Using Barges to Fight Global Warming

An anonymous reader writes "Dr. Peter Flynn, Poole Chair in Management for Engineers in the University of Alberta Department of Mechanical Engineering, has developed what he would like to consider a fall back plan to help combat the effects of global warming, in northern Europe. Flynn proposes using 'more than 8,000 barges moving into the northern ocean in the fall, speeding the initial formation of sea ice by pumping a spray of water into the air, and then, once the ice is formed, pumping ocean water on top of it, trapping the salt in the ice and reaching a thickness of seven meters. In the spring, water would continue to be pumped over the ice to melt it, forming a vast amount of cold, salty water that sinks and adds to the down-welling current to re-strengthen it.'"

Comments

Quick interview on CBC

[Mrs. Grundy]

Whatever the virtues may or may not be in micromanaging an incompletely understood global chaotic system by adding further human input, you all might be interested in hearing it from the horse's mouth. In this radio interview. (scroll down for links) the good doctor makes the point that he is not advocating doing this now, but rather studying the possibility in the case that we find ourselves in an emergency situation where the currents get out of whack and crazy things, like the freezing of the Thames, start happening.

Oblig. Futurama reference

[caitsith01]

Narrator: Fortunately, our handsomest politicians came up with a cheap, last-minute way to combat global warming. Ever since 2063 we simply drop a giant ice cube into the ocean every now and then.

Suzie: Just like Daddy puts in his drink every morning. And then he gets mad.

Narrator: Of course, since the greenhouse gases are still building up, it takes more and more ice each time. Thus solving the problem once and for all.

Suzie: But-

Narrator: ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

Leela: Well, we just need one of those big ice cubes. Someone should call the losers who are supposed to deliver it.
[phone rings]
Hello?

Energy required to do this?

[digitalgiblet]

First thought I have is "how much energy would be required to do this?"

Eight THOUSAND barges pumping enough water to make a layer seven METERS thick? EACH YEAR.

I'm no scientist, but it seems to me we'd be pumping out some greenhouse gases somewhere in this mix...

Would these be nuclear barges? No greenhouse gases, but instead spent nuclear fuel to contain for a really long time.

They estimate $50 billion USD to do this, but they don't say if that is the ongoing yearly amount.

Maybe easier just to genetically engineer all the plants and animals to deal with the new conditions rather than try to control the ocean currents (and for the humor impaired -- that sentence is meant as a joke).

There's no one-size-fits-all fix for this mess

[StefanJ]

When the bought-off pundits, ideology-addled fanboys, and fossil fuel industry flaks run out of viable talking points in their F.U.D. campaign, the debate over global warming won't be over whether it is happening, but on the most effective and economical ways to slow it down and cope with its effects.

There won't be a one-size-fits-all fix. Conservation and more efficient vehicles will be a big part of it. Environmental remediation projects, like reconstructing coastal wetlands to help them deal with floods and storms, will be another.

Stange notions like seeding the ocean with iron filings, and this oddball idea, are another possibility for the "arsenal" of fixes. I'd definitely put some money into researching them. Figure out the kinks sooner rather than later, so they'll be available if we need them.

Re:Hack?

[belrick]

The estimated cost is about $50 billion.

Wouldn't be better to spend this tiny amount of money with measures to prevent and control the emission of CO2 at the atmosphere? This barges things looks like a hack to me... a really expensive hack. Would this have to be done every year? I think it is better to leave this kind of "ultimate" solution to when there is no option at all. Until then, let's try to fight the roots of the problem, not just patch it from the outside and adjourn the disaster for a few years.

If you researched the research, you would understand that they are not proposing this (at this time) as a solution, rather they are doing calculations to understand what it would cost to fix the problem (in this case the broken circulation of ocean water) after the fact. That is useful to be able to compare costs with those preventative measures you refer to.

Sounds like Brewster's Millions...

[RyanFenton]

This scheme reminds me somewhat of some of the (intentionally) money-wasting schemes of the movie Brewster's millions. Large machines sent thousands and thousands of miles to mechanically move an almost unimaginable ammount of water, along with the fuel needed to do all of this large-scale de-facto terraforming (aquaforming?).

That...or the Futurama episode where it was revealed that global warming had to be fended off with giant ice cubes from Haley's comet every once in a while.

What this scheme ammounts to is a color shift of a rather small portion of the earth's ocean, for a rather small ammount of time, and enormous cost.

You could achieve the same dynamic by:

A) Using some cheaper coloring to semi-permanantly paint large portions of land environments with an already severely limited biological environment, including deserts, rocky areas, upper mountain ranges, near-permafrost (permafrost is already white most of the time), etc. Longer-lasting and cheaper than the ice-cube in the ocean effect. Could be undone with darker color later if needed.

