If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Windsor Star)   "Study suggests we could refreeze Arctic. But should we?" I have a bad feeling about this   (blogs.windsorstar.com) divider line 105
    More: Scary, Arctic, Environmental Defense Fund, environmental engineering, Environment Canada, Environmental Research Letters, Gulfstream  
•       •       •

9267 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Dec 2012 at 10:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-10 09:10:42 PM
I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would say about this.
 
2012-12-10 09:29:30 PM
They kind of like the fact the problem is hard to solve because it gives you a lever to say we have to make these deep reforms in consumer culture, which I personally would like to see," said Keith.

Hey, a problem solved is a problem solved. And at the end of the day, if you can't push through changes in consumer culture that haven't ever succeeded in all of human history, then maybe alternative solutions aren't a bad direction to go in. It doesn't necessarily have to be re-freezing the arctic, as long as we come up with an alternative energy source that will continue to meet our ever-growing demand, or maybe a combination of the two.

It's years in the future regardless. But we've been re-routing water for millennia, so it's not that far a jump to re-routing solar radiation. It's been proposed for years, but we're always getting closer to actually being able to do it. The minute someone comes up with a super cheap manner of doing it, someone is going to say "hold my beer and watch this."
 
2012-12-10 09:29:36 PM

johnsoninca: I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would say about this.



That humans are arrogant, self absorbed and aggrandizing asshats?

/Just a guess
 
2012-12-10 09:31:37 PM

Lsherm: They kind of like the fact the problem is hard to solve because it gives you a lever to say we have to make these deep reforms in consumer culture, which I personally would like to see," said Keith.

Hey, a problem solved is a problem solved. And at the end of the day, if you can't push through changes in consumer culture that haven't ever succeeded in all of human history, then maybe alternative solutions aren't a bad direction to go in. It doesn't necessarily have to be re-freezing the arctic, as long as we come up with an alternative energy source that will continue to meet our ever-growing demand, or maybe a combination of the two.

It's years in the future regardless. But we've been re-routing water for millennia, so it's not that far a jump to re-routing solar radiation. It's been proposed for years, but we're always getting closer to actually being able to do it. The minute someone comes up with a super cheap manner of doing it, someone is going to say "hold my beer and watch this."



That usually works out well.
 
2012-12-10 09:34:04 PM

Amos Quito: Lsherm: They kind of like the fact the problem is hard to solve because it gives you a lever to say we have to make these deep reforms in consumer culture, which I personally would like to see," said Keith.

Hey, a problem solved is a problem solved. And at the end of the day, if you can't push through changes in consumer culture that haven't ever succeeded in all of human history, then maybe alternative solutions aren't a bad direction to go in. It doesn't necessarily have to be re-freezing the arctic, as long as we come up with an alternative energy source that will continue to meet our ever-growing demand, or maybe a combination of the two.

It's years in the future regardless. But we've been re-routing water for millennia, so it's not that far a jump to re-routing solar radiation. It's been proposed for years, but we're always getting closer to actually being able to do it. The minute someone comes up with a super cheap manner of doing it, someone is going to say "hold my beer and watch this."


That usually works out well.


Usually not. However, I don't think the US will be jumping the gun on this one. I could see China or Russia doing it, though.
 
2012-12-10 09:38:02 PM

johnsoninca: I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would say about this.


www.cs.cmu.edu
 
2012-12-10 09:48:16 PM
You always say that, Frost.
 
2012-12-10 09:59:13 PM
Do we finally get to nuke someone again? It's been far too long.
 
2012-12-10 10:08:18 PM
Believe it or not, there's reason to believe we could simply make a very long tube that reaches into the stratosphere, which holds itself aloft by a kite mechanism. Up that tube you pump sulfur dioxide, which could offset much of the CO2 warming. It's relatively cheap, though it would have to be continuous, the SO2 would be broken down by I believe UV as well as normal atmospheric reactions. But it's doable with modern materials science. It's also thought not to have significant effects besides cooling, though that's obviously unproved.
 
2012-12-10 10:22:41 PM
All the slushee machines?
 
2012-12-10 10:25:04 PM
Am I the only one who thought of the end of the Bart the Mom Simpsons episode? Do we just hope the apes freeze?
 
2012-12-10 10:25:21 PM
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
Approves
 
2012-12-10 10:26:04 PM
Problem is, next heavy frost all the citrus growers will sue. Anyone who gets a burst broken pipe in winter or skids on ice into an accident will sue. Who insures the project?
 
