Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Using Barges to Fight Global Warming

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the not-enough-bath-toys-as-a-child dept.

Science 347

An anonymous reader writes "Dr. Peter Flynn, Poole Chair in Management for Engineers in the University of Alberta Department of Mechanical Engineering, has developed what he would like to consider a fall back plan to help combat the effects of global warming, in northern Europe. Flynn proposes using 'more than 8,000 barges moving into the northern ocean in the fall, speeding the initial formation of sea ice by pumping a spray of water into the air, and then, once the ice is formed, pumping ocean water on top of it, trapping the salt in the ice and reaching a thickness of seven meters. In the spring, water would continue to be pumped over the ice to melt it, forming a vast amount of cold, salty water that sinks and adds to the down-welling current to re-strengthen it.'"

cancel ×

347 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Quick interview on CBC (5, Informative)

Mrs. Grundy (680212) | more than 8 years ago | (#14656979)

Whatever the virtues may or may not be in micromanaging an incompletely understood global chaotic system by adding further human input, you all might be interested in hearing it from the horse's mouth. In this radio interview. [radio.cbc.ca] (scroll down for links) the good doctor makes the point that he is not advocating doing this now, but rather studying the possibility in the case that we find ourselves in an emergency situation where the currents get out of whack and crazy things, like the freezing of the Thames, start happening.

Drew Curtis is G A Y (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657072)

Don't be fooled by his website. He likes to plaster his opinion all over the Internet. Wonkette [goatse.cx] is gay as well, but she only sucks balls and paints on the wall with sticks of poo.

Re:Quick interview on CBC (1)

Rei (128717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657223)

I'm rather fond of a much simpler solution: fine iron oxide powder. It's incredibly cheap, and can be shipped by the tanker full to anywhere in the ocean - including the world's massive iron-deficient dead zones (contrary to popular belief, carbon dioxide levels are not usually the limiting factor in plant/algae growth). Sure, you need to monitor for downstream effects and possibly replenish other nutrients that become deficient as a result, but overall, it's a very efficient way to strip CO2 from the environment. You get several hundred to one ratios of CO2 sequestration to iron used. You also open up new deep sea fisheries in the process.

Re:Quick interview on CBC (1)

Goonie (8651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657460)

Maybe. As this article [nationalgeographic.com] says, it's not clear that small quantities of iron will do the trick. And what happens to the carbon once the algae die? Will it sink to the bottom and stay there as a solid, or will it be released into the atmosphere again (in which case as soon as we stop adding iron the problem comes back just as bad). And how badly are we going to stuff up marine ecosystems in the process?

Re:Quick interview on CBC (2, Insightful)

eobanb (823187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657227)

incompletely understood global chaotic system

Yeah, try 'completely misunderstood.' Because to me it seems like the energy used in creating that ice would end up negating the benefits, if any, that its eventual melting would provide.

Re:Quick interview on CBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657448)

So, I take it that you also think that it takes more energy to pump oil out of the ground than the oil pumped out of the ground can produce?

I mean, it's not like it takes much energy to blow a mist of water around. Ski resorts do it all the time. It's not even going to take much power to pump water onto the ice once it's formed. Bring the Dutch in on it, they know all about pumping water... Afterall, they have to pump millions of gallons back out to sea every day, just to keep the water below their necks!

What we need are nuclear powered floating ice misting/pumping stations, to hell with barges.

GNAA unveils "New for Jew Thousand and Six" lineup (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14656982)

GNAA unveils "New for Jew Thousand and Six" product lineup
Sunday January 1, 2006

Ich Bindalross (GNAP) - Stuttgart, Germany Renowned homosexual and GNAA Director of Reasearch and Development Staos today announced the unveiling of GNAA's 2006 product line. Sitting in a lavishly decorated men's rest stop bathroom, he made the first of the day's groundbreaking communiqu regarding the "New for Jew Thousand and Six" products.

While gloryholing his fourteen inch nigger cock, Staos proudly annouced the newest product to pass the GNAA's rigorous R&D testing: FourRape. Said he: "FourRape is a fully extensible, java-based crapflooding solution, based on an innovative plugin architecure. In theory and with the right plugin, you could effectively Sodomize Without Consent (SWC) anything from Futaba image boards to the deep bowels of the vast left wing goblin kike conspiracy."

Upon ejactulation of a quart of semen upon the reporter's face, he finally said "Also on the list of hot new items for 2006 is LM Go [bordco.com] ". Continued Staos: "LM Go is a hand held device that when placed on a LAN, can effectively force all properly configured computers on that LAN to netboot LMOS, the Last Measure Operating System, resulting in faster Gay Porno content delivery to the masses. We expect to see field testing of LM Go as early as Febuary, with insertion into NTT/DoCoMo headquarters." Observed a random passerby: "It truly is a marvel what they're doing with technology these days. Just last week I had to go all the way down to my local crusing joint to get some hot nigger on nigger action. With LM Go, I can get gay porno throughout my entire subnet."


About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [hai2u.com] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_indian@gnaa.us [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2006 Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us]

Barges? Pffft! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14656987)

We need a giant space lens [kuro5hin.org] to alter the sunlight hitting Earth. We can really control global warming that way.

Oh goodie... (3, Funny)

neocon (580579) | more than 8 years ago | (#14656989)

When we're done using barges to fight global warming, maybe we can use canoes to fight leprechauns!

