Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - timallard

Pages: 1 2 [3]

Re: biodiesel feedstock USA

EPA figures for feb 2016:

105 million gallons biodiesel produced

fresh soy oil : 51%
yellow grease (includes used cooking oil): 14%
distillers orn oil (most from corn to ethanol production) : 11%
white grease: 7%
fresh canola oil : 6%
Tallow: 3%


Sounds about right.

Biodiesel is NOT used as a Jet fuel. It is regarded as a pollutant in Jet. I sit on the ASTM committee that just (last year) increased the allowable ppm of biodiesel in Jet from 10ppm. <snip>

A Washington Post article:

The airline industry carries the greatest onus of any on direct infusion of greenhouse gases into the stratosphere-troposphere versus ground sources which get reduced somewhat in their migration there.

Many within it are very concerned so there is a push to use aviation quality biodiesel, I never stated that angle would be as easy as producing ground transportation fuels which for most engines don't even need the glycerol removed.

Consider three grades at the pumps one for high-tech it's like aviation fuel the rest are cheaper.

Recall this is to allow a person living at home to produce a biofuel from their own waste using a system that recycles the water.

So I don't see the technical difficulties being worked on for aviation by DARPA's new raceway tanks to develop aviation fuel & the influence of the airlines stopping, so, we can assume with time they will solve listed negatives on those issues.

The larger issue are all the IC-engines on the planet that will not stop being used to give them a biofuel and for that wastewater as the feedstock is the best use of that in that using algae as a non-food feedstock from it closes the use-recycle circle at the individual level no need for a centralized system for most people.

This is not desired by the oil companies, they had their chance to switch in the late 70's and chose to not, the reason we are at 3-ppm/year and will hit 600-ppm before anybody can stop it, it's only business-as-usual, worst-case scenario.

What else does? It must be sustainable did you look at the list of where most volume comes from? How many are food crop sources, eh?

Those are NOT sustainable having to use land, bets fertilizers & pesticides and needs rain or irrigation versus algae grown from wastewater on a city level coming at you in a pipe one only needs to grow algae, apparently that's too hard.

Therefore, get into algae as water cleaners, what else purifies water and gives you a biofuel?

It's the future, all those non-sustainable feedstocks are easy to create a supply-chain for and that's why they are used, the actual biodiesel producers grow algae, whoever processes those "feedstocks" are NOT PRODUCERS, they are REFINERS.

As I stated most actual producers sell their product as home heating oil directly to users locally to stay in business, held away from transportation by being small operators without gas-stations nationwide, it has only to do with monopolistic practices, eh?

NASA can measure thickness directly using two radars one reflects the ice the other the water below it so gains the difference from the air ... thus volume is rather exact now over the entire area versus previous estimates from like 2009-2010.

Vignette on rotten ice by Barber.

Don't fall in love with a solution with unmodelled consequences.
Right on, I already left the Dutch method and mixed in using pilings ala Army Engrs near New Orleans in a new way to create the structure to pull up wire-rope nets.

As for enhancing the current from the west off Northwest Cape which is crucial to reducing flow during construction, having the nets slow flow during construction makes a much more likely closure than leaving a gap.

Then finding a solution to allowing a large river's worth of inflow to carry nutrients into the Chukchi Sea by creating a slit dam, a full closure would cut this off.

All without modeling from a variety of building experience, study, shop work, it's not very theoretical actually I have a wave-tank in my brain started studying that as a kid ... and now pretty good a Comsol & Solidworks.

And, if modeling validates it what then will you say, just curious ...

Totally supporting my thesis, won't belabor it:

To counter why to do it the largest reason so far is nutrient transport into the Chukchi Sea making it a feeding ground, working on how to continue to supply the nutrients w/o the high volume [ Arctic Odyssey: Flow; 4:28; ].

The main construction structure uses large pipes spaced close enough to slow current to a specified velocity they create a pressure wave upstream that restricts flow, a sieve dam, very porous yet voila!, it's a reasonable flow to not disrupt the early forming and late retention of sea-ice to sustain the nutrient flow if done correctly!

Thus this dam wouldn't be operated water-tight, it would be like a large river input instead of 4-5-Amazons in volume ... to me no shipping canal, we need to restore the entire sea-ice system to battle overheating this planet, the fossilites had their day back off end the leverage-cheap-labor-ship-it economy that's all that's moving beyond oil-gas-coal, eh?

Shipping & aircraft were not limited by Paris to accommodate the continuation of this racket, a crime syndicate now for all to see.

I have high confidence in the new technique, the analogy is when you forgot filling the bath and it started to overflow, saved it on the first tinkles and unlike the bathtub if you create a spillway it will stay at overflow height and not go down.

Consider that.

The volume is greatly reduced yet the bathtub level remains equal, eh? Ring a bell for closing a massive opening to the sea?

At first the spillway is the entire length of the Cape Romanzof leg, restricted by a wire-rope net in flow. The key is as the height of the dam grows the tendency of the natural deep-water current's mass due to momentum will want to keep moving SE, the taller it gets the stronger this tendency.

Near actual closure the net is smaller gaps to assist this last part by restricting volume more, the sea won't rise there will be a "equalization wave" formed on the south side higher than sea-level.

The volume won't now be pushed by the entire water-column moving north, only a small portion near the surface, it's being choked off by the main mass being carried by its kinetic energy & momentum having a velocity SE so not interested in turning north.

This hasn't been modeled, it's my design strategy theory on how to close off this passage using a unique blend of existing construction techniques carried out at this scale.

With fish & mammals accommodations this is starting to become an integrated solution with habitats & current sustainable economies, especially remote villages depending on sea-mammals & fishing in the traditional way, if you restore sea-ice people can use dogsleds, eh?

So far on the construction method I have this much for rough-out:
    seismic & geophysics
    current-speed-direction buoys
    structural pinnings
    tension cable anchors
    footing prep
    bedrock & pilings
    pipe footing unit install
    tension cable & toe net  to footings
    a-frames, bracing & winches
    net section install - diving level
    upper net section install
    larger pipe at joins

Locally Produced Transportation Biofuels: Biodiesel from Sewage Effluent.

First designed at home-farm-ranch scale a photo-bioreactor cube 1/2m on a side full of glass plates with light, air, temp control that stack to conserve heat takes 4-6 units per adult to handle capacity. Algae take 2.5-days to clean water with these growing is 24x7 it scales to big city.

Test case Phoenix, AZ, 10M-gallons/day of secondary effluent normally the treatment plant uses floccing chemicals to remove the dissolved solids, aka algae food as treatment plants are there to prevent algae blooms, eh?

This is a lot of nutrients worth about 2-gallons/person/day on the system for Phoenix some 3M-gallons/day of biodiesel at one of three plants in the basin 9M-gal/day.

For atmospherics this removes CO2 adds O2 and the reverse when burned low in the atmosphere and on a continuing roll-over so should slow down migration of the gases to the troposphere where they do the damage.

Soot is the biggie to remove to scale, consider using a low-power, high-frequency plasma for that by mfg's.

The biodiesel industry is robust yet lacks an outlet to transportation being mainly small operators so no gas-stations, they usually have pumps around $2/gal at the plant, most of the biodiesel used for home heating oils; about 1/3 of producers use wastewater for a feedstock.

Consider running any IC-engine this way for the zillions of them, and for much of the world a heating & cooking oil and because algae clean so well easy to fully purify and recycle the water.

I don't understand this: So they are making biodiesel from waster by growing algae? The math simply does not add up. It's 125 lt of volume. the algae does not live typically past 1%, so you are looking at 1.25 liters of algae per 2.5 days. Extracting the oil is probably going to require a hand press, and you will get maybe 20% of that mass as oil. That's going to be 0.25 liters of oil every 2.5 days, so 0.1 liters. That has to be converted to biodiesel, requiring collection, Every year you can make perhaps 35 liters of fuel, if there are no other loses in the system. Sorry for the back of the envelope math.. I am using 1g/cm3 for water/oil mass. Oil is typically 0.85 g/cm3.

Solyazme are the most advanced of trying to make fuel from algea, and they have concluded that it's best to have a main product (such as proteins) rather than grow for food Their stock price is a good indicator of their success.

The comment on biodiesel is actually completely wrong. The biodiesel market is huge and is LARGELY used for transportation. ADM is the largest in America, with 450m gallons or so of capacity. Note also that the outlet is in diesel wholesale rack which is often blended at 5% with biodiesel. Pretty much every gallon of diesel fuel bought in California has been blended with biodiesel. The total production in the US is 2 billion gallons or so, with 3.5 billion gallons of total capacity. Biodiesel is small compared to the petroleum industry, but the industry itself has close to 8b in gross revenue. Only a small fraction goes to heating oil as you cannot claim RIN or LCFS credits if it does. You can claim a D5 RIN for home heating but you have to jump through hoops with the EPA to make sure you are auditable.