2012-12-10 10:26:10 PM
Man made climate change is false. It is a taxing scheme that will destroy jobs in the US while giving developing countries like China a pass.
 
2012-12-10 10:26:19 PM
whatcouldpossiblygowrong

They can't even accurately predict the weather a few hours from now yet they think they somehow understand what would happen if they manipulated the climate of the entire planet.
 
2012-12-10 10:26:30 PM
img198.imageshack.us

Already solved.
 
2012-12-10 10:28:06 PM
Giant ice cube from Futurama

/.jpg
 
2012-12-10 10:28:34 PM

GAT_00: Believe it or not, there's reason to believe we could simply make a very long tube that reaches into the stratosphere, which holds itself aloft by a kite mechanism. Up that tube you pump sulfur dioxide, which could offset much of the CO2 warming. It's relatively cheap, though it would have to be continuous, the SO2 would be broken down by I believe UV as well as normal atmospheric reactions. But it's doable with modern materials science. It's also thought not to have significant effects besides cooling, though that's obviously unproved.


H2SO4 would be the problem with that little plan, though if we could eliminate coal use it might not be a significant increase.
 
2012-12-10 10:28:45 PM
The question in cases like this is never, should we. The question is, will the Dick Cheneys of the world make a mega fortune doing it.
 
2012-12-10 10:29:34 PM
Hell yes or this happens:

kylecrick.com
 
2012-12-10 10:30:27 PM

Farque Ewe: Man made climate change is false. It is a taxing scheme that will destroy jobs in the US while giving developing countries like China a pass.


If it wasn't for all the idiots I encounter in my daily life I'd refuse to believe that such idiocy existed in the same species with me.
 
2012-12-10 10:31:18 PM
refreeze, just like it does every year all by itself? seems redundant
 
2012-12-10 10:31:33 PM

robodog: GAT_00: Believe it or not, there's reason to believe we could simply make a very long tube that reaches into the stratosphere, which holds itself aloft by a kite mechanism. Up that tube you pump sulfur dioxide, which could offset much of the CO2 warming. It's relatively cheap, though it would have to be continuous, the SO2 would be broken down by I believe UV as well as normal atmospheric reactions. But it's doable with modern materials science. It's also thought not to have significant effects besides cooling, though that's obviously unproved.

H2SO4 would be the problem with that little plan, though if we could eliminate coal use it might not be a significant increase.


They wouldn't mix. Coal soot doesn't make it out of the trophosphere, whereas the sulfur dioxide is pumped into the stratosphere which strongly amplifies the effects.
 
2012-12-10 10:34:43 PM
VOLCANOES!
 
2012-12-10 10:35:02 PM
We're gonna blow up the ocean!
 
2012-12-10 10:35:24 PM
Scientists have long theorized that injecting reflective particles of some kind into the high atmosphere could reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface and compensate for the greenhouse effect. High CO2 levels would continue to trap heat, but with less energy coming in to begin with, temperatures on the surface would go down.

Hmmm...what kind of particles are we talking about here....and how do you propose to keep them airborne? Pesky gravity and all. If you just keep doing it...(and i can't imagine you could do it on a scale to make a difference) wont the particles just float to the ground everywhere? Covering the seas and destroying the phytoplankton, thus killing off oxygen to the rest of the planet??

/facepalms
 
2012-12-10 10:37:27 PM

johnsoninca: I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would say about this.


"Now I will destroy the whole world."
 
2012-12-10 10:38:27 PM

Farque Ewe: Man made climate change is false. It is a taxing scheme that will destroy jobs in the US while giving developing countries like China a pass.


Do you also believe the earth is 6000 yrs old...... and flat?
 
2012-12-10 10:40:05 PM

johnsoninca: I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would say about this.


Nuke it from orbit, to be sure?
 
2012-12-10 10:40:22 PM
Holy fark there are some stupid people on this planet.

/I know, welcome to erf and all that
 
2012-12-10 10:44:01 PM
I suspect if the other animals ever developed higher reasoning they would quickly unite to eradicate us.
 
2012-12-10 10:45:54 PM
Just be careful what you release that's been under the ice.

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-10 10:46:46 PM
I don't know about the arctic, but it is pretty damn cold here in MN... I know global warming doesn't work that way Morbo.
 
2012-12-10 10:54:27 PM
I was wondering how long it would take for this sort of article to hit the press. After wikileaks, they knew it was just a matter of time for the secret UN chemtrail program to be discovered. This enviro change nonsense is a false front to make the other darker parts of the program easier to cover up again.
 
