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.
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 ya go: https://scratch.mit.edu/projec...
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.
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.
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
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.
...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.
The idiocy in this is not only in engaging in dubious and expensive schemes that will either not work, may exacerbates the instability of the climate, could be irreversible, might lead to run-away effects etc etc - but we are doing this to avoid having to simply make a few, easy adjustments to our lifestyles, like cut back on brainless consumerism and the myth that the economy must - or even can - grow forever. We are already living on borrowed time; we are using up limited resources and we still resist even thinking about renewable energy - we are only able to feed the 7+ billion people on the planet by spending lots of energy on producing artificial fetilizers (something like 40% of the nitrogen in our bodies now comes from artificial fertilizer - check for yourself). We are already at the point where it would take just 1 year or so of disruption in our chemical industries to produce a worldwide hunger catastrophe, just to put it into a bit of perspective.
All in all, we really do need to be willing to accept changes - wasting effort on hare-brained shemes is stupid. Climate is only one of the big threats we face, and we can to some extent simply adjust to it, but unless we learn to curb overconsumption in a serious way, it won't matter all that much. Call me alarmist if you will, but I'd much rather be ridiculed by morons today, than have my children and grand-children live through the alternatives.
It's a fraud because he doesn't like the conclusions. End of.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.