Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Propose Plan To Re-Freeze the Arctic (inhabitat.com)

Kristine Lofgren writes: In case you've been under a rock for the past 20 years, the Arctic is melting super fast. Certain *ahem* governments are dragging their feet doing anything about it, which means the planet could be in for a spectacular meltdown within the next 20 years. But a clever bunch of scientists have hatched a plan to re-freeze the Arctic using wind-powered pumps that will bring water to the surface, allowing it to freeze. This new layer of ice could last well into the summer, which is vital, because scientists think summer Arctic ice could be gone by 2030 -- and that causes a whole chain of terrible events that will only make our climate change problem much, much worse. The plan has a $500 billion price tag, but that's pocket change compared to the cost of dealing with an ice-free Arctic. The study has been published in The American Geophysical Union's journal Earth's Future. You can read more about the study via The Guardian.

5 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Without even reading the $500 billion plan... by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Without even reading the $500 billion plan, I can tell that there is no way they have though of all the consequences of using 10 million wind powered pumps to bring water to the top for it to freeze.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re: Without even reading the $500 billion plan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As opposed to the carefully thought out consequences of burning gigatons of ancient carbon?

  2. Re:Bullshit. Ask "The Polar Ocean Challenge" by dwywit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, that settles it. Nothing to worry about, folks. Just keep consuming those finite resources and let your grandchildren worry about any problems.

    --
    They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  3. Re:Bullshit. Ask "The Polar Ocean Challenge" by Mr0bvious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, it's not "well understood", oh great, let's just ignore it then and say there's no problem hey?

    I can think of a lot of "problems" that are not well understood. They are problems all the same.

    --
    Never happened. True story.
  4. Re: Climate change deniers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Enough already.

    "NOAA climate fraud" is your hypothesis. Fine. Test it. Collect your evidence, share it and discuss it. What must that evidence consist of?

    "Fraud" is going to be documents that show deliberate and deceptive behavior, likely for personal gain. Ok. Youneed to find evidence that demonstrates that tens of thousands of scientists across the entire world and spanning dozens of disciplines are deliberately deceiving the lay public on climate change. These scientists are faking their data, misrepresenting it and are working together to do this to deceive the lay public. Who, exactly, is coordinating this?

    Finally, a word about how the NSF grant system works: it's really, really, hard to get funded, and once you do, you must manage the fundsyou receive with great care. It is the distribution of these federal funds that is key -- lying about _anything_ is a serious problem for thelarger institution -- let alone the NSF because Congress (and likely state legislatures) come down on these institutions like a ton of bricks.