2012-12-10 10:55:30 PM

fusillade762: You always say that, Frost.


Somebody wake up Hicks.

/LOOK INTO MY EYE!
 
2012-12-10 10:59:00 PM

Farque Ewe: Man made climate change is false. It is a taxing scheme that will destroy jobs in the US while giving developing countries like China a pass.


Thank you, Senator F*ckbag. Please commence with your Drain-O enema. We're all waiting.

/Pop-quiz: How much potable water does China possess?
 
2012-12-10 11:02:06 PM
I've met David Keith on a couple of occasions. He really is a mad scientist, but has a great perspective on the whole geo-engineering thing: it's one of those tools you want to keep in your pocket in case the warming ends up on the very high end of the projections, or higher, and you've exhausted every other tool at your disposal and none of them are working fast enough.

In that case, you study the geo-engineering now so you have a better idea of what the side effects might be if implemented.
 
2012-12-10 11:02:40 PM
The most fascinating insight is how cheaply this could be done. It will only take one highly developed, very wealthy nation to start losing trillions of dollars in heavily developed coastline to rising waters.

Then that country, most likely US - is just going to do it.

Dust the atmosphere, damn the consequences.

/Given that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of sea level increase is itself rising, I give it 20 years. Ready the high-altitude drone-dusters.
 
2012-12-10 11:04:44 PM

robodog: GAT_00: Believe it or not, there's reason to believe we could simply make a very long tube that reaches into the stratosphere, which holds itself aloft by a kite mechanism. Up that tube you pump sulfur dioxide, which could offset much of the CO2 warming. It's relatively cheap, though it would have to be continuous, the SO2 would be broken down by I believe UV as well as normal atmospheric reactions. But it's doable with modern materials science. It's also thought not to have significant effects besides cooling, though that's obviously unproved.

H2SO4 would be the problem with that little plan, though if we could eliminate coal use it might not be a significant increase.


Acid snow, building up and up.... well, who cares. It could be DECADES before it kills us all!
 
2012-12-10 11:05:31 PM
okey the Thames froze over before 1600. It has been warming ever since. The Antarctic was tropical at one time as well. We are in the end of an ice age people.

We have not been on this planet recording ourselves to look over all the data. HOWEVER the stuff we have found shows this place was pretty toasty a few million years ago... So here we go again.

Midwest was a sea bed... Dichotomous Earth. Look it up.
 
2012-12-10 11:06:29 PM
www.movieactors.com
RIP David Keith AKA Grasshopper!
 
2012-12-10 11:09:30 PM

robodog: Farque Ewe: Man made climate change is false. It is a taxing scheme that will destroy jobs in the US while giving developing countries like China a pass.

If it wasn't for all the idiots I encounter in my daily life I'd refuse to believe that such idiocy existed in the same species with me.


0/10
 
2012-12-10 11:11:34 PM
What could possibly go wrong?

www.collegecrunch.org
 
2012-12-10 11:14:51 PM

Anthracite: We have not been on this planet recording ourselves to look over all the data. HOWEVER the stuff we have found shows this place was pretty toasty a few million years ago... So here we go again.

Midwest was a sea bed... Dichotomous Earth. Look it up.


Gosh, what a brilliant insight. You should tell NASA, NOAA & the USGS. I'll be they hadn't thought of that.
 
2012-12-10 11:17:53 PM
Is it a bad feeling along your spine? Some sort of chill?
 
2012-12-10 11:18:17 PM
"We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky"
 
2012-12-10 11:19:48 PM

RandomRandom: /Given that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of sea level increase is itself rising, I give it 20 years. Ready the high-altitude drone-dusters.


No, it isn't.

Global:
sealevel.colorado.edu

"cherry-picked" Seattle tidal guage:
www.ecy.wa.gov
 
2012-12-10 11:19:53 PM

johnsoninca: I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would say about this.


"So it goes"
 
2012-12-10 11:25:57 PM

DesertDemonWY: RandomRandom: /Given that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of sea level increase is itself rising, I give it 20 years. Ready the high-altitude drone-dusters.

No, it isn't.

Global:
[sealevel.colorado.edu image 534x372]

"cherry-picked" Seattle tidal guage:
[www.ecy.wa.gov image 677x403]


Am I missing the part where both graphs aren't showing rising sea levels?
 
2012-12-10 11:27:17 PM
I don't think were nearly smart enough to pull this off without screwing things up even more.

ex: man puts sparkly bits in atmosphere, temperature lowers. at first... yay. Sparkly bits block sunlight, preventing algae biomass in ocean from doing it's photosynthesis thing, oxygen content on blue marble goes down... boo.
 
