Scientists call for refreezing of the artic

JJpool

Well-known member

Intersting, I have long though about ways to reduce sea level rise, particularly at the antarctic as its a land mass, pumping water inland to be frozen with many pipes on a huge scales for eg, not saying its easy or cheap but may, as well as other solutions, help reduce sea level rise.

Maybe that was a pipedream but the latest for the artic is the possibility of creating white cloud cover to reflect the sunlight and help refreeze the sea during summer months.

I didn't know that was possible tbh and its good to see people thinking of solutions outside the box so to speak.

Theres many things we could do if all the scientific minds came together and had backing from each country.
 
It would be affordable if all the rich nations contributed which they should do. Important to find a solution quickly to prevent further warming. Too much talk for years about climate change happening and not enough ideas on how to combat it now.
 
Might be too simplistic but could not a satellite be launched which keeps Artic and Antarctic in shadow for longer so the temperature drops.
Sounds a lot more viable and less costly than scientists option
 
Get Bezos on it. Stop fancying around in Space and fix what we’ve got. He’s not short of a few Billion is he?
Even the interest alone on his wealth could fund this
 
A useful first question is "who are these scientists"?

In this case it is the Climate Crisis Advisiory Group, the name alone ought to be ringing alarm bells from the start.

Another huge red flag is that it appears to be fronted by Sir David King (of Independent SAGE fame), the rest of the membership appears to be "questionable" and the whole set up appears to be some kind of campaigning front masquarading behind the facade of science.
 
Might be too simplistic but could not a satellite be launched which keeps Artic and Antarctic in shadow for longer so the temperature drops.
Sounds a lot more viable and less costly than scientists option
Thats potentially something, would have to have some big opening sections and be positioned correctly, but if the rich nations got behind these projects, they certainly aren't cheap solutions, but as a globe with such a need, there are things we can try.

 
You'll need a bloody big fridge to do that.
For what the pumping in land idea? It would freeze itself. Nuclear powered pumping systems and pipe networks its an absolutely massive project, maybe not viable with better alternatives, but I don't see enough high up discussing more ways.

Not just Antarctica but there's other places you could pumping water too inland, maybe change them from arid desserts to habitable land, the sahara Australia etc. It would probably still take decades to have an impact on sea levels and maybe the scale of the oceans are too much to comprehend, might take 30 years just to lower 2mm. But if every country did a bit it would all add up.

Certainly with all these other ideas.
 
A useful first question is "who are these scientists"?

In this case it is the Climate Crisis Advisiory Group, the name alone ought to be ringing alarm bells from the start.

Another huge red flag is that it appears to be fronted by Sir David King (of Independent SAGE fame), the rest of the membership appears to be "questionable" and the whole set up appears to be some kind of campaigning front masquarading behind the facade of science.
Regardless, it doesn't mean that ideas to combat the crisis should be dismissed does it?
 
Regardless, it doesn't mean that ideas to combat the crisis should be dismissed does it?
And even if climate change was 100% natural, its still going to impact us and if we can change it, slow it whatever it should be looked at.

Lots of costal areas much higher risk than Blackpool could be devastated. Plus the climate changing in unpredictable ways isn't good, excessive heat cold wind etc.
 
And even if climate change was 100% natural, its still going to impact us and if we can change it, slow it whatever it should be looked at.

Lots of costal areas much higher risk than Blackpool could be devastated. Plus the climate changing in unpredictable ways isn't good, excessive heat cold wind etc.
Totally agree, there's no point putting our fingers in our ears.
 
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has still been rising, although not quite so fast, in the last year or so of living with Covid in spite of the massive reductions in flying, driving and other economic activity.
This shows the scale of the task we have in trying to reduce greenhouse gases just by reducing our use of fossil fuels IMO.
I think we need new technologies as well.
Trying to prevent the summer arctic sea ice melting so much seems to be worth a try to me, and could alter the trajectory of the jet stream and help stabilise some of the weather systems, and may buy us some time.
I don’t know if there are any possible unfortunate consequences of doing this?
I know there are also a couple of trial projects in North America coming into action as well that I think use ‘green’ energy to power equipment that removes CO2 from the air. Maybe this could be upscaled if it proves it works?
 
Last edited:

This adds to creative solutions, imagine all relevant surfaces painted with this, for buildings but mentions maybe painting rocks with it to help reflect the heat.

Pretty cool stuff, literally.

