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.

 

The answer to rising CO2 levels and an end to global warming.

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Let’s all contribute an idea to help stave off "AGW" Global climate change due to rising CO2 levels. Let’s not let this become a give a hoot don’t pollute thread. Please only post ideas that propose an answer without cutting emissions.

Here is mine!

Fertilize the oceans and increase plankton levels X 10. Using some method not unlike the stuff below.

Kill the predators of the plankton eating species, or at least keep their numbers low. Fertilize the oceans to increase plankton growth etc. Harvest both the plankton and plankton eating species for conversion to Oil.

We have all the needed technology for this!!!

Remember this is survival, not a fairy princesses day dream. It’s not by the principals of humanity that mankind is able to maintain himself above the animal world. Our lives today are built around this type of mindset. It is a mindset of survival despite the odds, and is very beneficial to mankind.

Sometimes species must give way, and that’s just how the cookie crumbles.


[edit on 24-7-2009 by Donkey_Dean]




posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Any answer that makes our biosphere less complex is a wrong answer. There are a lot more to do without turning oceans into huge plankton swamps, which would effect climate much more then CO2.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Any answer that makes our biosphere less complex is a wrong answer. There are a lot more to do without turning oceans into huge plankton swamps, which would effect climate much more then CO2.


Clean up would take place as well. No that’s not the wrong answer, truth is this ecosystem is doomed with or without us.

98% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, please ask yourself why. This planet is continually destroyed and rebuilt. If humankind is to survive we must abandon the save the whale mindset, it is suicidal friend.

Do you have anything to contribute to this thread?


[edit on 24-7-2009 by Donkey_Dean]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
You can't just increase plankton like that. First, plankton is a composition of many different organisms.

www.nhptv.org...

Second, it would cause a huge increase on junk on the ocean floor which would cause many deep sea species to perish, and we don't even know half of what's down there.

Third, it would create a huge increase in cetaceans and other plankton eaters. That would create an increase in the predators of these filter feeders. The predators of filter feeders like baleen whales and basking type sharks are mainly types of sharks, and carnivorous toothed whales.

If the population of those increase, there would be a vast decrease in the other organisms that they consume, mainly fish and pinnipeds. But mostly fish.

So there would be a huge decrease in fish in a world where overfishing and pollution have created huge problems for the fish that we eat. So bye bye fish from the ocean for humans.

There would also be a decrease in the bird population, at least birds that eat fish.

And with the lack of fish, there would be more and more microscopic organisms and plankton and algae around that isn't getting eaten by the fish, further raising the populations of large filter feeders.

Or it could go the other way and the fish population would explode, increasing the populations of the middle predators, and with the overcrowding, many species would die off. Probably also including cetaceans.

The fish population explodes, and so does the population of predatory birds. This would practically eliminate all the rodents and small birds, including pollinator birds. This could create a huge increase in the insect population, spreading disease.

It would destroy the oceans, if we increased the plankton by 10x. And we would eventually starve, one the repercussions fully hit. We could even lose the pollinators, depending on how the bird populations reacted.

I want to save the whales, yes. That's my major. BUT. It would also kill us.

Unless you want to eat rocks.

[edit on 7/24/2009 by ravenshadow13]

[edit on 7/24/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 





Do you have anything to contribute to this thread?

Well, i could drive to sea and kill a few plankton predators if you'd like.
But it is dark now.
Biosphere is a auto-feedback system and nishe of exincted X is taken by new Y. I really respect our achievments but i would not trust us with this enormously complex system to be ran (or ruined) by us.
And if you need Yes-guys, well i will not bother you and your idea. Go plankton!



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
You can't just increase plankton like that. First, plankton is a composition of many different organisms.

www.nhptv.org...

Second, it would cause a huge increase on junk on the ocean floor which would cause many deep sea species to perish, and we don't even know half of what's down there.

Third, it would create a huge increase in cetaceans and other plankton eaters. That would create an increase in the predators of these filter feeders. The predators of filter feeders like baleen whales and basking type sharks are mainly types of sharks, and carnivorous toothed whales.

If the population of those increase, there would be a vast decrease in the other organisms that they consume, mainly fish and pinnipeds. But mostly fish.

So there would be a huge decrease in fish in a world where overfishing and pollution have created huge problems for the fish that we eat. So bye bye fish from the ocean for humans.

There would also be a decrease in the bird population, at least birds that eat fish.

And with the lack of fish, there would be more and more microscopic organisms and plankton and algae around that isn't getting eaten by the fish, further raising the populations of large filter feeders.

Or it could go the other way and the fish population would explode, increasing the populations of the middle predators, and with the overcrowding, many species would die off. Probably also including cetaceans.

It would destroy the oceans, if we increased the plankton by 10x. And we would eventually starve, one the repercussions fully hit. We could even lose the pollinators, depending on how the bird populations reacted.

I want to save the whales, yes. That's my major. BUT. It would also kill us.

