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.
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.
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
Here's how arctic sea ice has fared relative to IPCC projections: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6...
Russia needs ice free Arctic. For shipping and future oil rigs.
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.
What's your point? Because a ship got stuck in some ice are you inferring there is no Arctic ice melting issue?
Eeek, I hope you're not in a decision making position there.
Never happened. True story.
So because one ship got stuck in the ice IN THE FUCKING ARCTIC, there's no problem with loss of Arctic ice?
Did you mean this argument seriously, or are you just another Koch Brothers troll?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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
Didn't you get the memo? The resources aren't finite, they're infinite. Oil grows back because it's not fossil fuel. Silly evolutionists, how could it be fossil fuel, the Earth is only 6000 years old!
Well DUH!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
The Ice level in the arctic is a symptom, not the cause. Otherwise, is this story from the Onion or something?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Normally, the sea ice freezes over the water, capping it off and insulating it. Heat soaks only slowly through the ice, cooling the water under the ice and freezing it, slowly.
Instead, if we pump seawater up and drop it on the top of the ice, it will freeze quickly. So we can increase the thickness of the ice, so it will, hopefully, last longer.
If done on a large scale, however, it will warm the arctic winter, as heat is added to the system in the form of liquid water to be frozen, water surface that is 0 degrees C instead of solid ice at maybe -20 degrees C. The increased ice is probably a net positive for the artctic, but I dislike all these goengineering kludges.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Arctic ice affects Y by the albedo effect.
It sucks because warming removes arctic ice, which no longer reflects sunlight, which causes more warming. The summary suggests that when (in the future) arctic ice goes away completely during the summer, this will be very bad.
An interesting thing is that in 1931 due to so much ice the Wilkins expedition couldn't even get into the Arctic.
In a submarine.
That was an especially cold year and a submarine that couldn't go very deep, but still that shows a massive difference.
As a species we should be attempting to salvage as much of the biosphere as possible. Sadly, most of us are useless, dumb, myopic dickheads with our heads in the fucking sand. I'm not one, but I guess you are.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I bet you think snow disproves climate change. That's really no less dumb than what you just came out with.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I sometimes read about how American Christians refuse to accept evolution theory in class rooms and even teach creation next to evolution.
In my country they do no longer teach evolution and even teach an alternative history that skips all former empires and let it start with Mohamed. I even hear non Muslim kids recite the Koran. Why is that? Because our schools are now teaching Islam and have changed the content of the lessons in such a way that no Imam will be offended. This is in a traditional Catholic country and most kids learn that Jesus was just a prophet who never died on the cross.
Even in universities lessons are interrupted by an angry mob of Islamists. The result is that Islamic students don't have to get study points in evolution, even not when they are learning to become a doctor.
And when everyone who criticizes this situation is immediately put away as an Islamophobe and is seen as the cause of all world problems you understand you can no longer change the situation. And then you have come to the conclusion that you no longer feel home in your own country. And you look at the 'free' world where you see politicians but also the non redneck people make the same mistake. They underestimate the power of Islam. Victimhood has been invented and perfected by Muslims.
Just last week a Mosque that sponsored IS in the name of charity and sold drugs and stolen goods to fund their 'charity' was closed. Although about 50 young boys and about 70 young girls of their community went to the caliphate in Syria and Iraq, they still play the victim card. The muslims told they were victims of racists. Racists put the drugs and stolen goods in their mosque and they are now acting like the poor people who were attacked by an angry mob and have to pray outside on the streets in the cold and rain. And of course weak people claim that the 'white man' should be ashamed to throw those 'poor Muslims' on the streets, completely ignoring the fact that they laundered over 30 million euro in 2016 alone. That's not what I call poverty...
But yeah, mod everyone down, say everyone lies, say that Islam is not bad, say that it is in every ones interest to also convert to Islam, but don't be surprised when a fascist politician will be chosen and when the EU falls apart in the next 10 years.
Cool story, bro. Here's what he actually said:
Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.
So Al Gore didn't predict anything, he cited an actual researcher.
The Navy researcher that leads this "new study" team that the former vice president alludes to is Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California. The team's research was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Maslowski also did not say "by 2013" in his original research in 2007 or when it was republished in 2009. This grandstanding about sea ice and Gore, for whatever reason, is a huge and egregious deception. The actual prediction from Maslowski's 2009 publication is, "Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016."
And not even the researcher who did make a prediction said exactly what you claim they said.
However, now that we have actual measurements for 2011-2016, we can see that the lowest autumn sea ice extent for the period in question was 3.389 million km^2 (Sep 16 2012). That's the lowest on record and less than half as much as the same day in 1979, but arguably still too high to call it "near ice free". So Maslowski's worst-case prediction didn't come true, and now you can be less wrong on the internet.
