
Running the numbers on an insane scheme to save Antarctic ice - jseliger
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/running-the-numbers-on-an-insane-scheme-to-save-antarctic-ice/
======
curtis
A few years ago I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations regarding sulfur
dioxide injection into the stratosphere:
[http://curtisb.posthaven.com/someday-soon-chemtrails-may-
be-...](http://curtisb.posthaven.com/someday-soon-chemtrails-may-be-real).

The proposal for saving Antarctic ice in the submitted article may be just too
big for humans to do. Sulfur dioxide injection, however, is dirt cheap, and we
could definitely do that. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but we can do it.

~~~
mikedilger
You do know that sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere causes acid rain, right?

~~~
curtis
This paper considers that very question:
[https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009...](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2009JD011918)

From the "Conclusions" section:

> _Analysis of our results and comparison to the results of Kuylenstierna et
> al.[2001] and Skeffington[2006] lead to the conclusion that the additional
> sulfate deposition that would result from geoengineering will not be
> sufficient to negatively impact most ecosystems, even under the assumption
> that all deposited sulfate will be in the form of sulfuric acid. However,
> although these model results are feasible, should geoengineering with
> sulfate aerosols actually be conducted, local results due to weather
> variability may differ from the results presented here. With the exception
> of terrestrial waterways, every region has a critical loading value a full
> order of magnitude above the largest potential total amount of acid
> deposition that would occur under the geoengineering scenarios presented in
> this paper. Furthermore, our results show that additional sulfate deposition
> tends to preferentially occur over oceans, meaning the chance of such a
> sensitive ecosystem receiving enough additional sulfate deposition to suffer
> negative consequences is very small._

Also note that I did not say that sulfur dioxide injection was a good idea,
only that we could afford to do it.

~~~
hndamien
At the very least it would provide incontrovertible evidence that humans can
effect the climate. As if there wasn't enough evidence already :(

------
singularity2001
Iron fertilization seems like a much more reasonable approach:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization)

Each kilogram of iron can fix 83000 kg of carbon dioxide and turn it into
biomass.

~~~
im3w1l
How much of that is permanently fixed, and how much of it goes right back when
those organisms die?

~~~
azernik
From linked article:

"Of the carbon-rich biomass generated by plankton blooms, half (or more) is
generally consumed by grazing organisms (zooplankton, krill, small fish, etc.)
but 20 to 30% sinks below 200 meters (660 ft) into the colder water strata
below the thermocline. Much of this fixed carbon continues into the abyss, but
a substantial percentage is redissolved and remineralized. At this depth,
however, this carbon is now suspended in deep currents and effectively
isolated from the atmosphere for centuries. (The surface to benthic cycling
time for the ocean is approximately 4,000 years.)"

------
chiefalchemist
Sounds insurmountable. That said, in the context of the 50th anniversary of
Apollo 11, this feels like there are far more knowns than unknowns.

Think of it this way. JFK laid out a challenge that in retrospect amounted to
"Here's a iPhone. Go put us on the moon. Soon!"

THAT was madness. Redistribution of some water* - even at this scale - is more
Mercury than Apollo. It seems it might be us who now knows too much to be
crazy enough to try. That's a shame.

* On a daily basis we redistribute a massive amount of oil. So there is a reference point in terms of volume / scale.

~~~
Retric
The are talking about moving over 100x times as much water per year as we move
oil. Further, it’s only going to freeze during winter adding even more time
constraints.

Just desalination of this much water would cost ~5 trillion dollars in the US.
Doing this in the Antarctic winter would probably double that if not more.

~~~
chiefalchemist
"The are talking about moving over 100x times as much water per year as we
move oil." > Fair enough. But 100x still isn't a moon shot.

"Just desalination of this much water would cost ~5 trillion dollars in the
US." > Perhaps. But what is the cost of NOT doing it? 2x? 3x? 5x? 10x?

Long to short. if it were easy we would have done it already. Therefore, I
have to believe the next steps are going to be hard, harder, and perhaps
hardest (i.e., greater than going to the moon on the back of an iPhone).