Unless you want to eat rocks.

[edit on 7/24/2009 by ravenshadow13]


Certainly we can promte plankton growth on massive scales if we wanted.

That’s what the harvest is for to maintain a balance, we would replace the predators of the plankton feeders as well, and if it were possible we could keep many of the bottom dwellers. If not the those species would have to give way to extinction or maybe find a home in a sanctuary or zoo of some kind. We are dead without technology like this!

There will 100% come a day when humankind will be have to completely manage the atmosphere and oceans or die out. Please don’t pretend that the current state of our planet is perpetual. It’s a nice thought that just by preserving our current ecosystem humankind may endure, but that’s just not the case.

Seems AGW is more an issue of political correctness than anything else. We could pull this off ya know.

Any other ideas?

I am the first to admit my plan is a little half baked its more to point out that when it come to survival no idea should be discounted just because it’s not a pleasant solution. You wouldn’t be sitting here now if your ancestors had an eco minded save a whale attitude. We are in suicide mode friends.



[edit on 24-7-2009 by Donkey_Dean]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean

That’s what the harvest is for to maintain a balance, we would replace the predators of the plankton feeders as well, and if it were possible we could keep many of the bottom dwellers. If not the those species would have to give way to extinction or maybe find a home in a sanctuary or zoo of some kind. We are dead without technology like this!

There will 100% come a day when humankind will be have to completely manage the atmosphere and oceans or die out. Please don’t pretend that the current state of our planet is perpetual. It’s a nice thought that just by preserving our current ecosystem humankind may endure, but that’s just not the case.
[edit on 24-7-2009 by Donkey_Dean]


Sorry, are you bonkers? I mean... I assume you're not a biology major or anything like that. But a 10x increase of one part of an ecosystem is not... maintaining a balance. It completely tips over the scale.

Replace predators of the plankton feeders? How? Clone them? Keep them in zoos until we need them?

Extinction should always be natural. But humans suck and usually it's not, it's from poaching and pollution and deforestation. This would be mass murder, really. Put them in a sanctuary or zoo? For them never to be released? They wouldn't survive, to begin with. The largest cetaceans in captivity are Orca and Beluga. Others don't survive.

Manage the atmosphere? Fine. We already ruined it, it won't kill the birds, it's fine. The ocean has more life than the land. It's not a chemistry beaker.

By the way, the bottom dwellers would die. What would happen to the remains of the plankton? (By the way I think you mean algae and not plankton)
They fall to the bottom and create sediment or goo. They smother the life on the sea floor and throw off the deep sea chemistry. It's like if suddenly 10x more dust fell on your living room floor, it would be a whole lot harder to live in your house.

I mean, I think you're not really educated on this stuff. Maybe you are. Maybe you mean algae (plant matter) and not plankton (microscopic animal matter). But it doesn't matter since this would never, ever happen.

Conservation and atmospheric studies are the way to go. A complete cold turkey on the fossil fuels. A halt to deforestation, and the planting of more flora. That's what would fix it.

Your idea is suicide.

Oh, you know that "save a whale" mindset? It's kind of our responsibility at this point, since tons of species are endangered from all orders of life, and it's our fault.

You can't say that the dodos, the species of tigers, the rare rhinos... deserved to die. They didn't hunt them for survival.

They hunted them for fun. There were other things to eat. They were misinformed and maybe wanted to try a little experiment. Sounds familiar.

[edit on 7/24/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
CO2 levels have purposely been risen through weather modification through jet exhaust, IE Chemtrails.

Stop the Chemtrails, stop the global warming.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 


Youve been so frightened that everything is going down hill that your ready to use untested technology that DRASTICLY alters our ecosystem.

You are the fool and the suicidal one. How can you not see something so obvious? Is this thread a joke? your so illogical...



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
sorry but your proposal is the height of ignorance.

you assume to know that your proposal would be functional but it addresses the issue on a single scale.

it completely ignores the complexity of planetary living systems and is, like the production of massive amounts of co2 and other pollutants before it, most likely a recipe for disaster.

i know you dont want this to be a 'dont pollute' thread but removing the impacts we now understand we are having on the planet is far more rational than inventing new ones.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 


Youve been so frightened that everything is going down hill that your ready to use untested technology that DRASTICLY alters our ecosystem.

You are the fool and the suicidal one. How can you not see something so obvious? Is this thread a joke? your so illogical...


Yep we need knowledge in these areas. Of course, we will get it wrong how else can we learn. I think it would harder than you think to sink the boat so to speak. Why is this so distasteful? Is this what the avoidance of killing your own dinner does to a person?



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 


I do not have a link ( hangs head in shame), but...

There IS a company that is currently using iron filings, micron sized, to feed the plankton. The company suggests that the critters consume the iron, causing them to sink to great depths, thus carrying the CO2 that they have contained within. It is stated that the CO2 is "captured".