B) Genetically engineer and feed cryophillic bacteria with light pigment in near-arctic ocean areas. Either have it continuously expell bouyant light-color material as part of the life cycle, or else have the body stay boyant and un-edible by further bacteria after death. If this is feasible, and self-sustainable, we'd have a meaningful, if limited engineered biological terraforming. Similarly can be undone with darker color later.

Those are just two quick ideas - I'm sure there's a lot others that would work to do color-based terraforming. Are there any special reasons why this barge idea would... hold water still above such ideas?

Re:Sounds like Brewster's Millions...

[FooAtWFU]

How about cities? This article (good lord, this must by my sixth post linking there in this discussion :) notes a potential urban contribution:

A mere 0.5 percent change in Earth's net reflectivity, or albedo, would solve the greenhouse problem completely. The big problem is the oceans, which comprise about 70 percent of our surface area and absorb more light because they are darker than land.

When it comes to increasing albedo, it would be wise to begin the discussion by introducing positive measures that can be easily understood and are close at hand. Reflecting sunlight is not a deep technical idea, after all. Simply adding sand or glass to ordinary asphalt ("glassphalt") doubles its albedo. This is one mitigation measure everyone could see--a clean, passive way to Do Something.

A 1997 UCLA study showed that Los Angeles is 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the surrounding areas, mostly due to dark roofs and asphalt. Cars and power plants contribute, but only a bit; at high noon, the sun delivers to each square mile the power equivalent of a billion-watt electrical plant.

This urban "heat island" effect is common. But white roofs, concrete-colored pavements, and about $10 billion in new shade trees could cool the city below the countryside, cutting air conditioning costs by 18 percent. Cooler roads lessen tire erosion, too. About 1 percent of the United States is covered by human constructions, mostly paving, suggesting that we may already control enough of the land to get at the job.

Paint the cities white, you'll save oil for air conditioning costs AND make for a more reflective Earth.

The article also suggests burning lots of sulfur-rich coal in western Pacific island nations, resulting in more clouds over the ocean and a higher albedo.

Re:Or...

[Waffle Iron]

Whatever you may think humans have done to the planet, it's gone through much bigger changes before we were ever here.

That's true. However, at some of those times this planet has been just about totally uninhabitable by humans. Are you suggesting that in the worst case we just kill ourselves off and then wait for the planet to recover so some new species can evolve to take our place?

Re:CO2 output?

[Dr. Cody]

Hot damn, I never thought of it that way! Thanks for calling us on that before we went through the trouble of sending several thousand barges out to sea.

Sincerely,
Dr. Peter Flynn

Re:Or...

[Coryoth]

At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.

I think you'll find the last IPCC TAR concluded much the same with regard to the effects of increased solar output. Of course they also concluded that the majority of observed warming was most likely due to anthropogenic CO2. Take a look at this chart showing how well CO2 correlates with the historical temperature record and realise that on that scale current CO2 levels are almost 5.5: that is quite literally off the chart. Given that we have good reason to believe in causation (absorption spectra of atmospheric CO2) it should be of concern. Yes the climate has fluctuated quite a bit in the past. Yes it is a complex chaotic system. That doesn't mean messing with it more is a good idea.

Nope, we can't talk in this arguement about how the planet's climate has shifted in the past, but must blame the US, George W. Bush and/or Capitalism for Global Warming.

I'm not sure attacking a strawman helps either. I don't think anyone with an actual clue is blaming George Bush and Capitalism for causing global warming, and certainly people with a clue will readily accept that historically the climate has been variable - that doesn't mean the the current trend in variation is going to in any way beneficial (or even necessarily neutral). Sure there are all those people without a clue who follow the issue as a politicised debate. There are equally shrill and stupid voices on both sides of this argument though. Just ignore them - the more attention we pay them the more pointlessly polarised this debate becomes.

Jedidiah.

Fe fertilizer -8B tons C, Fossil fuels +4B tons C

[MacDork]

this article says, it's not clear that small quantities of iron will do the trick.

I'll see your five year old national geographic fluff piece, and raise you a two year old government study.

simulations of iron fertilization of the oceans in the Southern Hemisphere initially showed that almost 8 billion tons of carbon would be absorbed by the ocean each year. Yet, after 500 years of continuous fertilization, the net increase in absorption would be less than 1 billion tons of carbon per year.

Now, considering that fossil fuels contribute roughly 4-5 billion tons of C to the atmosphere annually, and we've got about 100 years of fossil fuels left... How in the hell is this not a perfect solution? Oh yeah, that's right... too many global warming chicken littles out there are going to have egg on their face if atmospheric C is reduced to pre-industrial levels and global temps are still rising thanks to the simple fact that the sun is getting hotter. We wouldn't want to actually test that "greenhouse gases cause global warming" theory, now would we? Better just stick to those computer models...

Oh no! I'm challenging global warming rhetoric with scientific studies! Damn!! There goes my Karma! *sniff* Goodbye sweet Karma <sarcasm />