View Story | 435 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
The dramatic loss of arctic ice has been diaried several times before. Several people have noted that reality is running well ahead of predictions. I chose to revisit the topic because this is the first time I've seen an image directly comparing models to reality.
by chapter1 on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 12:32:35 PM PDT
about the fallacy of "two sides to this: scientific consensus is right, or all upset over nothing."
It would be interesting to see what computer models might project given more accurate current data from this summer's sea ice measurements.
"Right wing freak machine" General Wes Clark
by Tracker on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 12:41:14 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
On with Arctic Oil. Time to invade Canada. I've heard there's a lot of oil in the Arctic. More than the one's in that thar' desert!!!
John Mccain - The death of social security
by horatius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:57:25 PM PDT
the HAARP project has anything to do with the acceleration of Arctic Sea melting?
"The erudite are not wise and the wise are not erudite." - Lao Tzu
by TheKost on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:20:19 PM PDT
in my limited investigation is the HAARP project is basically trying to find out how the manipulation of the upper ionosphere relates to how the sun interacts with weather patterns on earth. More specifically how the manipulation can cause artificial heating in specific regions on earth.
An attempt at an analogy: Similar to concentrating the sun's rays using a magnifying glass to burn ants (not that I ever tried that. Nope, not me.)
In the case discussed here it pertains to magnifying the sun's influence on specific regions on earth. This could explain the alarming acceleration of the melting of the Arctic Ocean ice reserves.
If you ask me, I think "they" are deliberately targeting the Arctic Ocean for the oil.
by TheKost on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:51:30 PM PDT
on wikipedia. Let me know if I'm wrong.
by TheKost on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:27:26 PM PDT
...one discovers that the actual location holds regular open houses where the public can go in, ask questions, wander around, take pictures and so on.
HAARP studies the ionosphere and the natural effects it causes on radio communications. That's it. I have no idea where the loony-tune conspiracy about atmospheric manipulation and all the other quasi-science fiction nonsense came from.
Although I have it on good authority that the aliens in Area 52 (Area 51 is a cover) are proposing to enter a joint operation with Al Qaeda and Elvis to run a secret operation that will plant a gigantic energy cannon on the moon protected by vaccuum-capable sharks with fricken laser beams on their heads.
by Northwatch on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:32:38 PM PDT
Just an idea JACKASS.
If you're such a smart person maybe you can explain what all the scientists are now scratching there heads about. Let me hear something other than your "anti-conspiracy" theory.
And just FYI, HAARP is a joint defense project with us and the Canadians. Can I go into any defense project, take pictures, ask questions (and get answers in truth), wander around and so on? I don't think so, DIMWIT.
You're just another "anti-conspiratorial" nutjob. :) Instead of deriding what I say and ridiculing me, why don't you offer some of your "on-high" answers of why the polar ice caps are melting at a much faster rate than any scientist had predicted. FUCK ROD.
by TheKost on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 12:07:57 AM PDT
Let's leave Rod out of this, shall we?
Uh, yeah.
by Morlock on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:58:10 AM PDT
What I was talking about for you Mr. Anti-Conspiracy nutcase:
Weather Modification According to HAARP campaigners, patents state:
"Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device... molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc., concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased."[1]
Hope this helps.
by TheKost on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 02:51:14 AM PDT
But my sources tell me that instead of sharks with laser beams, they will be using sea bass. Very angry sea bass. Quite testy, in fact.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
by bigtimecynic on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 04:49:15 AM PDT
Can I copy and paste that last paragraph about the sharks? Good imagination and fun.
Lighten up TheKost. All of us here are trying to figure out what to do next. And it's going to take reasoned and congenial discussions. Strength and courage under fire.
When the ship is sinking, first rule is "Don't panic!"
McCain: Without Issues, Without Vision, Without Integrity. --- or Obama: With Truth, With Kindness, With Endurance.
by CupofTea on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:55:16 AM PDT
Morality is the single most important issue.
by Ferrofluid on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:48:15 AM PDT
Do you think anyone who would purposely use HAARP in such a way would be worrying about a downside? lol Just a thought.