SOOT is not an issue with burning biodiesel, it actually reduces PM emissions over ULSD. As it is burnt as transportation fuel it is typically passed through a DPF before release, to reduce particle emissions to a minimum.
RE: "So they are making biodiesel from waster by growing algae? "; Yes for decades from wastewater effluent solids removed.

RE: Grow-rates; my figures are based upon lab work & the ASU library that put the first commercial jet on biodiesel into the air, most growth data is actually from CO2 sequestration by the coal companies since the late 60's I had to interpolate, prior to WW2 50% oil species were hybridized.

The largest influence on growth-rate is distance from the lighting source not nutrients the reason for the glass plates which provide light equal to the top 1/4" of a pond, which squeegee well during harvest.

A main issue with me is to fully recycle the water, done at Lake Tahoe since the late 70's using algae makes it cheaper by having a revenue stream and an alternative to chemical precipitation of  dissolved solids.

Solyazme use bioreactors, just huge ones and most are sushine growing not illuminated for 24x7 growing mainly in big tubes and the send cleaners down them. Harvesting was once the greatest challenge not growing now EMF is used to break apart the cell walls, this technique used by OriginOil, they can purify fracking wastewater with their system the only one with a production prototype.

Also pretty certain they do a lot of volume in refined used oils as well via subsidiaries as that's where most volume is coming from afaik.

These are expensive, at a sewage treatment plant the feedstock comes at you at 1000-gallons/hour from existing infrastructure & these units plug into that system by simply valving the effluent to the racks, this give emergency capacity when someone flushes a meth lab before they have to release it.

Keeping that kind of inflow kills the biology and all sewage plants use natural bacteria to break down wastes this helps operators decide to try it, nobody can afford to build tanks just for that.

RE: ". The biodiesel market is huge and is LARGELY used for transportation. ADM is the largest in America, with 450m gallons or so of capacity."

Forgive the confusion they don't use wastewater as the feedstock for nearly all of that volume I'm only referring to companies, usually small operators that do. Afaik a first airline using ONLY biodiesel has a good enough supply-chain to fly, I wouldn't call that being used "largely for transportation" yet.

If you go to sources they list "alternative" for wastewater as a feedstock, most are reprocessing used oils from food crops so not a "green" feedstock although they call it that, worthy of doing regardless just pointing out a big difference to algae growers and where most volume right now comes from.

So in 10-million gallons of effluent it's half in weight of dissolved solids, over 20,000-tons per day if you had to buy it as fertilizer at $400/ton that's a cool $8-million a day saved over being a 2nd party to get that many nutrient to grow with.

Nobody but treatment plants can afford it, the small timers using it mainly are helping treatment plants not have to add capacity and avoid using farmer's fields which is becoming restricted.

Next is to put the concept into a global perspective, most people will use the biodiesel for cooking and home heating, most people don't own a bicycle on the planet.

All cities have trouble processing their sewage and it's expensive, this uses a non-food feedstock to be a primary producer of biodiesel that creates a revenue-stream to pay for tertiary purification and all water is recycled, also something a lot of cities deal with.

Therefore, this isn't simply a way to make biofuel, it's a way to turn sewage treatment into a large asset instead of an expense, recycling a lot of water, producing a transportation, heating and cooking biofuel.

Mainly, I don't see where you address the whole issue of sewage-water-biofuel as integrated and ready-to-go just needing awareness & education.

And finally, my units are made for homes to allow people to DIY biodiesel from their own waste cutting out the fuel companies entirely; for a dairy farm it'll run the whole operation on wash-down with few solids to deal with a consistent input an example of distributing the system at that scale.

Correctly interpreting new conditions of sea-ice by satellite data, another Ted Cruzer??

This is at-sea recent work taking ice-cores on sea-ice from UW-APL, a new finding when another researcher sailing north into the Beaufort Sea encountered this "rotten ice", a new form not known to anyone.

The other newbie pancake ice as first forming, never happened like this before to Inuit afaik, commented on elsewhere.

These 3 videos cover this:
"Assessing the Habitability and Physical Structure of Rotting First-year Arctic Sea Ice"; UW-APL research; 6:38;

"ARCTIC SEA STATE: Pancake ice; UW-APL research";5:12 ;

"2010 Arctic Ice Update: Beaufort Sea research vignette 3:10"; 9:49;

Locally Produced Transportation Biofuels: Biodiesel from Sewage Effluent.

First designed at home-farm-ranch scale a photo-bioreactor cube 1/2m on a side full of glass plates with light, air, temp control that stack to conserve heat takes 4-6 units per adult to handle capacity. Algae take 2.5-days to clean water with these growing is 24x7 it scales to big city.

Test case Phoenix, AZ, 10M-gallons/day of secondary effluent normally the treatment plant uses floccing chemicals to remove the dissolved solids, aka algae food as treatment plants are there to prevent algae blooms, eh?

This is a lot of nutrients worth about 2-gallons/person/day on the system for Phoenix some 3M-gallons/day of biodiesel at one of three plants in the basin 9M-gal/day.

For atmospherics this removes CO2 adds O2 and the reverse when burned low in the atmosphere and on a continuing roll-over so should slow down migration of the gases to the troposphere where they do the damage.

Soot is the biggie to remove to scale, consider using a low-power, high-frequency plasma for that by mfg's.

The biodiesel industry is robust yet lacks an outlet to transportation being mainly small operators so no gas-stations, they usually have pumps around $2/gal at the plant, most of the biodiesel used for home heating oils; about 1/3 of producers use wastewater for a feedstock.

Consider running any IC-engine this way for the zillions of them, and for much of the world a heating & cooking oil and because algae clean so well easy to fully purify and recycle the water.

Consider the impacts already seen to walrus being forced to swim to feeding grounds & the bears localizing to refugia where conditions are still ok what kills the adolescents are giant leads to swim.

So, the ice is today too little for biological sustainability, thus this to me this is so small to be incredibly misleading if not criminal at this point in the game, it's too unrealistic to expect anything short of a biological disaster at that areal extent.

They need to include the ecological effects to sea-mammals, fish & birds along with the permafrost melt by then for people & infrastructure to put out a number so low.

Call for an EIS on scenarios from them and a geophysical analysis to put metrics on the permafrost extent change by the time the ice is that small to get an estimate on total damages a tho't.

You mention sea level rise in your last post.
I don't know how steep the shorelines are where the strait is at it's narrowest, but if anything other than vertical cliffs, the breadth of the strait as well as the volume of the flow will increase well out of proportion to any rise in sea level.
The 80 to 1 release of sensible heat when phase change of ice ends has bothered me for years, as has the thought of vast amounts of CH4 from a warmed ESAS.
I can't imagine that your dam will ever reach serious consideration, too much cooperation required, too expensive, too little time.
I've resigned myself to the not too distant loss of Arctic ice followed closely by the end of civilization, or at least anything resembling the present. If Carter had won his second term, we might have escaped,(or at least delayed) this. That was 36 years ago.
He didn't, we are cooked.
Yeah, yet as a solo climber I'm perhaps too persistent, willing to fail & try again, maybe why I suggested getting it done by pirates who want to own the shipping canals  ::) ... governments are pirates there's no need to worry about them anymore as vehicles of human needs-n-dreams.

For myself I know there are people who wanna' try, and dammit if you're not lending a hand get outta' the way, at 3-ppm & 405-ppm on the face of it that's a mass-extinction without action, SAR underway back off there's all of our children's dreams on the line.

Since ice acts as an insulator, I think what we need to do is manufacture a polyna (pollyanna) at the pole to remove excess heat over the winter.
This could be done using the same construction methods, I propose artificial atolls to deal with the largest methane fields, for this idea it can be used to create an upwelling from currents my flash as the deeper water is warmer & usually more saline, worth modeling.

I'd love to see this attempted for a couple of reasons:

1) I love to see big projects worked on, and they don't come any bigger than this.
2) It would show that climate change is finally being taken seriously.
3) It would show that, unlike cats, countries can be herded together in co-operation.

I'd hate to see this attempted for a few other reasons:

1) We have a small idea of some of the unintended consequences, and even they're not nice.
2) It's a distraction from the more urgent needs of planning for the effects of climate change.
3) It will give us belief that we're doing something about climate change, so we can carry on BAU as normal.

I'm in the sceptical/please don't camp.
For downside consider this closure is just another ice-age cycle, it was open 12,000-years ago, in this plan sea-mammals can migrate if they want and have birthing ice habitat, fisheries will have ladders.

As for being a distraction that's actually very wrong it's front-burner with the ice gone.

The heat-gain is huge from the loss in albedo, people aren't getting the 80:1 situation when that ice is gone the solar energy & air that before melted 1-gram of ice heats a gram of water by 80C/144F, that's the physics problem.

So now daily this new heat source is adding on a global scale 0.21-watts/m², hardly a distraction and tellingly a decade of gain from 2001-2011 equals 1/4th of that caused by emissions from 1979 to present, 36-years, it's heating almost as fast as emissions because it's more efficient at heating than the secondary effect of LWIR retention.

