8 ms·

A Radical New Scheme to Prevent Catastrophic Sea-Level Rise

61 points by chr1 8y ago

cpeterso 8y ago
For another big geoengineering project, check out "Atlantropa", an early 20th century German proposal to dam the Strait of Gibraltar and lower the Mediterranean Sea by 100 meters to generate hydroelectricity and create more arable land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa
larkeith 8y ago
"First, they should construct them in the outlet fjords of Greenland’s largest glaciers, like Jakobshavn. These fjords are often only a mile or two wide, and an underwater dredging project there would resemble successful large-scale civil engineering projects, like the Palm Islands in Dubai. Greenland is also under the shared control of Denmark and the Greenlandic national government, two entities that might decide to undertake the construction project together." Even if the later stages (building 60-mile-long sills beneath floating ice) seem unlikely to be cost-efficient, this part definitely sounds like it could be feasible; It's especially notable to me amongst climate-related megaprojects in that it does not require any new developments, but rather uses extant, mature technologies. Building the sills would require "only" time and money.
- andygates 8y ago
  It's also refreshing that unlike most proposals, it doesn't have to be done everywhere, forever, on a crazy global scale.
nine_k 8y ago
In short: the proposal to build loose walls that prevent warm ocean water from coming close to the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. This will slow down their melting enough so they won't produce the enormous icebergs at a fast rate any more. Unlike many global geo-engineering projects to prevent global warming, this one looks somehow realistic.
- w-ll 8y ago
  Any estimation on the co2 output building said walls and surrounding Greenland and Antarctic with them. What about animals the navigate through these waters. This just doesn't seem like a well thought idea to me.
  - King-Aaron 8y ago
    > What about animals the navigate through these waters This is going to sound mighty unpopular - it already does to me while I try to formulate the right way to say this in my head... But at what point do we need to conclude that saving the nearly 8-billion human beings and the overall habitability of the Earth is of greater importance than certain animals living in individual biomes? I know it's not the contemporary, popular thing to think about. But if the alternative is the mass displacement and deaths of humans, it feels like it's something we're going to have to make a decision on.
    - matte_black 8y ago
      I feel if this problem was tackled in the 1950s our ancestors would have solved it and not thought twice about the animals. But here we are almost in the year 2020, and our sense of moral obligation holds us back from using our advanced technology to its maximum potential, even to save our own lives or pursue new horizons.
      - danharaj 8y ago
        Maybe its 'cause that maximum potential or whatever is what got us into this mess in the first place.
        matte_black 8y ago
        What if now it’s the only thing that could get us out...
      - ageofwant 8y ago
Reason077 8y ago
The cost of engineering projects on this scale would be astronomical. Surely there would be a better ROI if that money were spent on efforts to replace fossil fuel power with low-carbon alternatives, electrification of ground transport, etc? If we can reduce carbon emissions by 90% or so, quickly enough, then the climate should stabilise. If that fails, then we can build the mega-projects as a desperate last stand.
- alanbernstein 8y ago
  Do you think 90% is really feasible any time soon? Wouldn't that require nonexistent new technology for air travel and container ships?
  - nine_k 8y ago
    For air travel, yes. Large ships are large, and, unlike aircraft, have sufficient room and carrying capacity to install reasonably efficient carbon-capturing devices. It will cost a lot, of course.
    - WalterBright 8y ago
      There was a push to add computer-operated sails to cargo ships in the 80s. I don't know what happened to it - likely the cost of fuel dropped.
      - larkeith 8y ago
        There's a company that makes kite sails for cargo ships, which have proven effective [1]. However, as the fuel costs are payed by the shipper, there is a lack of economic incentive for ship owners to purchase them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails
        unBrainSurgeon 8y ago
        Hmmm, so what's a good mechanism for routing around moral hazards like just making the customer pay for the fuel? We see lots of models for corporate raiders using loss leaders to attack bloated industries, but not much else. Also, with technology, the actual cost of development is extremely murky and variable. The only things that seem to motivate loss leader tactics is the end game of cornering a market. In the case of SkySails, ship owners are averse to the up front cost, even if it means leaving money on the table, long term, by keeping their prices the same, but saving the fuel money with the sail, and pocketing the difference. So, push to integrate with newly built ships, and then what? Offer freebie/rebate deals? But then they never get used because crew are lazy, and bored, but not that bored, and lazy wins. Plus dealing with tangled lines means the kite is all but ruined without a rigger available. So does that mean training at least one crew member to rig the kite? It seems like maybe SkySails would need to operate a consultancy, where they supply a crew member who operates the kite on commission, collecting a cut of the savings in fuel costs. Then it becomes not unlike the vending machine model. Companies permit vending machines on the premises, because they know employees want snacks, so they let a coin-op company install soda and candy machines, and they get a cut of whatever the machine pulls in. So now, if that works, and then SkySails attacks the ship building angle, they've grown an ecosystem of consultant experts, and some of them can operate as free agents, once ship builders normalize SkySail integration as a common well-known add-on to maritime operations. Sounds like a business odyssey, thinking it over, but with decades of quiet patience and dedication, maybe it'd work.
