Guest Posted February 16, 2017 Report Share Posted February 16, 2017 I thought this had to be a joke or fake news or something. http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-announced-a-plan-to-refreeze-the-arctic-and-it-s-wild But apparently it's not. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/12/plan-to-refreeze-arctic-before-ice-goes-for-good-climate-change http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000410/full Apparently, these guys don't know the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) On 12/8/2016 at 10:14 AM, anatess2 said: And the PC-labeling goes on... The press now calls Scott Pruitt, Trump's EPA director choice, a Climate Change Denier. Denier. This is how the left wages character assassination. They call you some PC name that they hope will effectively reduce you to the size of an ant so they wouldn't have to face you in an actual debate on Climate Change. This is Pruitt's actual quote: “Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.” They call that a Denier. Of course, they are of the mindset that the Science of Anthropogenic Climate Change is already settled. This is what's frustrating about the left. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/02/15/97-an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-oft-cited-polling-of-climate-scientists/#5eebbd346001 and then a different view. https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm And of course the famous opinion article that notates the original question and which threw a lot of others into a frenzy in trying to refute the article or discredit the author. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#1debc9617187 There are various different views on the idea it seems. Edited February 17, 2017 by JohnsonJones Adding an article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 I guess people don't like looking at links. My last post had links to people who want to re-freeze the arctic to combat global warming. The method? They're going to take sea water and spray it onto the icy parts in order to create more ice. Thus the earth may cool and we'll all be saved. I have to wonder that these are "climate scientists". This is whom we are supposed to put our trust in for the future of humanity. This is who we're supposed to blindly believe know what's going on with the global temperature trends over decades and centuries. Do I think I know more than these "scientists" who do this for a living? HECK YEAH!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 4 hours ago, Carborendum said: I guess people don't like looking at links. My last post had links to people who want to re-freeze the arctic to combat global warming. The method? They're going to take sea water and spray it onto the icy parts in order to create more ice. Thus the earth may cool and we'll all be saved. I have to wonder that these are "climate scientists". This is whom we are supposed to put our trust in for the future of humanity. This is who we're supposed to blindly believe know what's going on with the global temperature trends over decades and centuries. Do I think I know more than these "scientists" who do this for a living? HECK YEAH!!! Won't that just act like my freezer and keep a local region colder but raise the temperature around it? Why not instead we come up with a way to let the heat escape? Some sort of exhaust valve in our atmosphere so the temperatures don't rise, leading to all the calamities associated with it. Since no one lives at the poles, we could poke the hole there. Maybe start with the ozone layer. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 53 minutes ago, mordorbund said: Won't that just act like my freezer and keep a local region colder but raise the temperature around it? Why not instead we come up with a way to let the heat escape? Some sort of exhaust valve in our atmosphere so the temperatures don't rise, leading to all the calamities associated with it. Since no one lives at the poles, we could poke the hole there. Maybe start with the ozone layer. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, mordorbund said: Won't that just act like my freezer and keep a local region colder but raise the temperature around it? Why not instead we come up with a way to let the heat escape? Some sort of exhaust valve in our atmosphere so the temperatures don't rise, leading to all the calamities associated with it. Since no one lives at the poles, we could poke the hole there. Maybe start with the ozone layer. ... The best way to get that to work is to create an alloy made of mercury and aluminum that will be structurally sound enough to create a tower that will reach outerspace (or at least above the ozone layer -- 30 miles above sea level). We'd need to build this in the Amazon or Zaire to conduct as much heat away from the surface of the earth as possible. Honestly, this plan would work if people really were concerned about it. It's just a question of the cost of such a structure. This would most likely require a base that is about 1.5 miles wide. But it would be a truss type structure, so you could drive under it. Giant Eiffel Tower. It would work best if you also had it clad so that it would provide chimney action. Then all the CFCs would go all the way up and do some real damage to the ozone layer -- oops, not a selling point. Edited February 17, 2017 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted February 17, 2017 Report Share Posted February 17, 2017 6 hours ago, Carborendum said: I guess people don't like looking at links. My last post had links to people who want to re-freeze the arctic to combat global warming. The method? They're going to take sea water and spray it onto the icy parts in order to create more ice. Thus the earth may cool and we'll all be saved. I have to wonder that these are "climate scientists". This is whom we are supposed to put our trust in for the future of humanity. This is who we're supposed to blindly believe know what's going on with the global temperature trends over decades and centuries. Do I think I know more than these "scientists" who do this for a living? HECK YEAH!!! That wasn't exactly what I understood your links to say. I read it yesterday, but didn't comment on it, as overall I'm trying to remain out of this overall. I understood it that the main purpose was not to reverse global warming. The idea is that with the cold, you spray a coat of water on top of the ice in the cold months which then freezes. An example would be if you had a very cold day outside and then got some water in a spray bottle and started spraying it on top of the ice already there (or your car if you want to see more visible and faster results perhaps). Due to the cold, that spray will freeze forming a layer of ice. Do this enough and constantly enough, and you'll get a thick layer of ice. They want to do this to form a thicker layer of ice on the artic ice (or basically, another layer on top of the existing layer of ice to make more ice there). The goal is to slow down the melting of the ice, as a thicker layer of ice melts slower than a thinner layer of ice. That's the only effect, to slow down ice melt. I suppose the idea is that if they do this, that not as much water goes out into the oceans. Other than that, it doesn't cool down the earth or slow down AGW from their point of view as far as I could see in regards to what the articles were saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2017 Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 On 2/17/2017 at 2:04 PM, JohnsonJones said: That wasn't exactly what I understood your links to say. I read it yesterday, but didn't comment on it, as overall I'm trying to remain out of this overall. I understood it that the main purpose was not to reverse global warming. Take it a few steps further. Read a few more details. That is what they were saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.