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 20
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-10 10:26:19 PM  
4 votes:
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 10:26:10 PM  
3 votes:
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 09:29:36 PM  
3 votes:

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 09:48:16 PM  
2 votes:
You always say that, Frost.
2012-12-10 09:10:42 PM  
2 votes:
I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would say about this.
2012-12-11 06:04:07 AM  
1 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com
2012-12-11 12:01:17 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-12-10 11:19:53 PM  
1 votes:

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


"So it goes"
2012-12-10 11:18:17 PM  
1 votes:
"We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky"
2012-12-10 11:05:31 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:45:54 PM  
1 votes:
Just be careful what you release that's been under the ice.

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
2012-12-10 10:31:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:30:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:28:45 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:28:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:26:30 PM  
1 votes:
img198.imageshack.us

Already solved.
2012-12-10 10:08:18 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:38:02 PM  
1 votes:

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


www.cs.cmu.edu
2012-12-10 09:34:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:29:30 PM  
1 votes:
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."
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report