Ask the UN IPCC. I'm fairly certain they have as many brilliant minds working at this as they can afford, soas to pick the most plausible(cheapest) "solution". The fact of the matter is, if the top 25 wealthiest people on the earth put every dime they have together to take that route, it would only account for approx. 754 billion dollars. Where are we gonna come up with the minimum 1.6 and some odd TRILLION dollars. Lol how are you gonna convince the top 25 wealthiest to just hand over their money for that matter.

Enough iron in your body can kill you... I saw it on X-men once . On a serious note, our bodies run in a balance; Iron deficiency causes many of diseases such as anemia which, if goes untreated can kill you: hemochromatosis is one case of over-absorption of iron, and can kill you as well.

The earth, as the body, runs in a balance. Dumping masses of iron into oceans could be catastrophic.

Doing anything would eventually catastrophic. So it doesn't matter what we do, so long as we don't do anything.
Honestly though, all we really have to do is wait for nature to evolve something that will survive on massive ammounts of CO2 and feed on animals. (Same situation happened when plants were polluting oxygen millions of years ago.)

We should just turn ourselves into machines with nano technology so that we won't have to use oxygen, nor breathing.

Why does it need to cost money?
People are retarded. Survival of the species?
No, not for you, cheapo. Come back later when you have cash LOLFAIL.

I agree. That's a good call. That's a dang good call.

You tell me why is needs cash. Just exactly why do cities repair themselves costing millions to billions of dollars after an Earthquake, Hurricane, Tsunami, or any other natural disasters?

Rhetorical question.

That may be true but without enough iron in your body you can become like myself and be anemic.

They don't dump raw iron into the ocean... it's an iron compound that the plankton consume and overjoy upon.
But you could abuse water's tendency to dissolve CO2 by removing it from the oceans (as I said before... >.>) I really doubt it'd be practical, though.

looks like nobody is against my ban all incandescent and cfl light bulbs
everybody get lower wattage and more efficient power supplies and switch from desktops to laptops

No it wouldn't.
Scientists do a shitload of research before they dump a ton of iron into the sea.
The plankton eats the iron filings really fast, and it does nothing adverse. [Unless like, a fish gets hit on the head]
Iron isn't toxic. It isn't explosive. It isn't going to do anything, and more iron in our fish diet [via food chain] can only be good for us and the animals that eat it.

No, not what it does to the fish, what it does to the bodies of water... Adding things into a system that weren't there before causes weird things to happen: ie. adding green house gases to the atmosphere. Imagine that! Plus, the really offender is N₂, not CO₂. N₂ is 296 times more efficient as a green house gas than CO₂. Also, methane produced from cows accounts for 18% of the green house gases in the atmosphere, and it is 29% more efficient than CO₂.

[Citation needed]


Nitrogen is completely harmless, it does not significantly contribute to global warming. Nitrogen dioxide is the culprit you're talking about.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/articles/article/nitrogenthebadguyofglobalwarming1160583306/ Shitty Article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide Wikipedia ftw bitch.

Well, we can stop this be eating more cows. Fuck you vegetarians.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on May 16 2008, 3:48 pm by FlyingHat. Reason: lawl typo

Greenhouse gases are natural, they don't 'technically' come from greenhouses 99.999% of the time. If you're asking to cut all vegetation to reduce Nitrogen, you're asking for a wasteland. We breathe Nitrogen into our noses every second.

Can iron not rust, causing terrible water pollution?

Duh. It's called a green house gas cause it insulates sunlight, like unto a green house. Thanks flying hat for the correction, it isn't N₂ that's bad, it's the NO_2(?). The effect of it is, that and methane are both way more effective in retaining light/heat energy.


lol and a citation isn't needed, just Google it you'll find what you're looking for

I want to upload this awesome paper that shows all about that:
[attach=1026]

There's lots of good info in it, but I wanna emphasis The first table and first few paragraphs.

You're the one saying 'Duh', yet you clearly said N₂ is bad. And NO₂ can't be reduced as much as CO₂, you'll have to get rid of PM_2.5 first.

Nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas; water vapour and CO₂ however, are. More Carbon Dioxide and other minute greenhouse gases raise the temperature, causing more water vapour to exsist in the atmosphere. After a point, you're on a positive feedback loop and you're well on your way to becoming Venus.

I knew it was NO₂, it just came out weird idk. Forgot the O somewhere in the mix of things. Mah bhad.
Where did PM^2.5 come from? Does that have anything to do with anything?

We already decided it is actually nitrous oxide, not nitrogen...