The problem of usage of massive explosions would generate a shock waves that thrust tongue of water rapidly under ice sheet or shelf forcing them to disintegrate. Ice is softer than rocks and running water is the first to respond generating a pressure wave tsunami, followed by implosion as the epicentre collapses in. Together these would create waves of certain fast amplitude, but as storm surges and even tides bend ice shelves and calve icebergs, the damage could push the calving front quite bit inland where the higher ice heft makes it also more prone to collapse under its own weight. The acoustic boom would carry very far in ocean and be harmful to sea life, much more than ship engine noise and the oil exploration explosions for acoustic studies. The mega erratic slabs pushed by warmed and wet ice sheets and glaciers are several magnitudes larger than any human object ever made. ________________________________ From: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> Sent: 02 August 2018 11:42 To: Ken Caldeira Cc: Albert Kallio; geoengineering Subject: Re: FW: [geo] Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise?
The Russian civil engineering operations would be a good place to start. I expect there were some calculations, which may still be available. Various blasts were conducted, providing real world case studies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosion Large earth moving operations have similarly been conducted in the South China Sea, using non-nuclear technologies http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5047041/Beijing-s-giant-island-building-machine-South-China-Sea.html Andrew Lockley On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, 10:03 Ken Caldeira, <kcalde...@gmail.com<mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com>> wrote: Andrew, At this point we are looking for actual geomechanical analysis with numbers. Piling speculation upon speculation is not helpful. Best, Ken On Wed, Aug 1, 2018, 08:28 Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote: Large explosive charges, tens or hundreds of metres beneath the sea bed, would create a crater with an elevated ring of debris. This ring would tend to jam ice in an otherwise smooth sea bed, if it was tall enough to protrude into the surface waters. I understand that the Russians had a significant, although experimental, programme of civil engineering using nuclear explosives in the early cold War. Andrew On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, 07:18 Ken Caldeira, <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>> wrote: Below is what I wrote to a writer for the Atlantic, Robinson Meyer: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/01/a-new-geo-engineering-proposal-to-stop-sea-level-rise/550214/ What got into the piece was: Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, said that he would want to hear from engineers before investing further in a seafloor plan. “Without some numbers and some consultation with engineers, it is just a modeling thought experiment,” he said in an email. “I do not have the expertise to evaluate this proposal, but I am quite skeptical.” [https://plus.google.com/u/0/_/focus/photos/private/AIbEiAIAAABECLvCroL3gNzIywEiC3ZjYXJkX3Bob3RvKihhMTY2YWE5ZjIwZmFmZmMwMmNiOTJlMTExYjg4OTdjODBmMGQ4ZmYxMAEwB_eKbIxVpLtZSVR19GTsK6F_vw?sz=48] Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>> Tue, Jan 2, 4:56 PM [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] to Robinson [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] Hi, my initial reaction would be to say that an engineering feat at a scale likely to have a substantial effect on global sea level would be impractical in the real world, but I am saying that without having access to any real numbers. Has the postdoc calculated what pressures the glaciers would be imposing on the sill and what kind of engineered structure would be able to withstand those pressures? Does the postdoc have estimates of the size (height x width) of the artificial sills, and how much sea level rise sills of those scales would be expected to forestall? Without some numbers and some consultation with engineers, it is just a modeling thought experiment. --- One could also imagine, for example, some system to prevent sea-ice from spreading away from the poles towards equators (perhaps a systems of cables or something?). Sea-ice forms closer to the poles and then blows equatorward where it tends to melt. Perhaps sea ice could be maintained by mechanically preventing it from being transported equatorward. One could do a simulation in a climate model and show that this would likely help preserve sea ice, but if there is no real engineering system that could effect this at a conceivable cost, then it is just a modeling thought experiment. Best, Ken [https://plus.google.com/u/0/_/focus/photos/private/AIbEiAIAAABECLvCroL3gNzIywEiC3ZjYXJkX3Bob3RvKihhMTY2YWE5ZjIwZmFmZmMwMmNiOTJlMTExYjg4OTdjODBmMGQ4ZmYxMAEwB_eKbIxVpLtZSVR19GTsK6F_vw?sz=48] Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>> Mon, Jan 8, 8:09 PM [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] to Robinson [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] Robinson, I think you need to talk to people who know about ice sheets, people who know something about material properties of "aggregate material", and people who know something about building structures underwater. I am none of these and so unable to give this any kind of sensible evaluation. Glaciers regularly plow a great deal of material ahead of them, and mountain glaciers routine carve wide swaths through solid rock. My guess is that the stresses that the ice sheet would impose on a bunch of aggregate would be so large the ice sheet would plow right through it but I am not expert on such mechanical properties. I do not have the expertise to evaluate this proposal, but I am quite skeptical. Best, Ken Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology / Carnegie Energy Innovation 260 Panama St, <https://maps.google.com/?q=260+Panama+St,%C2%A0+Stanford+CA+94305+USA+%2B1+650&entry=gmail&source=g> Stanford CA 94305 USA<https://maps.google.com/?q=260+Panama+St,%C2%A0+Stanford+CA+94305+USA+%2B1+650&entry=gmail&source=g> +1 650<https://maps.google.com/?q=260+Panama+St,%C2%A0+Stanford+CA+94305+USA+%2B1+650&entry=gmail&source=g> 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> http://CarnegieEnergyInnovation.org http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab <http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab> Assistant, with access to incoming emails: Jess Barker jbar...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:jbar...@carnegiescience.edu> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:37 AM Veli Albert Kallio <albert_kal...@hotmail.com<mailto:albert_kal...@hotmail.com>> wrote: Our Changing Climate in Action: the Risk of Global Warming and the Environmental Damage from the Rising Ocean Water Table | Sustainable Seas Enquiry | Written evidence submitted by Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS (SSI0121) | Ordered to be published 23 May 2018 by the House of Commons. Abstract: Recently NATURE published a discussion on construction of sills in attempt to prevent or slow melting glaciers that are discharging ice into the ice fjords. Several further papers promptly followed publication of this essentially erroneous article in a respected NATURE magazine. Here it is pointed out that there is a discrepancy of several magnitudes thus excluding a long-term viability to manage the edges of ice fjords or continental ice shelves/sheets due to a phenomenon known as the mega-erratics. These are blocks of hard rocks that are several kilometres in size that have been dislocated by a warmed and wet edges of glacier/ice sheet/ice shelf. This Parliament evidence points out the error that was not apparent to the peer-reviewers at the time and in subsequent papers that followed. The Parliament was shown evidence that large enough obstacles cannot be possibly made to prevent ice discharges due to a progression of melting, that softens and lubricates glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets. The forces unleashed by the ice front exceeds several magnitudes from the conceived objects that sills were proposed. The only, and very only effect is temporary and limited to prevention of warm water incursion where these methods will work for a while in a cold, dry, and relatively stable ice formations. A long-term projections suggested to prevent warmed and water-infested glaciers from discharging ice into the ocean cannot be made as the forces of ice exceed many magnitudes of the sills and levies that can be made of concrete blocks, aggregates or other materials. Thus the prevention of sea level rise by this method for centuries or millennia is not functional one and thus the mitigation and prevention of rubbish gyros in ocean, the supply of housing, nuclear and food production security must be looked at as solution by the ocean littoral states. Several examples of various types of risk to the sustainability of oceans have been presented in addition to the above exposed misconception. This comes with much regret as it appears that one 'hoped-for-solution' to manage the future climate change impacts has largely foundered on the issue that the sills cannot be made strong enough to contain most important, warmed glaciers or edges of unstable ice shelves. However, for a short-term this may offer small-scale solutions provided that costs remain sufficiently small. Aggressively melting ice formations with darkened surfaces, wide spread melt water ponds, or water filled crevasses it does not offer much, if any, prolonged ice stability. (The document is best viewed as a .pdf file due to the lay-out of graph and legends.) https://www.academia.edu/37157851/Our_Changing_Climate_in_Action_the_Risk_of_Global_Warming_and_the_Environmental_Damage_from_the_Rising_Ocean_Water_Table_Sustainable_Seas_Enquiry_Written_evidence_submitted_by_Veli_Albert_Kallio_FRGS_SSI0121_Ordered_to_be_published_23_May_2018_by_the_House_of_Commons [http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]<https://www.academia.edu/37157851/Our_Changing_Climate_in_Action_the_Risk_of_Global_Warming_and_the_Environmental_Damage_from_the_Rising_Ocean_Water_Table_Sustainable_Seas_Enquiry_Written_evidence_submitted_by_Veli_Albert_Kallio_FRGS_SSI0121_Ordered_to_be_published_23_May_2018_by_the_House_of_Commons> Our Changing Climate in Action: the Risk of Global Warming and the Environmental Damage from the Rising Ocean Water Table | Sustainable Seas Enquiry | Written evidence submitted by Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS (SSI0121) | Ordered to be published 23 May<https://www.academia.edu/37157851/Our_Changing_Climate_in_Action_the_Risk_of_Global_Warming_and_the_Environmental_Damage_from_the_Rising_Ocean_Water_Table_Sustainable_Seas_Enquiry_Written_evidence_submitted_by_Veli_Albert_Kallio_FRGS_SSI0121_Ordered_to_be_published_23_May_2018_by_the_House_of_Commons> Recently NATURE published a discussion on construction of sills in attempt to prevent or slow melting glaciers that are discharging ice into the ice fjords. Several further papers promptly followed publication of this essentially erroneous article in www.academia.edu<http://www.academia.edu> ________________________________ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com<mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> Sent: 27 July 2018 10:08 To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise? Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise? Michael J. Wolovick1 and John C. Moore2,3 1Atmosphere and Ocean Sciences Program, Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, GFDL, 201 Forrestal Road,<https://maps.google.com/?q=201+Forrestal+Road,+%0D%0A+Princeton,+NJ+08540,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g> Princeton, NJ 08540, USA<https://maps.google.com/?q=201+Forrestal+Road,+%0D%0A+Princeton,+NJ+08540,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g> <https://maps.google.com/?q=201+Forrestal+Road,+%0D%0A+Princeton,+NJ+08540,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g> 2College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China 3Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Finland Correspondence: M.J. Wolovick (wolov...@princeton.edu<mailto:wolov...@princeton.edu>) Abstract. The Marine Ice Sheet Instability (MISI) is a dynamic feedback that can cause an ice sheet to enter a runaway collapse. Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica, is the largest individual source of future sea level rise and may have already entered the MISI. Here, we use a suite of coupled ice–ocean flowband simulations to explore whether targeted geoengineering using an artificial sill or artificial ice rises could counter a collapse. Successful interventions occur when the floating ice shelf regrounds 5 on the pinning points, increasing buttressing and reducing ice flux across the grounding line. Regrounding is more likely with a continuous sill that is able to block warm water transport to the grounding line. The smallest design we consider is comparable in scale to existing civil engineering projects but has only a 30% success rate, while larger designs are more effective. There are multiple possible routes forward to improve upon the designs that we considered, and with decades or more to research designs it is plausible that the scientific community could come up with a plan that was both effective and achievable. While 10 reducing emissions remains the short-term priority for minimizing the effects of climate change, in the long run humanity may need to develop contingency plans to deal with an ice sheet collapse. -- 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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