Re:Oh goodie... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657163)

There's a reason why Canada is leprechaun-free. . . :p

Hack? (3, Insightful)

gustgr (695173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657006)


The estimated cost is about $50 billion.


Wouldn't be better to spend this tiny amount of money with measures to prevent and control the emission of CO2 at the atmosphere? This barges things looks like a hack to me... a really expensive hack. Would this have to be done every year? I think it is better to leave this kind of "ultimate" solution to when there is no option at all. Until then, let's try to fight the roots of the problem, not just patch it from the outside and adjourn the disaster for a few years.

Re:Hack? (2, Funny)

Jarn_Firebrand (845277) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657055)

But that would involve something other than procrastination, and the public is famous for procrastination. I have an hypothesis to account for this, I call it the Conservation of Procrastination. It states that all conservatives procrastinate. I have a second theory I've added onto this called the Liberal Procrastination Hypothesis which states that all liberals also procrastinate. A fellow researcher into procrastination has developed his hypothesis called Universal Procrastination, stating that everyone procrastinates. So, according to these scientific conclusions, your idea is unfeasible.

Re:Hack? (1)

darklordyoda (899383) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657421)

How long did it take him to develop it?

Re:Hack? (1)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657069)

Yes there will always be something better to spend money on with pie in the sky stuff like this, but there's something about mankind that has this wild imagination. As long as we have that, we'll at least talk about o-zone barges and space elevators.

Re:Hack? (4, Informative)

belrick (31159) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657111)

The estimated cost is about $50 billion.

Wouldn't be better to spend this tiny amount of money with measures to prevent and control the emission of CO2 at the atmosphere? This barges things looks like a hack to me... a really expensive hack. Would this have to be done every year? I think it is better to leave this kind of "ultimate" solution to when there is no option at all. Until then, let's try to fight the roots of the problem, not just patch it from the outside and adjourn the disaster for a few years.


If you researched the research, you would understand that they are not proposing this (at this time) as a solution, rather they are doing calculations to understand what it would cost to fix the problem (in this case the broken circulation of ocean water) after the fact. That is useful to be able to compare costs with those preventative measures you refer to.

Re:Hack? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657115)

> The estimated cost is about $50 billion.

All I know is, the bill had better be sent to the Americans.

Re:Hack? (2, Informative)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657336)

All I know is, the bill had better be sent to the Americans.

Why's that? Coal fires [worldchanging.com] in China release 360 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, as much as all the cars in America.

Re:Hack? (1)

syphax (189065) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657464)


Sweet! We are totally off the hook! Especially when you consider that transportation is responsible for one-third of US CO2 emissions [doe.gov] !

I'm happy to share the bill with the Chinese, but c'mon.

Re:Hack? (1)

sholden (12227) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657123)

Because it can be done then, rather than now.

If Europe plunges into a deep freeze then I'm sure they'll find the money to do it, if it doesn't then they don't have to. Rather than spending the money now on things that might have no affect on anything anyway.

So now we can just ignore the whole global warming thing.

Re:Hack? (1)

SteveAyre (209812) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657159)

It's described as a fallback method. If we can't stop global warming through those measures, then we at least can try to use this to slow/stop/reverse global warming. However, yes it is a hack.

Re:Hack? (2, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657207)

Perhaps some other hacks would be better. I recall this article on climate controls [reason.com] which covers a wide variety of ideas, dismissing some as obviously impractical (orbiting mylar screen? Haha!) but ultimately concluding there are plenty of things we can do on a variety of levels to begin to help counter warming.

Re:Hack? (1)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657211)

It may be cheaper to launch an orbiting sun shade for the planet.

Re:Hack? (2, Interesting)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657304)

The estimated cost is about $50 billion.

Wouldn't be better to spend this tiny amount of money with measures to prevent and control the emission of CO2 at the atmosphere?


That depends... would the economic cost of reducing CO2 emissions by the equivalent amount be more or less than $50 billion?

This isn't a completely rhetorical question... if anybody has figures, I'd be very curious to see them.

You are right. Nukes would be better (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657477)

I agree that limiting CO2 production seems like a better way to go after the root cause. I'd like to begin building enough nuclear fusion power plants in the USA to eliminate our reliance on burning fossil fuels, including coal, for the generation of electricity. Nuclear fusion does not emit CO2.

Did I read that right? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657019)

Say.......what? Why don't liberals try to solve actual problems? I will never understand the herd mentality of liberal chicken littles who whine about us "destroying" God's Creation. We can't do it, if we could destroy the earth that means God doesn't exist, God exists so we can't destroy the earth. Why don't we solve actual problems like the poor going hungry? Or the sick not being tended? Our government loves to shit on the poor and I don't see many Christians helping out the poor or throwing the bums out of the government.

Re:Did I read that right? (0, Troll)

anagama (611277) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657471)

+50 incoherent stereotype confusion.

Every republican knows that "chicken little liberals" are all athiests.

CO2 output? (1, Interesting)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657024)

I wonder how much the CO2 output of the barges would be? That can't be especially good for the greenhouse gases.

Simple Answer (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657248)

We pay Halliburton to filter out the CO2 and pump it into the ground. It will only cost America $ 250 Billion dollars. We can start on it right away.

