This is a marvelous concept that is new to me.
Envision a large number of such pipes installed in polar ice sheets. One might focus on two goals. The first would be to lower the temperature of the bottom of the ice sheet in order to promote its growth from the bottom. This has the merit of avoiding the issue of salt in ice: when ice forms at the bottom of an ice sheet the ice itself is low in salt and a brine sinks away from the ice. Would one have to keep sinking the pipe into the ice sheet as the ice thickens. But alternatively, one might simply have a long pipe with the goal of just getting more heat above the ice, to be ultimately radiated away, with a goal of countering deep ocean temperature rise. Interesting technical concept. 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:* January-14-14 6:04 PM *To:* Keith Henson; John Nissen; Peter Flynn *Cc:* RAU greg; Geoengineering *Subject:* Re: [geo] Meanwhile: 'Irreversible' Melting Threatens 'Considerable Increase' to Sea Level Rise Keith etal (adding in John Nissen and Peter Flynn ) 1. Most interesting. I own a solar thermal system with the same heat pipe theory at work - and would have never carried it over to your Pine Island example. This to answer your first question on my part. Thanks. 2. Adding John and Peter because of their interest in the northern equivalent. I think there we are talking of possibly being able also to add ice just below the existing surface layer, so as to maybe add months to the ice area/extent lifetime. Maybe especially to be located where there is known methane below. 3. One beauty is that this is a closed system. Any cites on the liquids used for the Alaska pipeline? Should be able to design something that floats; totally passive. Has potential multi-year usage even if nothing possible during part of the summer. Maybe a gang could be tied together underwater. 4. Answering your second and final question, I would guess that the idea does qualify as “geoengineering” - but not under the SRM or CDR categories. The Oxford dictionary says: · *the deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth’s climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of global warming.* 5. Since you “obviously" need a three-letter acronym, a few possibilities (has to work at both poles, with both long and short pipes) are: “PIM= Polar Ice Making”, “PPI = Polar Passive Ice-Making”, “PHP = Polar Heat Pipe”, “PHI = Polar Heatpipe Ice-making” . These are maybe not inclusive enough terms. Maybe “TET = Thermal Energy Transfer” or “PET=Passive Energy Transfer” or “POC - Passive Ocean Cooling” Best stop until we hear more about past pipeline economics, and more knowledgable feasibility responses than mine. Again thanks. Ron On Jan 14, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhen...@gmail.com> wrote: I wonder if anyone has thought about stopping the Pine Island Glacier by freezing it to bedrock? What it would take is a number of thermal diodes. They were used on the Alaskan pipeline to keep it from sinking over areas of permafrost. All they are is a hole drilled to the bottom of the glacier, lined with a closed end pipe, a heat radiator on the top and a few gallons of propane or ammonia. The way they work is that when the air is colder than the bottom of the pipe, the liquid boils at the bottom, sucking out heat, vapors go up and liquid runs back down. The process stops when it is warmer on top than at the bottom. They are not very expensive, each one (over time) freezes a large area of the glacier to the underlying rock. A floating version can freeze a substantial block of ice out of seawater in the winter. I wonder if this would be considered geoengineering? Keith On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: Greg etal Because this paper is behind a paywall, I can barely glean from their figures that they may be looking at a fifty year time horizon. Did they look at all at either SRM or CDR when using the term “irreversibility? (quotes in the original - why?) Ron On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/13-2 Antarctic Glacier's 'Irreversible' Melting Threatens 'Considerable Increase' to Sea Level Rise New study on Pine Island Glacier shows 'striking vision of the near future,' says co-author - Andrea Germanos, staff writer An Antarctic glacier is melting "irreversibly," offering "a striking vision of the near future," a new study shows. The study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at Pine Island Glacier, the largest single contributor to sea-level rise in the Antarctic. The team of scientists used three ice flow models to look at the glacier's grounding line, which separates the grounded ice sheet from the floating ice shelf. The grounding line, which has already retreated by about 10 kilometers in the last decade, "is probably engaged in an unstable 40 kilometer retreat," the study finds. The glacier "has started a phase of self-sustained retreat and will irreversibly continue its decline," said Gael Durand, a glaciologist with France's Grenoble Alps University and study co-author. Durand says the findings show "a striking vision of the near future. All the models suggest that [the glacier's] recession will not stop, cannot be reversed and that more ice will be transferred into the ocean.” Agence France-Presse adds: A massive river of ice, the glacier by itself is responsible for 20 per cent of total ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet today. On average, it shed 20 billion tonnes of ice annually from 1992-2011, a loss that is likely to increase up to and above 100 billion tonnes each year, said the study. "The Pine Island Glacier shows the biggest changes in this area at the moment, but if it is unstable it may have implications for the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet," Planet Earth Online reports study co-author G. Hilmar Gudmundsson from the National Environment Research Council's British Antarctic Survey as saying. "Currently we see around two millimeters of sea level rise a year, and the Pine Island Glacier retreat could contribute an additional 3.5 - 5 millimeters in the next twenty years, so it would lead to a considerable increase from this area alone. But the potential is much larger," Gudmundsson warned. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
