I would the note that ocean acidification from absorbing CO2 might well be more significant in its effects and faster than Ocean warming because of reduction of fixing of Calcium Carbonate.
Established Member
I would the note that ocean acidification from absorbing CO2 might well be more significant in its effects and faster than Ocean warming because of reduction of fixing of Calcium Carbonate.
Order of Kilopi
Erhm, doesn't it go the other way?
Increased temperature means lower solubility of CO[sub]2[/sup] with a resultant LOWER concentration of CO[sub]2[/sup] in the ocean water?
__________________________________________________
Reductionist and proud of it.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain
Established Member
Yes but the temperature increase is small so there can still be net acidification from increased CO2 in the air because the CO2 dissolved is still far from saturatedOriginally Posted by HenrikOlsen
Order of Kilopi
Is that anthropogenic increase due to CO2 or something else? I wonder if damming rivers results in a warmer outflow from rivers.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Administrator
As far as I know (but I'm no expert) the increase is almost completely from heat transfer from the warming atmosphere, which itself is from anthropogenic increases in CO2.
Order of Kilopi
Right, I should have been more specific. I was wondering if any part of the Anthropogenic increase could be attributable to changes in riverine flow.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Established Member
Not that it's much different but I think it could be reduced heat transfer from ocean to atmosphere when the atmosphere is warmer. I suspect most of the heat in the ocean comes from sunlight rather than warming from the air but warming of the air reduces the temperature gradient and therefor reduces the tendency of heat to leave the ocean. I could be completely mistaken though.
Established Member
Yes, that seems to make sense. The anthropogenic warming due to CO2 emissions is like an extra 'blanket' in the air. The amount of heat entering the ocean from sunlight is not affected by CO2 level. Atmospheric CO2 reduces the amount of heat reflecting back to space, making the atmosphere like a doona on the ocean.
Established Member
The Economist Magazine has a special report this week on the warming of the Arctic Ocean.
The report is available at http://www.economist.com/node/21556798 and is highly informative.
This excellent report prompted me to formulate the following idea.
Geoengineering the climate can focus on cooling the Arctic Ocean in order to slow the ice melt and increase albedo, reflecting incoming solar radiation back to space. One potentially commercial method to achieve this goal is to float large sheets of reflective plastic just below the ocean surface, released from Norway into the Gulf Stream. The design would aim to optimise algae and fish growth, using wave energy to raise deep nutrient-rich water to the surface in 'Lovelock Tubes', and spreading this rich water across the surface sheet to mimic the upwelling of currents that are the source of the richest fisheries. This method would cool the surrounding water, reducing the heat input that is melting the sea ice. The systems would attract and feed fish with naturally produced algae, serving as efficient fish farms. They would float along the Gulf Stream as shown at Arctic Currents into the Barents Sea, where produced fish could be harvested. Small initial prototypes would identify design issues for potential scale up. The primary natural geoengineering impact would be entirely ecologically beneficial, cooling the Arctic Ocean to delay the risk of catastrophic warming.
Established Member
I don't want to sound negative but just because the arctic is warming does not mean it is the logical place to start work after all the sun doesn't reach there half the year. Even allowing the hyperbole that warming must be catastrophic, there is no evidence that slowing the warming down is cheaper or better than learning how to adapt to the changes. And grand schemes always seem to have unforeseen consequences. Again not wanting to harp about it but maybe the acidification is a bigger problem and also more amenable to grand ideas.