Re:CO2 output? (5, Funny)

Dr. Cody (554864) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657267)

Hot damn, I never thought of it that way! Thanks for calling us on that before we went through the trouble of sending several thousand barges out to sea.

Sincerely,
Dr. Peter Flynn

the barges? (1, Insightful)

GenKreton (884088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657025)

Meanwhile these barges use energy during the process. 8,000 barges is a lot of energy. That energy production is probably going to contribute to global warming again. We desperately need a permanent and viable solution for energy production. It is good to see some emergency plans being formulated but this will only prolong the inevitable.

Oblig. Futurama reference (4, Funny)

caitsith01 (606117) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657028)

Narrator: Fortunately, our handsomest politicians came up with a cheap, last-minute way to combat global warming. Ever since 2063 we simply drop a giant ice cube into the ocean every now and then.

Suzie: Just like Daddy puts in his drink every morning. And then he gets mad.

Narrator: Of course, since the greenhouse gases are still building up, it takes more and more ice each time. Thus solving the problem once and for all.

Suzie: But-

Narrator: ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

Leela: Well, we just need one of those big ice cubes. Someone should call the losers who are supposed to deliver it.
[phone rings]
Hello?

this explains how the barges work (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657323)

They just put all the robots on these barges, and let them fart in the sun's general direction....

That's good... (2, Funny)

gustgr (695173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657032)

At least they are not planning to use trees [slashdot.org] to fight global warming.

Or... (3, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657034)

Or we could let the planet do what it's always done: rise and drop in temperature and water levels. Whatever you may think humans have done to the planet, it's gone through much bigger changes before we were ever here. How about we let nature take its course and we worry about changing ourselves instead of the planet?

Re:Or... (1)

syphax (189065) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657145)

How about we let nature take its course and we worry about changing ourselves instead of the planet?

because we are seriously f***ing with nature [planetforlife.com]

Re:Or... (2, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657164)

And somehow f**king with it more is going to help? Very logical.

Re:Or... (2, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657342)

Face it. People have affected the climate. They will continue to affect the climate one way or another until they're all dead (at which point it will probably be because they've affected the climate with nuclear bombs or something - boom boom boom). We are stuck in a global climate experiment, and there is no real way to shut it down entirely. Instead, we need to figure out how to deal with it, and anyone who's not considering some sort of technological assistance to at least help counter this largely technologically-induced problem is depriving themselves of an incredibly useful tool. Reduction of emissions? All fine and dandy, but don't dismiss mitigation of emissions as well.

Re:Or... (1)

syphax (189065) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657426)

Nice try.

You said: "How about we let nature take its course and we worry about changing ourselves instead of the planet?"

I said: We are not letting nature take its course (re: accelerating atmospheric CO2 concentrations).

Then you accused me of wanting to mess with nature more, which I most definitely did not say. I've been listening to the current US administration too long to fall for that fallacy.

And what's with "worry about changing ourselves instead of the planet"? I presume you are suggesting that we just adapt. Tell that to the hundreds of millions (of poor people, with minimal GHG emissions) who live at an altitude within 10m of sea level. Who's paying the moving bills? Or the cats in Northern Europe who are going to find things a little chilly if the Gulf Stream, as a consequence of warming, does in fact stop downwelling, a possibility first raised by Wallace Broecker [columbia.edu] , the dude who figured out the ocean conveyor in the first place.

Me, I think boot-strapping the Gulf Stream is crazy. The lead scientist for this study doesn't seem too keen either: "Flynn emphasizes that his group does not propose this scheme as the first or best choice, since all geo-engineering projects have a risk of unforeseen circumstances."

Re:Or... (4, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657152)

Whatever you may think humans have done to the planet, it's gone through much bigger changes before we were ever here.

That's true. However, at some of those times this planet has been just about totally uninhabitable by humans. Are you suggesting that in the worst case we just kill ourselves off and then wait for the planet to recover so some new species can evolve to take our place?

Re:Or... (3, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657180)

Yes.

Or we spend the of thousands of years it'll take before it becomes uninhabitable to learn how to live for generations in space.

Re:Or... (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657292)

Yes.

Okeeedokeey.... You go first.

Re:Or... (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657362)

The human race is slightly more sophisticated right now than it's been in those past ice ages. Supposedly some sort of cave-men made it through the last few ice ages; surely with the aid of neat modern technological tools we can deal with the next one better, whenever it comes. Not that there won't be tragic loss involved or population crashes and all that stuff, but... completely uninhabitable? Unlikely, perhaps.

Re:Or... (3, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657170)

That makes too much sense and it absolves Capitalism and the United States from guilt. There is no room in the Global Climate Change arguement for past climatic shifts or any evidence of the Sun rising in output or cyclical events.

"At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.

The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases."

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issue s/ApJL/v549n1/005748/005748.web.pdf [uchicago.edu]
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1001-duke.html [mongabay.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Solar_ variation [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciatio n#Pleistocene_glacial_cycles [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas [wikipedia.org]

Nope, we can't talk in this arguement about how the planet's climate has shifted in the past, but must blame the US, George W. Bush and/or Capitalism for Global Warming.

Re:Or... (2, Interesting)

ajs (35943) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657278)

Good points. One more to add to the mix: the trend in global warming debate thus far has been to say that CO2 must be the unknown cause of global warming because no other factor could account for the increase in temperature. This is generally said because the increase does not map to the increase in solar output.