I should just stop visiting all the conspiratorial nutcase websites like wikipedia. It's filled with too many useless facts just meant for obfuscation. I could just sit here and pump out as many useless facts as cows pump out methane. That won't help figure out what is melting the ice caps. I could sit here and deride peoples thoughts as conspiratorial and still that would get us nowhere in figuring this out. It's my mistake, however, I thought maybe people should have an open mind about this matter considering climatologists cannot figure out why their models don't match the data coming in regarding the polar ice. Maybe the genius with the imagination who first replied to my post can give us some answers.
by TheKost on Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 07:19:56 AM PDT
and as Stephen Colbert will tell you, reality has a notorious liberal bias!
George Bush is the architect of his own destruction.
by lalawguy on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:09:16 PM PDT
gets dumped into the earth's atmosphere by human beings.
Every day.
It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:13:28 PM PDT
by Lefty Coaster on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:30:40 PM PDT
Well, carry on then.
by Morlock on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:00:20 AM PDT
by FresnoKossack on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:40:46 PM PDT
If only they'd stick to their BELIEFS . . . like God intended.
"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower
by bobdevo on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:44:34 AM PDT
Quote from eminent statistician George Box.
Support Barack Obama and the DNC.
by DaveV on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 12:46:03 PM PDT
Deciding which ones are useful and which aren't - that's where the real talent lies.
Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!
by Fabian on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:29:16 PM PDT
generate at the time. We have to be aware that it's a general projection, not a detailed prophecy, but still -- we have to take the best information and run with it, or we are truly doomed to disaster.
Often, models are involved in getting that best-estimate information.
Vote John McCain for a Hundred Year War!
by Fiona West on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:51:11 PM PDT
As per Optimists or Pessimists -- what is it with those IPCC types?, the IPCC work is, sadly, almost certainly too optimistic about what might come due to Global Warming. And, the skeptics like to pat the IPCC as the direst, wackiest, tin-foil hat extremity.
Striving to Get Energy Smart NOW!!! to Energize America.
by A Siegel on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 12:50:29 PM PDT
Every IPCC prediction I know of has been wrong on the optimistic side.
I live in a coastal location, plan to be somewhere else in the next 5-10 years, and have told my coastal friends to start looking for higher ground as well.
Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.
by alizard on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:01:23 PM PDT
But most of my city (Seattle) is built on hills.
I am at 350' above sealevel.
The volcano or earthquake remains more likely to undermine my personal safety than global warming.
But much of the worlds coastal areas are in deep doo doo.
The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa
by NCrefugee on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:24:45 PM PDT
I don't mean to quibble but volcano and even earthquakes are less likely to disrupt your life and possibly even your personal safety. Climate-induced social and economic changes are possible in the next few decades that will bring to question the adequacy of fuel and food and water supplies to so many millions of people worldwide that it will impact availability ( probably) and prices ( certainly) everywhere.
This is truly everyone's problem, and will continue to mushroom until almost everyone is fighting it. Then, at best, there will be a slow about face and long march back to societal sanity.
open-source: Environmental Americanandnetrootsdaily.com
by NetRootsDaily on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:37:27 PM PDT
Being above sea level won't allow you to easily avoid the enormously polluted regions that will be our coastlines. Think miles-wide toxic swamps … everywhere. That should do wonders for for the health of pretty much anyone on the planet.
"They're telling us something we don't understand"General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68
by subtropolis on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:13:21 PM PDT
read the DOD study on likely global warming scenarios, click here. (PDF)
by alizard on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:12:09 PM PDT
An earthquake or a volcanic eruption really are more likely to get me than global warming in the next ten to twenty years.
You young'uns will have to flee the floods, or famine or drought or super hurricanes or glaciers or what have you.
I can see two volcanos that are inactive rather than extinct. One just out of sight is active.
And the big earthquake is overdue.
Without health insurance my chronic illnesses will probably beat them all to the punch.
by NCrefugee on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:27:51 PM PDT
...there is an alright documentry floating around the science channels covering new insights into the ring of fire and vulcanism on earth.