will_walker 8y ago
Any review of geoengineering projects to combat climate change should also include an analysis or description of iron seeding of oceans to promote plankton growth. In addition to sequestering carbon such work results in abundance in the marine food system. A pilot project completed off the Alaskan coast may have resulted in record salmon runs in 2017 as juvenile fish found plenty to eat.
- crazy_monkey 8y ago
  Leading to rapid population growth in marine ecosystems and then a ton of decaying biomass afterwards which releases the CO2 back into the ocean, asphyxiating the marine life and undoing the benefits.
  - derekp7 8y ago
    Did that happen in the trial? Because I thought that anything that died in the ocean sank to the bottom, gets incorporated into the sediment and turned into oil.
- beerlord 8y ago
  Indeed. We need to get the CO2 out of the atmosphere, or else we still end up with ocean acidification. Higher base CO2 level will also soon begin to impact human cognition - it only takes 1000ppm for CO2 to begin to have an impact on our mental performance. If outdoor CO2 levels are high, ventilating buildings will become less effective.
jazzabeanie 8y ago
My biggest concern with these single attribute solutions is that they might lead to a sense of complacency about CO2 emissions. This could lead to an even bigger problem with ocean acidification than there would have been otherwise.
- ageofwant 8y ago
  Exactly. While "the scientists" are working on the problem, we can just continue pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air and sea and millions into our bank accounts. We know what to do: stop burning carbon, we have the technology today to replace carbon energy, we just want to do it as cheaply as possible without disrupting the Koch brother's revenue stream.
- b_b 8y ago
  Unfortunately these solutions might just be what we need given that people don't seem to be sufficiently slowing down any of their heavy CO2 production processes, and globally we are definitely not taking this as seriously as we should be. By the time we do, it will most likely after seeing the horrific effects, in which case solutions like these are needed.
- DennisP 8y ago
  If the ice sheets melt, it won't just raise sea levels, it'll lower the planet's albedo, directly raising the temperature. That'll bring us further along feedback loops that cause the planet to release greenhouse gases by itself: CO2 and methane from melting permafrost, CO2 from forest fires, methane from hydrates, etc. That will quicken ocean acidification. As for making people complacent: they're already complacent. I include almost everybody in that. The Paris agreement is unrealistic, lacks enforcement, and most countries are well behind their modest targets. Germany is increasing CO2 emissions because they're shutting down their nuclear plants. Etc, etc. Maybe what makes good people complacent is watered-down, sugar-coated plans for fixing the climate. Just plant trees, put some solar on your roof, turn down your thermostat, we'll be fine. Maybe it would shake them out of complacency if we showed them what it would actually take to get us out of the mess we're in.
crazy_monkey 8y ago
I suggest building more Tsar Bombas and dropping them into the Marianas trench. If we make the ocean deeper by making huge craters, then the sea levels will fall!
baxtr 8y ago
What I’m missing in these kind of articles is an overview of different schemes to prevent damage causes by climate change, and, then a discussion of the ROI of each scheme.
vowelless 8y ago
What are the downsides of this? Imagine the earth is getting warmer, but we have walls holding back melting ice. What is the implication to the earth of a warmer planet with lower sea level ? Historically, temperature of earth and sea level have been very correlated. What happens when we interfere with that? I am thinking about things like mass desertification, changing currents, etc.
- rhodysurf 8y ago
  This doesn’t tackle acidification which is the second side effect of climate change. Also if the glaciers melt from the ocean getting warmer they will release carbons
conductr 8y ago
Every time I read something like this I think; What would it take to actually block the sun like Mr. Burns? And, would there be any downsides to attempting this? Partially block of course. I was in Maine last year during the big solar eclipse (in the US); I don't remember how much percent of the sun was blocked in that location but the temperature dropped several degrees and outdoors it only visibly got slightly darker in mid-day. I'm completely naive and ignorant about the practicalities of space stuff and climate science. But it does always pop in my mind as the obvious way to cool things down.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > What would it take to actually block the sun like Mr. Burns? Put a small concentration of aerosols (microscopic dust particles or other light absorbers/reflectors) in the upper atmosphere. Basically a scaled down version of what happens during a volcanic eruption. The impact of that is one of the (few) areas where we actually have good predictive power in climate science. > would there be any downsides to attempting this? Depends on how you feel about putting a small concentration of aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Also, you would have to do very small increments to avoid having more impact than you want.
- andygates 8y ago
  A partial eclipse from a sunshade in space sounds fun until the size and cost racks up. Even with lightweight materials and cheap launches and adding in Archinaut-type construction, it's still totally gonzo money. And the orbit is non-trivial: to stay over (or near) one area it needs to be further away from the Earth so it has less shadow so it needs to be bigger... Aerosols need to be topped up.
Proven 8y ago
Climatist lunatics. How about a radical plan to stop stealing and wasting our money for change?
phs318u 8y ago
Does nothing to mitigate or remediate the ongoing acidification of the oceans and the consequent collapse of the marine food-chain. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/06/1510856112?sid=7cf666e7-ed44-4205-af86-fe92592a6201 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/06/1510856112?sid=...