However, if solar output were to trigger non-linear increases in global temperatures (e.g. by triggering the ~2% increase in percipitation in the 20th century, trapping solar radiation under increased cloud-cover and water vapor content), then such models could easily be quite wrong.

This is nothing new. Solar researchers have been trying to point out the sun-climate interactions since the 1970s [amazon.com] .

Re:Or... (4, Insightful)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657327)

At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.

I think you'll find the last IPCC TAR concluded much the same with regard to the effects of increased solar output. Of course they also concluded that the majority of observed warming was most likely due to anthropogenic CO2. Take a look at this chart [wikipedia.org] showing how well CO2 correlates with the historical temperature record and realise that on that scale current CO2 levels are almost 5.5: that is quite literally off the chart. Given that we have good reason to believe in causation (absorption spectra of atmospheric CO2) it should be of concern. Yes the climate has fluctuated quite a bit in the past. Yes it is a complex chaotic system. That doesn't mean messing with it more is a good idea.

Nope, we can't talk in this arguement about how the planet's climate has shifted in the past, but must blame the US, George W. Bush and/or Capitalism for Global Warming.

I'm not sure attacking a strawman helps either. I don't think anyone with an actual clue is blaming George Bush and Capitalism for causing global warming, and certainly people with a clue will readily accept that historically the climate has been variable - that doesn't mean the the current trend in variation is going to in any way beneficial (or even necessarily neutral). Sure there are all those people without a clue who follow the issue as a politicised debate. There are equally shrill and stupid voices on both sides of this argument though. Just ignore them - the more attention we pay them the more pointlessly polarised this debate becomes.

Jedidiah.

Temp rise precedes CO2 rise (1)

Derling Whirvish (636322) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657443)

Take a look at this chart [wikipedia.org] showing how well CO2 correlates with the historical temperature record

I also notice that the rise in temperature precedes the rise in CO2 for the most part of that graph.

On that chart, the timeline goes right-to-left, with the older record on the right.

Re:Or... (1)

KeithIrwin (243301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657377)

If you look at graphs of global temperature and levels of atmospheric carbon over the last 100,000 years, they look almost identical. Every time atmospheric carbon rises, global temperatures rise. Right now we have more carbon in the atmosphere than we have at any time in the last 100,000 years. More than 10% more than the peak in the last 100,000 years. Does this prove that global warming is happening? No, it doesn't. But it does mean that there's enough of a possibility that we should be cautious. If we screw this up, we don't know how to fix it. That alone should make us be cautious about putting more and more carbon into the atmosphere.

But being cautious costs money, so the business interests in the US don't want to do it. As such, they're willing to hem and haw and throw as much FUD at things as possible. When asked about global warming, Bush says that we need more research, but he actively fights against giving the EPA more money to research global warming. Why? Because he doesn't want to know. He wants to just always be able to say "we need more research" and keep filling the atmosphere with carbon by burning fossil fuels.

Maybe there will be other things which come into play and global warming will turn out not to be a problem. Maybe global warming will disrupt the deep ocean currents and plunge the planet into another ice age. No one knows for sure. But instead of being cautious, the business interests in the US and their government have insisted that we act as if there is no possible problem and just keep pumping as much carbon into the atmosphere as we want. Whether or not global warming will be an environmental catastrophe is not clear. But what is clear is that by not taking it seriously, Bush and his fellows are taking a big risk with the fate of the entire population of this planet, because if the threat of global warming does turn out to be real, there's not any of us that won't be affected.

Keith

Re:Or... (1)

greginnj (891863) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657447)

1. That makes too much sense and it absolves Capitalism and the United States from guilt. There is no room in the Global Climate Change arguement for past climatic shifts or any evidence of the Sun rising in output or cyclical events.
Oh, ok, so we should take past climactic shifts into account. So everything's ok then.
2. "At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.
Gotcha. Fully 10-30 percent of warming is accounted for by solar output. And the remaining piddling 70% comes from where? Leprechauns?
3. The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases."
Hmm, the second sentence of para 3 seems to contradict the intent of your paragraphs #1 and #4.
4. Nope, we can't talk in this arguement about how the planet's climate has shifted in the past, but must blame the US, George W. Bush and/or Capitalism for Global Warming.
Oh goody. The planet's climate has shifted IN THE PAST, so everything's ok. You've exonerated George Bush, your work here is done. You may now go pick up your check from the RNC.

Listen bucko, some of us would like to avoid having our grandchildren live through the start of another ice age, whether or not it's George Bush's fault. Some of us have higher goals than absolving the current administration of all blame. But a party that can inspire people to believe that they are doing God's work [thesmokinggun.com] by driving a pickup truck over a field full of memorial crosses must be distributing some pretty powerful drugs. Ok, George Bush is innocent. Now, does that mean you're ok with another ice age, or would you like to prevent it, even so?

Re:Or... (1)

KeithIrwin (243301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657307)

Because it'll suck a lot for us if we do that. Many of the big cities on Earth are along coast lines. As such, if the sea rises significantly it's gonna destroy a lot of valuable property and make a lot of people homeless. New Orleans didn't like being flooded all that much. Places like New York and Tokyo won't either. The climate change models also predict things like heavier rainfal resulting in more flooding in general, more huricanes, increased tornado activity, and more droughts. Those are not fun things.

