NationStates Jolt Archive

Its obvious global warming is happening, its been scientifically proven. But what to do. Its apparently too late to stop it, the ice will melt. Some islands will be flooded to the max. But do we have to cut emmisions? Almost certainly, if we dont want earth to be completely flooded we must stop now! Or must we. Here's my thinking, if the stupid ice is going to frekkin melt than let it melt. Its estimated that by 2050 to 2100 there is going to be an extra meter of ocean water, but who says it has to be on earth? My plan, get big rocket ships. And its going to take every country to give money to this program it cant be just the major industrial countrys. Allright so, we have here a big rocket and somewhere on that big rocket, you have a HUGE tank. This HUGE tank will carry water, ocean water. The rocket will than get as close to the sun as it can without the astrounauts dying and at which time the rocket will turn around and off the back eject with a HUGE force, the HUGE tank holding the water into the sun. Its just crazy enough to work! We will than never have to worry about Venice going under ever again!

What do you think about this idea and what do you think is the best way.

That is if it isnt rockets with HUGE tanks that hold excess ice water.

Actually, flood is not the biggest problem of global warming. 90% of the iceberg are already under the water (so there melting wont increase the volume of water) and also, ice take more volume than water (put a bottle completely full of water in the freezer, and it will burst)

On the other hand, higher temperature will destroy our ecosystems faun and vegetal, and this is without accounting that we will be grilled the second we get outside.

If we cut CO2 and other gases emissions, the gloabl effect won't be felt before year 2150 at least. (But it would certainly make the air taste better.)
So it's a commitment to your grand-children.

By the way, 80% of humans live in coastal areas less than 3 meters over the sea level.

One more (philosophical) thing. I think that an environmentalist without kids is much more courageous and generous than an environmentalist with kids, because he doesn't have a "family reason" to act. This is a generous act to do things for humankind.

OR
what about, we put a longggggg hose from the ocean into orbit. supported at the top by a space station. Then we pump water up into orbit. it forms ice crystals which reflect the sunlight thus reducing heating and lowering the ocean levels.
it's brilliant. I'm sure it would work.



:p

I fear you underestimate the value of huge...

Lets say the earths radius, Re = 6371300 m and for the sake of argument that the surface is completely covered by water.
Add the one extra meter (Assuming that is correct) : Rw= 6371301 m
Substract the volume of the small sphere of that of the bigger sphere:
4/3 pi (Rw^3 - Re^3 ) = 510 112 589 313 193 m^3

That's a lot of water...
Of course, it is an overestimation, but divide it by 1000 and it still is huge..

what about, we put a longggggg hose from the ocean into orbit. supported at the top by a space station. Then we pump water up into orbit. it forms ice crystals which reflect the sunlight thus reducing heating and lowering the ocean levels.
it's brilliant. I'm sure it would work.
LOL
Actually, high-atmosphere water acts like a greenhouse gas.

I espouse something along the lines of the following:

Giant fans (the type used to cool oneself) in the sky

I fear you underestimate the value of huge...

Lets say the earths radius, Re = 6371300 m and for the sake of argument that the surface is completely covered by water.
Add the one extra meter (Assuming that is correct) : Rw= 6371301 m
Substract the volume of the small sphere of that of the bigger sphere:
4/3 pi (Rw^3 - Re^3 ) = 510 112 589 313 193 m^3

That's a lot of water...
Of course, it is an overestimation, but divide it by 1000 and it still is huge..

You underestimate the huge tanks and rockets. These rockets will be designed to be huge, huge beyond imaginable. Like the UFO's from indipendance day huge. The water will be in 99.9% of the rocket humans and control will only factor .1% of the rocket. This is why I say it will take a lot money and work. Also these rockets will be going constantly, not just once it a while.

This along with the gradual factoring out of fossil fuel use. Or at least majorly will work perfectly.

And why stop there? If these rockets can bring out that much water. Why not take out a little more? We could connect Asia with North America again! Bring back the ithsmus that goes from East Russia to West Alaska. Bring back a few more islands! It could be so great!

I espouse something along the lines of the following:

Giant fans (the type used to cool oneself) in the sky

Adding on to that. Huge air conditioners, and bare with me. The emisions from the AC would go out of the atmosphere! So we have up here earth. and the back end of the AC's would go into space.



this is space.
the ac's are up here.
;) =earth

Actually, flood is not the biggest problem of global warming. 90% of the iceberg are already under the water (so there melting wont increase the volume of water) and also, ice take more volume than water (put a bottle completely full of water in the freezer, and it will burst)

On the other hand, higher temperature will destroy our ecosystems faun and vegetal, and this is without accounting that we will be grilled the second we get outside.

