After reading as much as I had time for, it looks like a zero risk of side effect option compared to SRM, and crazy to dismiss it. Unless the IPCC does not recognize the urgency of preventing a blue arctic ocean.
Thanks, Gilles de Brouwer cell 562-522-6856 gdebrou...@gmail.com On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 8:58 PM Ronal Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > Robert, Steven, Peter, John - with ccs: > > 1. Thanks to Robert for this additional information below on Prof. Desch > and others. The following is to keep this dialog alive for a bit longer. > > 2. The topic of added arctic ice formation was on this list some years > ago. Much of the expertise was then coming from Prof. Peter Flynn - based > on his 2005 paper with S. Zhou - no-fee download possible at: > > http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs/Climatechange/Carbon%20sequestration/Zhou%20anf%20Flynn.pdf > 3. Some of us made (via a home freezer) and discussed the visual > appearance of a salty layer on top of the normal relatively-salt-free ocean > ice layer. But this Arctic ice topic was dropped on this list. Good to > see its return. > > 4. I have now read and followed-up on the 2017 Prof. Desch paper noted > below by Robert Tulip. I was pleased to see a great deal more valuable data > on arctic ice loss and gain. This paper did not mention the earlier Peter > Flynn material. > > 5. Using Wiki, I found five more papers referencing the Desch paper > (which is cited at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_geoengineering) > along with the Zhou - Flynn cite. The next two papers are similar in > brief follow-ups to Desch - but nothing on the hardware topic of this note. > I don’t sense any great concerns. > https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EF001230 > https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/77851/1/Accepted_Manuscript.pdf > ` > 6. Getting to my main point - I think (along with Prof. Flynn) that it > should be more economical to have the ice-making machinery be mobile - > rather than fixed to a buoy. Flynn was thinking a barge. I agree with > that for some ice-making, but I am also thinking something with a strong > similarity to what is described at > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceboat as > > *"An iceboat (occasionally spelled ice boat or traditionally called an ice > yacht) is a recreational or competition sailing craft supported on metal > runners for traveling over ice."* > > > Other from Wiki: > - This “yacht” at one time held the world speed record - and practical > business use goes back hundreds of years > > - The end of the second Wiki paragraph under “Venues” gives encouragement > on being > able to drop the Desch system weight and cost by more than an order of > magnitude. > * "This type of craft was accessible to sportsmen of modest means. > (Emphasis added)* > > - I guess that such an ice-thickening machine could also be made or > assembled close to the Arctic (or on a large ice-making boat?), therefore > with minimal cost for transport. Also using mostly carbon - neutral > materials (wood and carbon fiber - stronger than steel), > > - Many topics need further discussion - such as tie-downs, adding > solar PV, ratio of self vs central control, escape from a "freeze-in”, > etc. > > Thoughts on mobile vs fixed ice-making pumpers?? > > Ron > > > On Aug 20, 2021, at 6:28 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > Hi Kevin – in reply to your 12 August comment on Arctic wind pumps to > thicken sea ice to increase albedo, I felt your description of this > technology against the Rumsfeld epistemology was a bit flippant in view of > its potential importance as a cost-effective contribution to planetary > cooling. I don’t accept your assertion that Arctic sea ice is fatally > doomed. > > I see you have worked with Sev Clarke on his Ice Shield ideas (link > <http://www.2greenenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Climate-Restorationv4d.pdf>), > and am interested to know whether innovative methods can overcome the > challenges you mention. > > After reading your comment I returned to read Desch et al. (2017), *Arctic > Ice Management*, (free link > <https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000410>), > which is the most prominent analysis of the Arctic wind pump sea ice > concept. Steve Desch is a Professor of Astrophysics at Arizona State > University. > > This article presents suggestions that are quite different from your > alleged “known knowns”, even accepting that you were responding to my > slightly wild ‘bomb dispersal’ aircraft deployment idea. A key idea is to > target locations along the fringe of the sea ice in early winter, rather > than to deploy across the whole Arctic. There is no point deploying where > ice will not melt away in summer, or where the ice melts early. The line > of late melting ice can gradually be extended each year. I have added my > interpretation of this to the attached file from Desch’s TEDx talk. > > Desch suggests that small scale trials in northern Canada can test this > concept, including in location where charismatic megafauna are under > threat. It is amazing that this paper appears like so many geoengineering > suggestions to have fallen dead-born from the press, when it appears to > present a practical, safe, cheap and natural way to protect the Arctic > ecology and the planetary climate. One commentary > <https://eos.org/opinions/implications-of-sea-ice-management-for-arctic-biogeochemistry> > last year appears (typically) to exaggerate the risks and ignore the > benefits. > > I am not an engineer, so am just presenting ideas that could be readily > refuted if they are wrong. With Arctic wind pumping, I would like to know > if a mechanical pumping system could achieve better results than an > electric turbine pump. I would also like to know if flexible materials > rather than steel can work for a wind pump, so it would bend like a tree > and would be lighter and cheaper to build. > > Desch has a superb 2017 TEDx talk on this material - > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD1QJrw6xjo I have included screen shots > from his talk in the attached file to show the concept. I have added my > understanding of the wind pump deployment line, in the diagram of ice > thickness, along the boundary of 1.5 metre ice. > > My interest in related topics started with investigation of tidal pumping > a few years ago. It might be possible for tidal pumps to also contribute > to Arctic ice thickening. > > Regards > Robert > > > *From:* Kevin Lister <kevin.lister2...