Sure, in the end, it's not going to matter to the planet whether it's hot or cold and life in the general sense will survive, but it is in our best interests to prevent significant climate changes because of the negative effects it will have on us.

And I should also note other downsides, such as that radical climate change will also likely kill a bunch of species who can't adapt to it quickly enough. Many of these species might have contained genes and/or chemicals which would be helpful to us. With them gone, we may well never discover these useful genes and/or chemicals.

If it were a question of not disturbing the natural cylces of things, then perhaps it would be a valid argument to say that we shouldn't try to change things to be in our best interest. But it's abundantly clear that we are mucking with things. The temperature of the planet generally tracks the level of carbon in the atmosphere. The level of atmospheric carbon is higher than it has been any time in the last 100,000 years. Looking at all available sources, it's pretty clear that it's human activity which is doing this. So we are already mucking with things and changing the natural order of things. So the question becomes "what climate do we want?" And frankly, it seems like it would be significantly to our collective benefit to not have the climate change radically from what it is now. This is what we're adapted for. Make it much hotter or colder, and we're going to start to have more portions of the earth where it is infeasible to live.

Keith

Re:Or... (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657392)

Whatever you may think humans have done to the planet, it's gone through much bigger changes before we were ever here.

We weren't here then. We wouldn't have survived if we were.
We aere here now. We will do what we can to survive.

How about we let nature take its course and we worry about changing ourselves instead of the planet?

First, we're not even sure that nature is actually taking its course, that we haven't knocked it off course.

Second, when push comes to shove we want to live on a habitable earth. Perhaps in a "hippy" utopia that could be accomplished simply by being environmentally responsible, but that might not be the case in the real world.

Hell we KNOW we're not exactly being evironmentally friendly. But regardless of WHY its happening -- if the planet is heading for a 10,000 year ice age that will cover 2/3rds the earth in a mile thick block of ice utterly devastating humanity then it doesn't matter if that's what nature has in store for us or if its the bed we've made for ourselves. Either way it would be time to shove back as best we can.

A little research to theorize HOW to push back isn't a bad idea.

Because it's not what humans do (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657400)

We change our environment to better suit ourselves. This comfy chair I'm sitting on, the lights I'm under, the food I had for lunch, the air in my office, none of it would exist in that state without human touch. Almost everything I interact with on a daily basis is the result of us changing our environment to better suit us. We make small changes and we make large ones.

We will keep doing it because we have an innate desire to make things better for ourselves. And guess what! That is "nature" taking it's course because we are part of nature, not separate from it.

Re:Or... (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657430)

Because evidence seems to show whatever is happening is being increased by humans, so if it's going to kill us all off (super heat the planet or turn nature extremely hostile), we need to fix it now before we're living as mole men.

Even if we're not bringing about any harm to the Earth, it's still in everyone sbest intrest to find a cleaner resource for our power before it runs out (and we can only dig so far before we hit magma and have no more oil or ores), so we need to start looking for a solution. Not to mention we as humans need air to live, if we polute the air we could in the long run endanger ourselvs (we're cutting down trees at an insane rate, which doesn't exactly help this issue).

So even if we're "okay now", we may not be tomorrow.

wouldn't that require 8000 (minimum) trips by (1)

humuhumunukunukuapu' (678704) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657035)

tugboats


burning fossil fuels?

Re:wouldn't that require 8000 (minimum) trips by (1)

gustgr (695173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657074)

Probably they will hire eskimos to row the barges...

Or just graft another head (1)

Bovineck (200068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657038)

Oh I think I saw this on a movie once. You graft another head onto the original problem body, but in the version I saw it all went horribly wrong and a few innocent bystanders were killed.

Re:Or just graft another head (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657070)

i think the phrase here is

8000 buckets in a sea of water

What a bunch of horseshit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657039)

Then again, horseshit would be more effective in combatting global warming than this retarded plan.

Sounds like Futurama (2, Funny)

FlameboyC11 (711446) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657056)

This sounds similar to the solution in Futurama episode #57, "Crimes of the Hot" where they used to drop a gigantic ice cube in the ocean. First Episode of Season 5 [gotfuturama.com]

Why not just leave the refrigerator open? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657057)

Why not just leave the refrigerator open? See, Mom was WRONG all those years! If all the kid's left the refrigerator open, it would cool the world! BWAHAHA!

Wait... you mean the world would actually get WARMER? BAH! The thermal engineers are trying to confuse me!

Re:Why not just leave the refrigerator open? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657413)

Yeah, isn't it funny how much warm it takes to make a little cold? You think we'd just break off a chunk of Sun and freeze that or something. Surely all we need is something like a giant overclocker's cooling kit [mycableshop.com] and vent off all of our air conditioner heat output to the dark side of the moon or something.

I'm not a physicist, but... (2, Insightful)

Ruff_ilb (769396) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657058)

Wouldn't EXPENDING energy simply generate more heat? Even if the result *appears* to be a layer of ice over the oceans, this energy has to go somewhere else. I realize that the Earth isn't a closed system, but that's the problem - we've got energy input and not much energy output. Until we can fix this, any large-scale energy expenditure will NOT have a positive effect w/ regards to combating global warming, right?

(Ok, now some physicist type needs to come along and correct me, but still...)

Re:I'm not a physicist, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657221)

Ice actually has a rather high albedo so it would increase some of those energy outputs. It doesn't see likely to be a productive project though.