61 points by chr1 8y ago

For another big geoengineering project, check out "Atlantropa", an early 20th century German proposal to dam the Strait of Gibraltar and lower the Mediterranean Sea by 100 meters to generate hydroelectricity and create more arable land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa

larkeith 8y ago

"First, they should construct them in the outlet fjords of Greenland’s largest glaciers, like Jakobshavn. These fjords are often only a mile or two wide, and an underwater dredging project there would resemble successful large-scale civil engineering projects, like the Palm Islands in Dubai. Greenland is also under the shared control of Denmark and the Greenlandic national government, two entities that might decide to undertake the construction project together." Even if the later stages (building 60-mile-long sills beneath floating ice) seem unlikely to be cost-efficient, this part definitely sounds like it could be feasible; It's especially notable to me amongst climate-related megaprojects in that it does not require any new developments, but rather uses extant, mature technologies. Building the sills would require "only" time and money.

andygates 8y ago
It's also refreshing that unlike most proposals, it doesn't have to be done everywhere, forever, on a crazy global scale.

nine_k 8y ago

In short: the proposal to build loose walls that prevent warm ocean water from coming close to the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. This will slow down their melting enough so they won't produce the enormous icebergs at a fast rate any more. Unlike many global geo-engineering projects to prevent global warming, this one looks somehow realistic.

w-ll 8y ago
Any estimation on the co2 output building said walls and surrounding Greenland and Antarctic with them. What about animals the navigate through these waters. This just doesn't seem like a well thought idea to me.
- King-Aaron 8y ago
  > What about animals the navigate through these waters This is going to sound mighty unpopular - it already does to me while I try to formulate the right way to say this in my head... But at what point do we need to conclude that saving the nearly 8-billion human beings and the overall habitability of the Earth is of greater importance than certain animals living in individual biomes? I know it's not the contemporary, popular thing to think about. But if the alternative is the mass displacement and deaths of humans, it feels like it's something we're going to have to make a decision on.
  - matte_black 8y ago
    I feel if this problem was tackled in the 1950s our ancestors would have solved it and not thought twice about the animals. But here we are almost in the year 2020, and our sense of moral obligation holds us back from using our advanced technology to its maximum potential, even to save our own lives or pursue new horizons.
    - danharaj 8y ago
      Maybe its 'cause that maximum potential or whatever is what got us into this mess in the first place.
      - matte_black 8y ago
        What if now it’s the only thing that could get us out...
    - ageofwant 8y ago

