The UN, backed by the US, should impose taxes and strict new regulations on all vessels that operate on the open waters, with their greatest focus innially being on the greatest polluters and the largest contributors of thermal contamination. Funds that would be supplied by such taxation and regulation would finance the stoppage of our reckless dumping of garbage into the open waters, and the beginning of the much needed first steps in extracting the garbage that has developed or collected into large islands of floating trash.

Simply building large ocean going barges, with large crains aboard designed to life large (netted) loads of trash aboard, that could be dropped over board by passing ships that would have placed their trash into a completely sealed tight messed net, designed to contain and float the garbage within rage of the trash barge. The passing ship or vessel would then communicate with the trash barge allerting it to the dropping of the trash load. Then the trash barge would simply send out a mororized zodiac style boat, or larger to tow the trash load over to the barge to then be loaded.

Such a system of collection could also include recyclable products, which could actually be seperated into smaller net style bags, which could be color coded and placed into the larger collection trash net. Large trash nets could eaily be standardized and supplied to the shipping industry, by the collection companies. It common sense that the shipping industry, like the land based industries, should have to bare the cost of disposing of their own garbage, properly. Which if practical recycling methods were developed right from the start, the process might quickly develop into a self sustaining efficcent garbage collection industry. Such efforts should also include having several large barges positioned to steadily collect loads of garbege from the massive volumes of floating garbage that has collected in the waters. 

   Beyond garbage, we also need to address humanities massive unnatural aquatic thermal contribution. It has become quite obvious to most, that humanities aquatic thermal contribution has collected and grown into a worldwide unnatural aquatic thermal accumulation. An accumulation that few realize might actually be the main contributing factor linked to the rapid decline in the planetary ice and snow packs. Research clearly shows that the atmospheric CO2's could not have triggered such a rapid rate of decline, in the planetary ice, as was openly admitted by the mainstream scientific community. Stating in several documentaries, that the ice was melting over ten times faster than their CO2 related predictions. I'm sure that such findings were quite distressing and alarming to those scientists, because they then simply couldn't begin to explain how or why this rapid decline was happening. That is why some of them came up with the rediculas notion that maybe the weight of the moving ice shelves must be generating so much friction that it was causing the rapid rate of decline. Yet, if the ice wasn't already melting rapidly, the ice shelves would not have been moving in the first place. Trust me, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that enough friction can be generated by a moving ice shelf, no matter how heavy, to increase the rate of decine in the planetary ice to any detectable degree.

What most mainstream scientists, focused soley on atmospheric conditions don't yet realize, is that such a rapid rate of decline, can in fact be generated by having a thermal accumulation develop in the oceans. Is it a stretch to consider that this might be happening, when considering all of the unnatural human related contributing factors. Such as, deforestation, agriculture, all of the sewerlines, all of the sea going vessels that have water cooled engines. All of the nuclear power plants that dump their thermal waste into the waters. Then there's military weapons testing in the waters, and on and one. The biggest reason that humanities massive aquatic thermal contribution has accumulated, is simply because the oceans have a predominant inwards direction of conduction, throughout 95 to 99% of the area where humanities contribution is being delivered into the waters. Thus, it quickly becomes further dispersed, but not expelled. The reason that humanities thermal contribution cannot be expelled from the waters, is because the surface layer or thermolcline of the oceans is itself charged with thermal energy, and being at the surface where the suns rays are the most intense and or consentrated, the thermal level of that surface layer, is higher than the widely dispersed human related contribution that has gradulally collected below the surface layer. Thus, thermal energy cannot rise within a warmer environment, and is conducted into the cold, which is downwards within the oceans. 

How the rapid rate of planetary ice occurs in relation to this massive low level thermal accumulation is this; Most of us atribute ice melt to temperatures getting above 32 degrees F. But this is only the case when dealing with fresh water in our atmospheric environment, under average conditions. This isn't the case when dealing with the conditions in the aquatic environment. Because of the high salt content, pressure, and the movement of the water, the temperature has to be much colder to freeze the ocean waters, especially to any substancial depth. The problem is, no one took such temperature readings, to give us something to compare our current readings to. Though we know that the waters are in fact warming to some degree. As I mentioned, temperature isn't the only factor linked to this phenomina. What is actually the most stablizing factor linked to the ice, beyond temperature, is the presence of a downwards direction of conduction, as that found throughout the oceans. The reality is, the downwards direction of conduction is the weakest or most fragile within the planets colder regions, naturally because the surface water tempertures are closer to that of the upper DOW, due to the suns rays being much weaker there. Meaning, that if a worldwide low level thermal accumulation were to occure, as I'm suggesting it has, where would the downwards direction of comduction, most likely be neutralized first? Thats right, within the coldest regions first.