Re:I'm not a physicist, but... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657364)

They aren't worried about the total energy in the global system, they are worried about the moderating effects created by the gulf stream. Inputting just a small amount of energy into the gulf stream may result in a much greater than naively expected result because it is meerly pushing a system over the edge of a state change.

Next year's required barges - and the year after (1)

eric31415927 (861917) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657061)

If 8,000 barges work this year, how many will be needed next year, and the year after that? I wonder what sort of mathematical progression is planned.

well thank god (2, Funny)

atarione (601740) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657073)

I'm sure politicans are all following over themselves trying to spend 50billion dollars on this idea. I guess I'll stop building my house up on 10ft stilts .... i'm sure this will stop the massive climate change and prevent ocean level increases.

Energy required to do this? (4, Interesting)

digitalgiblet (530309) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657078)

First thought I have is "how much energy would be required to do this?"

Eight THOUSAND barges pumping enough water to make a layer seven METERS thick? EACH YEAR.

I'm no scientist, but it seems to me we'd be pumping out some greenhouse gases somewhere in this mix...

Would these be nuclear barges? No greenhouse gases, but instead spent nuclear fuel to contain for a really long time.

They estimate $50 billion USD to do this, but they don't say if that is the ongoing yearly amount.

Maybe easier just to genetically engineer all the plants and animals to deal with the new conditions rather than try to control the ocean currents (and for the humor impaired -- that sentence is meant as a joke).

Not to worry... (1)

jpardey (569633) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657095)

They're gonna use solar panels. Or maybe penguins in big hampster wheels...

Re:Energy required to do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657182)

"Maybe easier just to genetically engineer all the plants and animals to deal with the new conditions"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/Vost ok-ice-core-petit.png [wikimedia.org]

They survived larger variations just fine without our intervention.

Re:Energy required to do this? (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657480)

Three syllables. Nook-yoo-ler.

They use nuclear power on submarines, they use it on battleships, they can use it on barges easily.

There's no one-size-fits-all fix for this mess (4, Interesting)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657103)

When the bought-off pundits, ideology-addled fanboys, and fossil fuel industry flaks run out of viable talking points in their F.U.D. campaign, the debate over global warming won't be over whether it is happening, but on the most effective and economical ways to slow it down and cope with its effects.

There won't be a one-size-fits-all fix. Conservation and more efficient vehicles will be a big part of it. Environmental remediation projects, like reconstructing coastal wetlands to help them deal with floods and storms, will be another.

Stange notions like seeding the ocean with iron filings, and this oddball idea, are another possibility for the "arsenal" of fixes. I'd definitely put some money into researching them. Figure out the kinks sooner rather than later, so they'll be available if we need them.

Da whitey man be trying to keep us down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657106)

How us starving eskimos supposed to plant our wheat in 2009 now? Our agents have been setting charges on volcanoes around the globe over the past few years to warm us up a bit.

Sounds like Brewster's Millions... (4, Interesting)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657134)


This scheme reminds me somewhat of some of the (intentionally) money-wasting schemes of the movie Brewster's millions. Large machines sent thousands and thousands of miles to mechanically move an almost unimaginable ammount of water, along with the fuel needed to do all of this large-scale de-facto terraforming (aquaforming?).

That...or the Futurama episode where it was revealed that global warming had to be fended off with giant ice cubes from Haley's comet every once in a while.

What this scheme ammounts to is a color shift of a rather small portion of the earth's ocean, for a rather small ammount of time, and enormous cost.

You could achieve the same dynamic by:

A) Using some cheaper coloring to semi-permanantly paint large portions of land environments with an already severely limited biological environment, including deserts, rocky areas, upper mountain ranges, near-permafrost (permafrost is already white most of the time), etc. Longer-lasting and cheaper than the ice-cube in the ocean effect. Could be undone with darker color later if needed.

B) Genetically engineer and feed cryophillic bacteria with light pigment in near-arctic ocean areas. Either have it continuously expell bouyant light-color material as part of the life cycle, or else have the body stay boyant and un-edible by further bacteria after death. If this is feasible, and self-sustainable, we'd have a meaningful, if limited engineered biological terraforming. Similarly can be undone with darker color later.

Those are just two quick ideas - I'm sure there's a lot others that would work to do color-based terraforming. Are there any special reasons why this barge idea would... hold water still above such ideas?

as an alternative... (1)

timhillu03 (903863) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657143)

As a backup plan, we could take 8,000 jumbo jets and fly between the sun and the earth, thereby casting a shadow. That would promote global cooling as well.

Why fight Global Warming? I want it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657155)

It's cold over here. With higher heating bills this year, I have to conserve. I look forward to all the Global Warming we can get. Bring it on!

Ways to combat "global warming" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657157)

1. Stop selective de-forestation of the South American rainforest.

2. Find the fucking Europeans some other place to grow soybeans for their bio-diesel so they don't start de-foresting the Congo.

3. Build nuclear power plants.

4. Build breeder reactors and core re-processing factories so we don't have to bury as much radioactives.

5. Find a fucking use for all the radioactive by-product waste generated from 30 years of unabated plutonium weapon manufacturing. Vitrify it and use the barrel to de-ice sidewalks or something. Sheesh!

6. Use on-site hydrogen production to fuel automobiles.

7. Figure out a superconductor that can withstand 50C temperatures, and lay down an underground electrical grid across the country (be it US or EU or China or Korea or Japan).