Reason077 8y ago

The cost of engineering projects on this scale would be astronomical. Surely there would be a better ROI if that money were spent on efforts to replace fossil fuel power with low-carbon alternatives, electrification of ground transport, etc? If we can reduce carbon emissions by 90% or so, quickly enough, then the climate should stabilise. If that fails, then we can build the mega-projects as a desperate last stand.

alanbernstein 8y ago
Do you think 90% is really feasible any time soon? Wouldn't that require nonexistent new technology for air travel and container ships?
- nine_k 8y ago
  For air travel, yes. Large ships are large, and, unlike aircraft, have sufficient room and carrying capacity to install reasonably efficient carbon-capturing devices. It will cost a lot, of course.
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    There was a push to add computer-operated sails to cargo ships in the 80s. I don't know what happened to it - likely the cost of fuel dropped.
    - larkeith 8y ago
      There's a company that makes kite sails for cargo ships, which have proven effective [1]. However, as the fuel costs are payed by the shipper, there is a lack of economic incentive for ship owners to purchase them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails
      - unBrainSurgeon 8y ago
        Hmmm, so what's a good mechanism for routing around moral hazards like just making the customer pay for the fuel? We see lots of models for corporate raiders using loss leaders to attack bloated industries, but not much else. Also, with technology, the actual cost of development is extremely murky and variable. The only things that seem to motivate loss leader tactics is the end game of cornering a market. In the case of SkySails, ship owners are averse to the up front cost, even if it means leaving money on the table, long term, by keeping their prices the same, but saving the fuel money with the sail, and pocketing the difference. So, push to integrate with newly built ships, and then what? Offer freebie/rebate deals? But then they never get used because crew are lazy, and bored, but not that bored, and lazy wins. Plus dealing with tangled lines means the kite is all but ruined without a rigger available. So does that mean training at least one crew member to rig the kite? It seems like maybe SkySails would need to operate a consultancy, where they supply a crew member who operates the kite on commission, collecting a cut of the savings in fuel costs. Then it becomes not unlike the vending machine model. Companies permit vending machines on the premises, because they know employees want snacks, so they let a coin-op company install soda and candy machines, and they get a cut of whatever the machine pulls in. So now, if that works, and then SkySails attacks the ship building angle, they've grown an ecosystem of consultant experts, and some of them can operate as free agents, once ship builders normalize SkySail integration as a common well-known add-on to maritime operations. Sounds like a business odyssey, thinking it over, but with decades of quiet patience and dedication, maybe it'd work.

will_walker 8y ago

Any review of geoengineering projects to combat climate change should also include an analysis or description of iron seeding of oceans to promote plankton growth. In addition to sequestering carbon such work results in abundance in the marine food system. A pilot project completed off the Alaskan coast may have resulted in record salmon runs in 2017 as juvenile fish found plenty to eat.

crazy_monkey 8y ago
Leading to rapid population growth in marine ecosystems and then a ton of decaying biomass afterwards which releases the CO2 back into the ocean, asphyxiating the marine life and undoing the benefits.
- derekp7 8y ago
  Did that happen in the trial? Because I thought that anything that died in the ocean sank to the bottom, gets incorporated into the sediment and turned into oil.
beerlord 8y ago
Indeed. We need to get the CO2 out of the atmosphere, or else we still end up with ocean acidification. Higher base CO2 level will also soon begin to impact human cognition - it only takes 1000ppm for CO2 to begin to have an impact on our mental performance. If outdoor CO2 levels are high, ventilating buildings will become less effective.

