1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    15 Feb '17 11:34
    http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-announced-a-plan-to-refreeze-the-arctic-and-it-s-wild

    A mere 10 million air blowers and water to mist and make a meter thick layer of ice, it only costs a half trillion dollars. Should only take a couple months🙂
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    15 Feb '17 11:432 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-announced-a-plan-to-refreeze-the-arctic-and-it-s-wild

    A mere 10 million air blowers and water to mist and make a meter thick layer of ice, it only costs a half trillion dollars. Should only take a couple months🙂
    I think a more practical and longer term and indirect method would be to slightly increase the albedo of the Earth by having the policy of making all the roads building etc be designed with surfaces with high albedo, or possibly be just painted white. This should help to counteract much of the man made global warming.
    But, obviously, the only very long term solution is still to go all renewable.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 Feb '17 11:52
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-announced-a-plan-to-refreeze-the-arctic-and-it-s-wild

    A mere 10 million air blowers and water to mist and make a meter thick layer of ice, it only costs a half trillion dollars. Should only take a couple months🙂
    Although I support taking action to reverse global warming, I don't think that is the best or most cost effective one. Its aim is to reduce ice melt. That increases reluctance thus providing some cooling, but how much? Is the purpose simply to maintain ice for some unknown reason or is it for the purposes of cooling? If the latter, what other ways are there to cool the planet and what do they cost?
    My own guess is that releasing particles at very high altitudes would be the most cost effective way to cool.

    What about pumping water into the atmosphere over the Sahara? Or simply greening the Sahara at ground level?
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    15 Feb '17 13:561 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    ...Or simply greening the Sahara at ground level?
    Since vegetation has a lower albedo than sand, that might cause global warming via albedo decrease. Although you might be able to more than offset that if you can get the vegetation to absorb and lock away enough carbon.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 Feb '17 14:251 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    Since vegetation has a lower albedo than sand, that might cause global warming via albedo decrease. Although you might be able to more than offset that if you can get the vegetation to absorb and lock away enough carbon.
    It would seem that it is complicated:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#Trees

    Nevertheless, I would think greening the Sahara would be a more admirable goal than icing the north pole.
Back to Top