2012-12-10 11:32:23 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Am I missing the part where both graphs aren't showing rising sea levels?


Why do you hate America and God?
 
2012-12-10 11:33:15 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: DesertDemonWY: RandomRandom: /Given that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of sea level increase is itself rising, I give it 20 years. Ready the high-altitude drone-dusters.

No, it isn't.

Global:
[sealevel.colorado.edu image 534x372]

"cherry-picked" Seattle tidal guage:
[www.ecy.wa.gov image 677x403]

Am I missing the part where both graphs aren't showing rising sea levels?


No. Just pointing out that the rate of rise in not increasing
 
2012-12-10 11:35:04 PM

Lsherm: Hey, a problem solved is a problem solved. And at the end of the day, if you can't push through changes in consumer culture that haven't ever succeeded in all of human history, t


This statement, although I understand the sentiment, is not informed about economics or history. Sadly, the changes that need to be made are to an economic system that is less than 200 years old. This all-of-human-history myth is the dangerous part.
 
2012-12-10 11:37:48 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: DesertDemonWY: RandomRandom: /Given that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of sea level increase is itself rising, I give it 20 years. Ready the high-altitude drone-dusters.

No, it isn't.

Global:
[sealevel.colorado.edu image 534x372]

"cherry-picked" Seattle tidal guage:
[www.ecy.wa.gov image 677x403]

Am I missing the part where both graphs aren't showing rising sea levels?


No but you seem to be blind to the fact that it isn't accelerating as was claimed.
 
2012-12-10 11:38:54 PM
ONLY $8,000,000,000 per year? What a steal!
 
2012-12-10 11:41:53 PM
Scientists have long theorized that injecting reflective particles of some kind into the high atmosphere


This is a terrible idea. The last time we tried it, we ended up with one of the worst movies ever made.
 
2012-12-10 11:42:22 PM

Fano: johnsoninca: I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would say about this.

"So it goes"


Came here for ice-9, leaving satisfied.
 
2012-12-10 11:43:03 PM
I read "could Febreze arctic."

I was slightly more upset about Febrezing than freezing. Not that I have anything against a lovely smelling laundry alternative...
 
2012-12-10 11:47:26 PM
This is a little... silly.
The earth cas a carrying capacity. Some say we have already exceeded it through overpopulation, others say we have reduced the capacity through climate change. Other stuff, blah blah). So... lets modify the earth and increase its carrying capacity... so we can continue to increase our population.
No one sees the problem with this?
Just stop farking the planet up in the first place.
 
2012-12-10 11:50:38 PM
1. TFA says global warming could be forestalled for as little as $8bil a year, seeding the upper atmosphere with metallic dust to reflect out sunlight.

2. If global warming was a clear and real danger, then a handful of rich people could fund the entire operation in order to keep the status quo, where they are still super rich and on top of the world.

3. Since this isn't happening, doesn't it cast doubt on global warming.

4. Even so, there will eventually be a big tax that everyone else will pay in order to fund a new, massive bureaucracy, with a mission statement to end the scourge of global warming, but will actually have enough authority that civil liberties get eroded yet again.

5. But who gives a shiat. Can't stop it now.
 
2012-12-10 11:51:19 PM

johnsoninca: I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would say about this.



Ice? Nein!
 
2012-12-10 11:52:27 PM

GORDON: 1. TFA says global warming could be forestalled for as little as $8bil a year, seeding the upper atmosphere with metallic dust to reflect out sunlight.

2. If global warming was a clear and real danger, then a handful of rich people could fund the entire operation in order to keep the status quo, where they are still super rich and on top of the world.

3. Since this isn't happening, doesn't it cast doubt on global warming.

4. Even so, there will eventually be a big tax that everyone else will pay in order to fund a new, massive bureaucracy, with a mission statement to end the scourge of global warming, but will actually have enough authority that civil liberties get eroded yet again.

5. But who gives a shiat. Can't stop it now.


CEO Morgan is readying the solar shade as we speak.
 
2012-12-10 11:54:46 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-10 11:56:58 PM

LiberalConservative: This is a little... silly.
The earth cas a carrying capacity. Some say we have already exceeded it through overpopulation, others say we have reduced the capacity through climate change. Other stuff, blah blah). So... lets modify the earth and increase its carrying capacity... so we can continue to increase our population.
No one sees the problem with this?
Just stop farking the planet up in the first place.


