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.

 

With Rising Sea Levels why aren't we doing something Pro-Active About It?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
These are some Sea Level Projections over the Next few Years.

All of this is Thanks to a site I found about Professor Jonathan Overpeck, University of Arizonia. These are quick animations.

Watch New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and smaller cites disappear:

geo.arizona.edu

Watch Florida become much smaller:

geo.arizona.edu

Watch the North East:

geo.arizona.edu

Watch different world wide as the sea level rises:

geo.arizona.edu
United States will experience temperature changes too:

geo.arizona.edu

Alot of Scientist believe this is a normal occurance that is due to the tilt of the Earth's rotation. This tilt changes over centuries, our orbit from an elliptical one to a straight circle. This is due to the gravity of opposing forces In the elliptical one the Earth faces more extremes cold and heat, but more cold than heat. In the straight circle like we are in now we receive more heat. an Example:

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

Now we all know about the rising CO2 levels in the Earth. How it traps heat instead of reflecting it back into space.

My question is why aren't we doing something Pro-Active about it


I'm not talking about lowering emittions, and everybody living in mud homes or something. I want pro-active. Pro-Active Like:

Working of a Weapon, device, etc that will freeze large quantities of a substance. Wouldn't it be easier to just say freeze ten miles of open water out in the middle of no where
I'm sure we've all seen the movie where Sylvester Stallone get cyrogenically frozen by this little metal ball. How about a missle or bomb that has 100 or 1000 if it takes it in it
Maybe that too futuristic. But it could be achievable if we worked for it.

How about a CO2 scrubber, nano-bots, or what ever
They have built little pellets that are designed to absorb oil for oil spills. Why not a pellet that only absorbs CO2. Sure it would have to be designed, maintained, and executed by people much smarter than I; But its achievable.

How about a group, that is completely independent from all governments who's job it is to find $$ for research into these types of solutions


There are plenty of ways to fix this before the world becomes "WaterWorld" not starring Kevin Cosner, but all of us. If we can spend our time not on looking for who to blame, but coming up with solutions and actually fixing them.

I want to know what you think


Do you agree
Disagree
Have any solutions of your own


Mod Edit: Link format edited. Please review this post.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
My question is why aren't we doing something Pro-Active about it





I think they are trying to do something about it even though they claim they arent and that global warming dosen't even exist.

I have noticed con/chem trails being sprayed for the last 6yrs that morph into a cloud bank and produce yellow refractive "sun dogs" instead of the rainbows that watervapor produces.

I feel the spraying is an attempt at weather modification to try and refelect some of the suns energy back into space thus slow global warming. Today, thismorning the sky was clear with a few trails and x's and now at 11:24 the sky is overcast with remnants of trails still lingering even as the spraying continues.

I don't think it's working.

"Water World" anyone?

[edit on 7-2-2007 by whaaa]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Top of Form 1


Working of a Weapon, device, etc that will freeze large quantities of a substance. Wouldn't it be easier to just say freeze ten miles of open water out in the middle of no where
I'm sure we've all seen the movie where Sylvester Stallone get cyrogenically frozen by this little metal ball. How about a missle or bomb that has 100 or 1000 if it takes it in it
Maybe that too futuristic. But it could be achievable if we worked for it.


Im my humble opinion this is part of the problem. We always look for the fantastical answer when simple solution are looking us straight in the face.

Lets, for a minute, assume we could create such a device... we freeze miles of open water... then what? We still have million of tons of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, Oceans acidity levels continue to rise, Deforestation continues on a massive scale, but we have a lump of ice in the middle of the ocean???

Even if it did reduce sea levels we still have a massive problem!!

We are so wrapped up in science we always think we can solve the problems technology has created by creating more technology!

It would also take a lot more than 10 miles of frozen water... When the Larsen B ice shelf collapsed it deposited 10,562,500 km of ice 220 m thick into the ocean.

I don't mean to be rude but this idea is definitely in the science fantasy bracket.




How about a CO2 scrubber, nano-bots, or what ever
They have built little pellets that are designed to absorb oil for oil spills. Why not a pellet that only absorbs CO2. Sure it would have to be designed, maintained, and executed by people much smarter than I; But its achievable.