~~~
Retric
The only impact of not doing this is less sea level rise. The ocean is still
going to rise significantly, thus the savings is likely less than the 10++
trillion this would cost.

Remember, this is also not a long term solution, it would need to be repeated
over time.

~~~
trehalose
How do you figure that _not_ doing this would cause _less_ sea level rise? The
article states that proceeding with this plan might slow sea level rise to
nearly one-third of its current rate:

> To put that into context, removing that much seawater from the ocean would
> lower global sea level by about 2 millimeters per year. Current total sea
> level rise is a little over 3 millimeters per year, so it would be like
> nearly halting sea level rise… by bailing water out of the ocean. We can
> call that a bonus positive.

On what grounds do you dispute this? I'm not saying you're wrong (I'm too
uneducated in the relevant fields to know that), I'd just like to know your
rationale?

~~~
Retric
Poor use of double negative.

I mean you are not going actually fix global temperate, weather patterns,
ocean acidification etc. It’s benefits are simply going to be limited to stuff
very near the ocean, and when you start talking trillions of dollars that
builds a lot of structures.

------
ximeng
[https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaaw4132](https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaaw4132)
\- original article

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdrup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdrup)
\- unit of flow for ocean currents

145GW of power needed to raise water up 640m. Desalination not included, may
be necessary. Would require 12k high-end wind turbines given local wind
conditions. This is around 25% of current global wind capacity.

[https://wwindea.org/information-2/information/](https://wwindea.org/information-2/information/)
\- "UPDATED: 4 June 2019 Wind Power Capacity Worldwide Reaches 597 GW, 50,1 GW
added in 2018 China with more than 200 GW, USA close to 100 GW, Europe in
decline Bonn, 25 February 2019 (WWEA) – The overall capacity of all wind
turbines installed worldwide by the end of 2018 reached 597 Gigawatt"

~~~
learnfromstory
Does 12000 windmills sound like a lot? Consider that we have 1.7 million oil
wells in the USA alone.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
When you consider that's 12,000 for the least energy intensive part, _just
pumping the water,_ yes. A hell of a lot.

How many extra windmills for desalination and freezing to produce snow? How
many acres or square miles of desalination plant? How to dispose of the few(!)
tonnes of salt? How much of the world's shipping, construction and engineering
requires commandeering, WW2 style to ensure it's a ten year not fifty year
project?

------
jseliger
Many recent discussions around the unfolding global warming catastrophe have
asked, "What can we do?" Besides the obvious, Climeworks now has a scheme to
let average people pay to bury carbon:
[https://www.climeworks.com/](https://www.climeworks.com/). I've signed up but
have no information beyond the articles I've read about the company:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/magazine/climeworks-
busin...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/magazine/climeworks-business-
climate-change.html).

It seems we're past the point where reducing emissions will be enough, and to
the point where we need to reverse atmospheric CO2, now.

~~~
Ixiaus
I agree, I think geoengineering is unavoidable. As far as geoengineering
projects go, this one looks like the most feasible and safe so far:

[https://projectvesta.org/](https://projectvesta.org/)

~~~
avip
Could you elaborate? Enhanced Weathering is questionable on many levels. Have
you compared it to other approaches?

~~~
slavik81
Why is enhanced weathering questionable? I don't really know much about it,
but I was under the impression that carbon absorption by weathered silicates
will have a dramatic impact on the planet over the very long term[1]. Is
enhanced weathering just too slow, or is there more to it than that?

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth)

------
Tade0
How about using planks of cooling wood[0] to cover parts of the sea instead?

It should float and perhaps can create a cooling effect large enough to make
ice out of already freezing seawater?

[0] [https://www.coolingpost.com/features/cool-wood-could-take-
th...](https://www.coolingpost.com/features/cool-wood-could-take-the-heat-out-
of-buildings/)