The ratio 10-years of albedo loss == 1/4(36-years of emissions heating).

As a skeptic this is a real issue, covered in this video:  "Charles Kennel:The Impacts of Arctic Sea Ice Retreat on Contemporary Climate."; 21:59;

What this implies directly is to do squat reducing emissions now requires twice the reductions than anticipated at Paris, get it?

This is a very serious matter in my book everyone is bitching about economic effects well it just got worse by a factor of two or more to reduce them faster on a timeline folks, you can't sit in the chair this is ongoing.

So, the longer nothing is done, the faster it happens is how the planet works, right?

We're at 3-ppm/year jumping from 280 to 405-ppm in 260-years we'll be at 600-ppm within 70-years where from a recent paper Antarctica starts to go really fast and is committed to all melt off around 800-ppm which we reach BAU within 130-years.

The bonus is all meaningful coral reefs are dead at 750-ppm, I haven't found a scientist who thinks we can stop CO2 before 600-ppm and this halves the timelines of all previous expectations, eh?

The onus is now very strong to tackle sea-ice loss because it's adding so much direct heat and wasn't considered thoroughly I daresay by anyone except to know it'll gain heat, the metrics were done years ago.

The other Catch-22 little spoken of is how long sea-level goes up after CO2 goes down, anyone who has studied the graphs of them would say it's several centuries or more before the sea stops rising, at 405-ppm we're committed to 25m/82ft more ocean it's only how fast, eh?

That's the context, there is no arguing about a need to deal with sea-ice loss when it's equaling emissions in heating is there?

Does heat advection through the Bering Strait contribute to the thermohaline conveyor cooling and thus sinking in the north Pacific? This would be one way to find out.
Apology somehow missed this, I don't have bathymetric & current charts so guessing that only the main drift counts for volume, storms may enhance that yet it's a sill of a sort the "deep" at St. Lawrence Island is 50ftm/90m, it's rather shallow on a tilt to the Aleutian chain.

That makes me suspect it's not involved with the overturning much.

The volume rate is a million-m³/second, to me that's not a big enough influence due to the Aleutian chain as most of the overturning is south of them.

My take on the cold zone is freshwater runoff increasing, there are a ton of small rivers & lagoons on the Siberian side, the current is taking the water north, on nullschool there is a west-to-east surface current I'm trying to enhance to become a longshore current with the closing.

I see there's now a poll attached to it.  I've answered "Not important" because it's closest to the correct answer, which is that sea ice reflects climate change, not vice versa.  Trying to magically make more ice (and some of  the schemes here are genuinely magical thinking that break the laws of physics) will not do a thing to stop climate change - but cutting emissions may end the decline in sea ice.

Say your house had poor foundations and was subsiding.  The walls are cracking, the windows are falling out, and the tiles are coming off the roof.  Is your best course of action really to get up on the roof and try to Velcro the tiles back on?
Logic test, you say, "... which is that sea ice reflects climate change, not vice versa.", and I have to agree it's doing exactly that by disappearing, which tells what's going on is a total disruption of the sea-ice.

Now with that comes the onus of letting it continue, all observations show an increase in size and volume of clathrate vents on the seabed, and, land permafrost melting continues with heating to 50m of +3C above what it was at this time.

So now consider we're at 3-ppm CO2, over 9-petagrams/year this is called in paleontology an "excursion", the only times these have happened have been mass-extinctions and our carbon excursion has a best analog of the PETM, Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

Thus that's really important because loss of the sea-ice instigates a large methane release and those are the prime suspect for the PETM which took 50,000-years and the only way that could happen was more carbon than the volcanics from the Siberian Steps put out.

Then one cannot forget that heating the water is faster at heating the planet than emitting CO2, that's why a decade of albedo loss was 25% of the heat added by all the CO2 from 1979 to 2015. 36 years.

So to counter that means we have to reduce emissions even faster.

This is why I put in "Not important", it's a trick question.

"Fiddling with emissions" by building global solar and wind electricity generation is easier to do than damming the strait, quicker, and has less unintended consequences and more benefits.
It has already been shown by several researchers in several publications that it (solar/wind generation on a global scale) can be completed in about 20 years. The dam - from idea to the finish line including all the debating, planning and building - will not be ready in less. The bigger the project, the longer the discussions beforehand.
It needs political will and starting money, the same applies to the dam.
It can be done incrementally on a country by country basis with fewer engineering question marks and fewer financial unknowns, and does not require global agreement beforehand.
It solves many more problems, such as ocean acidification, global warming and what have you, not just the issue of Arctic sea ice.
It avoids many unknowns associated with the proposed dam - what will happen to the Pacific? Will the warm blob become warmer and more persistent? Will Atlantic water enter the Arctic more strongly once the Bering flow is stopped? What will happen to Alaskan climate? What about sea migrations?
It avoids the risk of a catastrophic failure at some future time either due to engineering failure or due to sabotage/war.
There's no arguing on we need massive emissions reductions asap.

My tenet being it doesn't matter specifically to Arctic sea-ice what we do about emissions anymore thus calling it "fiddling" the reason is heat-gain from albedo loss metrics.

From 2001-2011 albedo loss provided 25% of the equivalent heating as CO2 emission gains from 1979, and globally that's ~0.21-watts/m².

So what that implies was the albedo-loss mechanism put in 25% of that total energy gained for that period both implying we'd be cooler had not this been going on.

The ongoing geophysical process is melting-degrading any ice forming to accelerate it for the next year when in fall not all of the gained heat is lost back to cooling.

Emissions can't effect this, we're at 3-ppm/year we can end them this instant it won't matter for decades due to the oceans out-gassing CO2 being rather saturated with it and having the forcing end.

Consider to restore the sea-ice requires an intervention.

Expanding scope & looking at charts got to think that it may be best to close off only the NW end of St. Lawrence Island west.

The idea that enhancing an existing current shown in the nullschool screenshot to prevent a lot of volume going north, it delays that to the SE entrance which is shoals, that will create a battle worth modeling, it should reduce volume entering Bering Straits a posit.

That sunk in, perhaps it's actually a better option than Bering Straits?

This will also give sea-ice north of it some refuge and extend its season, forcing sea-ice  to move only the SE end of the island to Cape Romanzof which is all shoals less than 20-fathoms a dip to 22-27 near the island before trying to closing that part.

Having a barrier that far south should enlarge the still-water effect that far, a huge addition in area.

Route map and today's nullschool screenshot of sea-surface currents & temperature anomalies.

Notice the strong current from the west heading SE with much turning after the point, this will force that volume to fight outflow from Norton Sound until full closure for a model scenario.

If bridging the Bering strait is a long term plan damming it might be the sensible thing to do first.

Engineering on a massive scale.

Yeah, that's a recent one yet it's a century old idea, this is a better video for what we need to do having the long history of Dutch engineering with closures:  "Holland's Barriers to The Sea"; 44.20;

For speculations on closing the Med & San Francisco this worth watching, the estimate for the Med is about 1/2-hour into it of $275b; "Earth Under Water - Worldwide Flooding | Sea Level Rise "; 45:07;

As stated instead of shooting it up it'll be in a floating tube to the delivery tube vessel free to move to place it accurately; the dredge fleets of small timers doing cladding rock to barges, the big rigs doing fill.

The top is given a mat & enough ballast until the next step goes on with the toe also periodically given mat & ballast as things go; if work stops you don't lose anything and near closure currents are higher.

Given we're losing on controlling emissions at 3-ppm/year the big jump up in CO2 at the end of the ice-age 1-ppm/180-years for context, and that the loss of albedo direct gain in heat from 2001-2011 were equal to 25% of CO2 emissions since 1979 it's a big heating and going faster, we need to restore the sea-ice asap.

It's more important and doable than fiddling with emissions now for any short-term solution where it's in place in a decade.

I've come to the conclusion that nearly all geoengineering "solutions" face the problem that the same trillions of dollars they'd cost would have a far better ROI if simply invested directly into green tech deployment & R&D. And given the rapidly dropping costs of greentech, this problem gets worse the longer it goes on. It would be far better to focus energy on getting to zero-carbon than on crazy band-aids like this, however interesting.
Agreed. We absolutely must start by reducing emissions. It's easy and safe to do.

And it really is easy. All we need is the political will. My view as someone working in the field is that it'll be net profitable for the world by a substantial amount. New industries are like wars: they catalyse growth.

But (and it's a big but) there may come a time when that isn't enough. We all know about tipping points. I'm a geo-engineering sceptic but I can foresee a time when we have no choice.

Then we're going to have to rely on our political system to put people who understand science in charge, lest we end up with fleets of drones spraying snake-oil into the air.
Unfortunately consider that we passed the big tipping point on the sea-ice from the loss of albedo the warmed ocean water is now a global heat-source independent of emissions no fakey can replace the effects of having the ice there.