At the end of the Triassic Period, the CO2 levels were ten times higher than today.
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Triassic/climate.htm

At the end of the Triassic Period, the CO2 levels were ten times higher than today.
True! And the ocean levels and salinity have varied A LOT. Even 12,000 years ago.

But at the time, there was no economic system or civilization waiting to collapse, or that many humans that would die in the process.

Its obvious global warming is happening, its been scientifically proven. But what to do. Its apparently too late to stop it, the ice will melt. Some islands will be flooded to the max. But do we have to cut emmisions? Almost certainly, if we dont want earth to be completely flooded we must stop now! Or must we. Here's my thinking, if the stupid ice is going to frekkin melt than let it melt. Its estimated that by 2050 to 2100 there is going to be an extra meter of ocean water, but who says it has to be on earth? My plan, get big rocket ships. And its going to take every country to give money to this program it cant be just the major industrial countrys. Allright so, we have here a big rocket and somewhere on that big rocket, you have a HUGE tank. This HUGE tank will carry water, ocean water. The rocket will than get as close to the sun as it can without the astrounauts dying and at which time the rocket will turn around and off the back eject with a HUGE force, the HUGE tank holding the water into the sun. Its just crazy enough to work! We will than never have to worry about Venice going under ever again!

What do you think about this idea and what do you think is the best way.

That is if it isnt rockets with HUGE tanks that hold excess ice water.

i say...once a week,everyone in the world turns there air conditioners on full blast,homes,cars,office buildings etc.
after awhile..everything will be just cool and nice...lol :p

But at the time, there was no economic system or civilization waiting to collapse, or that many humans that would die in the process.
*glances over at Europe*

You say that like it would be a bad thing.

:p

My plan, get big rocket ships. And its going to take every country to give money to this program it cant be just the major industrial countrys. Allright so, we have here a big rocket and somewhere on that big rocket, you have a HUGE tank. This HUGE tank will carry water, ocean water.
Do you have any idea how much water you're talking about? We don't have the technology to get all that water into tanks, nor do we have rockets powerful enough to lift it off the ground.

Leave this one to the scientists, child.

Its obvious global warming is happening, its been scientifically proven. But what to do. Its apparently too late to stop it, the ice will melt. Some islands will be flooded to the max. But do we have to cut emmisions? Almost certainly, if we dont want earth to be completely flooded we must stop now! Or must we. Here's my thinking, if the stupid ice is going to frekkin melt than let it melt. Its estimated that by 2050 to 2100 there is going to be an extra meter of ocean water, but who says it has to be on earth? My plan, get big rocket ships. And its going to take every country to give money to this program it cant be just the major industrial countrys. Allright so, we have here a big rocket and somewhere on that big rocket, you have a HUGE tank. This HUGE tank will carry water, ocean water. The rocket will than get as close to the sun as it can without the astrounauts dying and at which time the rocket will turn around and off the back eject with a HUGE force, the HUGE tank holding the water into the sun. Its just crazy enough to work! We will than never have to worry about Venice going under ever again!

What do you think about this idea and what do you think is the best way.

That is if it isnt rockets with HUGE tanks that hold excess ice water.
Considering that we might be able to save lobsters, coral reefs, and various other species threatened by minor changes in degrees (one or two is all it really takes to get a lobster to hatch too early) if we curb global warming and we might be able to save New York, the Seychelles and the Netherlands after all.
My two cents...

-snip-

It would probably be cheaper to build 'floating countries' to colonise when the water level gets too high.

It would probably be cheaper to build 'floating countries' to colonise when the water level gets too high.
Move to the Central Atlantic region in NS. :D

i say...once a week,everyone in the world turns there air conditioners on full blast,homes,cars,office buildings etc.
after awhile..everything will be just cool and nice...lol :p
And the energy that would use you take from converting the heat of global warming, or what?

This whole thread made me go from :confused: to :rolleyes: but after I read a little more :( definitely turned into :mad:.

The problem with global warming is that you can't really slow it down (don't even try thinking about reverting it!).

If - theoretically - humankind would completely cease to produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases, global warming would only slow down and not be as drastic.