Demographers already know that the earths population will continue to grow until around 2050 where it will plateau and then within a generation start to slowly decline as India and China collectively fall to near replacement levels and the industrialized world falls below replacement.
 
2012-12-11 12:01:17 AM
Great solution.

What would the effect of "regional dimming" be on suicide rates in Northern latiutudes? How would it affect Arctic spring and summer? What would the economic and social impact be on Northern peoples like the Inuit? Would it have a negative impact on wildlife and plant life? Would it reach as far South as the tundra and forests of Siberia, Canada and Alaska?

Great solution.

Re-freezing the Arctic might help slow sea level rise or possibly the spreading of fresh water from melt but here are a few problems it would not address:

* CO2 emissions at high levels reduce crop yields and tree growth according to many experiments that have exposed research lots to high level of CO2. You get the "greenhouse tomato" effect--plants grow faster but produce less nutritious, less flavourful and artificially ripened fruit and vegetables.

* CO2 would continue to alter the biota of forests and cropland, perhaps doing great damage to soil productivity and triggering even greater releases of CO2 and methane. The thing we have most to fear is not melting sea ice but feedback loops that completely alter the way geology, biology and the atmosphere interact. This is a complex, even a chaotic system and it can be and has been tipped from one state to radically different states by less than humans have done to it in our short time on Earth. Experiments also show that while soils and plants can absorb CO2 in the short term, in the long term the whole system may tip to release of more CO2. Feedback loops and the failure of sequestration (natural or artificial) are things to fear because they are chaotic, unpredictable and liable to be very large.

* CO2 would continue to build up in the oceans, causing acidification, which threatens the shellfish and bony fish, corals and other organisms, including plankton. The whole ecology of the oceans could collapse, leaving us without 100 million tonnes of seafood a year and massive dead zones that make the thousands of dead zones that have formed since the 1950s look like your goldfish bowl after you overfed the fish and they died--only on a massively larger scale.

Basically, most of these giant, untried and unpredictable "geoengineering projects" are like slapping a bandaid on the forehead of a patient with a gaping, sucking chest wound in at least one lung, close to the heart.

Ironically, we have already experienced global dimming due to the increase in clouds and aerosols in the atmosphere. Any more global dimming would probably be a the expense of health, crops, the environment globally and our ability to cope with the enormous costs of climate change, notably the massive spike in food costs that we are likely to face even without climate change, simply because there are so many more people who can afford to eat and who can afford to switch to eating more meat, more fish, more dairy, and other costly foods (costly in terms of water and fuel and environmental impact and so forth as well as simple dollar terms compared to the price of yams, rice, corn meal, etc.).

WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THE CAUSES, NOT JUST THE MOST SUPERFICIAL SYMPTOMS.
 
2012-12-11 12:01:23 AM
No because F*CK polar bears and migratory birds and seals and whales and especially the goddam libs.
 
2012-12-11 12:03:11 AM
Uh-oh, here comes Yoko Ono.

Yoko Ono: Ice nine. Ice nine. Ice nine. Ice nine ....
 
2012-12-11 12:04:05 AM

DerpHerder: Wolf_Blitzer: DesertDemonWY: RandomRandom: /Given that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of sea level increase is itself rising, I give it 20 years. Ready the high-altitude drone-dusters.

No, it isn't.

Global:
[sealevel.colorado.edu image 534x372]

"cherry-picked" Seattle tidal guage:
[www.ecy.wa.gov image 677x403]

Am I missing the part where both graphs aren't showing rising sea levels?

No but you seem to be blind to the fact that it isn't accelerating as was claimed.


Don't feel bad though, Wolf, I had the same Weeners, and had to re-read it 3 or 4 times to figure out that his "no it isn't" was talking about the acceleration.
 
2012-12-11 12:10:12 AM

BuckTurgidson: No because F*CK polar bears and migratory birds and seals and whales and especially the goddam libs.


Pretty much this.
 
2012-12-11 12:14:57 AM

robodog: LiberalConservative: This is a little... silly.
The earth cas a carrying capacity. Some say we have already exceeded it through overpopulation, others say we have reduced the capacity through climate change. Other stuff, blah blah). So... lets modify the earth and increase its carrying capacity... so we can continue to increase our population.
No one sees the problem with this?
Just stop farking the planet up in the first place.

Demographers already know that the earths population will continue to grow until around 2050 where it will plateau and then within a generation start to slowly decline as India and China collectively fall to near replacement levels and the industrialized world falls below replacement.


