Some comments, see below in blue bold. Sev William S. Clarke BA, BSc, (Melb) MBA (Stanford) T: +613 5426 1330 M: 0431 488 506 E: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Skype: willow7777777 P: PO Box 16, Mt Macedon, VIC 3441, Australia Managing Director, Winwick Business Solutions Pty Ltd.
> On 22 Aug 2021, at 6:53 am, Kevin Lister <[email protected]> wrote: > > Okay Robert, > > So in further answer to your comments, and I write these as an engineer and a > mathematician: > > Steve Desch's TED presentation and powerpoints are indeed very compelling. > However, the final summary statement from Steve in his closing remarks is > that we don't have much time and his presentation was made in 2017, and four > years of time have now passed. The super exponential rate of change that has > occured in the Arctic during this time, driven by interacting feedback > mechanisms, has most likely rendered the concept unachievable. So, while it > might have worked if we had started it in 1980 when Peter Wadhams first > measured ice loss, I would suspect it would be unlikely to be effective now > given the heat flow into the Arctic and the concentration of this heat in the > upper surface of the ocean. Put simply, it is difficult to thicken ice in a > hot bath tub. Thickening sea ice will remain possible whilst it forms in > winter. This is likely to remain the case for some decades, though the window > is narrowing. As we manage to thicken and ground more sea ice, thickening > still more should become possible. > > The concept may have been to thicken ice only on the edges of the ice sheet, > but the width of the edge to be thickened would necessarily have to be quite > wide. It certainly would not be a narrow strip a couple of hundred meters > wide, more likely that strip would need to be many tens of miles wide, > perhaps hundreds of miles wide, and as the graphic shows that Steve > presented, the edge of the sea ice is not a smooth line but a twisting and > elongated line that is constantly changing, thus the circumference is long. > Whilst sea ice might be thickened and grounded most easily in shallow water > near to land (growing it outwards from the coast thereafter in subsequent > years), it can also be thickened with floating (and probably mobile) ice > shield arrays wherever sea ice forms in winter. This would be of most use in > the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Consequently, the area of thick and > permanent ice that would not need thickening is likely to be small, and > limited to the last bits of permanent ice immediately north of Greenland. It > is also important to note that the summer ice that is left only has a > reasonably large surface area because it breaks up into small pieces that are > mobile and this is not evident on the satellite images of summer ice. > > In the graphic that you included, it shows a 10kW pump. That's not a lot of > power to pump water. In the quick calculations I did previously a 10 kW pump > operating for about 120 days, which is the most optimistic estimate for the > available pumping time would be capable of thickening ice to 2.33 meters > thick at the pumping unit and achieving a radius of 700 meters assuming that > it formed a cone with a 1deg angle and the base ice was 1 meter thick. This > assumes that the pump is so designed that the water flows immediately only to > the ice and disperses on the surface, which was the basis of the engineering > proposals that I looked at. On the grade scale of the Arctic Ocean, that's a > negligible contribution and it ignores the plethora of other problems that I > listed previously, such as the different ice structure that will form and the > impact of the heat flow from the ocean onto the surface of the naturally > formed ice. In my Ice Shield concept, I envisage 2.5MW wind turbines each > powering many satellite pumping stations, each station thickening its > encasing, lenticular ice shield by up to 80m/year nearest the pumping > station. Each ice shield might eventually have a radius of perhaps 1.2km and > would fuse onto the adjacent three shields in hexagonal close-packing, > leaving polynyas between them, some of which would be inhabited by wind > turbines. Arctic waters up to several hundred metres deep might eventually be > covered in grounded ice shield arrays. The excess brine flowing off the > perimeter of each ice shield would carry substantial amounts of dissolved CO2 > and O2 to the seabed, where the CO2 would react with seabed carbonates to > form benign, dissolved bicarbonate - thereby sequestering surface ocean and > atmospheric CO2 safely for the long term. > > As I said before, the structure of the ice formation under this regime is > extremely difficult to predict and it is unlikely to end up as a symmetric > and well defined cone. Agreed The ultimate shape depends on complex heat flow > calculations, mass dispersal, and requires a difficult application of Fourier > analysis to solve. I managed to get a partial solution, but was not happy > that I was moving in anything like a robust direction, and it seems to me > that significant computer simulation is needed to establish the feasibility. > Practical experimentation might be better, as an intermittent pumping regime > together with directed flows could create many different shapes. > > In