Slashdot Mirror
Massive Undersea Walls Could Stop Glaciers From Melting, Scientists Say (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: Building walls on the seafloor could prevent glaciers from melting and sea levels rising due to global warming, scientists say. Barriers of sand and rock positioned at the base of glaciers would stop ice sheets sliding and collapsing, and prevent warm water from eroding the ice from beneath, according to research published this week in the Cryosphere journal, from the European Geosciences Union. The audacious idea centers on the construction of "extremely simple structures, merely piles of aggregate on the ocean floor, although more advanced structures could certainly be explored in the future," said the report's authors, Michael Wolovick, a researcher at the department of geosciences at Princeton University, and John Moore, professor of climate change at the University of Lapland in Finland.
Using computer models to gauge the probable impact of walls on erosion of the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica, one of the world's largest, Wolovick and Moore hoped to test the efficiency of "a locally targeted intervention." They claimed the simplest designs would allow direct comparison with existing engineering projects. "The easiest design that we considered would be comparable to the largest civil engineering projects that humanity has ever attempted," they said. "An ice sheet intervention today would be at the edge of human capabilities." For example, building four isolated walls would require between 0.1 and 1.5 cubic km of material. "That is comparable to the 0.1 km3 that was used to create Palm Jumeirah in Dubai ($12 billion)...(and) the 0.3 km3 that was used to create Hong Kong International Airport ($20 billion)," the report said. The authors say there's only a 30% probability of success due to the harsh environment, but did mention that the scientific community could work on a plan that was both achievable and had a high probability of success.
Using computer models to gauge the probable impact of walls on erosion of the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica, one of the world's largest, Wolovick and Moore hoped to test the efficiency of "a locally targeted intervention." They claimed the simplest designs would allow direct comparison with existing engineering projects. "The easiest design that we considered would be comparable to the largest civil engineering projects that humanity has ever attempted," they said. "An ice sheet intervention today would be at the edge of human capabilities." For example, building four isolated walls would require between 0.1 and 1.5 cubic km of material. "That is comparable to the 0.1 km3 that was used to create Palm Jumeirah in Dubai ($12 billion)...(and) the 0.3 km3 that was used to create Hong Kong International Airport ($20 billion)," the report said. The authors say there's only a 30% probability of success due to the harsh environment, but did mention that the scientific community could work on a plan that was both achievable and had a high probability of success.
The melting glaciers are absorbing heat energy as they melt. If you stop them from melting then they stop absorbing heat and it would likely just cause the earth to heat up faster.
Not necessarily a bad thing though as a faster rise in temperature would hopefully make more people take global warming seriously and you still would have the buffer available if things got really bad.
There's no money for this while we rebuild North Carolina which is now in the path of a new hurricane zone, which happens to be a Republican stronghold. Sorry.
Although it sounds like maybe this could work, what about the sea life of Antartica that might rely on that particular niche to live?
Besides the ice shelves holding back the glaciers are not melting underneath like scientists thought they would, so I think we need to understand better what is really going on before we fuck up the last mostly pure continent.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So, this is well within an order of magnitude of the cost estimate for Trump's wall between Mexico and the United States: https://www.brookings.edu/essa...
Global cost / benefit, anyone?
the one made in the 1970s to stop global cooling: spread coal dust on the arctic and antarctic ice sheets. It's on par with importing cane toads into Australia. Or, their rabbit plagues. Or, the Red Fox they introduced to control the rabbits they introduced.
They had it wrong back in 1970 and they have it wrong now. Why did they have it wrong in 1970? Because they tried to tie global cooling into Marxist wealth redistribution, just like they did with "climate change".
Science is never settled. If AGW is "settled" then it is not science.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
A few years ago, someone decided to use the country of Canada to stop the glaciers from moving southward. It was an environmental disaster with wide spread deforestation and loss of topsoil and native wildlife. Even with an entire country as a buffer, the glaciers did what they would do anyway and headed south. What's more, it was a complete failure. Even though the ice accumulated and became several miles thick in places, Global Warming eventually prevailed and most all the glaciers melted leaving immense amounts of trash in their wake. What's more, the ice was a hazard as it created ice dams and Lake Missoula which broke and released as much as 10 cubic kilometers of water -- per hour creating additional environmental destruction and killing everyone downstream including wildlife. Perhaps it isn't such a great idea after all.
can they also stop Kaijus?
Because as long as we're fantasizing, why not?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
What would these walls on the sea floor do to existing currents flowing there? How would they affect the movement of bottom-dwelling creatures. Always unseen/unthought of unintended results.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
Please, someone tell Trump, finally a wall he can build that might actually help! =P
To be fair, they give estimates on the amount of material needed and compare it to existing building projects. But all I can think is "Lets use lots of fossil fuel energy rearranging rocks."