Ok, cool, but do such predictions factor in geoengineering? Or is it posited that such a plateau is independant of global carrying capacity (purely social driven)? Is Interesting.
 
2012-12-11 12:16:02 AM

LiberalConservative: The earth cas a carrying capacity.


Careful, lots of Farkers don't believe that.
 
2012-12-11 12:23:02 AM
I read that as Fabreeze the arctic. I was all for it. Too bad.
 
2012-12-11 12:23:14 AM

BigNumber12: LiberalConservative: The earth cas a carrying capacity.

Careful, lots of Farkers don't believe that.


Canada is largely empty.
 
2012-12-11 12:25:39 AM

robodog: Farque Ewe: Man made climate change is false. It is a taxing scheme that will destroy jobs in the US while giving developing countries like China a pass.

If it wasn't for all the idiots I encounter in my daily life I'd refuse to believe that such idiocy existed in the same species with me.


Climate change: no proof, corrupt scientists, fundamentalist true believers.
 
2012-12-11 12:26:29 AM

spacemanjones: I read that as Fabreeze the arctic. I was all for it. Too bad.


I just posted that above. I was extremely confused.
 
2012-12-11 12:28:19 AM

BigNumber12: LiberalConservative: The earth cas a carrying capacity.

Careful, lots of Farkers don't believe that.


Heh, just had a mental image of centillions of humans stacked like bricks all the way to the troposphere. Earth (and those humans) can handle it. Giggle.
 
2012-12-11 12:30:14 AM

thorthor: Farque Ewe: Man made climate change is false. It is a taxing scheme that will destroy jobs in the US while giving developing countries like China a pass.

Do you also believe the earth is 6000 yrs old...... and flat?


You sir are the fundamentalist. There is literally no type of proof or quantity of proof that could dislodge you from your faith that man made global warming exists and only heavy taxation will cure it. Question: What is the difference between Jimmy Swaggart and Al Gore? Answer: Nothing
 
2012-12-11 12:37:26 AM
All governments are driven by dollars. They protect industry even when it harms the average citizen or people from other less developed nations.

Given the thawing ice is creating a northern passage that will benefit most industry that ships goods, no government will vote to refreeze it.

lh3.ggpht.com

They also will not want to refreeze areas are being opened up to natural resource extraction, due to the thawing ice. At most nations might come together to maintain temperatures, but never to fully refreeze the ice caps.
 
2012-12-11 12:50:02 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: Hmmm...what kind of particles are we talking about here....and how do you propose to keep them airborne? Pesky gravity and all. If you just keep doing it...(and i can't imagine you could do it on a scale to make a difference) wont the particles just float to the ground everywhere? Covering the seas and destroying the phytoplankton, thus killing off oxygen to the rest of the planet??

/facepalms


It's nice to see that people who accept climate change can engage in the same level of aggressive ignorance as climate change deniers. "Oh my -- what are the effects of SO2 on the stratosphere?" You're the first person to ever think of this!

If scientists can't predict the effects of some particulate matter in the upper atmosphere, what makes you think they can accurately reconstruct and track the entire thermal history of earth's atmosphere and oceans?

I swear to God, the whole green movement is perfectly content to let the earth warm for for the next hundred years on the off-chance that it will change human nature and make people stop wanting things. You do realize that temperatures would keep rising beyond 2100 if CO2 emissions drop to zero today?

i2.photobucket.com

The bottom line represents zero carbon emissions. What that means is that for people alive right now, the only way to stop global warming is to actually stop global warming.
 
2012-12-11 01:04:34 AM
Believe it or not, there's reason to believe we could simply make a very long tube that reaches into the stratosphere, which holds itself aloft by a kite mechanism. Up that tube you pump sulfur dioxide, which could offset much of the CO2 warming. It's relatively cheap, though it would have to be continuous, the SO2 would be broken down by I believe UV as well as normal atmospheric reactions. But it's doable with modern materials science. It's also thought not to have significant effects besides cooling, though that's obviously unproved.

Sulpher in the atmosphere is seriously bad news. It is a major player in creating PM2.5 which has all sorts of bad health effects.

Man made climate change is false. It is a taxing scheme that will destroy jobs in the US while giving developing countries like China a pass.


So, since you don't like the proposed solution, the problem does not exist? Nice logic there! If you don't like the solution come up with one of your own. What would it take to get people to reduce their CO2 output?

The Antarctic was tropical at one time as well.

Due to plate tectonics, Antarctica was once at the equator as well.


I don't think were nearly smart enough to pull this off without screwing things up even more.