"We did a very rough calculation," said Prof Ruan. "And we estimate we would only need to paint 1% of the Earth's surface with this paint - perhaps an area where no people live that is covered in rocks - and that could help fight the climate change trend."

"So if you were to use our paint to cover a roof area of about 1,000 sq ft (93 sq m), we estimate you could get a cooling power of 10 kilowatts. That's more powerful than the central air conditioners used by most houses."
 
Yes, if the scientists have had the temerity to criticise Bozo and his colleagues.
I know. Who would want anything other than a bunch of Eton chancers and their chaos machine to deal with the world's issues?

It beggars belief that other people have views, opinions and ideas when we have those good folk in charge.
 

Intersting, I have long though about ways to reduce sea level rise, particularly at the antarctic as its a land mass, pumping water inland to be frozen with many pipes on a huge scales for eg, not saying its easy or cheap but may, as well as other solutions, help reduce sea level rise.

Maybe that was a pipedream but the latest for the artic is the possibility of creating white cloud cover to reflect the sunlight and help refreeze the sea during summer months.

I didn't know that was possible tbh and its good to see people thinking of solutions outside the box so to speak.

Theres many things we could do if all the scientific minds came together and had backing from each country.
Better than wasting money on stuff like Trident.
 
Better than wasting money on stuff like Trident.
Maybe, but I'm not convinced getting rid in a world with Russia and China etc makes us safer, might be something we never use but just enough to put off any other countries.

We are certainly weaker in their eyes without it.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, but I'm not convinced getting rid in a world with Russia and China etc makes us safer, might be something we never use but just enough to put off any other countries.

We are certainly weaker their eyes without it.
We're not though, because we're part of NATO.
 
Maybe, but I'm not convinced getting rid in a world with Russia and China etc makes us safer, might be something we never use but just enough to put off any other countries.

We are certainly weaker their eyes without it.
I get that but ultimately anyone uses them the whole world suffers, if anybody out there is prepared to launch them at a none nuclear state they will probably launch them at a nuclear one because they are mental!
Look at the big nations that don't have the weapons, do their citizens campaign to get them?
We aren't a big player in a military sense anymore and should move on, maybe we can become influential when it comes to making the planet that is the only place we have to live on a greener, healthier, happier place.
 
I get that but ultimately anyone uses them the whole world suffers, if anybody out there is prepared to launch them at a none nuclear state they will probably launch them at a nuclear one because they are mental!
Look at the big nations that don't have the weapons, do their citizens campaign to get them?
We aren't a big player in a military sense anymore and should move on, maybe we can become influential when it comes to making the planet that is the only place we have to live on a greener, healthier, happier place.
Yeah I get that, but we aren't going to drop them.

I can't see a prime minister have the balls to make that call to scrap them, if they called it wrong, maybe it doesn't lead to nuclear obliteration but increased threats and danger.

Ultimately if we get rid we want others to get rid and follow. That will never happen as someone will always keep them and if all are rid, or are believed to be rid, they may potentially use some.

You cant uninvent something.

This thread isn't really about this though.
 
Yeah I get that, but we aren't going to drop them.

I can't see a prime minister have the balls to make that call to scrap them, if they called it wrong, maybe it doesn't lead to nuclear obliteration but increased threats and danger.

Ultimately if we get rid we want others to get rid and follow. That will never happen as someone will always keep them and if all are rid, or are believed to be rid, they may potentially use some.

You cant uninvent something.

This thread isn't really about this though.
Yeah you are right, with our media our hard core Tory voters and our politicians never going to happen, but the money wasted on it could be spent much more creatively and constructively.
Would be a good opportunity for the rest of the world minus Russia and China to do something positive and for the benefit of everyone, maybe that would make China and Russia look weak.
 
It depends whether you took the red pill or the blue pill

Yeah you are right, with our media our hard core Tory voters and our politicians never going to happen, but the money wasted on it could be spent much more creatively and constructively.
Would be a good opportunity for the rest of the world minus Russia and China to do something positive and for the benefit of everyone, maybe that would make China and Russia look weak.

Germany and Poland are a lot nearer to Russia than we are and they've managed to get by without nuclear weapons for nigh on 80 years.

No wonder Germsny are wealthier than us
Probably just as well they didn't have any with their history.

But to drop them has to be unilateral, no uk government would take that risk.

Even if it was agreed, some country would lie and keep them, its an uneasy peace state at the moment, getting rid whilst would be great, may shake up the powers and that might risk countries thinking they are now more powerful, which they in fact may be.

I dont think there's an easy way out of it.
 
Back
Top