answer to your question about having mechanical pumps or electrical pumps, > I would say that it does not matter. It is the generation of power in a > hostile environment that is the problem. Steve's proposals are based on a > huge number of inefficient power systems which creates difficult logistics > problems, and Sev's proposals are based on megawatt scale wind turbines which > would be almost impossible to engineer for reliable operation in an Arctic > environment I disagree. Engineers can do amazing things, even in hostile > environments and wind turbines are already working in polar and sub-polar > environments. Moreover, the formation of the grounded ice arrays would itself > obviate hostility from wave, current and translocation. The different > solutions and approaches simply trade a different set of problems. If you > were to have electrical power systems, you would need subsea (or on ice) > cables to transmit the power, and if the ice started breaking up and moving > around, then the power cables would break even if you were able to lay them > at the beginning of the freezing season. If you had purely mechanical > systems, such as a direct driven pumping system, you would need to have a > method of ensuring that you do not have an ice build up in the event of cold > and clear windless days. I looked at having a subsea pump (is good) and an > insulation system, with accumulators to provide energy to keep the water > flowing in periods of low wind (better to have the seawater in the pumping > tube flow back to the warmer sea in periods of low wind, plus having > electrical de-icing elements where needed), but the system quickly gets very > complicated. > > In answer to your question of flexible materials being of help, the answer is > that this is unlikely to help. Wind turbine blades are already designed with > resilience and flexibility built in, but that flexibility has to be carefully > calibrated against the expected loads. If you design a slender structure like > a turbine blade with too much flexibility, then you will get flutter in the > blades and a catastrophic failure. > > So yes, have small scale trials in Canada and see how the ice forms on > preexisting sea ice and see how long it lasts over the summer. There's > nothing wrong with doing research and we looked into this. But small scale > trials will not solve the logistics and engineering problems associated with > a large scale deployment, and before investing time on small scale > experiments which are still likely to be very expensive, it is worth > investigating the science and engineering of this when deployed at scale and > checking some basic energy requirements. And even before you do small scale > experiments, there is significant documentation on artificial ice formation > from the oil industry's past history of building ice islands in the Arctic > for drilling, and it's not too encouraging for climate restoration purposes > and proposals being advocated. That is partly because gasoil drillers used > flooding seawater rather than intermittent pumping to produce a low-angle, > ice ‘volcanic’ cone off which flowed residual brine. > > As has been the thrust of this discussion thread, even under the absolute > best case scenario of zero carbon by 2050 (not net-zero), it would take at > least two hundred years for CO2 to fall to 300ppm, (maybe not if we use > combinations of Ice Shields, Buoyant Flakes, Seatomiser and Fiztop > technologies, plus strong mitigation. Deployed at scale we still should be > able to cool the planet and go below 300ppm this century, depending somewhat > on how far beyond and how many other tipping points are passed in the > meanwhile) and that assumes a huge number of variables such as the ongoing > sustainable strength of carbon sinks and even this wildly optimistic scenario > is far longer than the expected life left in the Arctic ice cap, which once > lost will lead to a significantly different ecosystem that will be unlikely > to able to remove CO2, so it is imperative that we have SRM (Yes, and TRM and > mitigation) and we need to be able to bring the climate back to its condition > before interacting feedback mechanisms were first triggered, so that it is to > a temperature less than 0.5degC of baseline. So while we should explore all > options for SRM, we must equally be quick to dismiss proposals that are not > feasible or cannot be deployed and sustained for ultra long time periods (or > are over-risky and unacceptable by the community, as I judge is SAI and most > space-based methods) and so it is as valid to know what won't work as it is > to know what will Indeed. > > Kevin > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 1:28 PM Robert Tulip <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > <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 <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2021 10:02 PM > To: Robert Tulip <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: Carbon Dioxide Removal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>; geoengineering > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > 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 > <[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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/6438B2C8-0F8C-4BD9-8B56-9A3E8647D8F4%40me.com.