Again this is tinkering with nature. We to often treat the planet as a playground for science.

The planet is extremely complex and there are often unforeseen consequences our experiments. Instead of using the planet for a technological test bed we should be trying to limit our impact and reduce the chances we take. Dont get me wrong, i am not anti science, its just that to often we unleash our ideas with little knowledge of the outcome. We do not want to end up with a grey goo scenario


We need to stop the this way of thinking that assumes we can clean up the mess from science, by unleashing more science, just so we can continue living the unnatural lifestyles we have become accustomed to.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Undercoverchef- You answer would to do nothing proactive?

Should we all wear only recycled clothing and live in mud huts. Take bikes everywhere and only eat what we grow. Just don't drink the cool-aid

To freeze millions of gallon of water would work on many levels. It would lower the water levels, help drop or at least maintain the over temperature flux as it is.

Also I would mention that, I discussed and CO2 scrubber. One that could be nano bots, a machine, a natural plant scrubber that would lower CO2 levels. That would majorly change the earths environment for the better.

Also I am not advocating making a weather device and trying to totally control the earth environment. By the way there are many who believe we are currently working, making adjustments on a weather machine.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
The ice is melting because the temp is rising.

So where on earth would you store it after freezing it?

I supose we could all buy another refrigerator and do our bit for the planet.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Tycoon Offers $25 Million Climate Prize


LONDON (Feb. 9) - British tycoon Sir Richard Branson on Friday announced a $25 million prize for the first scientist to come up with a way to extract greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

"The Earth cannot wait 60 years. We need everybody capable of discovering an answer to put their minds to it today," Branson said.


There's a cool $25 million waiting for someone to come up with some good ideas. Good Luck (Don't forget your friends here at ATS)!



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You will find talk of sulfur missles.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Let me ask a silly question


if it is 50 below zero in the north pole and the temperature warms by 1.2 degrees will the ice still be frozen

if i was told 10 years ago with pretty charts and the like that the water level was starting to rise rapidly than why is high tide occuring around the same spot that it was 10 years ago?



[edit on 16-2-2007 by cpdaman]



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I'm in South Florida, at 2+ meters i'd pretty much have beachfront property.


what about sea walls and dykes?

Guyana, South America is a country that lies below sea level, all along the populated coast towards the Atlantic, they have a sea wall system, couldn't something bigger and better than that help here?




posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Are you trying to write a science fiction book or are you trying to have an actual conversation and debate?



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   
i think we should do everything n our power to create a move with some cool effects and really market this to the younger generation, and since people can be fooled easily i think we should take full advantage of the global warming b.s and use it in the future to restrict people's water supply and control certain fractions of the population

- a global warming advocate



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   


So we should do nothing?

Undercoverchef- You answer would to do nothing proactive?


er... How is a drastic cut back on CO2 and investing in clean energies not proactive?




Should we all wear only recycled clothing and live in mud huts. Take bikes everywhere and only eat what we grow. Just don't drink the cool-aid


I never mentioned recycled clothing... nor mud huts...

Although whats wrong with ridding bikes? or recycled clothes for that matter??... Are you that addicted to your current lifestyle that you couldn't make a few simple changes to your lifestyle??

Mud huts is not something i would recommend!




To freeze millions of gallon of water would work on many levels. It would lower the water levels, help drop or at least maintain the over temperature flux as it is.

Also I would mention that, I discussed and CO2 scrubber. One that could be nano bots, a machine, a natural plant scrubber that would lower CO2 levels. That would majorly change the earths environment for the better.


To freeze the amount water required to have an impact on the environment would take a huge amount of power... this would have a negative impact on the environment... And... You are talking about a technology that you see in a Sylvester Stallone movie... ITS A MOVIE

If you know of anyone who has invented such a device, that could work on this scale, please paste a link to it.

As for CO2 scrubbers, nanobots etc... its all still in the realms of theory and fantasy... Clean energy is already here and is, in many cases, a proven technology.



Also I am not advocating making a weather device and trying to totally control the earth environment. By the way there are many who believe we are currently working, making adjustments on a weather machine.


To be honest i am not interested in the "ifs" and "buts"

We know what is causing/adding to global warming and pollution... i would like to see more focus on practical and proven technologies. However, i also believe that technology alone is not the answer... In my humble opinion we need to reduce the impact we have on this planet (most of which is caused by greed) and if this means making a few sacrifices... then so be it.