Just like the climate sit precariously near tipping points, to little surpise, mouting evidence supports that so do fault zones and magma deposits. The rise in sea level is predicted to create a massive amount of additional weight on the Earth's oceanic crust--particularly in the Pacific. Some vulcanologists are thus predicting that this will be the push that the current system needs to trigger a period of increased seismic and volcanic activity.
The Seven Sisters, as I'm sure you are aware, sit on the eastern rim of the Ring of Fire. Hot times ahead!
And for those unfamiliar, these tipping points that keep showing up all over the place? Folks in complex systems sometimes refer to this phenomenon as "self organized criticality." The messiness of nature rarely encourages highly stable states for complex systems, instead they settle into zones where they are stable just enough...
welcome to the pwnership society. consider yourselves pwned.
by j bopp on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 11:38:19 PM PDT
...when you can't get food... or when you're literally being eaten alive by bugs... or when a megastorm hits your blessed elevated city... or when the people who got washed out from lower altitudes come lookin' for what you got...
Don't mean to bum you out, but you're sounding a little smug. The ramifications of this go far beyond rising sea levels. It will affect everyone. If I were a Native American deep in the Yukon, I might not be too worried, but anyone living in a populated "civilized" area needs to check themselves before they wreck themselves. Katrina was just a glimpse through the keyhole into what's coming.
Surviving unemployment?
by CharlieHipHop on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:32:39 PM PDT
....it's not like you're going to get the high ground to yourself because you were there first.
by Bush Bites on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:48:13 PM PDT
this would be precisely the thing that would worry me - I'd have enough troubles trying to provide for myself up there, never mind having to deal with all these people fleeing drowned cities.
Maybe with less overtly racist implications, this time, than after Katrina.
John McCain: Senator, former POW, confusing the USA with Cadia since 2006.
by Shaviv on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:13:57 AM PDT
Global Warming is a multifated threat ... there is not just sea-level rise, but changed (disrupted) agricultural patterns; acidification of the oceans; drought/flood/weather pattern changes; increased humidity; changed disease patterns/threats; economic disruptions; etc ...
Don't, for a second, think that sea rise is the only threat. If it were, actually, we could be thinking about adaptation approaches.
by A Siegel on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:36:53 PM PDT
threat spectrum... the list is long enough to make a pretty good sized diary.
The way to start dealing with a collection of threats is to handle the ones that can be handled while it's still pretty easy to do so. Inland property prices are going to be at a pretty hefty premium once the general public knows that trouble is coming Real Soon Now.
The real long-term solution is green energy / energy efficiency, but there's enough crap in the pipeline to ensure that there's plenty to fall on everybody for the next few generations.
by alizard on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:03:34 PM PDT
this pushed me to write: Brain-Eating Amoebas and other Global Warming Threats ... you might want to take a look.
by A Siegel on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:33:15 PM PDT
But I will anyway.
We are doomed to live in interesting times...
by Fiona West on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:56:48 PM PDT
I was afraid we were doomed to die in interesting times.
by hobo on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:38:57 PM PDT
But some large new (quite wealthy) developments in the greater Vancouver area are built on very low-lying flats in the Fraser River delta. If Seattle has any areas like that, you might ask yourself... what are those people going to do when their own personal safety (or that of their property) is at risk?
And, will those actions by your neighbors... possibly affect you?
It isn't only the first-order effects of climate change that can get you.
Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.
by Canadian Reader on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:52:44 AM PDT
you're thinking in a sadly pragmatic way. We will spend a fortune repairing/rebuilding areas that will simply be lost forever, but not obviously so. The money the government could have spent on prevention will more than be made up in Katrina after Katrina-type events.
As we Kosters know, however, the "crisis" won't begin until it hits a city that matters. So Washington is on water (more or less), full of black people (doesn't matter), but full of politicians (totally matter). Or worse, New York, also beachfront, is full of DEMOCRATS, but also full of bankers. hmmmm. Which side wins that "take big steps to fix global warming" battle? Would using the phrase A rising tide raises all ships be inappropriate here? HA!
The part that bugs me is there is HUGE money to be made in environmentalism. Get on board money-grubbers!
You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia. - Vezzini
by leslietfj on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:39:24 PM PDT
It's always New York, Miami, etc.