THIS THIS THIS!
What are these reflective particles made of? What is the result when they fall to earth and are breathed in by a large population? And as mentioned above, heating is a symptom, not the source of the problem. One possible way to do something similar is to make massive sun shields that orbit the planet. If you made them out of solarvotaic material we could even get energy out of the deal.


If global warming was a clear and real danger, then a handful of rich people could fund the entire operation in order to keep the status quo, where they are still super rich and on top of the world.

Since this isn't happening, doesn't it cast doubt on global warming.


Rich people aren't doing anything about it so the problem is not real? Really?
I guess 3rd world hunger/disease and banana republic dictators are not real either. Rich people make money, they don't solve problems that don't pay. Why should they pay for something if it isn't going to pay them a dividend? There is a lot of money to be made from global warming. Cities will have to be moved and control of the food source in an area means you can crank the prices up.
 
2012-12-11 01:08:48 AM

BronyMedic: Just be careful what you release that's been under the ice.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 248x188]


Duuuude. That episode is in my top ten 'scariest'. I'm watching season 9 right now in fact.
 
2012-12-11 01:09:02 AM

BronyMedic: Just be careful what you release that's been under the ice.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 248x188]


Also The Blob is up there someplace.
 
2012-12-11 01:16:02 AM

on the road: Bit'O'Gristle: Hmmm...what kind of particles are we talking about here....and how do you propose to keep them airborne? Pesky gravity and all. If you just keep doing it...(and i can't imagine you could do it on a scale to make a difference) wont the particles just float to the ground everywhere? Covering the seas and destroying the phytoplankton, thus killing off oxygen to the rest of the planet??

/facepalms

It's nice to see that people who accept climate change can engage in the same level of aggressive ignorance as climate change deniers. "Oh my -- what are the effects of SO2 on the stratosphere?" You're the first person to ever think of this!

If scientists can't predict the effects of some particulate matter in the upper atmosphere, what makes you think they can accurately reconstruct and track the entire thermal history of earth's atmosphere and oceans?

I swear to God, the whole green movement is perfectly content to let the earth warm for for the next hundred years on the off-chance that it will change human nature and make people stop wanting things. You do realize that temperatures would keep rising beyond 2100 if CO2 emissions drop to zero today?

[i2.photobucket.com image 210x240]

The bottom line represents zero carbon emissions. What that means is that for people alive right now, the only way to stop global warming is to actually stop global warming.



I... what? Did you seriously just say because no one can see the future that they can't look at the past?
 
2012-12-11 01:16:56 AM
you have to be born before 1970 to remember this ad....

img3.etsystatic.com 

i.ytimg.com
 
2012-12-11 01:22:55 AM
wouldnt it be cheaper to just build some gigantic disk between the earth and the sun and put it on remote control and move it back and forth as we see fit?
 
2012-12-11 01:31:45 AM
I just want off this rock.
Can I go play with mars' atmosphere instead, please?
 
2012-12-11 01:58:56 AM
The question that needs to be asked now is, When we pull this stunt and send the Earth into a snowball, will it be safe to start nuking the ice caps to melt them?
 
2012-12-11 02:21:18 AM
Hell yea, you don't want Cthulu getting loose.
 
2012-12-11 02:50:24 AM
What could possibly go wrong? Snowball earth?
 
2012-12-11 03:25:21 AM

NINDroog: Hell yea, you don't want Cthulu getting loose.


(wrong pole)
 
2012-12-11 03:50:00 AM
Not so fast, Canada. Your sinister plot to freeze the earth south of you will not succeed. You are used to the frigid temperatures and would rule the planet; politeness and hockey would become rampant. America will stop your plans because while we can be manipulated, we absolutely refuse to learn French.
 
2012-12-11 04:43:53 AM
Done in one. Sweet.
 
2012-12-11 04:59:57 AM

BronyMedic: Just be careful what you release that's been under the ice.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 248x188]


Certainly one of the best episodes ever.
 
2012-12-11 06:04:07 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-11 06:13:45 AM
"Mankind is changing the environment and something must be done to preserve it".

(A few threads later)

"Mankind should not be allowed to change the environment in the name of preservation".

/checks environmentalist decoder ring for hidden message.
/b-u-y_m-o-r-e_c-a-r-b-o-n_c-r-e-d-i-t-s
 
2012-12-11 06:32:10 AM
Unfortunately, the laws of Thermodynamics and the principles of Liberalism preclude a solution.

Thermodynamics in the fact that any attempt to shuttle around heat energy will result in the creation and release of more heat energy, thereby exacerbating the problem.

