For global surface area, the Queen Elizabeth Islands are diminishing small. If the traffic conditions justified on the North West passage, installation on suspension cabling (which are used for bridges) could be implemented to create web of cabling that is mounted to islands and sea floor that would stop the ice movement into the shipping line. Behind the artificial pack ice a congestion of sea ice could form that might extend hundreds of kilometres. The same could be implemented on both northern and southern side, but the justification would be to keep the shipping line clear of ice floes to extend the navigate season and prevent damage to the ships.
However, the opening of North East Passage for wide spaces needs only ice breakers, light houses and rescue stations with no mechanism to manage sea ice. For geoengineering purposes the cables between islands will no longer work as for example Franz Joseph Land the melt line has moved beyond the archipelago to the Arctic Basin. Back in 2005-2008 these ideas seemed viable but now the complete melting surpasses all these islands. I prefer any money saved, would go for renewable energy projects instead. The ships can easily take the east passage to the Pacific Ocean and spare funds spent for CO2 mitigation measures... > Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:17:06 -0400 > Subject: Re: [geo] UK Parliament report on Arctic CE (House of Commons - > Environmental Audit (Hg.) (2012): Protecting the Arctic) > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > That Arctic clouds are causing warming in the winter suggests that > consideration ought to be given to using weather modification techniques > presently applied to clearing wintertime fogs, so seeding ice clouds. The > idea would be to do enough of this in the right places to allow greater > surface cooling. The problem, I imagine, is that with any air motion at all, > the clearing would likely only last for hours (at best) and so have to be > redone on ongoing basis, which is very likely just too costly. > > I wonder if it might be possible to apply wintertime cloud clearing in some > potential chokepoints to buildup sea ice thickness and thus limit flow of > the sea ice out of the Canadian archipelago, etc.? Or maybe do over Hudson's > Bay, the Labrador Sea, Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, etc. to help strengthen sea > ice in these regions? > > Of course, given the Parliamentarians apparent interest in long-term > solutions, this type of approach would not qualify--really only potentially > useful if there is strong mitigation that will soon be pulling emissions way > down and so allow termination of this approach after several decades. > > Mike > > > > > On 9/24/12 7:02 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenvaud/171/17105. > > htm#a11 > > > > Extract > > > > GEO-ENGINEERING > > > > 47. The Arctic Methane Emergency Group called for urgent intervention > > by governments to avoid tipping points being reached.[176] Given that > > there was "nothing in nature that can come to our help",[177] the > > Group called on governments to "intervene by cooling the Arctic, > > principally by using geo-engineering techniques; ... [these] > > techniques have natural analogues which suggest that they should be > > safe and effective ... if their deployment [avoided] unwanted > > side-effects".[178] They called for the urgent application of a > > combination of three geo-engineering technologies: spraying aerosols > > into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight away, cloud brightening > > using salt-spray also to increase reflection, and cloud removal to > > allow heat radiation into space. They also called for the use of > > methane capture technologies such as 'methane mats'.[179] > > > > 48. There was some differences of view in the evidence we received > > about whether geo-engineering in principle was a credible long-term > > solution. Professor Wadhams saw geo-engineering as a "sticking > > plaster" until the forcing of climate warming is tackled,[180] and > > John Nissen believed that the costs would be "hundreds of millions > > rather than many billions per year".[181] On the other hand, if such > > applications were subsequently stopped, the planet would warm up more > > quickly to where it would have been without geo-engineering, rather > > than the gradual warming otherwise expected.[182] Professor Lenton > > told us that "if you go down that path, you are committing not just > > the next generation but tens of generations potentially to keep doing > > that". He believed that it was important that economic modelling of > > geo-engineering costs included the "possible damages or risk factors" > > and a "critical look at those very few existing studies as to whether > > they have really quantified [them]".[183] > > > > 49. There was consensus that even if geo-engineering techniques could > > be used, they first required further development and were not ready > > for immediate deployment.[184] Professor John Latham of University > > Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, USA and colleagues > > believed that as "key climate processes remain poorly understood, > > existing models are unable to provide a reliable means of quantifying > > the magnitude of changes that may occur".[185] Professor Lenton told > > us that advocates of geo-engineering techniques who suggest "meddling > > with Arctic cloud cover", do not necessarily realise that during the > > dark Arctic winter clouds generally warmed rather than cooled the > > atmosphere.[186] Overall, due diligence was needed to understand all > > the consequences of such techniques,[187] including impacts on > > rainfall,[188] weather patterns[189] and reduced incoming > > sunlight.[190] Professor Latham and colleagues believed that any > > geo-engineering scheme "needs to have its concepts rigorously > > challenged and then undergo rigorous, peer reviewed testing and > > scrutiny before any consideration of its use takes place".[191] > > > > 50. Geo-engineering techniques for the Arctic at present do not offer > > a credible long-term solution for tackling climate change. Further > > research is needed to understand how such techniques work and their > > wider impacts on climate systems. In the meantime, therefore, we > > remain unconvinced that using 'technical fixes' is the right approach > > and efforts should not be diverted from tackling the fundamental > > drivers of global climate change. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