Established Member
It is worth reading the Economist Special Report to consider this question. As noted in the quote I provided from it, Arctic warming is double the global average. As well, the Arctic may be particularly sensitive to warming in terms of feedback loops from ice melt albedo and permafrost methane melting. Cooling the Gulf Stream in summer months might be a practical and cost-effective mitigation strategy, especially if it opens up new fishery resources. Arctic insolation in summer is higher than you might expect, as the midnight sun means light is constant. I would only expect cooling of Arctic currents to work in summer.The conservative prognosis of four degree temperature rise this century could well be catastrophic. If speed of warming can be slowed in a cost-effective way, it seems probable that this is preferable to adaptation. Prevention is generally better than cure when it comes to massive climatic changes.Even allowing the hyperbole that warming must be catastrophic, there is no evidence that slowing the warming down is cheaper or better than learning how to adapt to the changes.And that is why I would not support grand schemes that lack a strong evidentiary research and prototyping base. Looking at cooling the Gulf Stream as it enters the Arctic to stabilise the climate is hardly a grand scheme, especially compared to the mining plans that are discussed in the Economist Report.And grand schemes always seem to have unforeseen consequences.Your harp playing is music to my ears Profloater, although the siren song of competing catastrophes seems of uncertain relevance. The suggestion I raised would also help with CO2 removal, and therefore would also help reduce acidification, although perhaps this would be better done elsewhere, such as using CO2 from large offshore mines like Gorgon in Australia, or located in high risk areas such as coral reefs.Again not wanting to harp about it but maybe the acidification is a bigger problem and also more amenable to grand ideas.
Order of Kilopi
Your plan seems self-contradictory. If you reflect the light, you can't use it and if you're using it then you're not reflecting it. Sure, photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction, but other biological reactions aren't, so this activity will result in a net increase of heat into the water. If you bring up nutrient-rich water from the depths, then your now-warmed surface water will be mixed downward where it will warm the deeper water instead of radiating infrared into space. It looks to me, from this simple analysis, that you're plan will accelerate global warming and ice melting.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Established Member
Nothing contradictory there - the light is prevented from passing more than a metre deep into the ocean. Within the shallow surface layer, it either promotes photosynthesis or is reflected back to space. Both outcomes mean that heat that otherwise would have entered the Arctic Ocean does not do so.I'm not sure of the causality here Ara. What are the exothermic reactions that you think would outweigh photosynthesis and light reflection?Sure, photosynthesis is an endothermic reaction, but other biological reactions aren't, so this activity will result in a net increase of heat into the water.I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion - energy has been used to make algae, and surface albedo has increased, so there is a net loss of system heat and a cooling of the Gulf Stream.If you bring up nutrient-rich water from the depths, then your now-warmed surface water will be mixed downward where it will warm the deeper water instead of radiating infrared into space.Your analysis is not simple, as the intervention points of light reflection and algae production remove heat from the system rather than adding it.It looks to me, from this simple analysis, that you're plan will accelerate global warming and ice melting.
Established Member
Actually, a better idea would be for humans to get off their collective duffs, and move to-wards non Co2 Producing forms of energy production. Tampering with ecosystems in the manner suggested always cause more damage, then what it fixes. Adding to that, we should start building massive algae tanks and start converting some of the C02 we have produced back into O2 using photosynthesis. Those algae farms could then harvest the dead algae's and the byproducts those make, to also produce energy. This has been a viable suggestion for nearly 20 years, but so far only small prototype farms have been built, and they usual had to scrape for financing.
The main barrier is the infrastructure right now is based on coal and petrol, and that infrastructurehas been resisting changing for nearly 30 years. It's a case where the infrastructure does not want to change, so the change will have to come from the people that use the infrastructure, by inventing a new one, and just making that work, without the help of the collective governments or the profiteering energy companies.
Patently, governments and the energy companies have had 30 years to work on this issue, and they have barley put a fraction of a percent of their resourcesrces into the problem. The only thing that is going to correct the trend at this point, is people stepping up, and starting to work together on thier own to find viable and eco-friendly alternatives. And likely, they'll need to defend those developing alternatives at some point blegallygaly, and possibly by force. The infrastructure has basicaly been working against alternate energy idea's they don't have control of, for example the removal of all the alternate energy tax credits in 2001, and grants for common people, some six months after Canadian fuel cell company (forget their name now) began selling home fuel cell technology.
This was done to put the cost of the home fuel cell plants out of reach of most people. Suprisingly, all the tax credits and grants for alternate energy that still exist, are targeting big businesses, and not the bulk of the population like they once did.
This sort of change to a new infrastructure is going to have to come from the people, because the infrastruture currently in place, frankly doesn't want to do it. It possibly means it will take some sort of either economic or maybe even physical warfare to effect this kind of change. After 30 year's I'm a bit cynical about it, and just don't see it happening, unless people start applying force on those that are resisting the needed changes, or those throttling the changes that are currently happening to a crawl.
In essence, the people need to start fighting for thier their planet on thier own, or they can simply remain apathetic like they have been and allow the planet and our-selfs to go into that long dark night of extinction.
Established Member
The easiest way to apply force is to NOT BUY those products that are at fault. Within your own capabilities of course. Using the context of "charity begins at home", make sure you are doing all you can before you claim that 'nothing can be done unless "they" do it'.
Recycle everything possible, don't waste anything just because you can, finish your meals or eat smaller meals, get rid of the car.
It's all possible with a little application of effort, and before long you will discover that it also saves you money. That can get quite fashionable. As more people take it on board, better methods can be found and those with power will start to act or be replaced by those who do care.
I realise that that's all a bit deep for a thread on ocean warming, but it goes to the heart of the matter. If we regard CO2 as waste, then cutting back on all waste and exposing the hidden costs of wasteful attitudes can only be a good thing in all kinds of ways.
Last edited by headrush; 2012-Jun-19 at 04:56 PM. Reason: fixed sub tags
Order of Kilopi
If they were viable they wouldn't be scraping by. They scrape by because they have been too expensive.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
There is an issue here regarding path dependence. Yes it is now cheaper to dig up coal and oil and gas for energy. But global warming is a major unpaid externality. While current systems can push these external costs on to others, they have an unfair advantage regarding viability.
As noted in the Economist report I linked above, many people who live near the Arctic welcome warmer climate for the economic opportunities such as shipping to Asia, so do not recognise global warming as an unpaid cost.
Shifting to a sustainable energy system would involve major infrastructure investment, which would be of limited interest and value for those who benefit from the current sunk assets.
Many proposed methods for renewable energy have not been commercially viable. But that is no reason to assume that will always be the case. Prototypes for innovative systems will eventually produce game changing technology.
Established Member
ocean warming, the oceans heat up mainly by radiation received and they lose heat by radiation but mainly (I guess) by evaporation at the surface which is highly dependent on wind speed. Wind speed is (I guess) a complex relation to atmospheric temperature. Evaporation from a large body of water is (I think) variable with the fourth power of wind speed, empirical, does anyone have the relationships at work here? This must be central to the link between the oceans and the air. Water vapour in the air is by far the biggest greenhouse contributor, it absorbs over a much bigger frequency range of IR than CO2 for example. So how important is the ocean surface temperature?
Established Member
Reducing heat entering the Arctic Ocean could well be the most effective way to manage global warming, while preparing for transition to a low carbon economy.
The Arctic is warming at double the rate of the rest of the planet. This appears to be largely due to albedo - the melting of summer sea ice means that instead of white ice reflecting light back to space, dark water allows light to enter, where it turns into heat, producing a feedback loop of increasing pace of summer ice melt. The Arctic is also particularly significant for the global climate because of the potential for methane release from melting permafrost, and because the midnight sun in summer means that level of insolation is actually high in summer, so if this heat can be reflected rather than absorbed it is possibly the most efficient location for geoengineering.
As well as sunlight, the major source of heat entering the Arctic is the Gulf Stream, the Atlantic Current that warms Britain and Norway. This Map of Arctic Currents shows the main sources of warm water entering via the Norwegian Sea.
If a large fraction of the heat in these north flowing currents could be siphoned off and shifted either into energy production or sunk into the cold south flowing currents, it might provide a significant contribution to slowing the melt of summer Arctic Ice, and to increasing Arctic albedo.
One way to achieve this diversion of heat entering the Arctic is as I explained above, locating large reflecting sheets of plastic just below the ocean surface to trap and reflect the entering solar heat in the surface layer of water. Trapped heat could be used for algae and fish production, or alternatively, could be pumped using wave power down into cold deep currents where it would flow south away from the Arctic. This Map of Thermohaline Circulation shows various points where warm surface currents flow directly above cold deep currents. Closer detail for the Arctic is in the map of Arctic Currents linked above.
Diverting entering ocean heat would slow the melt of summer Arctic sea ice, increasing albedo and providing a positive feedback for global cooling.
Established Member
That could be solved by regulatory (states limit GHG emissions), fiscal (states tax GHG emissions) or equitable legal means (GW victims sue emitters).
They also benefit from lower heating costs, better agricultural opportunities leading to lower food costs, and generally nicer weather. For them GW is a free benefit, not an unpaid cost. Globally these benefits may be out-weighed by the costs to GW victims, but Arctic dwellers are entitled to consider their own interests.
Order of Kilopi
It's also been scraping by compared to a number of other non-fossil fuel methods for energy production, and if your purpose is reducing C02, there have been and are more viable existing methods. Probably the most viable options currently are shifting away from fossil fuel electricity production and more efficient energy use.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
That's not entirely accurate. The problem is the photosynthesis, not absorption by the ~3 m or more of seawater the light has to pass through.
I admit that I'm not a biologist, so perhaps you can explain the following. What are the absorption spectra of the algae you want to use? How much of the non-chlorophyll used frequencies are absorbed and simply converted to heat and what is the density of the algae and how much light do they prevent from reaching the reflector? How far north can these algae live in the conditions you propose due to temperature and light conditions, assuming you provide the nutrients as you mention?
Also, how would this be different than the effects of algal blooms in the arctic that are already common, even under the ice?
Respiration.I'm not sure of the causality here Ara. What are the exothermic reactions that you think would outweigh photosynthesis and light reflection?
I don't know if it will outweigh anything, but it's your proposal, you provide evidence that it will work as advertised.
Yes, solar energy has been used to make algae, which is a net heat increase in the Earth's hydrological-biosphere, even if it doesn't directly warm the system on the timescale of the life of an individual alga. Again, growing algae decreases albedo by the very definition of photosynthesis. There is already a lot of algal blooms way up north at depths below your limit, so your proposed structure would reduce photosynthetic activity at those locations. I'm not a biologist, so I don't know the entire food chain in those locations, but my first thought is that instead of creating successful fish farms, you'll create a mass extinction event.I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion - energy has been used to make algae, and surface albedo has increased, so there is a net loss of system heat and a cooling of the Gulf Stream.
It can only be as simple as your proposal due to the level of detail you provide. As you provide more detail, the negative effects seem to become even more pronounced in scale and scope.Your analysis is not simple, as the intervention points of light reflection and algae production remove heat from the system rather than adding it.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
I think the correct word is effective not "efficient," FYI
When you write "syphoned off heat" do you mean with a Sterling Engine? Using the flow of the gulf stream to generate energy might be a useful idea for both energy production and as a method of reducing the speed of the flow, but I'm not sure it would do much. First of all, the wording of syphoning off heat sounds odd, and energy production would create more heat since mechanical work is never 100% efficient, but compared to the flow it may be negligible. More to the point, and if I recall correctly, the mechanics of such currents tend to be forced by the sinking of the denser and/or cooler component, which pulls the less dense and/or warmer component. Placing a restriction in the warm component might not reduce the volume of the flow, but similar to a Venturi tube, simply cause it to speed up. Be we'd have to check with an oceanographer to be sure.As well as sunlight, the major source of heat entering the Arctic is the Gulf Stream, the Atlantic Current that warms Britain and Norway. This Map of Arctic Currents shows the main sources of warm water entering via the Norwegian Sea.
If a large fraction of the heat in these north flowing currents could be siphoned off and shifted either into energy production or sunk into the cold south flowing currents, it might provide a significant contribution to slowing the melt of summer Arctic Ice, and to increasing Arctic albedo.
One way to achieve this diversion of heat entering the Arctic is as I explained above, locating large reflecting sheets of plastic just below the ocean surface to trap and reflect the entering solar heat in the surface layer of water. Trapped heat could be used for algae and fish production, or alternatively, could be pumped using wave power down into cold deep currents where it would flow south away from the Arctic. This Map of Thermohaline Circulation shows various points where warm surface currents flow directly above cold deep currents. Closer detail for the Arctic is in the map of Arctic Currents linked above.
Diverting entering ocean heat would slow the melt of summer Arctic sea ice, increasing albedo and providing a positive feedback for global cooling.
Even more strange is the idea of sinking the warmer, less dense fluid into the deep ocean. If we had the Starship Enterprise in orbit and Wesley Crusher could use the Main Deflector Dish to reverse the polarity of the Gulf Stream, it might work. However, the principles of buoyancy suggest it's more difficult to do in reality. Even if you did create a gigantic turbopump to force warm water to deep ocean, it would just tend to float back up. Maybe you could find a way to make it dense while keeping it warm, and then what, risk destabilizing methane clathrates? Maybe it wouldn't do that, but it would allow solar generated heat to maintain a longer residence time on/in the earth (by preventing that water volume's cooling mechanism) and risk destabilizing the ice sheets when it finally does get to them, as it eventually will. Trying to jump-start a re-glaciation at the poles by holding back heat is a risky gambit that will have disastrous consequences even if it works as planned. Messing with the planet's circulatory system should not be undertake lightly and should only be used as a last resort by people who understand the physics involved.
A dam at Gibraltar might achieve similar results using natural circulation with less of the detrimental affects. Try that first.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Established Member
Ara, I’m really pleased that you have asked all these good questions which prompt me to explain here this suggestion for a way to mitigate climate change. I have made the attached schematic diagram of an ocean current cooling system which aims to help people visualise the discussion.
In considering absorption spectra, its useful first to recapitulate on what the idea I have suggested here would involve.
The Gulf Stream flows across the North Atlantic Ocean and becomes the North Atlantic Current, which injects warmer water into the Arctic Sea. The warming of the Arctic is a disproportionate contributor to global warming, because the melting of summer sea ice reduces reflection of sunlight to space, causing greater absorption of heat in the ocean and feedback loop for further increased ice melt.
So, if there are simple methods to cool down the temperature of the water entering the Arctic, it would counter the warming feedback process and help stabilise the Arctic and world climate.
My suggestion is placing sheets of flexible reflective plastic one meter below the ocean surface to capture incoming solar light and cool the northward flowing current beneath. These sheets could either flow with the current from Scotland or Norway, or be fixed in position. I think it would work better fixed in position. The overall aim is to prevent heat from the sun passing through the sheet into the water beneath it, to maximise the cooling of the current.
How this would be best achieved would be a matter for scientific experiment, examining materials, location and design, in the event that anyone chose to follow this up as a practical research suggestion. My hypothesis is that production of algae in the surface layer would convert the heat energy into a useful product. Maximising algae production and species selection is a complex phytonomic scientific field, on which there is abundant research. Commercial analysis has focussed more on fresh water algae, but my premise here is that the aim is to use naturally occurring local algae and establish methods to accelerate its growth rate.
My suggested experiment is to build a pilot model of size about one acre, fixed in position in the northerly current off the Norwegian coast. Using ‘Lovelock Tubes’ to bring deep cold rich water to the surface from below the thermocline would mimic the ideal natural environment for production of algae blooms from the upwelling of cold currents. If the acre field was in the traditional shape of a chain times a furlong, it could have four separated furrows each one rod wide, as per peasant tradition. Each of these furrows would produce algae. Continual tests of the produced algae, looking at oil content, growth rate, etc, would enable a proportion of the best furrow to be fed back into the entry point, forcing rapid evolution towards desired characteristics, and using robust locally occurring species.
So my preference is not to introduce algae from elsewhere, but to work with local species, and potentially use absorption spectra as one criterion for selection towards improved yield.
