(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   "Study suggests we could refreeze Arctic. But should we?" I have a bad feeling about this

10 Dec 2012 10:20 PM   |   9267 clicks   |   The Windsor Star
Showing 1-50 of 105 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
johnsoninca    [TotalFark]  
I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would say about this.

10 Dec 2012 09:10 PM
Lsherm    [TotalFark]  
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."

10 Dec 2012 09:29 PM
Amos Quito     

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



That humans are arrogant, self absorbed and aggrandizing asshats?

/Just a guess

10 Dec 2012 09:29 PM
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.

10 Dec 2012 09:31 PM
Lsherm    [TotalFark]  

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.

10 Dec 2012 09:34 PM
edmo    [TotalFark]  

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


www.cs.cmu.eduView Full Size

10 Dec 2012 09:38 PM
fusillade762     
You always say that, Frost.

10 Dec 2012 09:48 PM
NewportBarGuy    [TotalFark]  
Do we finally get to nuke someone again? It's been far too long.

10 Dec 2012 09:59 PM
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.

10 Dec 2012 10:08 PM
FunkOut     
All the slushee machines?

10 Dec 2012 10:22 PM
davidphogan     
Am I the only one who thought of the end of the Bart the Mom Simpsons episode? Do we just hope the apes freeze?

10 Dec 2012 10:25 PM
jaytkay    [TotalFark]  
images3.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size

Approves

10 Dec 2012 10:25 PM
SwiftFox     
Problem is, next heavy frost all the citrus growers will sue. Anyone who gets a burst broken pipe in winter or skids on ice into an accident will sue. Who insures the project?

10 Dec 2012 10:26 PM
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.

10 Dec 2012 10:26 PM
vodka     
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.

10 Dec 2012 10:26 PM
TheSwizz     
img198.imageshack.usView Full Size


Already solved.

10 Dec 2012 10:26 PM
rockforever     
Giant ice cube from Futurama

/.jpg

10 Dec 2012 10:28 PM
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.

10 Dec 2012 10:28 PM
Kibbler     
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.

10 Dec 2012 10:28 PM
Agent Smiths Laugh     
Hell yes or this happens:

kylecrick.comView Full Size

10 Dec 2012 10:29 PM
robodog     

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.

10 Dec 2012 10:30 PM
DesertDemonWY    [TotalFark]  
refreeze, just like it does every year all by itself? seems redundant

10 Dec 2012 10:31 PM
GAT_00     

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.

10 Dec 2012 10:31 PM
FunkOut     
VOLCANOES!

10 Dec 2012 10:34 PM
Summoner101     
We're gonna blow up the ocean!

10 Dec 2012 10:35 PM
Bit'O'Gristle     
Scientists have long theorized that injecting reflective particles of some kind into the high atmosphere could reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface and compensate for the greenhouse effect. High CO2 levels would continue to trap heat, but with less energy coming in to begin with, temperatures on the surface would go down.

Hmmm...what kind of particles are we talking about here....and how do you propose to keep them airborne? Pesky gravity and all. If you just keep doing it...(and i can't imagine you could do it on a scale to make a difference) wont the particles just float to the ground everywhere? Covering the seas and destroying the phytoplankton, thus killing off oxygen to the rest of the planet??

/facepalms

10 Dec 2012 10:35 PM
Arkanaut    [TotalFark]  

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


"Now I will destroy the whole world."

10 Dec 2012 10:37 PM
thorthor     

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.


Do you also believe the earth is 6000 yrs old...... and flat?

10 Dec 2012 10:38 PM
Valiente     

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


Nuke it from orbit, to be sure?

10 Dec 2012 10:40 PM
illannoyin     
Holy fark there are some stupid people on this planet.

/I know, welcome to erf and all that

10 Dec 2012 10:40 PM
nmemkha     
I suspect if the other animals ever developed higher reasoning they would quickly unite to eradicate us.

10 Dec 2012 10:44 PM
BronyMedic     
Just be careful what you release that's been under the ice.

images4.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size

10 Dec 2012 10:45 PM
Random Anonymous Blackmail     
I don't know about the arctic, but it is pretty damn cold here in MN... I know global warming doesn't work that way Morbo.

