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.

 

We can stop the caps from melting... and restore earth to her full glory

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Ok this is a very big plan but it can work.....



The best way to ride of the unwanted greenhouse gassed is to nuke a few holes in the atmosphere... (yes i know 'NUKE') But the best thing about it is the radiation from the blast or blasts it will allso be sucked into space along with a big lot of the unwanted methane ... It will work...
then after a period of time the atmosphere will recover.... And there we have it mother nature restored to her full glory Fresh air....




posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stevy
Ok this is a very big plan but it can work.....



The best way to ride of the unwanted greenhouse gassed is to nuke a few holes in the atmosphere... (yes i know 'NUKE') But the best thing about it is the radiation from the blast or blasts it will allso be sucked into space along with a big lot of the unwanted methane ... It will work...
then after a period of time the atmosphere will recover.... And there we have it mother nature restored to her full glory Fresh air....



Err....that will not work at all.... You nuke the atmosphere btw and then you have to deal with nuclear fallout, which is not going to be "sucked into space".... and if you "poke more holes in the atmosphere" then you are letting in more harmful flux from the sun which will create even more problems.

The atmosphere protects us from the harmful rays that the flux from the sun is constantly sending into space and you want to "poke more holes into the atmosphere"?....

I kind of believe you are not thinking clearly, for whatever reason, or you don't know any better.


[edit on 17-2-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Stevy
Ok this is a very big plan but it can work.....





Err....that will not work at all.... You nuke the atmosphere btw and then you have to deal with nuclear fallout, which is not going to be "sucked into space".... and if you "poke more holes in the atmosphere" then you are letting in more harmful flux from the sun which will create even more problems.

The atmosphere protects us from the harmful rays that the flux from the sun is constantly sending into space and you want to "poke more holes into the atmosphere"?....

I kind of believe you are not thinking clearly, for whatever reason, or you don't know any better.


[edit on 17-2-2006 by Muaddib]



since you dont think the first one would work even though i have read on a respectfull website that scientists think it would... (and sorry cant remember the site) Maybe a search on google will bring up the site...

But anyway here is another way to fix this prb

Imagine a fleet of vessels spreading
iron dust into the seas to spur the growth of huge crops of plankton, which in
turn consume tons of carbon dioxide, the primary gas responsible for the
greenhouse effect. This is a radical example of a proposal to offset global
warming through innovative technical fixes, according to Climate Controls, an
article in the November issue of Reason magazines.
As negotiators from around the world prepare to meet in Kyoto to work out
an international treaty to deal with the rising global temperatures observed
by many scientists, major participants argue that the only way to address
global warming is to reduce levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases. But there may be more effective ways to cure the problem without
imposing the economic hardships likely to result from dramatic cutbacks in
emissions and fuel use, according to author Gregory Benford, a professor of
physics at the University of California at Irvine.
"Now is the time to take seriously the concept of 'geoengineering,' of
consciously altering atmospheric chemistry and conditions, of mitigating the
effects of greenhouse gases rather than simply calling for their reduction or
outright prohibition," says Benford. In a little-noticed 1992 report, the
National Academy of Sciences studied mitigation proposals, finding them to
have a relatively low implementation cost.
Not all of the proposed technical solutions are as controversial as iron-
dumping ships. "An easy, although limited, way to remove carbon dioxide is to
grow plants -- preferably trees, since they tie up more of the gas in
cellulose, meaning it will not return to the air for many years," says
Benford. "About half of the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions could be captured
if we grew tree crops on economically marginal croplands and pasture. These
forests would also enhance biodiversity, wildlife, and water quality."
"Another way to cool the planet is to reflect more sunlight back into
space, before it heats up the earth and the atmosphere," says Benford. "We
could compensate for the warming effect of all greenhouse gas emissions since
the Industrial Revolution by reflecting less than 1 percent more of the
sunlight." This could be achieved by installing white roofs on homes and
buildings, using lighter colored pavement for roads and parking lots, or, even
more dramatically, by spreading dust in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight
before it reaches the earth, Benford says.
"Of course the concept of geoengineering may seem outlandish at first
blush," acknowledges Benford. "But geoengineering merely recognizes
explicitly what everyone already understands: that human activity has an
impact on the planet."
Benford calls for a series of well-controlled, reversible experiments on a
local scale to learn more about the effectiveness and unintended consequences
of these proposals before proceeding at a global level.
"We may find these ideas to be more practical and less expensive than the
draconian proposals on the agenda at Kyoto," Benford says. "It might take
only a few billion dollars to mitigate the U.S. emission of carbon dioxide.
Compared with stopping people in China from burning coal, this is nothing."
Reason (www.reason.com...) is a monthly magazine of political and social
commentary based in Los Angeles.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Dump iron dust into the seas?......

