficially utilized to help create sustainability and albedo. The use of fossil fuels to transport the seawater to the no-cost magma energy source would be contingent upon the application. The use of floating fire boats to nozzle spray surface magma may consume less fuel than using helicopters to make 2,000 pound water drops. However, helicopters flown off a carrier also being used to train pilots could serve two purposes using one fossil fuel application Another example of a two-for-one benefit is a situation where I used natural gas as the energy source to provide natural gas well compression and it's normally wasted exhaust gases to superheat and evaporate salt/water in one application. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ To better overview the situation - if time permits - you might review the "Inertia Dynamics" proposal on the Co Lab Hydraulic Fracturing site. Unfortunately, when I wrote this proposal to increase gas well production and as a proactive approach to atmospheric pollution, I knew it would not receive readership, be easily understood or received. Nevertheless - these dynamics are now on the table! _______________________________________________________________________________________________ In Oklahoma 1990, the Ajax natural gas compressors were top of the line! One of my favorites that I used to do most of my research and development on was a 180 hp which exhausted huge amounts of heat. The exhaust pipe was about 500 degrees and 12 inches in diameter. The muffler was about 30 inches in diameter and 14 feet tall. The R & D proto I built and used would heat the prorated water to 212 degrees, expand the salt/water piped from the water tank,up and over,and inject it upstream directly into the exhaust pipe. On occasion, my 2 year old granddaughter loved to ride with in the early mornings to the locations and watch pulsating (smoke) vapor rings shoot upwards approximately two hundred+ feet and vanish into the sky. Those were wonderful days! When the ambient temperature was around 97+ degrees at noontime, the exhaust gases from this 180 hp Ajax compressor would evaporate around 100 barrels of salt/water to the atmosphere in a 24 hour period. _______________________________________________________________________________________________ The situation described above may not be significant to a world that turns a spigot and takes two showers ever day! But may be highly significant to those scanning the skies and praying for rain as they listen to their children's muffled cries for water! The wasted energy of 1,900 active volcanoes using custom applications could prove to be very beneficial, if compassionately evaluated by world leaders in a meaningful context!

2013geoengineeringjudges 2013geoengineeringjudges

Jul 10, 2013


3 |
Share via:
Thank you for sharing your ideas and for the work invested to create this proposal. We have considered this proposal carefully. However, the issues that have been raised in comments made by the contest Advisor have not been addressed sufficiently to convince the judges that clouds can be generated as described here and therefore that this scheme is feasible.