It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
The notion that we should learn to completely manage this world and do away with the natural order is out there...
...There will without question come a time when humankind will completely manage the atmosphere or face certain extinction. The AGW crowd should be pushing for technology like this, instead of cutbacks. This is a step in the right direction!
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
The notion that we should learn to completely manage this world and do away with the natural order is out there...
...There will without question come a time when humankind will completely manage the atmosphere or face certain extinction. The AGW crowd should be pushing for technology like this, instead of cutbacks. This is a step in the right direction!
A year or two ago, I started a thread in the 'Fragile Earth" forum that dealt with this idea. I asked this question to everyone:
IF science ever discovers that global warming is a completely natural process (and I'm say "IF" for the sake of argument -- please don't come back with evidence that it is or isn't natural. This is a "Thought Experiment")...but IF we find that the warming of the earth's climate is natural, do you think that the "Eco-minded" people out there would welcome trying to artificially cool the Earth, or would that completely go against their core values of not doing anything that affects the Earth's climate?
What I mean to say is that the "Eco-minded" are always trying to say that humans should strive not to affect the Earth's climate in any way -- but if it is found that the Earth's climate is rising through natural processes, would they be for or against that idea of not doing something to the Earth to try and cool it down through some artificial means?
Or should they be consistent in their message and not do anything to affect the Earth's climate either way -- i.e., if the Earth's temperature goes up naturally and polar bears go extinct, should they let that happen "because it's natural"?
[edit on 7/22/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]
Originally posted by cooler
if you think things are bad now wait untill theirs 12 billion or 15 billion people trying to live on limited resorces.
getting rid of extra co2 aint gonna feed em all
& plenty of them are gonna want 50 foot plazma tv`z & cheap air tickets 2 cars
& all the latest gadgets not to mention all the extra fossil fuels needed to make this happen.
humanity realy needs approx 2.5 planet earths to sustain our present life styles when the next 10 billion or so humans arrive we gonna need maybe 7 planet earths to sustain our selves & maybe 1 planet earth to use as a garbage dump.
kinda puts things into perpective eh ?
humans are f##cked because humans are currently in the process of breeding them selves into extiction
Originally posted by skeptic_al
Originally posted by SwatMedic
I'd like to see some laboratory testing and data before we let this guy start filling up the oceans with iron.
Test in a lab, if that goes well, test in the field on a very small scale.
Then show us all with the data that this indeed does work.
Then his bandwagon will fill.
There is already millions of tons of Iron on the Ocean floor, it looks
like Planes , Ships and Subs. There in every ocean scattered everywhere.
This doesn't even count the Number of Cars in Rivers
across the Planet. And then there's the empty Food Containers thrown overboard by Ships.
Originally posted by Unnoan
I can't knock you all that like cold weather. I am horribly uncomfortable in anything below 45 degrees F, but I do very nicely in weather around 80-85.
Originally posted by cooler
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
as you put it, mans struggle & our need to adapt to things i agree with, but the thought of say 15 billion people on earth all using resorces & when i look at the current 6 billion & counting dealing with things, well.....i suppose we could all sleep standing up to save some space & try & share a banana with 5 people.
all i can say its gonna be a hell of a struggle.
maybe your also correct our answer maybe in the stars ?.
but untill some thing like is an option humanity will have to struggle on with ever dwindleing resorces vs an ever expanding population.
all it takes is 2 super powers & not enouph resorces, then what ?
so no i dont think co2 ocean experiments are going to help humans or the oceans.
Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
There are issues with the iron seeding, like some have mentioned.
The other issue that hasn't really been touched on yet is that it is a band-aid solution at best, if it even can work on a mass scale. While we might sequester more CO2 out of the air and such, we're still pumpin git out in enormous amounts, we're still polluting, we still have that mystical trash island out in the middle of the ocean and so on. The problem is still here, and we're not doing anything about it.
Originally posted by cooler
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
as you put it, mans struggle & our need to adapt to things i agree with, but the thought of say 15 billion people on earth all using resorces & when i look at the current 6 billion & counting dealing with things, well.....i suppose we could all sleep standing up to save some space & try & share a banana with 5 people.
all i can say its gonna be a hell of a struggle.
maybe your also correct our answer maybe in the stars ?.
but untill some thing like is an option humanity will have to struggle on with ever dwindleing resorces vs an ever expanding population.
all it takes is 2 super powers & not enouph resorces, then what ?
so no i dont think co2 ocean experiments are going to help humans or the oceans.
Originally posted by pieman
we know that where we add something to the environment the results are unpredictable at best.
what is being suggested is that we screw around with a complex system we don't fully understand in order to fix a problem we shouldn't be causing in the first place.
fixing an imbalance we caused by creating an imbalance elsewhere seems like a stupid idea to me, it's that kind of idea that caused all the issues in the first place.
what we actually need to do is take some responsibility for own own actions, not something that is hugely popular with the childish mind but something that people will have to understand eventually.