What do you think Iron dust in large quantities will do to life in the oceans?

I can't take seriously any theories, even if it comes from a scientist or any site that makes such bold statements without thinking on the consequences of such actions.

The second option, "growing crops of trees" is more viable but it will need a massive effort on the part of millions of people around the world, as well as massive funding. Even if this is done, which is highly unlikely, it will still not stop the current climate shift. Once climate shift begins, it continues until the Earth itself finds a balance, which will affect us all, and which is currently affecting us.


[edit on 17-2-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
why whats wrong with the earth as is? we can breath we over produce crops and we have water, weather irregularaties are just a natural occourance. and carbon is not elimanated once the planktin dies where do you think the carbon goes from there same with trees? it just continues the carbon cycle. trust me your plans whine neat and imanagative are jsut sci fiction



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Maybe I have this wrong but I think the ice caps reflect the heat of the sun and stop the earth warming up but the trouble is the more they melt the less heat is reflected and the faster the earth warms which makes them melt even faster.

We need to keep the earth cooler in other words and let nature sort out the holes in the ozone itself of course this won't happen as it isnt cost effective.

I can only think of 2 ways to possibly reverse it one is to stop some of the heat getting to earth in the first place like a giant space shade.
The other is something man made that reflects more heat off the earth itself similar to what the ice was doing (like a giant mirror) and i do think it would have to be absolutely huge probably not even possible to do.

After thinking about it we are all probably doomed anyway and have left it to late.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stevy
Ok this is a very big plan but it can work.....



The best way to ride of the unwanted greenhouse gassed is to nuke a few holes in the atmosphere... (yes i know 'NUKE') But the best thing about it is the radiation from the blast or blasts it will allso be sucked into space along with a big lot of the unwanted methane ... It will work...
then after a period of time the atmosphere will recover.... And there we have it mother nature restored to her full glory Fresh air....


so if the president wrote you and said we want to hear your idea on how to prevent global warming you would say nuke the planet because the sucktion of air afterward would clense the earth. wow... what about plant life and animal life has that come to mind? if every plant dies then shortly after from radiation or fallout, every human will die after the plants die too so that is quite a stupid idea, seriously, nuke your own planet that you live on wow, genius.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrowingConspiracy

Originally posted by Stevy
Ok this is a very big plan but it can work.....



The best way to ride of the unwanted greenhouse gassed is to nuke a few holes in the atmosphere... (yes i know 'NUKE') But the best thing about it is the radiation from the blast or blasts it will allso be sucked into space along with a big lot of the unwanted methane ... It will work...
then after a period of time the atmosphere will recover.... And there we have it mother nature restored to her full glory Fresh air....


so if the president wrote you and said we want to hear your idea on how to prevent global warming you would say nuke the planet because the sucktion of air afterward would clense the earth. wow... what about plant life and animal life has that come to mind? if every plant dies then shortly after from radiation or fallout, every human will die after the plants die too so that is quite a stupid idea, seriously, nuke your own planet that you live on wow, genius.



lol its not my idea smart ass... Let me find the website i read it on..



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Going to ignore the silly suggestion by the threadstarter.

here is in article on topic

dsc.discovery.com...

and kinda related too

dsc.discovery.com...


The second option, "growing crops of trees" is more viable but it will need a massive effort on the part of millions of people around the world, as well as massive funding. Even if this is done, which is highly unlikely, it will still not stop the current climate shift. Once climate shift begins, it continues until the Earth itself finds a balance, which will affect us all, and which is currently affecting us.


[edit on 17-2-2006 by Muaddib]




maybe not....

www.abc.net.au...

[edit on 23-2-2006 by Inny]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join