It's like changing your average speed with a 1000-miles on the odometer, it takes time to have an effect and we're at 3-ppm/year, an ungodly rate 10-times faster than the closest analog. the PETM for a massive carbon release. [Emiliani Lecture 2012 by Dr. Richard Zeebe covers this; 52:56; ]

So, while reducing emissions needs to be done leaving the Steam Age is required before any change matters to the total carbon load we shoved into the sky in the blink of a geologic eye that doesn't go away for 150,000-years.

Therefore geoengineering is required to restore the sea-ice, the conditions disallow stopping the continuing loss and all metrics show the "death spiral", the polar charting of extent & volume to not stop the fossil addiction with knowledge of consequences.

We now have the metric of 0.21-watts/m² direct heating that's worth a lot of CO2 equivalent so increases the amount of carbon we need to reduce, eh?

That's my thesis, to restore sea-ice to the Eastern Arctic Basin as mandatory to deal with it, the estimate to close the Med was a $275b, not even a trillion a pittance for all the oil & shipping companies that want to score in the Arctic as it melts back

So they now get to pay for a last-hurrah for humanity at restoring sea-ice in the Chukchi & Beaufort Sea and to deal with the largest methane vents using the same engineering methods to counter what they've done intentionally since the late 70's.

Loss of albedo takes physical action because it melts out early and forms later with a key area Bering Straits, that is the only chance of altering the two main things that we can control, warm currents eroding the ice from below plus the wind & wave driven disruptions that keep what ice is there broken up and thin, with "rotten" ice now becoming prevalent over wide areas this new to the Inuit, consider that bad.

This is a good animation to validate the seasonal cycles from '79-2011; 3:37;

From this animation can be seen my premise of early melt later forming in the Chukchi Sea & Bering Straits.

Bering Straits are the only narrowing of the two continents to try a closure that affects the current situation of early-melt, late-formation in this area that appears to lead the Beaufort melting back and resists closing in fall when northerly drift is dominant.

Humanity will have to close the straits if it wants the ice back, air temps don't matter, all that matters is sea temperatures and we're adding total heat to the Arctic Ocean in a large amount now it does not return to the sky in fall or the ice would be there.

That difference is a direct feedback, thus the tipping point was gaged by the rate-of-storage vs the rate-of-loss in heat-gained on a yearly basis.

Back to how does one restore the sea-ice or game-over in a short time, Charles Kennel's slide has the heat figures and the 1/5-watt/m² is equal to 25% of the CO2 forcing since 1979.

That implies if we had not been losing sea-ice the temperature of the planet would be lower, a big reason to consider doing something, doing nothing is game-over very quickly, would you say a decade is pushing it?

Time is not on our side at all.

[A note to moderators thx for moving, sorry didn't think of it.]

I've come to the conclusion that nearly all geoengineering "solutions" face the problem that the same trillions of dollars they'd cost would have a far better ROI if simply invested directly into green tech deployment & R&D. And given the rapidly dropping costs of greentech, this problem gets worse the longer it goes on. It would be far better to focus energy on getting to zero-carbon than on crazy band-aids like this, however interesting.
I agree that for most things it can be true to do "other things"; however, the cost of this is a global investment the ROI is a good chance to at least restore sea-ice seasonally at a higher extent & volume in this critical area.

Please understand there is a Phase 2.

This was yesterdays' extent and the entire western part of the straits are fully open note the eastern shore still has ice.

Seeing this years ago began the idea of creating a large estuary to deal with it, that became the freshwater supply to the shipping locks and can be freshened by pumping the water to the locks from the bottom.

That means it freezes earlier, if snow dumps on it for this limited area pumping water to remove its insulation value is worth the hassle to allow cold air to cool the water below the ice, the trouble at sea with snow is that it does insulate !!!

That's bad, you can't fight the warmer water with cold from above because of the snow, with more moisture and warmer air there's more snow.

The goal is preserving sea-ice in the eastern basin.

[Aside: For those who never designed a vertical-axis windmill, they are superior to propeller horizontal-axis for windspeed range and in the case of Arctic operation I'll post details for DIY & TIY, test-it-yourself, no way want to waste time on non-shop-people worries.]

For scale that's a much easier total area to focus upon and does not get ocean swells and pretty narrow, about 10-miles to allow some artificial peninsulas & islands to break its fetch.

Thus the question on ROI in relation to restoring sea-ice is, "Will it help create a sea-ice refuge?".

The answer is yes and what else will? You must answer that because restoring the sea-ice is mandatory to thermally balancing this planet, to me it flips the switch from ice-age earth to hothouse earth.

That's with a high confidence even without modeling to know that by preventing the wave action and warm current the ice habitat will extend season and thickness in the embayment.

Once this point is reached, the dam in and effects have metrics all aspects are known to then make a decision on Phase 2: Cape Serdtse-Kamen to Point Hope, the route map:

This is obviously a larger undertaking yet now dealing with a known construction method, still tides and river outflow it will be a "controlled porosity" structure in places not a waterproof one costs more to do that and could be islands with intentional passages for tides.

This fishery & sea-mammal habitat is huge, preserving traditional sea-ice seasonal length the goal along with the overall goal of increasing the "seed" area to gain larger scale effects out into the Chukchi Sea, the hope that effects the edge of the Beaufort by 2-decades later.

With this closure having a much larger extent of still-water, the geophysical goal to cool the water to the bottom in winter to -2C to prove the technique can work; if it does, then we can build atolls around degrading methane zones using this technique.

On the global scale this is dealing with the worst emissions in the Arctic and hardest to control.

With methane 100-times more potent for a decade or so this is another feedback the method attempts to control physically, these atolls having pumps using windmills to keep snow converted to ice by having a structure able to slab the ice ramming into it during the season.

Consider now the history of polders, by starting small and building upon a foundation to expand, they took over a lot of sea then maintained it as it sank from desiccation as land.

For the Arctic it's easier & harder and this is only for shallow seas my focus the East Siberia shelf as critical to control the Pine Island Glacier of many beds, thus consider this next phase is a mgmt system.

In the next step it's oriented toward sea-ice related habitat while allowing tides & river flow with intentional freshwater estuaries with the goal of freezing the bottom in areas to prove a methodology to deal with the clathrates later.

Phase 2, Cape Serdtse-Kamen to Point Hope

Does it have to be ice? Presumably the general problem of an ice-free arctic is the net increase of heat energy transmitted to the world's oceans by a loss of albedo. Why not just insulate it? Of course a continent-sized space blanket won't solve any of the related environmental problems.

Again, adopting a geoengineering approach that mimics the natural process will result in the fewest unanticipated knock on effects. Encouraging ice growth is far more preferable.
Firstly that it's gaining significant to global heating the current metric is 0.21-watts/m² representing in the years from 2001-2011 25% of the heat gained in equivalent terms from 1979 by the increase in CO2 for context ["Climate and Evolution:Charles Kennel:The Impacts of Arctic Sea Ice Retreat on Contemporary Climate."; about 16min in 21:57 can't read the citation he uses; ].

I'm specifically pointing to all recent reports that current conditions where that water got so much heat melts the ice from below this shown to have been the major cause of the 2007 event and every big one since, it's year-round melting.

Suggest how to do that, I did and will continue to point out there is no other geographic location that has a wisp of a chance at restoring that ice is the problem.

You can't be proposing having all the icebreakers out there spraying water all over are you?

I'm stickin' with a rational action at a closure to create a stable refuge for sea-ice with a chance that effects farther to sea. Another area is the MacKenzie delta where the meltout is early, to the west it goes really fast from edges showing when air temps warm the ice goes from both top & bottom.

The Dutch did 20-miles high-tech in shallow water thus the civil engineering problem to close it has precedent dealing with fast currents, it's not pie-in-the-sky armchair, my hero is Dr. David Rogers for years on savvy trying to be a good student applying it to coastal engineering.

That's why I continue to ask the pointed question of how within a decade can we have something in place that by then sustains sea-ice all year, the large estuary on the west is closed off to the sea in my plan, eh?

The other cringe is pumping water takes tons of power, so I suggest windmills, non-fossil mechanical power get serious if we can land on Mars we can make a windmill that runs all year in the Arctic, where's that can-do attitude now?

Restating the need is to sustain sea-ice it's not happening today who then is expecting it to get better somehow when so much open water can't be cooled off anymore?

Review yearly freezes and meltouts, I'm here to lead horses to water on this and the focal point is Bering Straits and closely north & south of it, then how the ice forms or melts out into the Beaufort.

That's my thesis, it's based on those yearly animations of extent plus the knowledge we have excess heat always degrading the ice from below year-round.

I don't think it's geophysically possible to restore the Beaufort sea-ice without closing the straits, if we want to close it we can, argue on that.


Out of a hundred ideas that seem ingenious at first glance, there's one that actually works. That means still millions of successful ideas every year, so if you honestly believe in it, continue working on it. However, if we don't believe it and even give reasons why it won't work, don't think this is out of ill will or because we don't want a solution. We'd love if there would be one that works.

