Ron,
Thanks for these comments. I’ll start with sea ice extent. It is important to realize that there are two effects going on when one makes sea ice. The first is the transfer of heat the atmosphere, which would lead to increased radiation into space, all other things being equal. This takes place wherever incremental ice is made. The second effect is related to albedo, and is less certain. As Andrew Lockley pointed out, this depends on whether the upper layer of ice is salty and melts early. If the salt remains in the surface ice, any program should focus on restoration of the extent (area coverage) of ice, recognizing that the albedo impact will be less significant. If the salt migrates through microchannels into the sea water below the ice, one could thicken ice to historical levels as well as extending its area. However, the double benefit would come from extending the area of ice coverage. Next, I’ll comment on fresh water ice formation. A researcher at the University of Alberta has studied the endangerment of polar bears around Hudson’s Bay due to ice melting two to three weeks earlier than historical records. This limits the polar bears’ access to baby seals, which are critical to them building up sufficient fat (and yikes, doesn’t nature offer tough choices, save a bear and kill a baby seal). Thickening the ice on Hudson’s Bay would have the benefit of heat transfer to the atmosphere, longer ice for polar bears, and perhaps longer albedo (again, depending on salt disposition). If one were to go past historical ice cover it might impact the ecosystem in ways we don’t understand (a merit of ice making is that one can control the extent to restoration rather than incremental coverage, in time or area). However, one could also flood land in the north with fresh water, retarding the time of melt and increasing the duration of high albedo. Finally, I did not see any coverage of the concept of making ice in the recent documents, although I did not do an extensive search. I think the concept of making ice has far less traction than aerosols, despite the fact that making ice is a common practice in the north with well documented processes. 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:* Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net] *Sent:* May-13-14 10:53 AM *To:* Peter Flynn *Cc:* Geoengineering *Subject:* Re: Sea Ice 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/<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.
