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.
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
Maybe Mexico will pay for it.
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.
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."
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.
Why are we rebuilding this when we didn't rebuild Puerto Rico?
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.