1) Thermodynamics wins - to freeze the arctic they will actually generate more heat increasing overall heating of the planet.
Only if you think the Earth is a closed system. It is not.
The point to having more ice coverage is to reflect more light back into space. Thus taking the energy contained within that light away from Earth.
2) The arctic has thawed before. This is a cycle.
The fact that something has happened before does not make it a cycle. And the fact that it is happening again does not mean it is part of a natural cycle.
In the past, Earth was completely covered in ice. It was also completely ice free. Humans will find it difficult to survive in anywhere near our current population in either of those extremes.
Models aren't evidence for or against a theory. The evidence for AGW is essentially that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it exists in the upper atmosphere, and that we are increasing the concentration of it in the atmosphere. Very basic physical laws dictate that this will cause warming. You can prove the greenhouse gas part in your basement, to measure the upper atmosphere I'd imagine you'd need a sounding rocket. Your basement will also allow you to demonstrate a substantial positive feedback effect with water vapor. So, easily verified properties of atmospheric gases tell us that AGW must be occurring.
"But wait," you say, "who says that the real world has to match what happens in the laboratory? What if there's some bigger negative feedback loop that we don't know about?" This is a cogent objection. As it happens, that is exactly what we've been looking for (at least, since Keeling). We haven't found one, and we've ruled out all known atmospheric phenomena. Some misunderstood part of the water cycle was probably all that could have saved us; the H2O feedback effect is quite strong. As you can see, the amount of water that can be dissolved in air has a really nasty exponential curve to it, as anyone from the South can doubtless attest.
The science of AGW really is settled. What exactly will happen is where the models come in, and a large part of the modeled uncertainty is because they're giving projections which take into account human responses to climate change. I'm not suggesting that you take any particular action about this, but you may rely on the science being correct, so if your personal view is that that would be a situation requiring action, I would imagine that you would want to be thinking about what to do.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The rate is going to be unpleasant, but more certain than that is difficult to tell, because among other things it will depend on what we do about it.
"E-Wa" has fascinating geography, and I do recommend to the interested reader the book "Roadside Geology of Washington". The Cascades are of course very active volcanically, and the scars from the Missoula Floods are simply epic. You are correct that the absence of ice where there was ice previously indicates an upward trend over that time period. However, prior to the Industrial Era, we were actually on a slight cooling trend. The Holocene climatic optimum was 5000-9000 years ago. As I recall, we have yet to reach similar global temperature levels, but our timeframe for doing so assuming current emissions levels is on the order of 1-2 centuries.
I believe the largest volcanic outgassing in geologic history would be the creation of the Large Igneous Province called the Deccan Traps. As I recall (but I would be happy to find the relevant scientific papers and re-do the calculations for you) human CO2 output to date was about three orders of magnitude smaller than the total figure for the Deccan Traps. Humans are unlikely to be able to emit 1000x more CO2 than we already have on any timescale, however, the flip side of that is that if we continued at this rate we would exceed the largest volcanic outgassings in the history of the Earth in some few thousands of years, where the natural timeframe of those events was several million years. On another scale, we're emitting about two Pinatubo-sized eruptions' worth of CO2 per day, or about one Yellowstone-sized supereruption per year (Gerlach 2011). The IPCC reports give some good estimates about the exact rate of warming, but the rate of CO2 increase far exceeds that of any prior historical event. Since we know that there is a causal link between CO2 increases and global temperature increases, this implies (but does not in any sense prove) that the warming rate may also end up being historically unprecedented. However, if you think that there's some sort of uncertainty about the outcome of this, to where you don't have to be worried, you're probably going to want to rethink that.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
This article has everything!
In case you've been under a rock for the past 20 years
Condescension.
the Arctic is melting super fast
Alarmist bullshit.
Certain *ahem* governments are dragging their feet doing anything about it
Anti-American political bias.
the planet could be in for a spectacular meltdown within the next 20 years
More alarmist bullshit.
But a clever bunch of scientists
The valiant, altruistic and truly honest heroes of the new religion of science.
(I'm all for scientific discovery, but not fellating people for it)
a plan to re-freeze the Arctic
Mad scientist bullshit.
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
What could possibly go wrong?
scientists think summer Arctic ice could be gone by 2030
My money is on that statement being added to this list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
plan has a $500 billion price tag
Golly gee, that's a lot. Who's getting it?
plan has a $500 billion price tag, but that's pocket change
Ah yes, of course, of course, so it's these people then?
http://theglobalelite.org/globalists/
You can read more about the study via The Guardian.
My most trusted source for totally not fake news!