You have a 0.76 cm dick? Wouldn't that be called a clitoris?
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
I want to know if those scientists took the Antarctic magma plume recently discovered to be causing antarctic ice melting into account
Probably not. Why don't you call them up to let them know ? Go ahead and say that you represent the Slashdot community of armchair experts if they give you a bad time.
Global warming is a gift given to or by humanity to avert the only actual danger, the return of the next ice age
Like you, I also like to set my house on fire to keep warm in the winter.
Make Trump pay for it, as punishment for denying climate change.
Table-ized A.I.
I want to know if those scientists took the Antarctic magma plume recently discovered to be causing antarctic ice melting into account
Probably not. Why don't you call them up to let them know ? Go ahead and say that you represent the Slashdot community of armchair experts if they give you a bad time.
Nah, I think I'll just go with ignoring their ridiculous and impractical (not to mention obscenely expensive) proposals.
You're welcome to waste *your* money on it if you like wasting your money. I'll not be wasting any of mine on it however, thanks all the same.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I agree that the proposal is ridiculous and impractical. But the melting has nothing to do with the magma plume, since the melting only started a few years ago, and the magma plume has been sitting there for millions of years.
That's just about the dumbest idea I've heard recently. Kinda like mass school shootings here in America: "Screw the cause, let's arm teachers and teach kids CPR!".
Christ, are we really that stupid or what?!?
The penguins will pay for it, of course.
Despite the questionable logic of building on the beachfront, we must all -- as a species -- invest massive amounts of capital and energy to save those who did.
We are *all* owners of beach front real estate. This is a human problem. If you built your house on high ground, you didn't build that. You were lucky. If you chose to live somewhere sane, then you basically won the lottery. People who chose to invest in land that has never once in the history of the world been a good place to stake a claim are victims. We must save them.
Open your wallet. Open your heart. /s
No I did not miss this. You missed my point.
The plume has been there forever. The melting accelerated recently. The EXTRA melting was therefore not caused by the plume, even if it affects total melting.
And make Greenland pay for it!
The plume has been there forever. The melting accelerated recently.
So the scientists in the quoted story have it wrong and YOU know better?
LOL!
Thanks for the laugh, have a nice day.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
So the scientists in the quoted story have it wrong and YOU know better?
No, I'm in full agreement with the scientists. You're the only one who doesn't understand.
Any measure to correct a global problem would be just as cost prohibitive as the measures that might have helped prevent global warming in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
It possibly might work, but I doubt there is any cost-effectiveness. Size is a huge problem. It's like the idiot conservatives claiming enviros are causing forest fires by preventing logging.
How many tens of thousands of acres can we log in a year?
How many hundreds of millions of acres burn every year?
We're gonna build us a wall the size of Texas and at best, it will slow down melting by a decade.
Actually, glaciers are often stopped by boundaries. But the boundaries need to be *REALLY* sturdy. A mountain range will usually work.
OTOH, if all you want to do is slow down the melting, then redirecting warm ocean currents might suffice. And that seems to be what they're talking about. This doesn't mean it's sensible or practical, but it's not quite as foolish as you're assuming.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
What kind of fake news are you pushing? Hillary won the popular vote in the Democratic primary.
Just what we need...
As I have pointed out many times I am one of the few actual environmentalists here - that means truly thinking long term instead of doing crazy things that sounds good on a very short term but actually hurt the environment.
I have personally done more for the environment already with my bare hands than you will do in a lifetime by any means.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Once the wall be done, we will need another wall to protect the first one.
We represent a group that thinks mucking up the ecology of the ocean will be perfectly clear of unintended consequences. The ecology there will scarecely be affected. The cycle of krill and plankton growth can’t possibly be affected. It all good. We modeled it.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Seriously,
Are these self-called "scientists" the same ones that suggested to build an umbrella to stop Gobal Warming?
This new "idea" is OH SO TERRIBLE in OH SO MANY WAYS that it's OH SO DAMM STUPID that we even need (if they have any) to revoke their PhD for the sake of humanity.
That's not how global warming works. CO2 increases the amount of time that energy from the sun takes to radiate back into space. Since the energy is in the atmosphere and oceans longer the over all amount of energy is greater. That is to say, CO2 increases the equilibrium temperature of the earth. A one time removal of energy to melt all the worlds glaciers has no effect on the equilibrium temperature.
Losing the glaciers does however decrease the Earth's albedo and that also will increase the Earth's equilibrium temperature.
Where is that wall, by the way? It's been nearly two years. Time to get a fucking move on, Donnie. Where's the check from Mexico?
Better hurry, because Bob Mueller (living proof that not ALL republicans are disgusting traitors, just most) is on the way. Get out and vote in November bud, because a blue house is going to turn out badly for your treasonous buddies.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.