...I mean, once in awhile, I hear about N.O., but I generally don't hear about bedrock Repub areas like Tampa, Houston or the Redneck Riviera.
Rank Metropolitan Area Population State 1 Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown 5,180,443 Texas 2 Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater 2,587,967 Florida 3 New Orleans–Metairie–Kenner 1,319,589 Louisiana 4 Sarasota–Bradenton–Venice 651,862 Florida 5 Mobile–Daphne–Fairhope 588,246 Alabama 6 Cape Coral–Fort Myers 514,295 Florida 7 Pensacola–Ferry Pass–Brent 437,135 Florida 8 Corpus Christi 409,741 Texas 9 Beaumont–Port Arthur 383,443 Texas 10 Tallahassee 331,655 Florida
by Bush Bites on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:52:50 PM PDT
is Houston. Lots of money in Houston. And even then, it's not a political capital. The others are frought with normal people who are in many cases not white.
The reason I chose those 2 cities is because if/when something happens to those 2 cities, there will be shock and awe. How could this have happened? What can we do to stop it? Who can we blame? If Corpus Christi gets nailed, well, the Mexicans (or Mexican-LOOKING) should have gotten the hell out of the way.
LA wouldn't even count because it's full of liberals and tree-huggers. Frankly, it's already suffering from environmental meltdown that costs the government a fortune. But nothing substantive is being done.
And that brings up how global warming will happen. We'll just keep rebuilding instead of acknowledging that the environment is no longer sustainable. The reason LA doesn't look like the face of the moon is because the sprinklers keep running. If the money wasn't there, all those cliff-side houses would have been abandoned years ago.
OK, I'm climbing down off the high horse I promised myself I wouldn't get on today.
by leslietfj on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:29:06 PM PDT
a coastal city, plus it sits fairly high in elevation as far as Fla elevation goes. the Repug part is on the mark though, they are definately so inclined...
impeachment-it does the body good impeachment-it isn't just for blow jobs anymore impeachment-i can say no more i expect no less
by playtonjr on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:24:38 PM PDT
even go into the disaster waiting and well under way in the Alps and its glacier melts. Going to high ground isn't a great option either.
Here in Germany they've been running some pretty freaking scary documentaries about it. I am not a scientist and I can't repeat the argument, but it has to do with how melted water seeps into rock pours and splits rock.
end result is massive breaking of mountain rock and dam-breaking type of sudden flooding of valleys where people live.
It looks just like a Telefunken U47...you'll love it! - with leather...?
by Jeffersonian Democrat on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 12:49:14 AM PDT
There is indeed huge money to be made in environmentalism, especially if the greenwashers don't manage to make it disappear first.
I intend to be one of the pragmatists with real solutions for sale. (why, yes, I am working on new energy technology)
In the meantime, I live in a house full of CFLs.
As for the "crisis", one need go no further than a look outside one's window to know it is already upon us.
by alizard on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:07:28 PM PDT
What is a CFL? You write this with the assumption that a CFL is something everyone knows. CFL - Czech Football League or CFL - Canadian Football League but these can't be correct. Please explain!
Being poor in Paradise, beats being poor on the mainland.
by The Hindsight Times on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:49:51 AM PDT
much more efficient than incandescent, and lasts longer, too.
A 17W CFL is roughly equal to a 75W incandescent, a 23W is roughly equal to a 100W incandescent. Put some in and your carbon footprint drops.
If you live in CA (maybe other states, check with your electric utility), you can get CFLs at subsidized prices; I've been getting them a $1 per 4-pack.
by alizard on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:24:11 PM PDT
... are actually being too conservative?
Wonder if we will learn to apply that lesson in other areas?
The Dutch children's chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen (= “kids for kids”): is a world cultural treasure.
by lotlizard on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:26:34 PM PDT
it means that the Northwest Passage is now a viable sea lane. Men no longer have to give their lives to make it through the Gulf of Boothia.
Now, the Gulf of Boothia will be just another tropical beach destination.
