Earth movie/ question


Old 05-10-09, 04:03 PM
nightowlpunk's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Connectitax
Posts: 456
Earth movie/ question

The Disney nature movie Earth is a great movie if you haven't seen it yet. One question though. It mentions the shrinking polar ice caps and the plight of the polar bear. Why can't we dump a lot of liquid nitrogen into that water to make new ice? That stuff is something like 200 degrees below 0 degrees F and I figured that it would be cold enough to freeze the ocean.
Sponsored Links
Old 05-11-09, 04:12 AM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
"Mentions" it.....Disney must be in collaboration with Al Gore. It is meant to jerk a tear right out of your face for the "plight" of the polar bear. All the falling ice walls you see on the advertisements are the natural shedding of the outer shell being pushed out by newly formed ice, so, although it looks formidable and looks like the ice cap is melting, it isn't.
Now, to your question. Transportation of enough Liquid Nitrogen would take a fleet of ships 500 years to dump enough to make a difference. Besides, once released, the nitrogen would cause ecological problems, like turning the polar bears greenJK
Old 05-11-09, 08:32 AM
ray2047's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 32,533
Well plan B would be to just encourage the polution of the atmosphere. That way less heat would reach the ground. And you thought polution was bad.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air. John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed.

One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.

Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea.

The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."

Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.

But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air - making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested - could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.

Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.

Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide - the chief human-caused greenhouse gas - out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said."
Old 05-11-09, 09:27 AM
nightowlpunk's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Connectitax
Posts: 456
Wasn't aware of those side effects. BTW, politically, I am at least 180 degrees from Al Gore. I have never voted Democrat or Republican in a presidential race.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes