JPL loon intrudes on NASA's loon global warming territory

This is a good one. Like some Brit's plan to build $1.5 billion plants to...put C02 on the bottom of the ocean.

alt.global-warming:

A planetary scientist at Arizona State University is proposing a massive
scheme to add more ice to the Arctic to help slow rising global
temperature.

A planetary scientist at Arizona State University is proposing a massive
scheme to add more ice to the Arctic to help slow rising global
temperature. But don't worry, it's only going to cost taxpayers $500
billion over 10 years.

In an article appearing in the May 2017 edition of Science News Magazine,
author Sid Perkins explains the science behind ASU professor Steven
Desch's plan to save the world. According to Desch, thicker ice in the
Arctic would trap more heat and help bring global temperature down.

Explaining Desch's theory, Perkins wrote, "Ice is a good insulator, says
Steven Desch, a planetary scientist at Arizona State University in Tempe.
That's why moons such as Jupiter's Europa and Saturn's Enceladus, among
others, may be able to maintain liquid oceans beneath their thick icy
surfaces. On Earth, sea ice is much thinner, but the physics is the same.
Ice grows on the bottom surface of floating floes. As the water freezes,
it releases heat that must make its way up through the ice before escaping
into the air. The thicker the ice, the more heat gets trapped, which slows
down ice formation. That's bad news for the Arctic, where ice helps keep
the planet cool but global warming is causing ice to melt faster than it
can be replaced."

How can humans make the ice thicker in the Arctic?

"Suck up near-freezing water from under the ice and pump it directly onto
the ice's surface during the long polar winter," Perkins wrote, citing
Desch. "There, the water would freeze more quickly than underneath the
ice, where it usually forms."

The machines used to suck the water up would work similar to windmills and
cost about $50,000 each, according to Desch's estimates.

Perkins notes, "Over a decade, covering 10 percent of the Arctic Ocean
with buoys would cost about $50 billion per year."

If Desch's plan were to be put into effect, it would cost $500 billion
over a decade, enough to pay the entire budgets for one year for the
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Homeland
Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State
and Transportation. For just several billion dollars more, the
Environmental Protection Agency could be covered as well.

There were about 15.8 million households in the United States in 2015
identified as "food insecure." The $50 billion per year used on making
more ice in the Arctic would be enough to give each of these families more
than $3,100 per year to buy additional food.

On Mon, 8 May 2017 23:43:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

This is a good one. Like some Brit's plan to build $1.5 billion plants to...put C02 on the bottom of the ocean.

Smart. We're going to need inexpensive options like this to help turn
around global warming.

On Tuesday, 9 May 2017 09:34:38 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2017 23:43:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

This is a good one. Like some Brit's plan to build $1.5 billion plants to...put C02 on the bottom of the ocean.

Smart. We're going to need inexpensive options like this to help turn
around global warming.

$500 billion is "inexpensive." How about we cut the entire world's foreign aid to the Third World for this?
Also, partial decay of that much plastic would destroy the ocean ecosystems.

On Fri, 12 May 2017 19:24:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 9 May 2017 09:34:38 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2017 23:43:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

This is a good one. Like some Brit's plan to build $1.5 billion plants to...put C02 on the bottom of the ocean.

Smart. We're going to need inexpensive options like this to help turn
around global warming.

$500 billion is "inexpensive." How about we cut the entire world's foreign aid to the Third World for this?
Also, partial decay of that much plastic would destroy the ocean ecosystems.

$500 billion is peanuts compared to the economic cost of global
warming.

On Saturday, 13 May 2017 15:15:44 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017 19:24:19 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 9 May 2017 09:34:38 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2017 23:43:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

This is a good one. Like some Brit's plan to build $1.5 billion plants to...put C02 on the bottom of the ocean.

Smart. We're going to need inexpensive options like this to help turn
around global warming.

$500 billion is "inexpensive." How about we cut the entire world's foreign aid to the Third World for this?
Also, partial decay of that much plastic would destroy the ocean ecosystems.

$500 billion is peanuts compared to the economic cost of global
warming.

Or just a few hours of the NSA's wage bill while creating WannaCry?

Microsoft's philanthropic attitude towards older operating systems has come under scrutiny. They are releasing another security fix for their broken down, heritage operating systems. That Great, Great, Great philanthropist makes most of his free cash from licensing their broken down wares to small businesses and local government. They are always being strapped for cash, by central government to spend on themselves. So the idea of paying to upgrade to windows latest broken down system guarantees years more income for the copycat cough master criminals of the Internet.

Sorry about the length of these sentences. I'm still waiting for Google iGrammar, Google iPunctuation and Google iPrecis to arrive. Hopefully Google iNContext won't arrive first. Just think, in another year or two Trumpet.Great.Great@Twit won't even need to write his own foreign policy tweets. Then where will we all be? ;-)