On Aug 12, 2021, at 5:01 AM, Kevin Lister <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> *On Behalf Of
*Robert Cormia
*Sent:* Tuesday, 10 August 2021 4:32 AM
*To:* chris.vivian2 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:* Carbon Dioxide Removal
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<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
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAE%3DUiezcG6_KoUsZMQN4jGfV1MA4EEVmmn_L_%2BHjqq3P6bok1g%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAE%3DUiezcG6_KoUsZMQN4jGfV1MA4EEVmmn_L_%2BHjqq3P6bok1g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