Currently seeking funding from the private sector as a means of satisfying the cap and trade legislation by securing carbon credits, or some such. No guaranteesm expressed, nor implied...they want the money...



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I have an easier solution.. Quit funding the people who are lying for profit to the rest of the world. Today the country of India proved they are liars and told the US to go to he.. If we don't give the liars money they won't be able to publish their lies and normal life will resume.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 


It's distasteful because it's ignorant destruction of a critical part of the biosphere, which would lead to the extinction of thousands of species, including humans.

You don't need to sink the boat to learn.

Any person with a history in ecology, biology, zoology, chemistry, physics, or high school science would know right off the bat that this plan would be a disaster and fail. 10x increase in plankton. It wouldn't even reduce CO2 the way you think. I honestly think you've confused algae with plankton. But even an increase in algae would be a disaster, probably moreso because it would reduce the amount of light that enters the ocean drastically.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
sorry but your proposal is the height of ignorance.

you assume to know that your proposal would be functional but it addresses the issue on a single scale.

it completely ignores the complexity of planetary living systems and is, like the production of massive amounts of co2 and other pollutants before it, most likely a recipe for disaster.

i know you dont want this to be a 'dont pollute' thread but removing the impacts we now understand we are having on the planet is far more rational than inventing new ones.


You miss the point friend. It is meant to be distasteful and politically incorrect, but at the same time no more suicidal than the notion that by being eco-minded humankind may somehow endure. Do you deny that we live in a doomed ecosystem? Your mindset says humans will not endure, but we will live in harmony with nature until the end. Ahh, it’s such a deliciously sweet ideal you have there friend.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Donkey_Dean]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by pyrytyes
 


That's awful. That could cause major decreases in the populations of species which consume plankton. Plus, "trapping" it by sinking?

Humans contain a ton of CO2. And cows. Let's just throw all of them into the water.

WHY not just STOP DEFORESTATION and PLANT MORE TREES. Stop fossil fuels. Stop being greedy consumers.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by pyrytyes
 


That's awful. That could cause major decreases in the populations of species which consume plankton. Plus, "trapping" it by sinking?

Humans contain a ton of CO2. And cows. Let's just throw all of them into the water.

WHY not just STOP DEFORESTATION and PLANT MORE TREES. Stop fossil fuels. Stop being greedy consumers.


We cant stop! The answer is not to die out along with this ecosystem! We must endure and pull ourselves above this all. It sucks but we need a trillion people on Earth.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Donkey_Dean]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean

You miss the point friend. It is meant to be distasteful and politically incorrect, but at the same time no more suicidal than the notion that by being eco-minded humankind may somehow endure.


So your saying your proposal is crap and not meant to be any type of solution at all?

Where as it is your opinion that being 'eco-minded' which i imagine is a critique of the sustainability movement. An opinion i find to be so incredibly simple in that it lacks any true critique beyond making a statement which means nothing



Do you deny that we live in a doomed ecosystem?


Yes I do. While I would agree we live in an endangered ecosystem I see no reason to believe that it is beyond repair, to some reasonable degree.



Your mindset says humans will not endure, but we will live in harmony with nature until the end.


No, and I never made any comment to make you think that did i?



Ahh, its such a sweet ideal you have friend.


What, hope based on logic?



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 


You're ridiculous.

We can't stop? You'd rather just die with the planet than stop driving Hummers and eating at places like McDonalds which farm cattle in the rainforest.

Really.

Really?

We need to sacrifice. We've indulged and ruined everything and now we need to sacrifice. We would friggen survive without gasoline. We have the methods to still have cars without gasoline. But it's people like you who go "No, wahh, we can't stop! This is how it is, we have to maintain our awful lifestyle! There must be a way to fix things without changing ourselves!! Let's ruin the environment some more and hope it helps humans survive even though we are the worst species ever!!!!!!111oneone"

You're just wrong.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 


If not for the grace of an outside source many of us would not be here. billions have died so that i might survive the common cold. Billions have died so that i might survive the flu. Billions have died so that i can sit here now and say to you that billions more will die. No matter what you do in an infinite universe there are infinite deaths every second of some of the kindest people.

YOU yourself have discribed our "eco rampage" as only a scratch on the surface of earths history. Now you hope to cut of your arm to avoid the pain of the scratch? THAT is lunacy!

You can fill the oceans will liquid metal and the covert the air to pure helium, NONE of that will stop an asteroid or a direct CME. Or an invasion from space.... or your best friend from putting a 9mm to your head and pulling the trigger.....

Theres this thing called equilibrium.. and if people werent so &%^$ing stupid and religious we would have STOPPED having babies decades ago. So now everyone is $%^#ed no matter what you do or say.

Maybe we are the unlucky ones born in the time at which the earth is distroyed. Compared to the fun everyone got to have before we got
%^$#ED you could almost say it was a fair tradeoff. Thats what you get when you only have people live 100 or less years. What a $%^& designer.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join