I did a controlled experiment using 36 degree water to test this theory. In one five gallon bucket I created a downwards direction of conduction, like that found within the oceans. I also, set the room temperature at 45 degrees. I then watched the time that it took to melt a measured ice cube within that bucket. The ice cube took over an hour and fifteen minutes to melt. I then neutralized the downwards direction of conduction within the second bucket of 36 degree water, simply by not creating one, then timed the melting rate of a second ice cube. To my shock and amazement, the ice cube was gone in just 5 minutes, without having introduced a single factor linked to CO2's. I then turned the room temperture up to 80 degrees to over simulated the effects of atmospheric warming, caused by CO2's, then added the third ice cube. That ice cube was gone in four minutes. That experiment clearly shows that the atmospheric CO2 accumulation alone, could have only increase the rate of ice melt by 1/15 th, as compared to neutrilizing the presence of a downwards direction of conduction, as predoninantly exists within the oceans, without having to raise the water temperature a single degree. This is why, in documentaries surrounding the subject, the scientists have stated that the ice was melting over ten times faster than their CO2 related predictions. Because they obviously didn't consider the entire thermal dynamic structure of the aquatic environment, as it related to an aquatic thermal accumulation. But rather, how the aquatic environment simply related to the effects of an atmospheric thermal accumulation, which naturally could never have effected the conduction values in the planets colder regions, all on its own, to the point of triggering this rapid rate of decline.

In stating these facts, how could anyone not seriously consider humanities massive thermal contribution into the aquatic environment. In my opinion, it is every bit as large a contribution as humanities CO2 contribution into the atmosphere. The biggest difference being the effects of increasing the surface area where the downwards direction of conduction within the oceans is reduced or neutralized.

If we quickly address this condition, we can find cost effective methods to stop the further decline in the planetary ice. But we have to act on a very large scale, because this thermal accumulation took two centuries to grow to this level, under the normal aquatic thermal dynamics. We need to cool both the atmosphere, as well as, vent thermal energy form the oceans. We have to compensate for the atmospheric thermal increases caused by deforestation, by cooling the deserts, using raised solar structures, which we can also potentially grow crops under, which will reduce the normal thermal contribution of the deserts. We can also use raised floating solar structures in key locations in the oceans, to generate electricity, while blocking the suns rays from the waters, which will creat cold spots under these structures. This would create thermal venting within those locations, due to the surface waters becoming chilly around the structures. Though it would be a huge under taking, at first. It would need to be permanant. Not if we impliment better regulations and practices to reduce aquatic thermal contamination. Tapping into thermal releases above volcanic vents would also greatly help to create this much needed cooling effect. But, like I said, we must act quickly, because the more ice that we loose, the more natural cooling potential we loose, meaning its just that much more that we'll have to compensate for.

Installing massive solar fields within the planets tropical regions, where the ocean waters have really heated up, and where the solar systems would do the most good, would have a huge positive effect upon this combined effort. Cooling the oceans back down, would greatly reduce the high costs assoiated with severve climate change. This savings might completely pay for this effort to cool the oceans down, by itself.

   That brings me to one last important point that I'd like to make, because it might be a very serious contributing factor linked to aquatic warming. No agency has ever required that the oil industry provide sensitive thermal data to insure that the extraction of oil from under the aquatic environment, isn't potentially increasing the rate in which thermal energy is naturally being transferred from the hotter planet surface, up into the colder ocean waters. Remember heat rises and is conducted into the cold. This if the insulative value of the planets crust is reduced at all, by this massive human intrusion, the volumes of thermal energy that can be conducted in this sanario is huge, not just because it would be a permanent abnormal thermal increase, that we'd have to compensate for. But also because of the positioning of the colder waters being above the warmer planet surface. Remember heat rises and transfers into the cold, thus the thermal contribution from the earth alone would quickly make humanities thermal contribution seem very slight. I say this because this massive unnatural contribution would not be like a localized volcanic event, which would have most of its thermal contribution released into the atmosphere. Instead the thermal contribution wouldn't even be detectable down deep in the cold waters, due to the sheer volume of water in relation to the thermal presence. As can be shown by injecting thermally tainted water mixed with dye, down into the bottom of a glass container of cold water. All of the dye quickly reaches the surface, even though the temperature seems to have neutralized. But to better understand how this thermal presence rising up from the sea floor might act within real world conditions, one also has to raise the thermal level of the surface water within the container, prior to injecting the thermally tainted dyed water into the bottom of the container of cold water. Now the dye will only rise to the level of the bottom of the warmer water placed at the surface, remember heat or thermal energy transfers into cold, not into warmth. Seeing how this is the dominant thermal structure within the oceans, one can quickly see just how large unnatural thermal increases coming up from the sea floor would also quickly generate an unnatural thermal accumulation. We need to ask and answer those very serious questions or risk destroying our planets ability to sustain healthy human life.

Thank you for allowing me this oppertunity to share with you! I know that this is complicated or rather unusual to consider, but take your time and walk your mind through it, and you'll soon realize that the facts are the facts. They cannot be disputed.

                                                                                                                  Randall Scott