You can't argue yourself to victory, you have to prove your ideas work. I think the crowd around here wouldn't demand a 100% proof, but there would be people willing to join if they see even a possibility that it might work. If even these people don't agree with you, that means the ball is in your court, and getting angry at us won't help you anywhere.

I'll agree with this one, "You can't argue yourself to victory, you have to prove your ideas work.", and that's why my purpose here is to get the idea on the table and watch what the "experts" do with it having a 1/2-century into glaciology from Continental Drift days a member of AGU & Int'l Society of Glaciologists I've already noted bullshit all over.

It's currently a ship of fools, idiots running the show anyone with any sense would know at 400-ppm CO2 and gaining 3-ppm we are blowing it big time.

The concept of a "carbon-budget" is so flawed if you put in what WILL HAPPEN NOW at 400-ppm including 82ft of sea-level if CO2 turned around and began a decline this week, what a great relief that would be and it's not happening.

As long as CO2 goes up so will sea-level for about 300-years AFTER CO2 turns is how the planet works but maybe someone can convince it to act otherwise, we put up enough carbon to keep global temps toasty for 150,000-years by today's excursion let alone if it continues.

The ocean acidification rate is 10-times faster than the PETM, and "alarmist" is tossed about like oooooooooh, that's so wrong to be worried.

3-ppm/year is a mass-extinction excursion, prove otherwise, eh? Anyone want to step up to that plate and take a swing that it doesn't matter, eh?

Ship of fools at the helm of a planet with no clue on what to do they have only $$$ in their vision?

So watch the ice disappear, don't take my advice because I can't "prove" that 400-ppm is totally ridiculous on the face of it.

I'm a Nam Vet on fixed income last software contract Xbox Azure dude, go to hell, there's nothing to discuss really.

You can't talk glaciology here and needing to have CO2 below 245-ppm before any cooling can happen, they don't wanna' hear it, eh?

Put up some space umbrellas, great idea, the chemtrails obviously don't affect retaining the sea-ice, eh?

Build some more nukes, frack the UK until it has no clean groundwater ... what else can go wrong, oh, invade a country to destroy it like Iraq for the oil, is that progress now?

Like people say they can't get it together to do something needing to be done on the order of CFC's destroying the ozone hole and look at the discussion here of the only thermal solution that isn't idiotic and the reason is that it'll work.

Prove otherwise with all the money & Crays, it should be easy if I'm the idiot, right, I get called a loony, right ... ok fine.

 ... we see what isn't happening on retaining the sea-ice with "business as usual".

Who does have a real solution to restoring sea-ice in the Eastern Arctic Basin, let's hear it.

Whats Putin's position on Global Warming? I would have pegged him as a denier.

He's scientific more than an arrogant power tripper high-roller style, anti-GMO & no Roundup person, he's astute on strategy winning the war of hearts-n-minds right now according to metrics, no clue tho'.

My take is he's more of a player than a puppet vs USA power trippers.

A new flash, using St. Lawrence Island and closing off the side to Russia forcing Pacific water into a battle with Norton Sound's input BEFORE the closure of the main strait should create a large vortex such that most of the volume exits east.

Just a flash, consider that in the models.

Politically I'm working a a design that Russia can implement w/o cooperation by the USA to own the shipping canals as a strategy to get the fkn USA into a serious role in this to put it on the front-burner as the hot-ticket item.

Already sent the letter to Putin, consider that fossilites, playing aces this is for real I care not your agendas my agenda is to restore the sea-ice in the Eastern Arctic Basin or Bust, Bernie & Jill will support me here in the USA.

It's on the table, it's now an international issue, deal with it, if you can fake geophysics you have my kudos, not hate & I'll respond to blow away your triviality.


Being involved in lobbying/regulatory work. I can safely say that this project has not got a cats chance in hell of progressing. Governments will only intervene if the payback is obvious and the catastrophe (loss of life, money) is imminent. Losing Arctic sea ice does not constitute either. It actually provides money making opportunities. Serious money is already anticipating and measuring their risks and modifying investments.

If you wanted this to happen (in the US) you need to get some wealthy campaign contributors, show them how much money they will make, and then get them to twist the arms of the people in power so they can make said money. Of course, they will be fighting the investors who see money in the loss of sea ice, who are doing exactly the same thing.

How about pirates, privately paid??  :D ... I have no respect for the regulators at this time they jerked everyone around on this when it would have made it almost easy compared to now that began with the "Oil Crisis" of the late 70's which gave the excuse to Congre$$ to allow the North Slope pipeline to be built as it had been blocked by sanity for a while, eh?

There are those that see the value in owning the gate on the shipping lanes ala Suez part of my pirate theory for $port, eh?

It's like the only road to the mines in the Panamints to Death Valley and where it narrowed into canyon walls he put up the toll booth until a flash-flood took it away in the 50's ...

When I passed through on a bicycle tour there were wild jackasses running around, he made more money than the speculators for sure, it's like movie, "The Sting" with this stuff, everything is a false-flag so the idea is to make the pot look like gold, eh?

This feedback is a most difficult one to solve and another where we can't rely on any natural system to reverse, what are your thoughts?

I think you're a loony.  As a solution to world climate change, magic windmills to freeze the sea bed comes somewhere between genetically engineered ice-shitting narwhals and a giant cannon of Factor 2000 suncream.

That's ok to be curt and personal, you're right on the sunscreen did too much climbing or SAR on Mt. Rainier for too many years or whatever.

My magic windmills are used-pipe bent into curves a high-schooler can build them.

Being a shop person I only suggest what I can build, the rime ice can coat them, they still spin and make power, doesn't matter to them they don't spin faster-n-faster in big winds they stall and self-regulate, betcha' never thought of that, eh?

Then there's the heat-transfer to an Arctic Ocean that put up 0.21-watts/m² as the global total so that's equal to 1/4th of the heat added since 1979 by CO2 forcing, hardly trivial, hardly "loony" geophysically speaking of course.

Carry on, we be havin' sociopaths at the helm of a planet matey nothin's surprising anymore, the denialistas pay trolls all over social media promoting obfuscation, outright science-dblspk stating the exact opposite of fact, a lie to drive real scientists crazy and other tricks, eh?

Far from me to assume you recognize there's problem from losing the sea-ice and gaining so much heat that we need to reduce our emissions another 25% to compensate ... or, it's a one-way ride to Hell.

i think you made your point and that is mine and if you support to spend millions for modelling things that common sense knows before that it won't work then you fit well into the system how it is today and how taxpayers moneys are wasted.

further who is telling that see ice has to be restored at all, who know that, see ice does not contribute to SLR hence perhaps there will be millions who benefit from arable land and less energy costs and consumption due to less cold while others certainly will suffer. so we are talking changes and changes are usually not welcome while it has not been modeled as well whether the benefits of an ice free arctic exceed the downsides.

not saying but the persistence here i would normally call opinionated. debating things is very much ok, even very good and having ideas, born by thinking out of the box as well, but not considering one single counter argument and just repeating earlier statements to counter new arguments is not leading anywhere IMO
1) It won't cost millions for taxpayers to model for someone with a bathymetric-current-tide model to create the scenario because the oil companies are paying all the bills from their subsidies.

2) "... who is telling that see ice has to be restored at all"?

Consider as-is the early sea-ice loss is adding 0.21-watts/m² to global warming directly in heat, a rough 4-watts/m² has been added since pre-industrial that's a 5.25% jump in heat gained per year on this feedback which only will increase.

This means humans must reduce emissions even more to get where they thought they were getting by 5%, the economy has to do something, anything at all about it.

This gain operates separately from the influence of CO2 emissions, it will only increase thus do you propose to merely "let it go"?

When that warm water gets mixed to the bottom by winds & currents it's been thawing the seabed to 50m such that the clathrates have enlarged 3-5cm holes into giant 1-km areas bubbling up methane in 3-5 years, another separate, very strong reason to replace the sea-ice.

3) "... whether the benefits of an ice free arctic exceed the downsides."

The geophysical context is a methane clathrate out-gassing currently observed, separately the new direct-heating source is adding >5% of global warming yearly, this mainly over the past decade.

Those are clearly already happening so please give us the list of what any benefits from a bluewater-event to have an open Arctic Ocean in summer are versus a worsening of both of these ongoing processes.

Thanks for your critique I couldn't find your points in replies before this one?

A better approach would be to make the dam out of ice - a la Game of Thrones - by pumping sea water on top of the ice floes in winter time, until they are grounded on the seafloor.  This has the advantage of increasing albedo during the construction phase, and being completely reversible if it turns out to be a bad idea.

And spray the water in the air near the end of winter to make artificial snow. This insulates the ice, and increases albedo further to protect the ice dam over the summer months.

I really like the freezing idea, just not for a dam against warm water, good for adding surface ice yet my reaction to that was we still need to stop the current below it to solve what happens north of the straits.

Anyway, it just came to mind how to use it to refreeze the seabeds that are out-gassing methane at accelerating rates.

