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. Climate change deniers by buss_error · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I get time, I'd like to use satellite photos of the arctic into a time lapse video, play it, then ask "Now, what was it you were saying about climate change being a scam?"

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  2. Not gonna happen by LTIfox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Russia needs ice free Arctic. For shipping and future oil rigs.

  3. Not going to happen by Baron_Yam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's the chronology:

    1) You're being alarmist, there's no issue.

    2) You're being alarmist, this isn't worth spending 500 billion on.

    3) The environmental impact of attempting this could be worse than allowing things to progress naturally.

    4) Too expensive, nobody goes there anyway, and we don't need polar bears to survive. Shame, though.

    5) Well, now it's too late anyway.

    I'm actually kind of on board with #3, but I think we really ought to be getting our asses in gear and looking at the impact of mitigation strategies at the 'global environmental engineering' scale, and maybe doing a few local-scale tests to help build better models to aid in the assessments.

  4. Re:Sea ice vs projections by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You have quite a strong opinion for someone who "Don't give a shit."

    Just another painfully obvious troll lacking any true skills at the task you have apparently chosen to devote your time to. A simpleton who sees life in only the simplest of terms lacking enough understanding of the world to face the facts head on when it's so much easier to call those more educated than you liars.
    Does having your head in the sand and ass in the air make the anal rape more bearable?
    So I curse thee thus:
    May thou live on the coast and live long enough to get the full brunt of that which thou callest foul and profane. May you end thy days fearfully gripping to top of a telephone pole trying to escape the rising waters. May you get rescued by a boatload of scientists whom immediately throw you overboard when you start spouting off nonsense. And finally may the last thing that passes through your brain be the realization that yes, you were a truly stupid person.

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  5. Re:Oh geesh by gumpish · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ice reflects substantially more infrared energy back into space than seawater. Lowering the Earth's albedo will MAKE melting ice caps a cause of warming.