Polar bears? Sorry, they just get in the way.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
by The Lighthouse Keeper on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:25:41 PM PDT
to see the Polar bears while they are still gathering at Churchill. Don't know what they'll do when there's no more sea ice. I do believe that this is one of my last chances, though, to see them.
by ColoTim on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:45:01 PM PDT
Got an extra ticket?
"[Republican] and [rich] people must be protected and persuaded by gentle means, but the rabble must be led by terror." ~Richard (Bonaparte) Cheney
by Starve2Act on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:50:35 PM PDT
if my elderly Mom can't go (and I think she'd go if she had to be carried the whole route). I'm hoping the bears are well-fed, since she can't run fast and I can't fight them all off.
by ColoTim on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:52:55 PM PDT
Just out of curiosity... what's her address? Oh, and the sub... you know, just curious.
by Starve2Act on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:56:50 PM PDT
in that area. Yee-HAW!!!!!
by corvo on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:48:06 PM PDT
Obama'08, anti-war, anti-McSame static cling window decals & stickers @ gotta-yell-it.com!
by netguyct on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:13:34 PM PDT
and simply get with the team by buying sunblock and heavy duty razors from Wal-Mart, they'd find that America's Eco-Political stance is the strongest in the world. Oh, and they should quit schmoozing off of Arctic tourists and get jobs... and vote Republican.
by Starve2Act on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:49:40 PM PDT
with mammals that whine about extinction. There are so many homes available at zoos. And there's just no reason for American mammals to be endangered. It been proven that the free market makes every species healthy and abundant. I mean, why don't they quit bitching and move to North Korea if they hate our freedom so much?
"YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who
by Reepicheep on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:09:17 PM PDT
by netguyct on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:14:28 PM PDT
Goddamnit.
by The Lighthouse Keeper on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:44:35 PM PDT
When was the last time you saw a Polar Bear wearing an American flag lapel pin? Can't be bothered to help themselves, can't be bothered to support the country. So why should we support a bunch of treasonous welfare bears?
by Starve2Act on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 08:43:25 AM PDT
cuz i'm sure enough people think that way. My best friends dad has this to say about the poor "well they will get their chance someday, if not there is always the next life"
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain
by dotdot on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 10:22:32 AM PDT
Honest..he is trying to get his sunblock..
The one thing we know about the McCain campaign...is that they're very good at negative campaigns, they're not so good at governing- Barack Obama
by wishingwell on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:14:18 PM PDT
He should be supporting something other than his own demise!
by TheKost on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:26:41 PM PDT
way bacl last february, when he harshly criticized the IPCC report for not even factoring ice-melt/sea-rise into their prognostications. To be fair, in spite of the oincredible efforts by the Bush administration to force the pannel to water down its report before it came out (some scientists were so insensed by this meddling they walked out before the end of the final draft negociations), the reason the ice-melt data was not included nor potential sea-rise factored in was precisely because this is a "non-linear process", that took all the scientists by surprise. The melt in Greenland, in particular, totally freaked them out. They discovered moulins (kilometre-deep shafts dug in the Greenland ice-cap by the lakes of melt-water burrowing down to the bed rock and lubriacting to lift up the entire ice mass and move it towards the ocean, until huge ice-bergs were calving at an unpreceented rate all along the coasts). Ice-quakes have multiplied and become more powerful as the ice began to move over the bedrock and now the process is accelerating. NASA satellite photos have also picked up deep lakes and rivers under the Antarctic ice-cap, and fear the same process may be occurring there also. This is a huge emergency, unprecedented in human history, and we all better wake up and deal with it!
by Barcelona on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 01:52:36 PM PDT
With this grim news, should we be considering the "sunscreen" option proposed by Thomas Wigley? As you probably know, Barcelona, that plan would involve using high-flying planes to disperse sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, mimicking the global cooling effect of a major volcanic eruption.
The sulfur dioxide, a pollutant on Earth, would form sulfate aerosol particles to shade the planet, much as the ash clouds from a major volcanic eruption do, said Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
This would have a temporary (decade plus) cooling effect roughly equal to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991.
Wigley is not in any way saying that we should not reduce our use of carbon fuels as fast as possible. He agrees that is "the only long term solution to the problem of global warming."