Here's an anti thread from Undercoverchef.


Anti thread??

Anti what? if you mean anti unpractical/unrealistic then yes... i agree

But... these are just my opinions... you have to follow your beliefs the same as i will follow mine... my intention is not to offend... but to offer an opinion

[edit on 18-2-2007 by undercoverchef]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Yeah its just a movie, but maybe it could inspire some bright mind to think up a new way to do something about it. Or is it just to easy to whine about how people live and blame it all on SUV's. How about the business that release most of the carbon? How about doing something about them?

Sea walls are an excellent idea. I really believe that the people of NY will have to do this like the Dutch were forced to, rather than abandon their city. Good thought WorldWatcher.


[edit on 20-2-2007 by Royal76]



posted on Feb, 20 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rotator
I supose we could all buy another refrigerator and do our bit for the planet.


Fridges 'force' out the warm air, so buying another wouldn't help at all, it'd just make it hotter.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Would have some Idea's.
Some possibilities.
It doesn't matter how odd or crazy they are.

Because this is a brainstorming session.

A chance for everyone to think pro-active
about this problem.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Just found this recent news report on new research into rising sea levels, in short it raised attention that current estimates of rising sea levels currently do not take into account newly discovered rivers and lakes that flow under the thick ice of Antarctica.

The flow of these rivers and lakes have a direct effect on how quickly the melting ice of Antarctica reaches the sea and what surprised the scientists involved in the study was the fact that the impact of these rivers and lakes was causing large changes in a matter of months rather than years!


The effect must be like running cold water over an ice cube!

This is the link to the newspaper report from Guardian news paper (A reputable newspaper based in the United Kingdom).

Guardian - Science report

[edit on 25-2-2007 by freeradical]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I don't think we can be pro-active in this case.

If the sea level is rising the only way of stopping it is to rise the land mass (impossible, as far as I know, unless we only think of walls around the land mass we want to protect) or to find a way to store the surplus water.

Freezing the water is a lost battle, if you live in a place with an ice rink go to them and ask how much energy they spend just to keep a few centimetres slab of ice.

So, in this case, I will just wait.


PS: I live in a place some 70m above the present sea level, so I am not that worried.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
somewhere in those Middle Eastern Gulf States,
Bahrain, UAE, i can't recall who...

they ar busily pumping out sand & material from the bottom of the PersianGulf and making islands to build houses & businesses & tourist arenas on. The first one is in a shape of a many mile long 'Palm Tree'
enclosed in a barrier island 'ring'.

i don't think every village, town or city along the USA coastline
could be saved by erecting seawalls or dikes, like in Holland/Netherland

so other than relocating to elevations over the next 100 years
it may become necessary to build many hectacre sized platforms over the sea or Gulf of Mexico.
think meg-sized oil platform architectures with 'suburb' platforms radiating from that central 'hub' ...viola' a city state on the high seas, perhaps populated by 100,000 citizens each. (Atlantis' landcape revisited)

the terra-firma areas would be highly regulated & controlled, for large produce farms, wind farms, solar arrays, waste treatments, industry, etc
anything requiring space or area which would be impractable to put within the architecture, infrastructure of these platform cities...


[edit on 25-2-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   
in loss of land, Think of Katrina...

How much $$$ would everybody lose if Florida, New York City, etc.
Disappeared underwater. How many would be displaced by this.

How much worse would the rest of us be off if we had to squeeze
all of these people into our already limited land?

How much would you spend if you lost 20% of the land for your country?

How much would you care if you went into debt freezing water.
Granted the way right now would be impossible to do.
But future advances could make it do able. These future advances
are what I am talking about.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
in loss of land, Think of Katrina...

Yes, that showed that building walls around the cities is not a sure solution.


How much would you care if you went into debt freezing water.

I never spoke of the cost of energy used, the problem is the energy itself.

There are no systems with 100% efficiency, there is always some loss of energy, usually as heat, when converting energy from one system to another.

In the case of freezing the water, we would be rising the ambient temperature to lower the water temperature, we would be "patching" the problem today but making it worse for tomorrow.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join