jazzabeanie 8y ago

My biggest concern with these single attribute solutions is that they might lead to a sense of complacency about CO2 emissions. This could lead to an even bigger problem with ocean acidification than there would have been otherwise.

ageofwant 8y ago
Exactly. While "the scientists" are working on the problem, we can just continue pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air and sea and millions into our bank accounts. We know what to do: stop burning carbon, we have the technology today to replace carbon energy, we just want to do it as cheaply as possible without disrupting the Koch brother's revenue stream.
b_b 8y ago
Unfortunately these solutions might just be what we need given that people don't seem to be sufficiently slowing down any of their heavy CO2 production processes, and globally we are definitely not taking this as seriously as we should be. By the time we do, it will most likely after seeing the horrific effects, in which case solutions like these are needed.
DennisP 8y ago
If the ice sheets melt, it won't just raise sea levels, it'll lower the planet's albedo, directly raising the temperature. That'll bring us further along feedback loops that cause the planet to release greenhouse gases by itself: CO2 and methane from melting permafrost, CO2 from forest fires, methane from hydrates, etc. That will quicken ocean acidification. As for making people complacent: they're already complacent. I include almost everybody in that. The Paris agreement is unrealistic, lacks enforcement, and most countries are well behind their modest targets. Germany is increasing CO2 emissions because they're shutting down their nuclear plants. Etc, etc. Maybe what makes good people complacent is watered-down, sugar-coated plans for fixing the climate. Just plant trees, put some solar on your roof, turn down your thermostat, we'll be fine. Maybe it would shake them out of complacency if we showed them what it would actually take to get us out of the mess we're in.

crazy_monkey 8y ago

I suggest building more Tsar Bombas and dropping them into the Marianas trench. If we make the ocean deeper by making huge craters, then the sea levels will fall!

baxtr 8y ago

What I’m missing in these kind of articles is an overview of different schemes to prevent damage causes by climate change, and, then a discussion of the ROI of each scheme.

vowelless 8y ago

What are the downsides of this? Imagine the earth is getting warmer, but we have walls holding back melting ice. What is the implication to the earth of a warmer planet with lower sea level ? Historically, temperature of earth and sea level have been very correlated. What happens when we interfere with that? I am thinking about things like mass desertification, changing currents, etc.

rhodysurf 8y ago
This doesn’t tackle acidification which is the second side effect of climate change. Also if the glaciers melt from the ocean getting warmer they will release carbons

conductr 8y ago

Every time I read something like this I think; What would it take to actually block the sun like Mr. Burns? And, would there be any downsides to attempting this? Partially block of course. I was in Maine last year during the big solar eclipse (in the US); I don't remember how much percent of the sun was blocked in that location but the temperature dropped several degrees and outdoors it only visibly got slightly darker in mid-day. I'm completely naive and ignorant about the practicalities of space stuff and climate science. But it does always pop in my mind as the obvious way to cool things down.

pdonis 8y ago
> What would it take to actually block the sun like Mr. Burns? Put a small concentration of aerosols (microscopic dust particles or other light absorbers/reflectors) in the upper atmosphere. Basically a scaled down version of what happens during a volcanic eruption. The impact of that is one of the (few) areas where we actually have good predictive power in climate science. > would there be any downsides to attempting this? Depends on how you feel about putting a small concentration of aerosols in the upper atmosphere. Also, you would have to do very small increments to avoid having more impact than you want.
andygates 8y ago
A partial eclipse from a sunshade in space sounds fun until the size and cost racks up. Even with lightweight materials and cheap launches and adding in Archinaut-type construction, it's still totally gonzo money. And the orbit is non-trivial: to stay over (or near) one area it needs to be further away from the Earth so it has less shadow so it needs to be bigger... Aerosols need to be topped up.

Proven 8y ago

Climatist lunatics. How about a radical plan to stop stealing and wasting our money for change?

phs318u 8y ago

Does nothing to mitigate or remediate the ongoing acidification of the oceans and the consequent collapse of the marine food-chain. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/06/1510856112?sid=7cf666e7-ed44-4205-af86-fe92592a6201 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/06/1510856112?sid=...