The point is that the "sunscreen" approach would slow down the warming temporarily, giving us more of a window in which to make the essential changes.
Sulfur, of course, is a pollutant, responsible for acid rain and other problems. We’ve been gradually clearing it out of the atmosphere for a number of years now. The amounts that would drift down from the upper atmosphere under Wigley’s plan would slow the reduction of sulfur, but would not at any point increase the amount of sulfur in the lower atmosphere above what’s there now.
Normally, I would not support an geo-engineering procedure of this magnitude, even though the role of sulfur in volcanic ash is pretty well understood. Or so we think.
But given how close we are getting to massive disaster, I wonder if we should be considering this kind of proposal.
by Fiona West on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 03:47:25 PM PDT
that's the only idea that has brought me any hope. Especially as it is based on something that happened before. Dangerous fiddling yes, but even fiddling beats doing nothing in this instance.
by PLS on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:07:49 PM PDT
... or other similar solutions, like space mirrors, but it won't stop the acidity of the oceans from increasing (dissolved CO2 makes the water more acidic), which will cause the coral reefs to dissolve.
by Joe Buck on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:47:28 PM PDT
The proposal calls for injecting about 10% of the Earth's yearly sulfur dioxide emissions into the stratosphere. To lift a billion metric tons 50 km requires (1,000,000,000,000 kg)(9.8 m/s^2)(50,000 m) = 490,000 trillion joules of energy, about 3% of the energy consumed on earth, plus whatever energy gets transformed into heat, phase change or deformation, plus the weight of the fuel needed to propel the rocket. Not counted is the energy involved in transporting suce emission to the launch site, nor the fossil fuel consumed in producing the propellant, nor the climate effect of an extra million rocket contrails.
If we had to geo-engineer, I would go for a bunch of satellites orbiting the earth system with huge energy panels blocking sunlight. Setting g to zero makes structural engineering a tad easier, and the satellites could serve as power plants or even habitat.
Dems in 2008: An embarassment of riches. Repubs in 2008: Embarassments.
by Yamaneko2 on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:10:30 AM PDT
"For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician--erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure"-Newsweek.
by Inland on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 02:07:32 PM PDT
and we figure shit out and damn the torpedos! (in whatever form they may take) Can't deny it's really dark right now and it's just going to get darker for awhile, but I'm an insufferable believer. Otherwise, I'd have to take the whole bottle of Zanex at once.
"God is not on the side of the heavy battalions, but of the best shots."- Voltaire
by armenia on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:09:25 PM PDT
We are the prime causes of our problems.
Nature figured shit out over millions of years. We need to live with it, not dominate it. Thinking we know better is the original sin.
This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.
by Mr X on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:32:33 AM PDT
I'm with you armenia. This is our generation's greatest challenge. Boy, we've always wanted of those, eh? Well, now we've got it -- in spades.
One bright spot -- a decent sized portion of the U.S. and the whole world are at least paying attention. So, a global effort is possible, albeit fantistical at this point.
Onwards!
by CupofTea on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 09:34:27 AM PDT
not politically conservative, but intellectually conservative. Scientific careers are rarely made upon wild predictions, especially if they turn out wrong. So they program conservative assumptions into there models.
And they turn out to be conservatively wrong.
The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. --Goya
by MadScientist on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 04:18:51 PM PDT
Film was to be shown in schools, but someone went to court to try and stop showings. Judge ruled that there were 9 points made in the film were questionable.
FROM: Herald Sun (Australia)
http://www.news.com.au/...
UK judge takes wind out of hot Gore doco sales Al Gore's award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday. High Court judge Justice Burton, assessing whether the the former presidential candidate's documentary should be shown to schoolchildren, identified nine significant errors. He agreed the film, An Inconvenient Truth, was broadly accurate in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of global warming, but said some of its claims were wrong and had arisen in the context of alarmism and exaggeration.
There's always another fight to be fought!
It's the Supreme Court, stupid!
by auapplemac on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:40:57 PM PDT
in this article?
Support Andrew Rice for US Senate: link vs. Jim "global warming is a hoax" Inhofe
by tsunami on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 05:56:58 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 435 comments