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, 12 August 2021 10:02 PM > *To:* Robert Tulip <rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au> > *Cc:* Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>; > geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Subject:* Re: [geo] RE: IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers > > To answer Robert's comments on not seeing a downside to his proposal, and > in the immortal intellectual framework of a previous Secretary of Defence: > > There are known knowns, these are: > > > > - If you are dropping wind turbines out of a plane, then best guess is > that these would have a maximum power output of 2kW, or thereabouts. If > they successfully land and penetrate the ice and start pumping, and the > water forms a volcano shaped dome, with an inclination angle of 0.1 deg, > then it will take a approximately 161 days to grow a cone that is 3 meters > high at the pump, and it will have a radius of 1.7km. It would then take > about 107,000 of these to cover the ice sheet. That's a lot and probably > far more than all the planes of the US strategic deployment force can > deliver at the beginning of winter. Even if this is successful, a > significant number will be released from the edge of the ice in summer, say > 10%, so approximately 10,000 will float around in the ocean. > > > Then there are known unknowns, these are: > > > - You do not know the angle that the water will settle on the ice, > - You do not know what shape the ice will form around the pump, it is > likely to be a more complex and irregular doughnut shape. The mathematics > behind this is extremely complicated, and after about a year's effort I > managed only a partial solution before giving up. > - You do not know what effect the continual heat flow from the > subsurface water being pumped onto the existing ice surface will have. In > extremis, the pumps could cause the ice adjacent to them to melt so all > they end up doing is pumping water into water. > - Even if there are solutions to all of these, there is the practical > engineering matter of establishing the reliability of the pumps, especially > when they are to operate in the Arctic winter which is both cold, dark and > inaccessible. > > > Then there are the unknown unknowns, these are: > > > - With the heat flow into the Arctic from the lower latitudes, then > getting reliable and consistent ice formation, even in the depths of > winter, may no longer be possible. > - Ice formed on the surface of existing ice is of a totally different > structure to ice naturally formed by freezing downwards from the existing > ice. This new ice may have a structure more like glass and be of > low albedo, so in the summer it could act as a miniature greenhouse on the > existing ice, which is also being warmed from below, thus accelerating the > loss of existing ice when it is needed the most. This would be the > worst case scenario. We prevent heat release in the winter and minimise > albedo in the summer. > - It is now as big an issue to release heat from the planet as it is > to stop more heat coming in. Given that the Arctic sea ice is now fatally > doomed, an alternative is to accept this and smash up the remaining ice in > the winter with icebreakers to allow the most rapid release of heat to > space, at an estimated rate ~500W/m^2 > > > This is not to say that we should not increase planetary albedo and find > ways to release heat. We clearly must do it. I maintain that the safe > temperature rise is less than 0.5degC above baseline, which we passed > through in 1980. But we should be under no illusions that this is going to > be simple and absent of scientific and engineering risks. > > Finally, and as you point out, carbon removal will be slow. The natural > rate of removal is so slow as to not be measurable against CO2 emissions > and the paleoclimate records that the AR6 is now taking more notice of > indicates it will take about 250k years for CO2 to fall back to safe > levels. So, as well as exploring all viable albedo and heat releasing > mechanisms, we must immediately and simultaneously find ways to > decarbonise. > > Kevin > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:16 PM 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > I thought it was pretty bad that the IPCC report > <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf> > states > as its headline B.1 finding that "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be > exceeded during the 21st century *unless* deep reductions in CO2 and > other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades." > > It should rather state "Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded > during the 21st century *even if* deep reductions in CO2 and other > greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades." (my bold) > > As the NOAA AGGI report <https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/> states, CO2 > equivalents are now above 500 ppm. Emission reduction, technically defined, > only reduces the future addition of GHGs to the system, and does nothing to > remove the committed warming from past emissions. Leading scientists (eg > Eelco Rohling) think past emissions already commit the planet to 2°C. > > Even a major program of carbon conversion, transforming CO2 into useful > commodities such as soil and fabric, would