Hi Folks, Production of engineered ice on the scale that is needed makes any ice additive problematic. Yet, we should not rule them out completely as we may end up needing them. I offered up the Habakkuk project as a historical starting point on the subject of engineered ice. Nathan's suggestion to* "design simple passive structures that would help concentrate the wind...increase the rate of advection"* can be prototyped easily and seems to have many advantages. Inflatable structures with carbon fiber/epoxy structural elements could be deployed on the ice edge (on a summer seasonal basis) using local commercial fishing crews as the labor. Working the leading edge of the melt zone may help slow the melt by a significant amount. Winter conditions make the year-round use of almost any wind catching structure impractical. Rafting together and anchoring the calved ice down wind of the wind concentrators may be worth exploring as this might add to the effect. Also, staging this type of passive system over the alluvial fans of the major Arctic rivers may help cool the waters flowing over the adjacent (warming) hydrate fields (as Emily suggested). A powered approach to the surface cooling/ice production is possible through using fleets of surface effect *Coanda Effect*<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqxJe-RMUsI>craft. The fleet (and stationary wind concentrators) can potentially be electrically fueled using the unique geoelectromagnetic<http://www.amazon.com/Geoelectromagnetic-Waves-A-V-Guglielmi/dp/0750300523>aspects of that region. With ample clean renewable energy available, Mike's and Peter's suggestions could be folded into the project. However, geoelectromagnetic conversion is a highly unique (*and highly theoretical*) form of energy conversion and does go well beyond the scope of this forum. Thus, it's best to deal with that issue through PM, if anyone is interested. Also, simple *high wind energy conversion*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_wind_power>tethers could bring a good amount of energy to the system(s), as well as provide us with a multitude of research platforms spanning from the marine environment (surface and below) up to the tropopause and possibly beyond. As a final note, I would not initially solve for year-round operations as that would potentially put off *any* deployment for years and balloon the cost. Let's solve for early spring through late fall operations and get ice produced as soon as possible. Then, a more robust winter campaign can be developed.
Best, Michael On Sunday, June 16, 2013 3:39:14 PM UTC-7, Josh Horton wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Near the end of a recent, otherwise unremarkable story about > geoengineering at RTCC (link below), Piers Forster from Leeds University is > quoted as follows: > > “There is one experiment we’re currently undertaking – we’re trying to > look at rescuing Arctic Ice by stimulating aeroplanes flying from > Spitzbergen in Norway – and dump out a lot of Sulphur Dioxide, and we’re > trying to look at that as a very short term protection against the loss of > Arctic Ice." > > ( > http://www.rtcc.org/scientists-warn-earth-cooling-proposals-are-no-climate-silver-bullet/ > ) > > Does anyone know what he is talking about? > > Josh Horton > joshuah...@gmail.com <javascript:> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