It takes -2C seawater to refreeze it for the traditional ice-coverage season, or, cooling the water over them with a colder recirculating thermal-fluid, these don't freeze above -60C then using heat-exchangers on the bottom to chill the water or actually freeze the bottom.

Those can be mechanically driven by windmills for pumping it all with heat-exchangers that chill the fluid nearest them, after the ice is gone a barge could do this anchored out with support.

[Aside on windmills this research the basis; "John Dabiri | Opportunities and Challenges for Next-Generation Wind Energy"; 25:12; ... he has installations in AK, from that I have designs that handle icing & strong gusty winds, cheap, used pipe & sheet metal & small, 2kw, 1.2m diameter. Most consider windmills can't work in those conditions so want to break that ice, a pun, and show that it's possible to power with them and save diesel costs, battery-array systems come in containers now to 2-Mwh capacity for village scale mini-grids].

The problem is the sea-ice moves too much now so these would have to be on shore until the sea-ice is gone. As a system it needs to operate anytime it's cold enough during the year, perhaps later adding insulating mats over frozen areas to move them around, or leave them and re-chill them when needed.

Regardless ... it's another major "tipping point" needing to be slowed and this would refreeze these deposits to some degree it's the scale that's scary, starting with the largest ones should matter, some are 1-km in diameter which began a few centimeters wide in 3-5 years.

This feedback is a most difficult one to solve and another where we can't rely on any natural system to reverse, what are your thoughts?

this what you say and adding to what i posted earlier on the matter (same horn) i think that one of the main arguments against even considering it, even if all the tech and funding problems could be resolved beforehand, is that the benefit is questionable and the possible side effects are vastly unknown. i even go that far to say that huge non-welcome side effects are guaranteed.

in short, the (close to certain) risk to (questionable) benefit ratio is one of the worst i can imagine and then
the costs to almost certainly to get from a drizzle into a thunderstorm? clear case IMO, never ever.

This hasn't been modeled so I disagree on making conclusions based on opinions, I'll hire the Dutch using private investors and just make a deal with locals to get rich on the work and we'll pull it off, what will the oil companies and governments do about it that's how they operate?

There is no other physical way to restore sea-ice in the Eastern Arctic without damming it.

Do the heat-transfer modeling, do it or don't speculate it's a heat-transfer problem.

Along with sea-ice being blown south into the Pacific that will always melt away, at least my solution is comprehensive, it does intend to restore sea-mammal habitat & provide pathways for fish & mammals using the shipping canal and other features no one has figured out yet.

The western estuary is huge and will confine any ice in it there are no outlets, did anyone notice that?

It's intentional, that's the freshwater supply for the locks and the water used will be from the bottom so it will freshen over time and be a huge bird sanctuary, did anyone figure that out?

Nope ...  it is a comprehensive plan not a quick toss and the problem is global, we all fail right now.

We are going for 3-5C and 2m of sea-level by 2100 at 3-ppm/year, it's not possible to preserve the sea-ice by incrementally reducing CO2 anymore there's too much in the sky and the heating lasts about 150,000-years if you actually study similar excursions in the past.

So Paris didn't regulate shipping or aircraft thus it's a joke, we fly by 2C on that alone plus none of the voluntary goals put us below 3-5C because they depend on unknown sequestration techniques keeping in mind coal companies have since the early 60's been using CO2 sequester, did anyone notice?

Nope, it's not significant as a method what they are doing, they didn't stop either, most of it was growing algae for biodiesel to have a revenue stream in elevated CO2 environments, or, the joy of pumping it into strata and causing earthquakes or into the deep ocean to come back up later and how much did all that cost?

Humanity will have to make this closure if it every wants to change what's happening, not what's going to happen what is right now happening to sea-ice in the eastern basin near the massive clathrate fields off Siberia's coast.

So you are going to build a fish ladder for whales?  No?  Any other minor environmental or ecological catastrophes you have in mind?  Sigh.
The shipping canal is the fish highway it'll have locks with a ladder, whales are like ships in the locks to raise or lower them, the canal has to be pretty wide no specs on it yet, so far the only confinement is at the locks.

Overall the restoration of the sea-ice will increase sea-mammal habitat.

So you are going to build a fish ladder for whales?  No?  Any other minor environmental or ecological catastrophes you have in mind?  Sigh.

Yes, the shipping canal has locks to only allow flow one way and will have fish-ladders and sea-mammal accommodation for them the estuary on the west and along the roadway-railroad route can handle whales.

This closure happened every ice-age, the animals don't care they'll live ok either side it's important to note that for most people the animals are a main priority but don't tell, eh?

With respect.... as jdallen says, it is very clear that you have absolutely no concept of the scales involved here.

Perhaps you're aware of our Herculean efforts to tame the Mississippi River, which at peak flow, represents 2% of the flow through the straight. By the way, that project has cost ~7 billion, and the upkeep of the structures is a constant uphill battle.

How exactly do you propose we tame the unfathomable forces behind the transport of 15.8 billion gallons of water per minute? With dredge? Seriously? That's 15 with nine zeroes behind it. You are vastly, vastly underestimating the power of water, the ocean and the harshness of the Arctic here...

We could probably do it - If all of humanity were to get behind the idea, and every nation that could were to pour money and resources into it. Manpower, equipment and money.

And we don't even know if it would work, nor the possible undesirable consequences. There is no way that this will ever happen.

That money and effort would be far better spent on 1) transitioning from fossil fuels or

2) More space exploration; Colonizing mars, etc.

We are well past the point of state change - in fact, it appears the state change happened way back in 1987  An ice free arctic is inevitable with CO2 at 400PPM and climbing, just a matter of when the new stable regime is reached. That doesn't mean we should give up the good fight, but this is not the solution.


In spring the northward sea-ice drift is stated in the Coast Pilot as less than a 1/2-knot no winds and that's about the deeper flow rate, got that from a researcher using 1-Sverdrup for total flow to close off by first diverting a key portion then making the final closure at Fairway Rock.

The Dutch have the techniques for this perhaps the big muddy not a good analogy, those concepts need to be applied to deeper water the main issue.

The albedo loss is now putting 1/5-watt/m² as heat input to the planet and prevents sea-ice from getting thicker because too much latent heat is in the water in fall to remove it, the big meltdown in 2007 was from bottom melting the heat gained that year easily explaining the source.

The current and ice-movement by winds don't allow sea-ice to linger long in the straits and observing animations of annual sea-ice growth & melting the eastern basin opens up and expands from the straits and sea due north of it first, it initiates melt off in the Chukchi then Beaufort Seas.

So, that's the geographic location to change or alter how this is working today. We must encourage earlier formation and preserve the ice longer to slow down the larger melting of open water.

So what do you propose doing about it?

Drastic measures sometimes have unexpected consequences.

Thanks to cesium. In his post in this almost unnoticed thread he quotes the
Arctic Ocean wikipedia article, which surprisingly exactly fits:

In large parts of the Arctic Ocean, the top layer (about 50 m (160 ft)) is of lower salinity and lower temperature than the rest. It remains relatively stable, because the salinity effect on density is bigger than the temperature effect. It is fed by the freshwater input of the big Siberian and Canadian streams (Ob, Yenisei, Lena, Mackenzie), the water of which quasi floats on the saltier, denser, deeper ocean water. Between this lower salinity layer and the bulk of the ocean lies the so-called halocline, in which both salinity and temperature are rising with increasing depth.
During the winter, cold Alaskan winds blow over the Chukchi Sea, freezing the surface water and pushing this newly formed ice out to the Pacific. The speed of the ice drift is roughly 1–4 cm/s. This process leaves dense, salty waters in the sea that sink over the continental shelf into the western Arctic Ocean and create a halocline."

The low salinity of the cold top layer in the arctic prevents mixing with the warmer deep water. The cold layer is established by runoff of the arctic rivers and freezing in the Chukchi. A dam might prevent this to some extent ("pushed out to the Pacific"), weakening the layering in the Arctic Ocean. This might lead to a warmer sea surface and less sea ice.
Firstly the surface waters are too warm if free of sea-ice too long to give back all the heat absorbed in fall is the problem with the thermal budget.

The big melt in 2007 was almost entirely from bottom melting not warmer air or storms and it's adding 0.21-watts/m² on a global scale just from this flip of albedo with the sea-ice being gone from so much sea.

Then yes, definitely it stops that southerly flow and think about it, that's more likely a good thing on preserving sea-ice north of the dam, it'll pile up and thicken in storms and resist movement after that while not being affected by melting from below, the Pacific water is gone and the circulation in the embayment has river & runoff input of fresh water.

I'm not sure it'll get much interchange with the Chukchi as it's only 50m deep and the warmer water usually is a lot deeper but it may get shoved into the embayment.

So consider it can't lead to a warmer sea-surface where it piles up, south of the dam the ice budget will change and it should have a longshore current from west-to-east to move it around as well as the winds.

Someone may be able to model this scenario my hunch is that south of the dam it will go away sooner so help to melt out north of the dam yet it'll take a lot longer per season.