do nothing to stop the > escalation of extreme weather this decade. Carbon removal is too small and > slow, despite having orders of magnitude greater potential cooling impact > than decarbonisation of the world economy. > > My view is the only immediate solution is to brighten the planet. Albedo > enhancement should start by pumping sea water onto the Arctic sea ice in > winter to freeze and reduce the summer melt using wind energy (diagram > attached). Marine cloud brightening is the next best option, followed by > areas that need considerably more impact research such as stratospheric > aerosol injection and iron salt aerosol. > > It is a disgrace that the IPCC seems to have entirely written off this > whole area of response, with no scientific reasoning as to why. > > I understand that people find climate intervention for planetary > restoration a rather mind-boggling idea and would prefer it were not > needed. The problem is that extreme weather is steadily getting worse, and > cutting emissions through the energy transition can do nothing to stop it. > The overall issue is to define a scientific response to climate policy. > That means relying on evidence to define the most safe and effective > methods to support ongoing climate stability. Sadly AR6 squibbed that > challenge. > > Much of the public policy relies on other factors as well as science. > Notably this is about public perceptions rather than empirical assessment. > But that means the climate activist community will no longer be able to use > the mantra "the science says" to oppose geoengineering, as Michael Mann and > Bill McKibben and others now do. > > I think the factors that could change public opinion quite quickly include > the idea that immediate action to refreeze the Arctic is essential to > maintain stability of main ocean currents. I was very perturbed to see the > report > last week on the slowing down of the AMOC Atlantic Meridional Overturning > Circulation > <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/climate-crisis-scientists-spot-warning-signs-of-gulf-stream-collapse> > and > Gulf Stream collapse, with potential disasters for the world economy and > ecology. > > The linked press report suggested that decarbonising the economy is "the > only thing to do" to prevent the AMOC from stopping. That is an absurdly > unscientific opinion. It just fails to see that such natural processes > require action at orders of magnitude bigger scale than the marginal effect > of slowing down how much carbon we add to the air. > > If steps were taken to fully refreeze the Arctic Ocean, perhaps with the > quid pro quo of including transpolar shipping canals > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpolar_Sea_Route>through the ice, the > scale would be big enough to stop the dangerous looming tipping points of > accelerating feedback warming. Alongside AMOC, big problems such as polar > methane release, wandering of the jet stream and melting of the Greenland > Ice Sheet are also well beyond what decarbonisation can prevent. > > I really don't see any downside to such a freezing proposal, which should > be an Apollo-type world peace project led by the G20. The climate activist > community sees it as enabling a slower transition to renewables, but surely > buying time in this way is entirely a good thing if it means we actually > stabilise the climate? > > Robert Tulip > > *From:* carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com < > carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Robert Cormia > *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 August 2021 4:32 AM > *To:* chris.vivian2 <chris.vivi...@btinternet.com> > *Cc:* Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> > *Subject:* Re: [CDR] IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers > > It took decades to get the public's attention about the clear and present > danger of climate change, through extreme weather events, historic fires, > and sea level rise. CDR is entering the dialog, slowly, it needs to > accelerate. Newscasters could add a simple soundbite "net zero emissions > and CO2 removal" as strategies, not just "clean energy and electric cars" > How do we gain the public's awareness, much less attention, that putting a > speed brake on emissions requires CDR, and restoring energy balance > (addressing energy imbalance) is our best potential/feasible solution? > > -rdc > > On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 2:48 AM 'chris.vivian2' via Carbon Dioxide Removal < > carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > In the IPCC AR6 Summary for Policymakers published today, see sections > D.1.4 to D.1.6 on page 40 where it mentions CDR - > https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf. > Chris > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/d2ad5678-cf60-4af2-8968-3233344509f5n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/d2ad5678-cf60-4af2-8968-3233344509f5n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CA%2B-rYQEG6iTG9qVC3GD-H5n6JdCBP%3Dwe3T24P-%2BUz6BR3E%2BhNg%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CA%2B-rYQEG6iTG9qVC3GD-H5n6JdCBP%3Dwe3T24P-%2BUz6BR3E%2BhNg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/012c01d78ea2%2457f06f20%2407d14d60%24%40yahoo.com.au > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/012c01d78ea2%2457f06f20%2407d14d60%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/01e401d795be%24e56ba180%24b042e480%24%40yahoo.com.au > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/01e401d795be%24e56ba180%24b042e480%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > <Slides from Desch TEDx Arctic Wind Pump.pptx> > > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/3459C54A-9937-4443-8015-1C9701224AF3%40comcast.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/3459C54A-9937-4443-8015-1C9701224AF3%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAGQ2tEqPm%2B%2Bj%3DjB3TFyd-OaqoeSma5ovYtzLJVN-pwZT8cShvA%40mail.gmail.com.