Now look at what's going on. Everyone is burning more & more oil instead of less. Earth will prevail but mankind will definitely kill itself off. And the way we're approaching it, we're speeding things up.

You underestimate the huge tanks and rockets. These rockets will be designed to be huge, huge beyond imaginable. Like the UFO's from indipendance day huge. The water will be in 99.9% of the rocket humans and control will only factor .1% of the rocket. This is why I say it will take a lot money and work. Also these rockets will be going constantly, not just once it a while.

This along with the gradual factoring out of fossil fuel use. Or at least majorly will work perfectly.

And why stop there? If these rockets can bring out that much water. Why not take out a little more? We could connect Asia with North America again! Bring back the ithsmus that goes from East Russia to West Alaska. Bring back a few more islands! It could be so great!

Do you have any idea how much it costs to get even a pound of anything into space? $50,000.

Let's say the world devotes its whole GDP of $115 trillion to the effort. That means 1.15 million tons of water can be lifted into space. Water has a density of 2.2 pounds/litre. So that money would be enough for only about .00105 cubic kilometres. By comparison we would need to get rid of 5100 cubic kilometres to lower water levels by a single centimeter.

Leave this one to the scientists, child.
Maybe we should help this child become a scientist.

I say we dont mess with the atmosphere. We dont know enough about this whole global warming problem. You cant have a solution without knowing the extent of the problem. We might make things worse. I say we ride it out. Cut pollution and make a plan for evacuations.

aaaaahhhhh what was i gonna post, oh yeah. we're prolly gonna be building a giant space elevator to the moon, so we could just send up some bottles of water every so often. except, yeah. flooding isn't the worst problem that may occur. The worst problem of overpopulation (which will result in hastening of earth/humanity's downfall) will first be the peak oil crisis where virtually ever developed country's economy will collapse, then it will be a 12th century style anarchy all over the globe, then it depends on how much we screw up the environment from now until then but either way, humanity will kill itself off and hopefully the Earth will recover like it has done before.

Or, perhaps, this global warming is merely part of a perfectly natural cycle that has been slightly exaggerated by excess chemicals from both the 19th and 20th centuries.
I dont suppose youve ever heard of the 'little ice age'? Basicaly it was a point in time, during the Middle Ages, I think, where, for some reason, everybody in Britain apparently wore thick wool sweaters almost year round. Now I dont think they had fashion-phads in the Middle Ages, so thus we can only conclude that, perhaps, things were suddenly cooler for some reason.
This may also explain why, up until the Rebirth (I think), the devil is generaly portrayed as being blue.
Presumably those fellows in the Middle East opened up shortlived resort chains in the Arabian desert.

In any case, once you can prove to me that we are all going to fry to death horribly after being drowned in a sea of glacier water (Which wouldnt make much of a differnce in the overall sealevel. Ice floats for a reason, IE: Its full of AIR. And most of it is underwater already, so melting it would actually lower the global sea level a bit, so much for your James Bond Supervillian-style dreams of world-dominiation).

Bah, I grow tired of ranting at you. Begone foul fiend! I banish thee to the nethermost pit of the reaches of Hell! Avaunt! And so-forth!

Alright..money costs aside. Let's say we have the technology to get this..Instead of carting off water, we could suck out huge amounts of CO2 by drawing air through a filter in the ships, and just taking the CO2, and disperse it into space, giving a more permanent solution, but not really logical, all things considered. If you have the technology to do that, you certainly can start colonizing other planets, or, at the very least, the moon. Take a large percentage of humanity off the planet, you'd be stopping a whole lot of pollution very quickly. Also, if you're able to build ships that huge, you also have the option of totally trashing the planet, going somewhere else, waiting for everything to stabilize, and see what happens. Humanity's biggest science experiment.

Well just something to remember that a big problem concerning flooding is that water volumes increase then the avarege temperature increase. This is a problem because the typical depth in the worlds oceans that covering 75 percent of the earth is around 4000 meter so just a slight increase in water volume say 0.1 percent will lead to a aproximally a increase of 4 meters in waterlevel.

Another problem is the gulf stream that make it barable to live in northern europe can shift it's route or stop because of the increase in fresh water, making northern europe into Siberia.

Also I personally belief that both the earth and the human race will survive only thing that it can be a diffrent kind of earth and very few humans left if we proceed on todays path.