It might be possible to refreeze the icecaps to slow global warming

February 24, 2017 by Matt Williams, Universe Today
Credit: NASA icecap data

One of the most worrisome aspects of climate change is the role played by positive feedback mechanisms. In addition to global temperatures rising because of increased carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, there is the added push created by deforestation, ocean acidification, and (most notably) the disappearance of the Arctic polar ice cap.

However, according to a new study by a team of researchers from the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University, it might be possible to refreeze parts of the Arctic ice sheet. Through a geoengineering technique that would rely on wind-powered pumps, they believe one of the largest positive feedback mechanisms on the planet can be neutralized.

Their study, titled "Arctic Ice Management", appeared recently in Earth's Future, an online journal published by the American Geophysical Union. As they indicate, the current rate at which Arctic ice is disappearing it quite disconcerting. Moreover, humanity is not likely to be able to combat rising global temperatures in the coming decades without the presence of the .

Of particular concern is the rate at which has been disappearing, which has been quite pronounced in recent decades. The rate of loss has been estimated at being between 3.5 percent and 4.1 percent per decade, with in an overall decrease of at least 15 percent since 1979 (when satellite measurements began). To make things worse, the rate at which ice is being lost is accelerating.

A drastic decrease in arctic sea ice since satellite imaging of the polar ice cap began. Credit: NASA

From a baseline of about 3 percent per decade between 1978-1999, the rate of loss since the 2000s has climbed considerably – to the point that the extent of sea-ice in 2016 was the second lowest ever recorded. As they state in their Introduction (and with the support of numerous sources), the problem is only likely to get worse between now and the mid-21st century:

"Global average temperatures have been observed to rise linearly with cumulative CO2 emissions and are predicted to continue to do so, resulting in temperature increases of perhaps 3°C or more by the end of the century. The Arctic region will continue to warm more rapidly than the global mean. Year-round reductions in Arctic sea ice are projected in virtually all scenarios, and a nearly ice-free (<106 km2 sea-ice extent for five consecutive years) Arctic Ocean is considered "likely" by 2050 in a business-as-usual scenario."

One of the reasons the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet has to do with strong ice-albedo feedback. Basically, fresh snow ice reflects up to 90 percent of sunlight while sea ice reflects sunlight with albedo up to 0.7, whereas open water (which has an albedo of close to 0.06) absorbs most sunlight. Ergo, as more ice melts, the more sunlight is absorbed, driving temperatures in the Arctic up further.

To address this concern, the research team – led by Steven J. Desch, a professor from the School of Earth and Space Exploration – considered how the melting is connected to seasonal fluctuations. Essentially, the Arctic sea ice is getting thinner over time because new ice (aka. "first-year ice"), which is created with every passing winter, is typically just 1 meter (3.28 ft) thick.

rctic sea-ice extent (area covered at least 15% by sea ice) in September 2007 (white area). The red curve denotes the 1981–2010 average. Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Ice that survives the summer in the Arctic is capable of growing and becoming "multiyear ice", with a typical thickness of 2 to 4 meters (6.56 to 13.12 ft). But thanks to the current trend, where summers are getting progressively warmer, "first-year ice" has been succumbing to summer melts and fracturing before it can grow. Whereas multiyear ice comprised 50 to 60 percent of all ice in the Arctic Ocean in the 1980s, by 2010, it made up just 15 percent.

With this in mind, Desch and his colleagues considered a possible solution that would ensure that "first-year ice" would have a better chance of surviving the summer. By placing machines that would use wind power to generate pumps, they estimate that water could be brought to the surface over the course of an Arctic winter, when it would have the best chance of freezing.

Based on calculations of wind speed in the Arctic, they calculate that a wind turbine with 6-meter diameter blades would generate sufficient electricity so that a single pump could raise water to a height of 7 meters, and at a rate of 27 metric tons (29.76 US tons) per hour. The net effect of this would be thicker sheets of ice in the entire affected area, which would have a better chance of surviving the summer.

Over time, the negative feedback created by more ice would cause less sunlight to be absorbed by the Arctic ocean, thus leading to more cooling and more ice accumulation. This, they claim, could be done on a relatively modest budget of $500 billion per year for the entire Arctic, or $50 billion per year for 10 percent of the Arctic.

Melt pools on melting sea-ice. Every summer, newly-formed ice is threatened because of rising global temperatures. