Greenland ice sheet in meltdown? 17 December 04

If you have melting ice cubes, what do you do? You place them in the freezer.

I do not think we have the capability to the best of my knowledge to dam a glacier. I think that might be difficult to do. It would be expensive and the mere suggestion would raise eyebrows to those not accustomed to engineering approaches.

I do not think there is a chemical to add to the glacier ice that would raise its freezing point or viscosity.

I do think we may have the ability to use the process called refrigeration to lower the temperature of the air surrounding the glacier.

Looking at the photo, a net of flexible refrigeration tubes could be suspended over the glacier stabilizing it by lowering the air above the glacier by a few degrees.

Another idea in conjunction with this one would be to increase the albedo of this net higher than 80 percent which is the albedo of ice creating a very reflective surface to reflect solar radiation away from the glacier surfaces. This could also be done for the land surrounding the glacier which would reduce ground temperature that would conduct heat into the glacier.

The reflective surfaces of the net could be warmed by the refrigerant to rid it of frost buildup just like your frost free refrigerator.

The problem about this idea is that it is merely a band aid. It would require an energy source to power the refrigeration process and the heat removed would have to be dumped somewhere else and that presents another problem which is important enough to address.

The energy required could be large and prohibitive. The reflective idea surely has merit. There may be innovative ways to reduce the energy requirements.

We have limited options now. Not pursuing them to buy more time to fix the underlying problem of carbon buildup would be irresponsible. Funding for an immediate feasibility study of this idea (and other ideas) should have started yesterday.

When our assumptions prove to be false, then our whole paradigm changes immediately. With that said, we also have to give up our old pure idealistic ways to deal with it. If Kyoto will not work, then we have to employ engineering ideas on a grand scale. Our only other option is to do nothing or wait till it is way too late.

Procrastination is not an option anymore. Based on the challenge before us, we better start taking prevention more seriously. I will guarantee if we fail, we will look back in hindsight wondering what we were thinking when we were so ambivalent.

Related to this subject is whether the melting of the Greenland ice sheet is going to impact on the climate of Europe. I was at the RSS yesterday and picked up a copy of their latest magazine “Significance”. I read that Peter Challenor of the Southampton Oceanography Centre is doing some work on the likelihood of rapid climate change.

It was rather over my head, but here is a reference (see link below) and if you do a Google on “Peter Challenor Rapid Climate Change” you can find out what this group is upto.

http://www.rss.org.uk/main.asp?page=1714

Hard to tell when your tongue is in your cheek here and when it’s not, Dan. I have heard before of proposals by American engineers to change the oceans currents by nuking the Panama Ithsmus (If I were a Panamanian, I could think of other targets for nukes – if there has to be one!). Whatever technological fix we implement, you can be sure it will have unintended consequences and the seriousness of those consequences will increase by their energy intensity squared.

And let’s not focus solely on this one glacier. Mark’s book pointed to the decay of the Peruvian glaciers. I know that the tiny – 3 km – glacier near us in West Papua is disappearing as well.

Then there is the Antarctic ice cap. Most maps produced in the US omit or reduce Antarctica – a whole continent – so people forget that it’s almost 1 1/2 times bigger than the US or Europe, 50 times bigger than (wait for it) Texas and six times bigger than Greenland. Many people in the Northern Hemisphere are inclined to underrate the significance of this continent.

There’s a wonderful quote by Robert Ingersoll, written a century ago: “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences” and much as we may not like it, human, civilised values, ideas of equity, fairness and justice will be irrelevant to the way nature deals with our hubris.

Seeking a technological fix is, to me, an expression of this hubris. The only viable solution is to bring our individual and species lives into line with the processes of nature. Nothing else is sustainable.

Keith

Keith, thanks for responding. You made very good points.

Keith, I am in total agreement with your statement that a tech fix will create undesirable side effects. Every aspect of modern culture does this to varying degrees. Solar energy, tidal, wind, and other renewable ideas are all tech fixes. Large farms producing food are tech fixes. Even compact fluorescent lights are tech fixes and they contain mercury. Mercury can be recycled instead of allowing this toxin into the environment. The equipment to recycle this mercury is another tech fix. The prudent society would choose to implement technology that would have the least environmental impact.

The only viable use for nukes may be to deflect an asteroid as depicted in popular movies. Digging a canal with them is preposterous plus an unnecessary option.

You are quite correct about the idea that lowering the air temperature of one glacier system may have little impact unless we take care of other systems!

When I first thought of this idea, I was initially thinking of Antarctica. When I saw a map of the extensive areas of ice flow exits, my interest in this idea for Antarctica went to zero.

I believe, for the near future, Antarctic may be more stable than the north polar cap. I say this because most of the southern ice cap is at a high elevation and this is why it is so much colder than the northern ice cap. The northern cap is mostly at sea level and I believe it is more affected by global changes that Antarctica. I am not totally sure.

Greenland, being a part of the northern ice cap has the ability to significantly raise the ocean level. Greenland probably has many glaciers other than the one Mark posted. I am not sure and if it does, then the idea has less merit if it has to be repeated numerous times.

The only way this idea may have merit is if the ice flow is massive and more vertical and less flat. So, my assumption (which may be wrong) is that if a few deep, but not so wide, ice rivers are contributing significantly to sea level rise, then cooling the top surface over a decade could slow the flow which is meant only to buy us more time to reduce emissions and sequester carbon.

There may be side effects and excessive energy used which I already mentioned in my original post. I support that we should study all tech fixes at depth. Relocating flooded cities and people after sea level rise may be worse.

You are correct about the earth. The earth does not care about our politics. The earth could care less if the Kyoto agreement works or not. A technological fix could be an expression of this hubris. We do need a sustainable approach to be in line with nature.

If we could only find a clean way to navigate to a better more sustainable world, then I would be all for that. I believe in decreasing our consumption to have a simpler lifestyle.

If Kyoto, sequestering, and all other ideas are not sufficient as Mark’s post suggest then I think we have no choice but to consider additional options and explore them objectively.

Most of my ideas are about decreasing energy use, increasing efficiency, and simply not being so wasteful and extravagant. Everyone should be encouraged to do these things. I spent over 200 US dollars just giving away compact fluorescent light bulbs to people who could have done the same thing for themselves. I have been measuring my house for how we use energy not only to make improvements but to measure the improvements so I can help others later.

I wish that this is all I would have to do. I have committed myself in following Mark’s lead in doing all that I can possibly do. I would never even consider posting the glacier fix idea if it were not for the fact that these glaciers can undermine all other efforts based on Mark’s post.

I am not ready to give in yet to plan for relocating flooded cities. I am simply one engineer suggesting an idea to explore since it appears we are running out of ideas that can help us reach our destination. I feel it is part of my responsibility to do this.

I have not heard anyone including myself who has a total comprehensive plan worked out on prevention. I think as a species we should work more diligently to devise one. Kyoto it seems was our best shot at it. We need a better plan now that will ultimately work.

If you have a better plan, or better ideas than mine, then please let me know of it. Keep sharing your thoughts on Mark’s site!

Best Regards, Dan

I read this story last week, I believe, and saved it to disc. I also saved a rather colorful graphic of how much of the ice shelf has been receding of late. It was truly chilling. (Pun intended, and I’m NOT sorry!)

The results of such a freshwater melt, of course, will affect you Brits far more than this Texan. It’ll be bye-bye to the Gulf Stream, and the UK and Northern Europe will be the NEW Greenland! Brrrrrrr!

And we’ll get around to talking about the post-Kyoto future come next May, in Bonn, huh? For REAL! So sayeth the US, and they wouldn’t LIE to us would they? (roll eyes)

Hi Vicki,

I just responded back to Keith defending my tech fix idea for at least posting an idea be it worthy or not.

I am still a hold out to not giving up because if I believed it was all hopeless, then I would be doing other things than writing to this site.

The one thing that seems consistent is uncertainty but the events as they unfold do not seem to be going our way right now.

Dan

according to Michael Crichton, STATE OF FEAR, Greenland is actually getting cooler, and it’s those evil environmentalist who are pushing the glaciers into the ocean. Once the book is made into a movie, Crichton should become an even more believable climate change scientist than Rush Limbaugh, giving massive scientific proof to the movie-going, book-reading crowd that global warming is not happening, and that the real enemies are environmentalists, killing people in their pursuit of pulling off huge stunts that make people think GW is happening.

So nothing at all to worry about, unless you’re an environmentalist & people find out & start throwing eggs at you, or worse.

Makes me want to write my own book…

Go for it! I think you could write your own book based on your personal experiences in saving energy with little money to invest.

You have your own unique experience and your story may captivate the minds of others.

I am sure you have received help from many other sources but it is your experience through the process that is most interesting I think.

Mark wrote his book based on personal experience more than simply climate science. It took him a few years.

By the time you finish, the world may have changed to become different as reality is in everyone’s face. Then, they will need to read about what they can do and your journey may encourage them to actually do it.

You have the perspective of being a mother in a family with kids. That puts a special spin on this.

I thought of it myself sometimes. I cannot write from your perspective. I would have to be more technical and provide a bunch of numbers. I would rather be a consultant and work to actively change a person’s house, create a business, work with utilities, help create procedures for the government, etc.

I think you could write a book based on your experience with the process rather than the process itself. Anyone going through the process needs to know what it is like to change habits and if it is difficult or not or maybe the enthusiasm of saving money. It is the intrinsic qualities that you may be in the best position to offer.

Maybe some people here could give you some ideas for a book title if you decided to actively pursue it over the next few years. You may wish to think of who would buy your book or the audience you may wish to appeal to.

Your spiritual focus is an important central aspect of your personal journey. You may have to use language more universally understood with regard to your unique spiritual focus. Your emotions and trials plus the ridicule you experienced. All is important. What have you learned about yourself, your relationship with God, and others, and the earth? All this sounds interesting to me and I think it would be for others.

In any case, you do have a story to tell and I think it would be interesting to read about. I would start by going back into time at the very beginning and what first motivated you and how it grew to where you are today!

Just writing it in a journal could help your communication skills with others as you remember back when you were not as enlightened as you are today. It is always a good line opener to say I once thought like you but now…

Oh by the way, your friend may have broke that CFL by screwing in by the helix rather than the base. You can do that with incandescent bulbs but not CPF bulbs. In fact, I need to email my friends I sent bulbs to for Christmas on how to install them without breaking them.

Take Care, Dan

Well said Keith. High tech solutions to climate change are a distraction from the far simpler and more practical solutions under our noses.

I attended a presentation by Dr Susan Solomon, a senior member of the UN Panel on Climate Change. The talk was titled “From Antarctic Ozone to Climate Change” and showed how scientists thought that the ozone layer was being depletd at a slow and steady rate, until the discovery of the Ozone Hole. This discovery shocked them into realizing that the ozone layer was far more delicate than they had expected. Urgent action followed with the banning of CFCs.

The effects of the Ozond Hole are very noticable down here in New Zealand. I have been sheep farming for 40 years, and am very aware of the damage that the sun can cause. My sheep now regularly develop skin cancer on their ears and any exposed skin. For the first time, I have had a sheep dog developing skin cancer. The only consolation is that there has been a world wide response to the banning of CFCs, giving the Ozond Hole a chance to slowly recover.

No such luck for those suffering from the effects of Climate Change. While CO2 levels are increasing, politicians still argue over whether there is a problem, and if so, how seriously the problem should be tackled. To make matters worse, expensive high tech solutions are promoted which make stopping the rise in atmospheric CO2 seem impossible. Also, these high tech solutions are energy intensive which further increses CO2 emissions.

The practical solutions under our noses relate to our relationship with nature and the carbon cycle. A good example is biodiesel, an existing technology offering a clean solution to powering the existing transport system. Visit /www.changethis.com/pdf/9.03.Biodiesel.pdf for an analysis by Michael Briggs of biodiesel compared to the expensive new technology of fuel cells. He argues that large scale biodiesel production can take place in many parts of the world, removing the reliance on Middle East oil and teh associated huge defence spending.

My favourite practical solution is tree planting, a simple low energy exercise. As trees grow, they absorb CO2 via photosynthesis. In New Zealand and in many tropical areas, trees absorb over 20 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year as they grow. Mark, in his “High Tide” has a chapter titled “Red Clouds in China” highlighting the devastation caused by tree removal which allows winds to carry exposed soil all the way to the USA. China has now undertaken a huge tree planting program to try and stop the loss of topsoil and flooding. There are many areas in the world short of trees.

Tree planting and allowing trees to regenerate can suck billions of tonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere. When trees mature, they fall over and decay, returning the CO2 back to the atmosphere, and so losing much of the benefit of the tree planting.

To prevent this decay and CO2 emissions needs some simple practical solutions. Michael Sykes from North Carolina offers one solution with his earth connected solid wood houses which can store the carbon in the wood for at least 300 years while providing comfortable living spaces which require no fossil fuel for heating or cooling. His web site www.enertia.com gives a very clear explanation. These houses can be carbon neutral, ie they store more carbon that they emit. Compare that to a house made of concrete requiring large amounts of cement. Cement manufacture is the world’s greatest emmiter of CO2 after fossil fuel burning. Buildings are responsible for cloe to 50% of CO2 emissions world wide. This makes a move to carbon neutral buildings essential for a stable atmosphere.

Individuals can reduce their CO2 emissions by using public transport, changing light bulbs etc, but the world’s CO2 levels will keep rising. To make any significant impression on CO2 levels will require concerted consumer pressure and/or some politicians with backbone. Do we have to wait for the equivalent of the discovery of the Ozone Hole, such as the collapse of some ice sheets, or the reversal of the Gulf Stream? I hope not.