Liberalism in one of its basic tenets: reproduction is a "right", but totally divorced from any accompanying responsibilities. You have the ability to have a dozen little carbon footprints, nobody can stop you from doing so, even if you don't have the ability to support them. And the population continues to grow...
 
2012-12-11 07:05:04 AM

Bennie Crabtree: Lsherm: Hey, a problem solved is a problem solved. And at the end of the day, if you can't push through changes in consumer culture that haven't ever succeeded in all of human history, t

This statement, although I understand the sentiment, is not informed about economics or history. Sadly, the changes that need to be made are to an economic system that is less than 200 years old. This all-of-human-history myth is the dangerous part.


No it isn't. Humans have been using ever-increasing amounts of energy since we discovered fire. And the problem isn't the economic system, it's continual population growth. As long as the population keeps expanding, we'll need more energy to support more people. Humans consume, it's what we do.
 
2012-12-11 07:46:57 AM
God will press reset on the thermostat... oh in about 10 days now. No worries.
 
2012-12-11 08:46:20 AM

HAMMERTOE: Unfortunately, the laws of Thermodynamics and the principles of Liberalism preclude a solution.

Thermodynamics in the fact that any attempt to shuttle around heat energy will result in the creation and release of more heat energy, thereby exacerbating the problem.

Liberalism in one of its basic tenets: reproduction is a "right", but totally divorced from any accompanying responsibilities. You have the ability to have a dozen little carbon footprints, nobody can stop you from doing so, even if you don't have the ability to support them. And the population continues to grow...


The earth is a closed system?
 
2012-12-11 08:49:38 AM

Skeptigal: Not so fast, Canada. Your sinister plot to freeze the earth south of you will not succeed. You are used to the frigid temperatures and would rule the planet; politeness and hockey would become rampant. America will stop your plans because while we can be manipulated, we absolutely refuse to learn French.


to be fair

1) most of canada refuses to learn french as well
2) what they speak in quebec is not french
3) we do have poutine so it might be worth it
 
2012-12-11 08:55:51 AM
It's important to keep a large portion of the earth uninhabitable. Spare no expense.
 
2012-12-11 09:52:57 AM

ciberido: Fano: johnsoninca: I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would say about this.

"So it goes"

Came here for ice-9, leaving satisfied.


I just read that book for the first time right after re-reading Chrichton's "State of Fear" and let me tell you I am flat out scared when I think of what all these gullible global warming cultist might do to our planet just to try and force anyone who dares question them to believe what they do whether it is factual or not. Gw has not been proven or disproven but what has been is that most supposed environmental groups are corrupt and self-serving. They only really care about promoting their own job security and ensuring a steady flow of grant money and donations from the sheeple just like all you smarmy farkers that post insults and demeaning statements towards anyone that shows a hint of healthy skepticism towards what you blindly believe is fact . I am aware I am hypocrite because I call you "cultists" but it has always been my way to use a bullies' own tacticts against him/her.

I wish you would all open your eyes even just a little to the fact that there is no such thing as altruism as Heinlein said, men are inherently corrupt and when faced with facts that prove he is wrong a good man, a wise man, an intelligent man questions what he believes. He always allows for the possibility that he may be wrong and prepares his mind to accept change. He does not close it to a differing view and switch into damage control mode to protect his possibly erroneous beliefs.
 
2012-12-11 10:35:34 AM

vodka: whatcouldpossiblygowrong

They can't even accurately predict the weather a few hours from now yet they think they somehow understand what would happen if they manipulated the climate of the entire planet.


This. If they actually believe that CO2 could cause runaway warming, then this action would cause runaway cooling and kill us all.
 
2012-12-11 12:31:28 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Scientists have long theorized that injecting reflective particles of some kind into the high atmosphere could reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface and compensate for the greenhouse effect. High CO2 levels would continue to trap heat, but with less energy coming in to begin with, temperatures on the surface would go down.

Hmmm...what kind of particles are we talking about here....and how do you propose to keep them airborne? Pesky gravity and all. If you just keep doing it...(and i can't imagine you could do it on a scale to make a difference) wont the particles just float to the ground everywhere? Covering the seas and destroying the phytoplankton, thus killing off oxygen to the rest of the planet??

/facepalms


Just put a giant beach umbrella in space. Problem solved. I'm going to tea.
 
2012-12-11 03:21:13 PM

johnsoninca: I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would say about this.


Hell, let's see what George Carlin has to say...

Link
 
Displayed 105 of 105 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report