Peter and list:
Two questions:
a. Was there anything on your ideas below in either AR5 or the NCA?
I have not yet read all of either, but have read all I could find in each on
geoengineering. Your concepts below don't fit nicely into the SRM and CDR
camps, but would still seem safe to be called geoengineering. Since not even
mentioned, the going will be hard unless some government agency gets interested.
b. You say in last sentence> ".....restoration of ice cover to
historical levels...." Am I correct that we only need to add enough
ice to get through September? That means adding little near the north pole
and progressively more ice as one moves south (ignoring ice gyres). Maybe
reaching a maximum of 2 meters of man-made ice, but an average added thickness
of (a guess) a meter? This seems likely to be (another guess) 10% as hard as
reaching "historical" levels, which must be an added 3-4 meters everywhere.
I just watched a short 32-year month by month video display on arctic
ice thickness in the last graph at the site given previously:
> https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas
(running at 1/4 speed or twice speed is also interesting to follow)
One thought from watching this video is that there may be some inland,
freshwater ice in Canada that already has disappeared in June or July - that
may be easier to reverse - and get an equivalent albedo effect. Another is
that northern-most Canada is the last place to try to reverse - very thick
there now.
Below the video are some other Arctic-ice-disappearance plots I had
missed before, that support the concept that the NCA and AR5 are not accurately
reporting how fast Arctic ice is disappearing.
Ron
On May 13, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Peter Flynn <peter.fl...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
> Ron et al.,
>
> Some thoughts re geoengineering sea ice:
>
> Sea ice can be made; it has been done in the past, through two methods,
> pumping water on top of existing ice, and spraying water in the air. The
> spray technique is much like making artificial snow at a ski resort. Pumping
> sea water on top of ice is a low energy application: "low lift" pumping of
> high volumes of water is a current practice, for example moving river water
> into settling basins prior to water treatment. This kind of application could
> be easily powered by wind generation. Low lift over successive nights is a
> standard northern technique for making thick ice roads. Spray was used to
> make very thick (> eight meters) ice for drilling platforms.
>
> The concept of making sea ice was discussed in a conceptual study we did some
> years ago of enhancing the downwelling current (North Atlantic Deep Water):
> Zhou and Flynn (2005) Geoengineering downwelling ocean currents; a cost
> estimate, Climatic Change, 71: 203-220.
>
> In both low lift and spray projects the production of ice arises from
> enhancing the rate of heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere, in the winter
> when the northern atmosphere is well below freezing. This in turn would
> enhance the radiation of heat from atmosphere to space. Low lift that puts
> water on top of existing ice gets around the problem with natural ice
> formation that as the ice thickens its own insulating effect increases.
>
> The potential secondary benefit of ice formation is an increase in albedo as
> new ice reflects sunlight in the spring, or seasonal ice that is thickened
> takes longer to melt.
>
> The key unknown at this point is the disposition of salt: does it remain in
> the ice on the surface, or as ice forms does a more concentrated brine find
> its way to the water through microchannels in the ice (as happens when ice
> forms at the bottom of an ice sheet). I regret that I am no longer an active
> researcher, and cannot answer this question.
>
> Andrew Lockley pointed out that if the salt remains in the upper ice it would
> melt in the spring, form pools on the top of the ice, and absorb sunlight.
> However, this does not negate the benefit of the formation of new ice, since
> in the absence of new ice formation there would be sea water in any event.
> Even if pools form on the surface of new ice, the albedo effect is no
> different, and heat has been transferred from ocean to atmosphere. Hence if
> salt is retained in surface made new ice, a program of ice formation could
> focus on creating new ice. If salt flows through microchannels a program of
> ice formation could be extended to thicken seasonal ice as well.
>
> Forming new ice would be "seeded" by spray until a sheet was formed, at which
> point low lift could move far more water on the surface for the same energy
> input.
>
> Moving vast quantities of water around in very cold conditions is routinely
> practiced in the north, including at oil sands mines in Alberta.
>
> I am a supporter of many forms of geoengineering. The relative merits of sea
> ice formation include the ability to instantly stop the program if a negative
> effect is encountered, and the ability to target restoration of ice cover to
> historical levels.
>
> Peter
>
> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> University of Alberta
> peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
> cell: 928 451 4455
>
>
>
>
>
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ronal W. Larson
> Sent: May-08-14 4:12 PM
> To: Geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Re: NCA3
>
> List:
>
> 1. This is the promised additional thoughts re Arctic Ice after
> skimming http://www.globalchange.gov/ . I somehow lost two earlier
> versions of this, and have limited time today, so this is shorter than I had
> before. I'd be glad to give other cites on this topic, should anyone want
> more.
>
> Overall, I am not that unhappy with the NCA report. It is a step
> forward. Commendably, there is a great deal in this report on Arctic ice.
> But this report underplays the very likely very early disappearance of
> September Arctic ice. Using terms like "mid century" is harmful. The ice
> data, even somewhat in this NCA itself if you look carefully, indicates we
> will see very little ice later this decade - more than thirty years earlier
> than the report suggests.
>
> A word search will find "Arctic ice" twice in the first two-page
> summary - but not indicating any special concern. More than 250 other
> occurrences in the 850 pages also show no special concern about Arctic ice -
> I presume because to (most?) everyone involved that "zero" ice is
> (incorrectly) seen as way off.
>
> 2. A further word search will find my preferred Arctic ice
> expert - Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski's name (only) once - in the chapter on
> Alaska. This leads one to a fine 2012 paper that is surprisingly NOT behind
> a pay wall:
> http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105345
> from which Figure 9 is:
>
> <image001.png>
>
> Even though the last data point is in 2008, a zeroing of Ice is
> shown well before 2020. The symbol "ON" stand for an average of
> October-November, while most "minimum" data is for (the warmer) September.
> The whole article is mainly on why most global models are so far off in
> everything related to Arctic ice - exactly what I am claiming about NCA and
> AR5.
>
> 3. To get more recent measured data I recommend this site
> https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
> and then the third site from bottom in the right column
> https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas
> from which his first plot is one good representation:
>
>
> <image002.png>
>
>
>
> As most on this list know, 2013 reversed a trend (largely for
> early unusual cloud reasons, I believe). But note that all six of the years
> since the earlier graph are lower than any there. The start of 2014 to date
> (the end of the 2013 cycle) is very near the record low for Piomas data. So
> ice thickness is still balancing ice extent - on the way for both to zero.
>
> 4. When we talk of "essentially" gone, we need consensus on
> whether this is 5% or 10% of peak - which can knock a year or two off of
> "zero". So "zeroing" this decade (6 years off) seems a certainty to me And
> the extent/area is guaranteed to be zero as well - not many decades off, as
> advertised in the NCA (and AR5).
>
> How can it be otherwise?
>
> Did these NCA and AR5 reports fail to get an important message
> across? Prof. Flynn, who responded yesterday on this, has earlier offered
> some ideas on saving that ice.
>
> Ron
> --
> 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/d/optout.
--
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/d/optout.