Responding to things, to some critique I'll employ Dutch engineers over American on a closure a first point on attitude.

A second point is technique used, the wicker mats worked with ballast for cladding and preventing the fill from being eroded, for this deeper water using a surface tube that descends to near the bottom for accuracy is the strategy, shooting it into the air won't work.

This technique will also be used to place the cladding & ballast rock, no clue yet on matting considering hemp.

If you study Andean hydrologic modifications the Dutch methods emulate those in principle in underwater construction being porous yet preventing sediment removal of the clays used for a water barrier, thus the thought to establish the foundations first on the bottom able to resist currents as they are placed.

The tidal closure in many ways is more difficult this closure the current is headed in one direction but doesn't have a slack water, it does have slower flows seasonally, and, for sure as it closes the scour increases.

The strategy of starting in the west is to develop a west-to-east current flow from the Cape, as this happens it redirects the northward volume obviously into what's left, the critical join at Fairway Rock.

So the deep foundation is laid followed by an ongoing stepped construction raising it so much more each step, cladded and able to take the current, creating a new longshore current as it grows; this should model.

Then, how wide are people thinking and what profile for the structure? I have my ideas stated using estuaries to catch slabbing sea-ice that can be a shoal then the above sea-level part on the north.

How does this compare to the proposed closure of Gibraltar for scale, that's quite a lot larger undertaking on the face of it?

Let's make another pass at this, hopefully with a bit more patience on my part.

I'm not buying your issues listed they don't address the underlying need.
They are independent of the need.  I'm not questioning the need, I'm questioning your solution to it.  That's the nature of my issues.

That's ok then. Let people buy into your costs of operation versus mine. The big rigs are doing the main moving the small-timers provide the cladding and specialty stuff, what's your plan again?


Ooof.  I'm not talking about the price at "military levels" of inefficiency, I'm talking about private sector with their drive to profit and efficient delivery.

I'm not buying your issues listed they don't address the underlying need.

People dredge for gold there, it's high-tech & efficient processing of materials with many innovations by small-timers, the input will be tested for archeological evidence to shut down quickly and move to the alternative sources, yeah things will be lost stating awareness.

Dredging is an expert local resource the only enterprise-level concern is supply-chain to parts for repairs being timely with a shop to make them along with said support for a global-scale project with living quarters and so forth.

You're not making a point on the need for the geophysical end to early ice loss from the Pacific water and late formation in the Beaufort Sea, address that sir.

Now, imagine building 82 of the larger dams humanity has constructed, and doing so in a region with no infrastructure, where work can only be done effectively about 4 months out of the year.  It would cost 10s of trillions of dollars to build, and require a direct workforce of well over a million.

Sir, I have a strategy to operate and have based assumptions not on how the military operates which is the highest cost-per-watt of any known industry.

This is a dredge-n-fill project not a "dam" per se, it's a geophysical barrier not a pretty picture with smooth walls the railway-roadway not needed it's to handle Pacific Ocean fetch slabbing sea-ice onto it off-n-on during winter and storing that ice in estuaries before you get close to a roadway.

For budget, consider a rag-tag low-budget dredge operator wanting to make a killing types for a thought that'll out-compete your fancy stuff no problem, you build some railways laying the bed ahead of the train bubba and it doesn't matter what the weather is doing if one is on the lee side of the dam.

To drill the Arctic we have ice-breakers galore & iceberg movers and all kinds of vessels to use in support all winter we be doing this 365 24x7 if you got the cash honey.

This is a geophysical barrier not a wall, design decision is to lay in a shallows before the above sea-level part on the Pacific side to create slabbing and allow a longshore current development to deposit sand free-of-charge so one starts on the Russian side.

Think it over, China is building islands as we speak using this technique, perhaps the military is obsolete?

On the add-water-let-it-freeze concept, which is valid, yet, consider the whole time you're doing that the ice is actively being melted from below by the Pacific Ocean water so that decreasing the rate-of-gain this is why the ice goes so fast in spring.

Thus when that warmer water hits where one isn't adding seawater to thicken it, this same current will waste north of where you quit earlier in the season and keep it free of ice later like it does now.

Review any animation for the past decades and focus on the straits you'll see it gets to today where it goes first and returns last, leading the open water my thesis from this ocean current warmth.

So, there needs to be a surface-to-bottom damming of flow north, a full closure, to remove the Pacific water naturally being warmer so a higher sea-level combined with the new, persistent warm blob north of the Aleutian chain adding to that and wrapping the Alaskan coast into the straits from that sea-height difference.

To me the technique will be used, yet we must dam the flow, it's not just the sea-ice in the straits themselves, it's to prevent the spread early of open water.

'Ok idea in construction at times a reaction but no snow as you say it's insulation that's bad, the air is colder than the ice we want to cool the water below the ice to -2C to freeze the bottom, scratch the snow idea versus trying to freeze the seabed in winter to control clathrate releases, a most difficult task.'

don't understand any of this - not sure how feasible it would really be to block the strait with artificially generated ice, but it would certainly be easier than building a dam. just keep pumping water from below the ice onto the ice throughout the winter, and you could generate a huge ice plug by springtime (and if you froze cables inside the new ice, you could presumably even try to hold it in place). can't really think of a downside - building a huge dam in that environment would be a horrendous task (too remote, too dangerous, too vulnerable to inevitable pollution, etc) but pumping and spraying water across a strait that's only a few kms wide is probably doable

Let me explain what sea-ice does. It stops winds and waves and transfers thermal energy & CO2-CH4 from recent findings.

Right now Bering Straits melts out first and forms last seasonally in the Eastern Arctic Basin, opening the Arctic Ocean from there to instigate widespread open water in the Beaufort Sea.

When the sea-ice is lost the ocean gains heat, to freeze the bottom the ocean water needs to be -2C/28.4F to freeze, if the seawater is 0C not happening, right now it's 0.9C in the straits so it's impossible to freeze saltwater, won't for sure alter the warmer water near the bottom with the present situation.

The seawater is too warm it'll melt the ice from above just like it melts it from below.

It's a fallacy to think the air will freeze it when water is such a high specific heat, the air can't remove enough heat in fall from the Arctic water and the Pacific water that flows north into the straits never is that cold is the problem.

The only prior situation that allowed sea-ice to grow to where it can freeze the bottom is persistence for much more of the season to not gain too much heat to be lost in fall to allow temps to drop to -2C for critical shallow sea areas like East Siberia's margin.

That's the geophysical reality to deal with. Why sea-ice works is that it keeps the wind & waves from distributing heat into the water column all the way to the bottom and this thaws the bottom, the present situation.

Thus we need a physical dam to keep this warmer water away from the entrance to the Beaufort Sea or it's game-over on having sea-ice persist to where it can refreeze the bottom in the Eastern Arctic Basin without still-water in Bering Strait to stop the instigation of sea-ice loss seasonally and the loss of the albedo of the sea-ice.

The method to construct is like China is using to create islands in the South China Sea, like that proposed for a dam across the Golden Gate to prevent salination of their freshwater supplies.

The Dutch did 11-miles to close the last stretch of water to prevent flooding with gates against the North Sea ... it can be done, to create a still-water refuge for ice to grow to where the water below it gets to -2C most of the year is the geophysical need.

A better approach would be to make the dam out of ice - a la Game of Thrones - by pumping sea water on top of the ice floes in winter time, until they are grounded on the seafloor.  This has the advantage of increasing albedo during the construction phase, and being completely reversible if it turns out to be a bad idea.

And spray the water in the air near the end of winter to make artificial snow. This insulates the ice, and increases albedo further to protect the ice dam over the summer months.

Ok idea in construction at times a reaction but no snow as you say it's insulation that's bad, the air is colder than the ice we want to cool the water below the ice to -2C to freeze the bottom, scratch the snow idea versus trying to freeze the seabed in winter to control clathrate releases, a most difficult task.

Then, consider this dam is reversible and built in phases, it should be obvious after the Wales to Fairway Rock section is roughed in what to do, in any case not hard to remove had the thought.

The design focus to be enduring is creating a longshore current west-to-east to maintain the beaches the entire span with a lot of estuaries, these where the slabs slide to on the Pacific side.

That's essential to create something that fits into ocean currents and works with them on that side and the goal still-water on the other.

In response to critique, in no particular order:

The flow rate from the Pacific into the Arctic Basin is about 10^6m³/second and supplies about 30% of water input for the Basin, that volume will be removed from current forcing fresher water into the North Atlantic from rivers & precipitation I feel Greenland's meltwater will replace this; [].

The main thermal issue is that sea-ice is being melted from below by warm water not as much by air temps [Pertinent to several questions; "Climate and Evolution:Charles Kennel:The Impacts of Arctic Sea Ice Retreat on Contemporary Climate."; 21:58; ].

