Arctic Brain Freeze

Another Geo-engineering project is doing the rounds.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/12/plan-to-refreeze-arctic-before-ice-goes-for-good-climate-change

In my opinion, it's not such a good idea, so sorry to dump on the scientist. There's grave concern for the arctic, I track it via the Jaxa arctic sea-ice extent vishop web page on a daily basis. It's scary.


Steven Desch's plan is still a bit like pumping harder on the gas to provide the power to apply some brakes, because the 1 million wind pumps would have to be currently made with fossil fuel industry power. I imagine, that because they're not generating electricity, just pumping cold, salty water up; they won't deplete the rare earth metals used to make electric wind-turbines. So, it's not as bad as it might be.

But, 1 million wind turbines: for electricity turbines that's enough to power 2 billion homes at a cost of £2000bn (though economy of scale would bring that down).

It's disappointing that he says: "“Our only strategy at present seems to be to tell people to stop burning fossil fuels.. It’s a good idea..." What he should be saying is "that is of course essential." Because it's not just a good idea, we have to get our emissions down to zero (and rapidly, and then go negative!), because CO2 will hang in the atmosphere for 100s to 1000s of years. Prioritising CO2 over arctic geoengineering is wiser, because it'll provide centuries of better breathing space (quite literally); whereas this, like all geoengineering projects encourages BAU and creates a maintenance issue: you're going to have to replace 5% of them every year: that's 50,000 wind pumps per year.

In addition, because global warming would get worse, the effort to keep the arctic frozen would increase. That's because of warm waters entering from the Atlantic and Pacific as well as warm air from the rest of the planet, pressures on the jetstream and higher radiative forcing due to greater CO2 in the atmosphere. These things wouldn't change and all of them are a product of burning FF.

The question though is that prioritising this would probably deplete renewable energy efforts, because the companies used to build turbine blades would first be diverted to build these things.

The definitive lay perspective on Geo-engineering, I think is the chapter on it in Naomi Klein's book "This Changes Everything."

Glamourising Carmageddon In a 1ºC Warmer World

A recent Guardian article nails it. We've already hit >1ºC of warming, so it's virtually impossible to stay under 1.5ºC despite the fact that the Paris Climate Agreement in December 2015 stated it as a goal.

There's an interesting incidental quote in the article:

“And by 2030 you will have to get rid of the combustion engine entirely”

Indeed, that's where it must lead and the realisation that infernal combustion engines are going to have to be phased out rather more quickly is going to dawn on us pretty soon. For example, if we want to have 0 fossil fuel cars on the road by 2050, then we have to stop making them by 2025. Norway, India and the Netherlands are already considering this.

So what this article is saying - if it doesn't mean merely ending production - is that we should already have stopped building fossil fuel cars in 2005, which means they'll be forcibly taken off the road. The fact that cities like Paris ban odd or even numbered vehicles on high pollution days is an indication of how this might take place, but whatever, they have to go and go quickly.

Yet, and this is a big yet - we are still glorifying cars in every advertising space possible: on TV in virtually every commercial break; on billboards, in papers, on facebook, on the Guardian, even over Guardian articles warning about climate change. There they are, the car companies, rubbing our faces in the pollution they're causing - because they get to advertise all the time and the counter-narrative gets almost no air-time.

And this needs to stop as well, because it's no different to tobacco adverts during the 1970s, actually it's worse because these products are a threat to the whole planet, not primarily the individuals who smoke. Deglamourise those tail-pipes and the incessant urban noise that the fossil fuel industry has immersed us in. End those adverts, it'll make it easier to end fossil fuel car production.

Arctic Attacks

Arctic Sea Ice has reached a new record low maximum. The Guardian covers it quite nicely in this article.

Arctic sea ice extent hits record low for winter maximum

In writing a reply to a comment for the article I ended up listing a number of major reasons why the Arctic is under attack. It turns out there's an awful lot of mechanisms and feedbacks that are making Arctic Sea Ice increasingly vulnerable. Off the top of my head I could think of these:

1. Most of the ice is now easily melted first-year ice, which even when it melts is less likely to refreeze, because it doesn't change salinity of the top layer of water much.

2. The Arctic sea surface temperatures are rising, and will be hit harder again, now we are in an El Nino phase; so melting from below is becoming more of an issue. [This is the primary cause of this years record low Arctic Maximum]

3. The increased amount of open water in the Arctic ocean means that Arctic sea ice is being affected more by storms. In the past the ice itself dampened waves; the effects of currents and could distribute the force of storms across the ice pack. Now there are open waves and the structural integrity can't withstand the currents nor storms. One the effects of this is 'flash melting' where stunning amounts of sea ice can suddenly melt by being submerged during a storm (this was a contributory factor to the summer record in 2012).

4. The increased amount of energy in the atmosphere around the Arctic ocean means that storms are becoming more common and stronger.

5. The increased humidity above the arctic has numerous effects. (a) Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and therefore it acts as a positive feedback on melt. (b) Increased cloud cover reduces direct levels of radiation acting as a negative feedback (though it's understood less than (a)). (c) Regular air temperatures above 0ºC means that rain is increasingly likely and rain is a much more effective thermal conductor than air (because water has a much higher specific heat capacity).

6. Arctic melting is starting to reach the coasts of the Greenland and Canadian Archipelago. This means that the multi-year ice is no longer held fast to the land and is therefore more easily transported.

7. Increased outflow and calving from Arctic glaciers, particularly in Greenland adds to the destabilisation of land-fast Arctic sea ice.

8. The opening of the North East Passage and in particular open water from the North Sea to the Bering Strait (separating Alaska and Russia) means that for some of the year actual ocean currents can flow all the way across the Arctic. This, again, increases transport.

9. The increased rate of arctic temperature rises compared with more southerly latitudes means that the northern Jetstream is breaking down (this is different to the Gulf stream of course). The effect is to make  the Jetstream more wavy which allows warmer air to be transported to the Arctic (often raising temperatures by >20ºC) as well as transporting cooler air further south causing major climatic problems in Canada and North America (the Polar Vortex).

So, in short - there's whole set of depressing indicators and feedbacks as the Arctic Sea Ice melts, which is why as a whole it's accelerating.