10 Dec 2012 10:46 PM
Warthog    [TotalFark]  
I was wondering how long it would take for this sort of article to hit the press. After wikileaks, they knew it was just a matter of time for the secret UN chemtrail program to be discovered. This enviro change nonsense is a false front to make the other darker parts of the program easier to cover up again.

10 Dec 2012 10:54 PM
axeeugene     

fusillade762: You always say that, Frost.


Somebody wake up Hicks.

/LOOK INTO MY EYE!

10 Dec 2012 10:55 PM
NewportBarGuy    [TotalFark]  

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.


Thank you, Senator F*ckbag. Please commence with your Drain-O enema. We're all waiting.

/Pop-quiz: How much potable water does China possess?

10 Dec 2012 10:59 PM
GoodHomer     
I've met David Keith on a couple of occasions. He really is a mad scientist, but has a great perspective on the whole geo-engineering thing: it's one of those tools you want to keep in your pocket in case the warming ends up on the very high end of the projections, or higher, and you've exhausted every other tool at your disposal and none of them are working fast enough.

In that case, you study the geo-engineering now so you have a better idea of what the side effects might be if implemented.

10 Dec 2012 11:02 PM
RandomRandom     
The most fascinating insight is how cheaply this could be done. It will only take one highly developed, very wealthy nation to start losing trillions of dollars in heavily developed coastline to rising waters.

Then that country, most likely US - is just going to do it.

Dust the atmosphere, damn the consequences.

/Given that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of sea level increase is itself rising, I give it 20 years. Ready the high-altitude drone-dusters.

10 Dec 2012 11:02 PM
Oznog     

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.


Acid snow, building up and up.... well, who cares. It could be DECADES before it kills us all!

10 Dec 2012 11:04 PM
Anthracite     
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.

10 Dec 2012 11:05 PM
jaytkay    [TotalFark]  
www.movieactors.comView Full Size

RIP David Keith AKA Grasshopper!

10 Dec 2012 11:06 PM
giftedmadness     

robodog: 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.


0/10

10 Dec 2012 11:09 PM
JonnyBGoode     
What could possibly go wrong?

www.collegecrunch.orgView Full Size

10 Dec 2012 11:11 PM
fatassbastard    [TotalFark]  

Anthracite: 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.


Gosh, what a brilliant insight. You should tell NASA, NOAA & the USGS. I'll be they hadn't thought of that.

10 Dec 2012 11:14 PM
WelldeadLink     
Is it a bad feeling along your spine? Some sort of chill?

10 Dec 2012 11:17 PM
DerpHerder     
"We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky"

10 Dec 2012 11:18 PM
DesertDemonWY    [TotalFark]  

RandomRandom: /Given that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of sea level increase is itself rising, I give it 20 years. Ready the high-altitude drone-dusters.


No, it isn't.

Global:
sealevel.colorado.eduView Full Size


"cherry-picked" Seattle tidal guage:
www.ecy.wa.govView Full Size

10 Dec 2012 11:19 PM
Fano     

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


"So it goes"

10 Dec 2012 11:19 PM
Wolf_Blitzer     

DesertDemonWY: RandomRandom: /Given that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of sea level increase is itself rising, I give it 20 years. Ready the high-altitude drone-dusters.

No, it isn't.

Global:
[sealevel.colorado.edu image 534x372]

"cherry-picked" Seattle tidal guage:
[www.ecy.wa.gov image 677x403]


Am I missing the part where both graphs aren't showing rising sea levels?

10 Dec 2012 11:25 PM
Wakosane     
I don't think were nearly smart enough to pull this off without screwing things up even more.

ex: man puts sparkly bits in atmosphere, temperature lowers. at first... yay. Sparkly bits block sunlight, preventing algae biomass in ocean from doing it's photosynthesis thing, oxygen content on blue marble goes down... boo.

10 Dec 2012 11:27 PM
Showing 1-50 of 105 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined