Some thoughts.
1. The work Songjian Zhou and I did envisioned unmanned barges equipped with high lift/spray and low lift pump capability, the former to help form new ice (as was done in making ice islands for drilling platforms in the Beaufort Sea), the latter moving a far higher volume of water onto the ice surface. Both technologies are well proven. 2. We envisioned summer retrieval of barges for annual maintenance. This would involve cutting them out of ice. The alternative is servicing by helicopter. Some maintenance program will be required. 3. Heuristic arguments that the project is too big or the Arctic too cold frustrate me. Neither are true. I have found far too many unsupported “that won’t work” comments in the field of geoengineering. I have personal experience with work on a northern project (-40 in the winter) with a capital value in excess of $15 billion. As was already noted: this can be engineered. 4. Salt disposition (does it stay in the surface formed ice or migrate through microchannels, as brine, through the ice) remains an interesting question, but no reason not to do a physical experiment. 5. Ron, thanks for observing that our 2005 work seemed to fall off the map as far as references go. I’m retired and long past the annual faculty review process. Best, Peter Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 1 928 451 4455 [email protected] *From:* Ronal Larson <[email protected]> *Sent:* Sunday, August 22, 2021 9:58 PM *To:* [email protected]; [email protected]; Peter Flynn < [email protected]>; John Nissen <[email protected]> *Cc:* Kevin Lister <[email protected]>; via geoengineering < [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Planetary Restoration < [email protected]> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Arctic Wind Pump Robert, Steven, Peter, John - with ccs: 1. Thanks to Robert for this additional information below on Prof. Desch and others. The following is to keep this dialog alive for a bit longer. 2. The topic of added arctic ice formation was on this list some years ago. Much of the expertise was then coming from Prof. Peter Flynn - based on his 2005 paper with S. Zhou - no-fee download possible at: http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs/Climatechange/Carbon%20sequestration/Zhou%20anf%20Flynn.pdf 3. Some of us made (via a home freezer) and discussed the visual appearance of a salty layer on top of the normal relatively-salt-free ocean ice layer. But this Arctic ice topic was dropped on this list. Good to see its return. 4. I have now read and followed-up on the 2017 Prof. Desch paper noted below by Robert Tulip. I was pleased to see a great deal more valuable data on arctic ice loss and gain. This paper did not mention the earlier Peter Flynn material. 5. Using Wiki, I found five more papers referencing the Desch paper (which is cited at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_geoengineering) along with the Zhou - Flynn cite. The next two papers are similar in brief follow-ups to Desch - but nothing on the hardware topic of this note. I don’t sense any great concerns. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EF001230 https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/77851/1/Accepted_Manuscript.pdf ` 6. Getting to my main point - I think (along with Prof. Flynn) that it should be more economical to have the ice-making machinery be mobile - rather than fixed to a buoy. Flynn was thinking a barge. I agree with that for some ice-making, but I am also thinking something with a strong similarity to what is described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceboat as *"An iceboat (occasionally spelled ice boat or traditionally called an ice yacht) is a recreational or competition sailing craft supported on metal runners for traveling over ice."* Other from Wiki: - This “yacht” at one time held the world speed record - and practical business use goes back hundreds of years - The end of the second Wiki paragraph under “Venues” gives encouragement on being able to drop the Desch system weight and cost by more than an order of magnitude. *"This type of craft was accessible to sportsmen of modest means. **(Emphasis added)* - I guess that such an ice-thickening machine could also be made or assembled close to the Arctic (or on a large ice-making boat?), therefore with minimal cost for transport. Also using mostly carbon - neutral materials (wood and carbon fiber - stronger than steel), - Many topics need further discussion - such as tie-downs, adding solar PV, ratio of self vs central control, escape from a "freeze-in”, etc. Thoughts on mobile vs fixed ice-making pumpers?? Ron On Aug 20, 2021, at 6:28 AM, 'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering < [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 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]> *Sent:* Thursday, 12 August 2021 10:02 PM *To:* Robert Tulip <[email protected]> *Cc:* Carbon Dioxide Removal <[email protected]>; geoengineering <[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]> 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] < [email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Robert Cormia *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 August 2021 4:32 AM *To:* chris.vivian2 <[email protected]> *Cc:* Carbon Dioxide Removal <[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]> 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. 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]. 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]. 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]. 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/01e401d795be%24e56ba180%24b042e480%24%40yahoo.com.au <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/01e401d795be%24e56ba180%24b042e480%24%40yahoo.com.au?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . <Slides from Desch TEDx Arctic Wind Pump.pptx> -- 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/1c23f6a46b00e12997ed762b60fb7adc%40mail.gmail.com.