If the reflecting sheet is floating one meter below the ocean surface, I expect most of the light would reach it. These good questions are practical matters for research. The output of this field will be warm algated water. There are methods to separate the water from the algae. My view is that an outlet tube could take the warmed water to the ocean floor, powered by the wave action of the Lovelock tube that brought the feedstock water to the field inlet. Ideally this warmed water could go to a location of cold southward flow, such as in the Fram Strait, where it would diffuse into the cold water and remove the heat that otherwise would have entered the arctic to melt the ice cap. Perhaps also it could be taken to coastal areas if people want local climate warming. The main objective is to keep as much natural heat out of the Arctic Ocean as possible.How much of the non-chlorophyll used frequencies are absorbed and simply converted to heat and what is the density of the algae and how much light do they prevent from reaching the reflector?As noted above, my suggestion is to husband wild species.How far north can these algae live in the conditions you propose due to temperature and light conditions, assuming you provide the nutrients as you mention?The point is to accelerate the natural process by mimicking upwelling of rich currents, and then control the movement of the water to keep the heat away from the pole. So in principle it is much the same effect as algal blooms, industrially optimised to stabilise the climate.
Also, how would this be different than the effects of algal blooms in the arctic that are already common, even under the ice?Perhaps theoretically there is such a net effect, but that is irrelevant to the overall goal of shifting heat from a place of high sensitivity (the Arctic) to other places and uses where it will have less impact on climate change, and could be the basis for a valuable commodity.solar energy has been used to make algae, which is a net heat increase in the Earth's hydrological-biosphere, even if it doesn't directly warm the system on the timescale of the life of an individual alga.Yes, that is true, but in a controlled thin surface layer with steady flow the algae does not reduce albedo by very much. The reflective sheet will keep warmth out of the current beneath it, accelerate algae growth and water warming in the surface layer above it, and send light out to space. If the warmed water can be kept out of the Arctic, all three of these functions help mitigate climate change.Again, growing algae decreases albedo by the very definition of photosynthesis.The big ecological problem in the Arctic is the rapid melting of the ice cap due to anthropogenic climate change. Yes reducing the temperature of entering water would slow the increase of Arctic summer photosynthesis, but the result would be to keep the system stable, and compensate for the rapid change we are causing through CO2 emissions.There is already a lot of algal blooms way up north at depths below your limit, so your proposed structure would reduce photosynthetic activity at those locations.That is a speculative criticism that lacks any basis in evidence. Any risks would be readily identified at pilot phase. If costs and risks are prohibitive it will not happen.I'm not a biologist, so I don't know the entire food chain in those locations, but my first thought is that instead of creating successful fish farms, you'll create a mass extinction event.The aim in geoengineering should be to identify methods that are rapidly scaleable and safe. Agreed methods will need to be effective, efficient and ethical.[it is possibly the most efficient location for geoengineering.] I think the correct word is effective not "efficient," FYI
The efficiency in this instance derives from low capital and recurrent costs, offset by production of commercial outputs (fish and algae). By comparison, spraying aerosols into the upper atmosphere would cost billions of dollars per year.
The effectiveness of cooling the Arctic inlet current derives from the albedo impact of slowing the melting of the summer sea ice.I checked out the Stirling Engine at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosiphon and that is not what I am describing as the heat shifting in the method here does not use convection. My suggestion is to use wave and current energy to draw off the heat from the current and put it in places where it won’t enter the Arctic. It is not about using current flow to generate energy, although that is potentially a good idea, but just collecting heat that otherwise would have entered the current. A model is a rooftop swimming pool heater, which collects heat from the sun that otherwise would have warmed the house and pumps it into the pool.When you write "syphoned off heat" do you mean with a Sterling Engine? Using the flow of the gulf stream to generate energy might be a useful idea for both energy production and as a method of reducing the speed of the flow, but I'm not sure it would do much. First of all, the wording of syphoning off heat sounds odd, and energy production would create more heat since mechanical work is never 100% efficient, but compared to the flow it may be negligible. More to the point, and if I recall correctly, the mechanics of such currents tend to be forced by the sinking of the denser and/or cooler component, which pulls the less dense and/or warmer component. Placing a restriction in the warm component might not reduce the volume of the flow, but similar to a Venturi tube, simply cause it to speed up. Be we'd have to check with an oceanographer to be sure.The water movement is powered by wave action using the Lovelock Tube - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7014503.stm#graphic – no need for a Main Deflector Dish - http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Navigational_deflector - since wave power is simple and abundant and needs no imaginary power sources. Keeping heat away from the pole with a method that increases fish production is an ecological public good.
Even more strange is the idea of sinking the warmer, less dense fluid into the deep ocean. If we had the Starship Enterprise in orbit and Wesley Crusher could use the Main Deflector Dish to reverse the polarity of the Gulf Stream, it might work. However, the principles of buoyancy suggest it's more difficult to do in reality.
If warmed water was tipped into a vertical pipe at the outlet, going down to a diffuser at the ocean floor, the heat would spread out in the deep ocean, and be kept away from the surface and from the pole. It would not rapidly rise above the thermocline. If produced algae can be used to make fabric, the warmed outlet water could be put into fabric bags and slowly floated into south moving currents using wave power for propulsion, or to coastal areas. There are many ways to keep the produced heat away from the Arctic for a long time, so the ‘eventually’ that you cite would be completely overwhelmed by other factors such as arctic albedo and concentration of the heat energy in algae by photosynthesis. For example if the heat stored in the algae could be concentrated in algae bricks it could be used for construction, locking up the heat for a long time.Even if you did create a gigantic turbopump to force warm water to deep ocean, it would just tend to float back up. Maybe you could find a way to make it dense while keeping it warm, and then what, risk destabilizing methane clathrates? Maybe it wouldn't do that, but it would allow solar generated heat to maintain a longer residence time on/in the earth (by preventing that water volume's cooling mechanism) and risk destabilizing the ice sheets when it finally does get to them, as it eventually will.Come on Ara, you are speculating here with exaggerated worst case scenarios for which you have no evidence. At least I accept that the ideas suggested here would need extensive work before proving to be feasible. You have not offered anything that suggests this is actually risky or is a last resort. Also, you are not comparing to the real alternative which is actually happening - sleepwalking into a future with a melted Arctic and risk of runaway warming from zero summer polar ice cap.Trying to jump-start a re-glaciation at the poles by holding back heat is a risky gambit that will have disastrous consequences even if it works as planned. Messing with the planet's circulatory system should not be undertake lightly and should only be used as a last resort by people who understand the physics involved.
Come, friends, and plough the sea
Last edited by Robert Tulip; 2012-Jul-01 at 01:47 AM.
Order of Kilopi
Water is very heavy, and the Ocean is not a mill pond. Try out the North Atlantic on a diesel submarine sometime.
The reflective film idea is novel, but won't work in the real world.
Established Member
Why not? It would be fairly easy to temporarily sink or roll up the apparatus when bad weather is forecast.
Established Member
Arctic Sea Ice Levels at Record Low for June
Map and Chart
Sea ice in the Arctic has melted faster this year than ever recorded before, according to the US government's National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC).
Satellite observations show the extent of the floating ice that melts and refreezes every year was 318,000 square miles less last week than the same day period in 2007, the year of record low extent, and the lowest observed at this time of year since records began in 1979. Separate observations by University of Washington researchers suggest that the volume of Arctic sea ice is also the smallest ever calculated for this time of year. more...
Established Member
There are several issues with your plan, as far as I can see.
Firstly, the scale of such an enterprise, if it were to work at all would have to be vast. Impractical.
Secondly, your plan involves effectively pumping warm water into the deeper ocean, thereby warming the ocean and risking the catastrophic release of the methane substrate.
Thirdly, your drawing appears to site the apparatus off the coast of Norway. I'm pretty sure the north atlantic current has turned south before then, or at any rate it has already lost most of its heat cargo. Surely the best place for such a plan, would be near the equator to catch the heat before it heads North.
Another issue, perhaps misrepresented by your drawing, is that you show warm water miraculously turning into cold water after the "farm" but your system is merely pumping warm water out at a lower level. I don't think the deeper parts of the ocean will be heading directly in reverse to the warm current, so effectively your system is providing a more evenly warmed water column rather than removing heat. That is quite bad.