8. Home school your children, because urban teachers' unions are fucking KILLING our literacy rate.

9. Buy Danish goods. Most butter cookies, but cheese and booze as well.

10. For the Love of God, please enroll Hillary in some anger management classes. That crying shit is waaaaaaayyyyyy too unbalanced for the nuclear football team.

Re:Ways to combat "global warming" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657245)

11. wait [usgcrp.gov]

Greg Benford's Suggestion (2, Interesting)

Nova Express (100383) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657169)

He suggested seeding the relatively dead waters of the Southwest Pacific with iron ore to encourage an algee bloom, which would then help absorb greenhouse emissions.

Like his idea, this one will be shot down for the same reason: It might actually do something about the problem, doesn't funnel money to the climatologists pushing Global Warming as a means of securing ever-more funding, and it offends the the civil religion of environmentalism by allowing Western Civilization to escape suffering (in the form of a stagnant economy die to crushing greenhouse gas taxes) for its "environmental sins."

"Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. [michaelcrichton.com] Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe. Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith. And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them."

Re:Greg Benford's Suggestion (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657249)

Like his idea, this one will be shot down for the same reason: It might actually do something about the problem, doesn't funnel money to the climatologists pushing Global Warming as a means of securing ever-more funding, and it offends the the civil religion of environmentalism by allowing Western Civilization to escape suffering (in the form of a stagnant economy die to crushing greenhouse gas taxes) for its "environmental sins."
Humans are spiteful like that.

We don't just want you to be wrong and us to be right, we also want you to suffer for being wrong.

SchadenFraud - the malicious satisfaction one feels at the misfortune of others.

Or, to put it in terms that a /.er will understand, it's that feeling you get when the boss you hate gets a computer virus .

Re:Greg Benford's Suggestion (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657270)

"Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism"
This again - obviously if something is black it must be a crow even if it has four legs and moos.

It's the act of a confidence trickster to attack the messenger and not the message - and if we keep doing that scientists will be branded as fanatics and we can forget about people getting a decent education in the mainstream.

Re:Greg Benford's Suggestion (1)

paulbd (118132) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657387)

Crichton can be a really nicely-worded misleader when he wants to be. Yes, there are crazed idiots within the Christian faith who believe that the End Days can be accelerated by promoting destabilization in the middle east. And there are idiots in the environmental movement who believe that the problem is doom, the destruction and the rest of the crap that he cites.

Meanwhile, there are Christians working hard to improve the lives of various people on a day to day basis, and there are environmentalists who understand that the issue at hand is not the survival of life on this planet or even humanity, but the question of what kind of life will be possible in world of reduced ecological complexity and altered chemistry/climate.

Ignoring the sane core of a movement is a common tactic, just like ignoring the message by critiquing the messenger. For those whose environmental beliefs approach fundamentalist proportions, maybe Crichton has a point. But for the rest of us, he's talking about a different set of people as a way of avoiding what we are trying to say.

Re:Greg Benford's Suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657407)

This is fucked. Fucked, fucked, fucked.

Oh, and Michael Crichton is an author. Author, author, author. A poor one at that.

It's called the precautionary principle [wikipedia.org] , folks: it's pretty obvious that we humans are moving enough energy and chemicals around to cause global-scale climate change. We don't know for sure (and we never will be able to predict with certainty) what the effects will be. Maybe we boil. Maybe we freeze. Maybe we boil, then we freeze.

Rather than throwing billions at a possible symptom (as this idea suggests), we're better off controlling the root causes. That means quit driving your fucking SUV around, and quit taking fiction too seriously.

Why not... (1)

KalvinB (205500) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657179)

...just build a giant shield to block the sun?

what a fucking idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657181)

unfortunately the little ice this wacko struggles to sustain with all his motorboats may actually inhibit the natural absorption of CO2 [gdrc.org] into the ocean. ...oh shucks and then there are those damn climate cycles [usgcrp.gov]

Wasn't it pleasant in Eocene? (1)

piotru (124109) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657185)

The climate of Eocene is supposed to have been perfect - the average sea water temperature around Arctic 15deg. Celsius, palm trees growing within polar circle and the tropics not much hotter than today. What's wrong with returning to these conditions? We would need more forests than today perhaps, but it it undoable?

Re:Wasn't it pleasant in Eocene? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657403)

Haven't the continents shuffled a bit since then? Would it even be possible, in terms of weather and ocean current patterns, to 'return' to such a global climate? If we should just let things run their course, assuming it's a course and not an outward spiral, then why are deserts growing instead of becoming grasslands and forests?

cool (1)

smash (1351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657189)

We only need to burn x,000 units of fossil fuels to run the pumps :D

Without taking into account the fuel consumed to actually manufacture said barges...

smash

New Plan (2, Funny)

iSeal (854481) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657191)

5 Years Later, on Slashdot:

"Due to all the additionnal greenhouse gases created by having 8,000 barges continuously circumventing the oceans, the Alberta professor now suggests to add more barges... to curb the effect on global warming the old ones created."

most underrated post in this thread (1)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657409)

can someone mod the parent post please? :D

What the hell are you talking about? (1)

0xdeaddead (797696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657229)

There is no such thing a global warming. At best its a theroy like evolution, or this big bang thing.

At $12.50 each (1)

dbcad7 (771464) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657234)

That's like 4,000,000,000 garden hoses !

terraforming the earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657256)

does not make any sense.

Details from the paper (3, Interesting)

SiliconEntity (448450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657268)

The original paper [springerlink.com] is unfortunately not available without a subscription, but it has considerably more detail.

The cost breaks down as a capital outley of 45 billion dollars for the barges and equipment; and operating expenses of 1.3 billion dollars per year. The barges would be wind powered for the pumping operations so no substantial CO2 is generated.

8100 barges, with a wind power system, a low volume pump and two high volume pumps per barge. 32 helicopters, 4 harbors, 4 air bases and 1 control center, for the Thunderbirds, I guess.

Re:Details from the paper (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657326)

The barges would be wind powered for the pumping operations so no substantial CO2 is generated.

Yes, but the energy used on the barges could be used to replace energy generation which currently produces CO2.

In high northern and southern lattitudes wind generation at sea is actually one of the better sources of non-polluting energy.

Re:Details from the paper (1)

Potato Battery (872080) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657449)

for the Thunderbirds, I guess

Could we save money by going with a Phoenix/Griffin combo instead? The Phoenixes in particular have the benefit of being recyclable.

warming pools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14657272)

I pee'ed in a pool last week. I don't know if that helps global warming or hurts it, but I guess if I see one of these barges pull up in my neighbor backyard I will have to appologize to him...

Silly Idea (0, Redundant)

arbiterxero (952505) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657281)

Physics can't be this man's strong point.. okay so I take WATER and spray it into the air to turn it into ICE. The Resulting process does which? oh yes, some heat must be released since we're not using pressure. End result? We have thicker caps and the illusion of cold. That's a good idea for making the Ice Caps thicker but overall doesn't remove any of the "heat" or global warming issues. You have to address the SOURCE of an issue as opposed to the effects to make anything work. Infact it's possible that would have the OPPOSITE effect. Heat and energy is being trapped on our planet. That's the problem right? what does making one selected area colder do to fix anything? I don't get it.

Wisdom from the TV Sitcom "Dinosaurs" (3, Insightful)

Pollux (102520) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657319)

The TV sitcom "Dinosaurs" was such a wonderful show. It was an excellent satire, paralleling the Dinosaur's "modern" world with our own. As soon as I read this article, I immediately thought of the final episode of this sitcom.

In the final episode [tv.com] , a comet is heading towards the planet, and the "We Say So" corporation devises a way of destroying the comet using "modern" technology, only to find that it has a consequence. Each "solution" cause a larger and larger problem, only to be "fixed" with another "solution", causing an ever-growing problem. I forget the entire sequence of events, but in the final stage, they kill all the plant life on the planet. They figure that to bring the plant life back, they need to make it rain. Rain is formed by clouds. Clouds are formed by erupting volcanos. So, naturally, forcing all the volcanos to erupt will cause clouds to form, causing rain to fall and restore the plant life for all the earth. The episode finishes with the corporation detinating bombs inside volcanos, causing all the volcanos to erupt, blackening the sky, causing the start of the ice age.

Words of wisdom from Dinosaur Earl Sinclair: "It's so easy to take advantage of nature because it's always there, and technology is so bright and shiny and new."

Let the Earth take care of nature. We're so focused on manipulating nature for the survival of every single life on Earth, we lose site of the fact that every now and then, nature has to correct our mistakes to restore its own balance, whether in the form of a plague, a change in the weather patterns, or an ice age.

Lowering the river solution (2, Informative)

Belseth (835595) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657374)

Sure sounds easier than increasing gas mileage and cutting greenhouse emissions. Amazing some of the bone head solutions for avoiding dealing with the real issue. I remember a proposal of digging tunnels in the mountains around LA to blow the smog out. Gee let's spend tens of billions so we don't have to be responsible and cut emissions. When LA actually starting passing laws against polution it got radically better. Then a little thing called the SUV showed up and most of the gains were lost. Back in the late 70s you could hardly see the mountains at all for months at a time. By the early 90s heavy smog days were rare. Ten years later they are common again. We can make a difference it just requires effort and responsibility. People don't want to make sacrifics or accept change. Well things are changing so you better get used to it.

What about the sun? (2, Funny)

toupsie (88295) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657425)

If we blew up the Sun, we wouldn't have to worry about Global Warming.

Mother Earth (2, Interesting)

rockwood (141675) | more than 8 years ago | (#14657446)

The earth has maintained itself against far worse things then global warming. Ozone holes have been shown to increase and decrease in size. This is most likely not from any of our efforts, but those of mother nature and earth maintaining itself like it has long before any form of human had walked the earth.

Global warming is not all about taking care of 'our earth'. It's about saving our own asses from extinction.

Earth has endured asteroid showers, meteor showers, major volcanic erruptions that produced ice ages and other effects of extreme proportion. Earth will contineu to self-maintain long after the human race died off, or nuked themselves. When a major earth shifting event happens, evolution begins again.

Leave the glabal warming, ozone holes, melting ice alone - It's evident that since we started reducing ozone depleting chemicals, introduced automobile emmission controls, and a bounty of other reversal efforts, that nothing is helping. I strongly feel that we are not causing these things - rather earth is evolving herself, and unfortunately her future plans may or may not include any of the current species. We're beating a dead horse!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>