To me on coastal civil engineering it's a simple project today using barge-dredges that place the output, depths are under 30-fathoms so moderate, recall that the land bridge was there until 12,000-years ago, the closure will assist restoring habitat for sea-mammals that's being lost and estuaries for birds.

How can sea-ice possibly be restored otherwise? We lost it in this area it's not coming back, there's no ice there now and should be at that latitude, warm Pacific water has currents east and west from the straits near shore that speed full melting to blue water and it expands into the Beaufort Sea.

The main dam is 40-miles or so in two sections, someone put out 5-years to build it & seems that's about right so very fast for a large project, most dams would take 4-5 times longer and the shipping canals & locks may take a decade.

Consider that the depth of Gibraltar is over 1,000ft, this is under 180ft so not comparable really, slabbing ice in winter part of why having most of the roadway-railroad separate from where the Pacific can stack it up.

Without restoring a refuge for the traditional longer season of ice ... it's gone already, functionally from the Eastern Basin, the Chukchi & Beaufort Seas and westward to the Lana River where methane stores are, land & clathrates.

Thus beyond sea-mammal concerns, how will one restore sea-ice to this area if the Straits are not dammed?

There is no substitute for albedo that's proven by others in 2007 the big deal was too much latent heat left in the water in fall, it couldn't cool fast enough so ended up degrading the ice, a storm finished it off yet to paraphrase, "It was on its way out anyway.".

So that's the serious concern, we can't restore sea-ice at this time and need to, my experience says this has a really good chance to keep ice in the straits much longer than today if we act soon.

Not likely, the global oceans are 1.6C warmer than pre-industrial if they go over 2C that means another big jump in heat retention by the Arctic Ocean, the video pointing out that it's a large portion of heat gain now separate from greenhousing thus a new thermal heat input & strong feedback.

As a historian of these things humanity will have to do this eventually, there's no way to restore sea-ice there without stopping both the warmer water and the ice movements from the Pacific, by having a relatively still-water refuge for the ice to not get pushed around much and currents weak below the ice in shallow water a miracle to refreeze the bottom to -2C.

What else can is why to present the idea and hash it out.


Erosion Control Construction Refinement Diagram
Phases and methods along with refining the technique with erosion control projects nearby.

A solution to slow down accelerating Arctic warming and to forestall the inevitable is damming Bering Straits to 1/100 its volume flow to create a year-round sea-ice refuge.

To do this using modified Dutch levee & dam methods for deeper water learning and refining the machines & technique by raising and restoring villages being lost.

When ready to then build a weir dam & shipping locks at St. Lawrence Island, then with reduced flow to build ice-polders protecting sections to allow the bottom to refreeze, that allowing the chance to remain all year in some areas.

Then to build atolls around the methane flares to refreeze them, this may be fairly fast as the bubbles create an up-flow pulling in colder water at the sides all winter.

Using the ice-polders and larger areas calmed by levee sections and shoals to then corral and sustain ice much longer if not year-round in half the Bering Sea, all of the Chukchi Sea and extend into the Beaufort on the Alaska side, to levee & shoal the entire Arctic Basin the goal.

It's time to get serious and try to stop the early melt-out by the ice each spring to-sea from the shoreline.

It's all heat-transfer physics doing this water is 13-times better at holding heat than air, we must stall and pond the runoff from permafrost melting inland until 2070 then it slows down, all the glaciers in Alaska and globally are gone by then for being late-season water supplies.

The reduction in volume into the Arctic Basin reduces the volume of warmer Atlantic water drawn in to just under 1-sverdrup of 3-sverdrup coming a 30% reduction, the North Atlantic Overturning Current is about 15-sverdrups [1-sverdrup = 1-million cubic-meters/second].

This counters the Gulf Stream disruption of the AOC by 30%, not trivial, and prevents 30-Terawatt-hours a year of heat coming in as fresher water staying on top melting ice from below to 300-Gigawatt-hours/year of heat, these facts why it can have a large effect globally.

All it takes is recognition of this needing to be done, and, emission reductions are too slow to matter now to the accelerating feedbacks including ocean acidification.

Finally, to close a loop I want to ship the brine from California's new desalination plants to Alaskan waters to dispense there to counter acidification, a fairly new shellfish farm can't grow 4-5 months of the year ...

[Original statements & first few pages are an archive, most recent Q&A on the last page]
Why even think of trying to reduce flow through Bering Strait?
Briefly, Archer, Zeebe et al. have shown a general rule that CO2 is persistent now with a 3‰ isotopic variation matching an extinction event from so much carbon so fast.

    The planetary rule is 25% of the carbon we emit lasts for 10,000-years, that's 1/4 of 37-Gt of CO2 just last year and this legacy carbon is cumulative due to being in a geologic carbon excursion shown by oceans acidifying 10-times faster than the PETM:
    Let addCarbon = carbon added in a year
    Let legacyCarbon = the excess in the atmosphere + oceans
    Total legacyCarbon: legacyCarbon += (0.25 * addCarbon)

    This is the reason for actions not connected to emissions that has the largest effect thermally to maintain the remnant of sea-ice left to forestall the gain in albedo-loss doubling Arctic heating.

    A previous screenshot of predicted aragonite saturation curves for the three main Alaskan fisheries all going below 1 by 2070, the last the Bering Sea affecting that crab fishery.

    First seeing that the Anadyr Current water had most of the nutrient supply used in the Chukchi Sea so the preferred flow to allow into the Arctic Basin, now add in the end of these fisheries by 2100 as commercially viable with no actions taken as part of the problem to solve.

    That leads to the problem of what to do with the freshwater outflow from the glaciers until about that time when they'll be fractions of today's volume so far less of a problem to fisheries?

   That led me to think of how to sustain the fisheries by diverting the freshwater intentionally away to the Pacific near shore at first then to join the surface currents in a way that doesn't put that water against the shoreline south as the long-term need to prevent it from acidifying those coastal waters.

    It seems the best way to confine the Yukon and rivers on the coast to a path that enters the Gulf through Etolin Strait with Nunivak Island offshore. The same idea is applied to the western shoreline the problem there to not mix into the nutrient flow currents when diverting it.

    This only changes the closure on the Alaska side to have a diversion dam the main closure abuts, it makes more work yet today a shellfish hatchery only has a 5-month window at their location to use the water due to runoff. [A design reaction is to create a vortex to sort out these to draw deeper water into them and funnel freshwater past them.]

    To extend a dam from Nunivak Island to St. Matthew Island would send this freshwater west all the way to join the excess freshwater from the Anadyr side going south to Kamchatka. So far and sketching in many miles of dams it can work to extend the fisheries for some decades beyond 2070 for crab.

    The very southern Chukchi Sea can be closed Cape Hope to Cape Serdtse-Kamen in a progression with ice-polders the intention to over time expand along the shoreline east and west to delay it going ice-free early, extending the frozen bottom zone.

Main categories of critique:
Extending Ice Season
        2015 - FEEM Lecture: "Arctic Amplification, Climate Change, Global Warming. New Challenges from the Top of the World"; 1:43:26;
        Sea-ice yearly animation; 3:27;
        Heat-gain metrics and processes; "Charles Kennel:The Impacts of Arctic Sea Ice Retreat on Contemporary Climate."; 21:59;
        "Ocean Heat Uptake: The Apparent Hiatus in Global Warming and Climate Sensitivity"; 29:01;
        "Assessing the Habitability and Physical Structure of Rotting First-year Arctic Sea Ice "; APL-UW; 6:38;
        St. Lawrence Island to Cape Romanzof:
        Original route Wales to Cape Nunyamo:
        Extension after straits closed north:
        Post on construction details:
        Dutch history totally relates this uses their concepts in deeper water; "Holland's Barriers to The Sea"; 44:21;
        Related proposesd dam building techniques; "Earth Under Water - Worldwide Flooding | Sea Level Rise (SLR)"; 45:08;
Habitats & Migration
        “Ridgwell and Schmidt found that ocean acidification is happening about ten times faster today than it did 55 million years ago.”;; long article;
        The circular shape puts the center of the whirlpool at the "V" of the backflow, this is a perfect location for a fish ladder of those going upstream into the Pacific.
        The design a vertical version of one made commercially for canals, works well for waterfalls since been installed demo tape from 2012.
        Note how non-damaging their design is versus standard blades for wildlife why I like it; "Hydrovolts hydrokinteic turbine in the Roza Canal"; 3:21;
Water Column Cooling
       "Methane Hydrates - Extended Interview Extracts With Natalia Shakhova"; 8:57;
Restore Beaufort Sea
Clathrate Atolls
        Carbon budgets versus carbon excursions, how large carbon releases work over time; Emiliani Lecture 2012, Dr. Zeebe; 52:47;
        "Fall Meeting 2015 Press Conference Alaska’s thawing permafrost Latest results and future projections; American Geophysical Union"; 42:45;
       "Global Warming 56 Million Years Ago: What it Means for Us"; 1:44:14;

Check current & sea-surface anomalies; nullschool:,66.43,3000[/size]

Pages: 1 2 [3]