What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don’t need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
27 Comments
- cranium, on 12/12/2007, -0/+9Obviously, competing agendas are at work here. I encourage everyone to pay close attention to the science and only the science, screw the politicians.
- noahhoward, on 12/12/2007, -5/+10Even if it would work, a question for you all: What happens if we introduce this massive cooling effect to our system and then realise 'global climate change' WAS just a natural fluctuation? Seriously, if we think that we have caused some change to the system shouldn't we have learned that the best solution would be to NOT change the system any more?
- CraigMac, on 12/12/2007, -0/+5A recent report seems to confirm what most people would consider 'common sense', that ocean fertilization is a no-go:
http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/30/ocean-fertilisat ... - KingBunny, on 12/12/2007, -2/+5This will work splendidly. Sort of like feeding and/or killing deer and/or wolves did.. or any other crazy stuff we try to balance out an equation which normally balances itself out.
(Note: natural "balance" may include the removal of the negative force at hand, IE us) - adamsafron, on 12/12/2007, -0/+3An alternative–and promising–method of geo-engineering not mentioned in the article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkEys3PeseA
An interesting discussion of the economics of global warming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs - jmichaelg, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2The science is actually quite good. The SOFEX experiments determined that small patches of the ocean could be stimulated to suck 30,000 tons of CO2 with very little additional iron. The experiments were carried out in a region of blue sea which means there wasn't any sea life there at all - the ocean's equivalent of barren land. The experiment was designed to last 45 days by which time they figured the bloom would have subsided. Instead, the bloom, was still going strong at the end of their 45 day window and so they don't know how much more carbon they eventually ended up sucking out of the atmosphere.
The best part of this process is that by fertilizing a chunk of ocean, you're creating the bottom rung of a food chain. Keep the process going and you'll stimulate larger creatures to colonize the region and eventually, you'll end up with a flourishing aquatic eco system where before you had zilch. That means, among other things, more food for a growing population. - MisterNipples, on 12/12/2007, -2/+4Sounds like a disaster. I heard about this on NPR a few weeks back. The concept of sequestering carbon in algae is an old one. It's just not practical on a small scale, and dangerous on a large scale.
- wendelgee2, on 12/12/2007, -2/+4The flaw in your logic is this:
If sequestering carbon dioxide would cause a cold snap, then it does play a key role in regulating the earth's temperature, and the current (and future) elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would indeed have caused global warming (but we know this already). - BigManOnCampus, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2Not even all peer-reviewed science is trustworthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6 ... - BigManOnCampus, on 12/12/2007, -0/+2Why is human ingenuity so evil now? WHY? We used to just solve our problems with our minds, now we doubt ourselves so much that we're actually going backwards.
- BigManOnCampus, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1That is a bad way of looking at things. It's much harder to grow enough food for humanity if the world cooled. Yeah, you may personally like the cold more than the heat (I do too), but humanity would have a much harder time with an ice age than with more heat.
- MisterRik, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1While I disagree on geo-engineering being the way forward, waiting a while to see what happens is the worst way to go about this. A lot of the systems are potential positive feedback systems - once they go past a certain point (greenland ice sheet, CO2 sequestered in perma-frost) there will be no going back.
- blast_flame, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1The deadline for these have been pushed back again and again. Even if they do happen we will soon have the technology to deal with them due to the technological singularity. The "no time to think this through and gain more facts" crown is a classic example of not looking before you leap. Of course I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything in the meantime, just that we should limit ourselves to free market solutions and not degenerate to using government coercion and force.
- noahhoward, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1"The experiment was designed to last 45 days by which time they figured the bloom would have subsided. Instead, the bloom, was still going strong at the end of their 45 day window and so they don't know how much more carbon they eventually ended up sucking out of the atmosphere."
You don't see the problem with that do you? - blast_flame, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1In a way through altering our environment is what makes us human, what makes us different to all the other animal species. I believe this is the best way to stop global warming without sacrificing any freedoms. I do believe that we should do something like the dumping iron dust into the ocean idea that effects CO2 levels not heat directly like the thousands of small mirrors between the earth and the sun, just in case of a screw up or us being wrong. It will also be good practice for the massive scale engineering we will no doubt do as we stretch our hands towards the stars. I'm really starting to think that the main reasons some people are against geo-engineering is that it either depresses them that people have found a way to halt global warming that does not involve huge, massively controlling government or offends their new environmental "religion" of humanity not play gaia.
- kreneskyp, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1if you read the article they are saying that it might not remove as much CO2 as they expected. They also might destroy the ocean in the process. THAT is an unacceptable risk unless were sure were ***** anyways
- MrNexus, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1That's a pretty stupid logic. Move to the mountains if you like it cold.
- mos6507, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1We're already geoengineering by default with CO2 and deforestation/desertification. So we might as well try to control it rather than letting it happen unrestrained.
- MisterNipples, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2Amen to that Scruffydan! The term "science" gets bandied about, but it must be peer-reviewed to be trusted.
- Scruffydan, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2It is probably worth mentioning that the only science worth paying attention to is the science published in peer-reviewed journals.
- noahhoward, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1I think not dicking with the environment is the best way to proceed not ***** it over even more.
- noahhoward, on 12/12/2007, -1/+1That is not a flaw in my logic at all, the people who want to go forward with this plan are people who believe CO2 is the source of global warming, so in order to ask my question I have to assume the same. Forcefully removing CO2 via tampering with nature is just as bad as the supposed tampering we have done by adding CO2 and could potentially be just as disastrous. What is wrong with simply halting or regulating our CO2 output. Since there is no 'normal' climate, what would the target be for cooling, how would you calculate that, how can you be sure that is where the natural cycle would put us? Why are anthropogenic warming buffs so eager to be anthropogenic coolers? ***** up the climate is ***** up the climate no matter what way the mercury moves, i'd have hope people would realise that by now.
- vikingcoder, on 12/12/2007, -1/+0And he was caught out within a year - so, what's your point?
- blast_flame, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1I think geo-enginieering is the best way to combat global warming but I agree that we should wait a while to do it.
- ryan83189, on 12/12/2007, -2/+1I like the cold anyway. The old adage "If it is cold you can always put more clothes on, but when it's hot, you can only take so much off." this is my scientific analysis, which is why i give this project a go.
- satanatnmtedu, on 12/12/2007, -3/+1We can't predict the weather because it is too complex; yet, people think they can do other things and be sure that there will not be other issues? These are just stupid ideas.
- TheDreadDiggerD, on 12/12/2007, -5/+3That's using logic, and, as a US citizen, I cannot allow it!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is