Last edited by headrush; 2012-Jul-01 at 09:24 AM. Reason: minor phraseology
Established Member
Here is a graphic showing sea surface temperature in the North Atlantic.
Fig2_800.png
And this is the vertical section from south to north :
Fig4_800.png
These images were sourced from Galathea 3 which was a Danish survery expedition from 2006.
Here's one from NOAA which shows the multiple places where heat could be harvested, ie the tropics.
conveyor.jpg
Last edited by headrush; 2012-Jul-01 at 09:48 AM. Reason: added NOAA, changed "vertical current" to "vertical section from north to south"
Established Member
Yes, there are plenty of issues, and while I think cooling the pole is a good idea, I am very open to evidence based suggestions about other good things to do, and real problems with this suggestion.That is why it would best be sustained and replicated at scale as a profitable commercial enterprise. Consider the area from Iceland to Norway, a distance of nearly 1000 miles. An area 100 miles wide and 400 miles long is 40,000 square miles, about 25 million acres. Let's say for argument sake it was possible to "farm" 1% of this area with 250,000 acre plots, of course in a closely regulated way, with each individual plot privately owned, and aiming to be a profitable fish and algae farm, in conjunction with global processes for reducing the extra heat we are adding to the Arctic, and actually increasing the quantity of fish in the sea. It is not beyond the realms of practicality and could be an attractive small investment. If building an acre plot cost $100,000 you would need to make about $15,000 per year from fish sales for a decent economic rate of return.Firstly, the scale of such an enterprise, if it were to work at all would have to be vast. Impractical.If releasing the clathrates was a real risk it would mean that approach would not work. Earlier in this thread I posted information on the measured warming of the world ocean, which showed that pretty well all the warming has been near the surface, and that the bottom half of the sea has basically not warmed. If we moved some of the surface warming to the abyss, recognising just how big the ocean is (over a blllion cubic kilometres), we could find a way to solve the urgent surface crises, such as the melting of the Arctic, which have real major immediate ecological impacts, in a way that would fairly rapidly outweigh the effect of any extra heat in the deep.Secondly, your plan involves effectively pumping warm water into the deeper ocean, thereby warming the ocean and risking the catastrophic release of the methane substrate.You may not have seen the map I earlier linked which shows the warm currents flowing under the pole. Cooling these currents marginally would slow the summer ice melt.Thirdly, your drawing appears to site the apparatus off the coast of Norway. I'm pretty sure the north atlantic current has turned south before then, or at any rate it has already lost most of its heat cargo.That is a good point, and might well prove valid. It is actually something I have discussed previously. Sending heat from the surface to the bottom of the ocean at the mouth of the Amazon might prove a superior method, since that is a crossover point for a warm surface current and a cold current taking water to the South Pole. But the sensitivity of the Arctic, its role as a refrigerator for the planet, and the urgency of maintaining albedo, suggest to me that there might be more immediate climate wins at the North Pole.Surely the best place for such a plan, would be near the equator to catch the heat before it heads North.No, there are no miracles, and it is not bad. Diffusing a relatively small quantity of warm water in a very large quantity of cold water will only slightly increase the temperature of the cold water. Remember, the trapped heat of the apparatus has gone possibly equally into algae photosynthesis and reflection to space as well as warming the outlet water. As well, the thermocline is a barrier between the upper and lower water in the ocean, so marginal warming of water below the thermocline would not go anywhere near having systemic impact compared to the surface effect of cooling the pole. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, it might be better to put the warmed water in bags and use wave power to propel it elsewhere, perhaps into the fjords if the Norwegians wanted to warm up their coastal waters.Another issue, perhaps misrepresented by your drawing, is that you show warm water miraculously turning into cold water after the "farm" but your system is merely pumping warm water out at a lower level. I don't think the deeper parts of the ocean will be heading directly in reverse to the warm current, so effectively your system is providing a more evenly warmed water column rather than removing heat. That is quite bad.
And thanks for sharing those very informative maps.
Last edited by Robert Tulip; 2012-Jul-01 at 01:20 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote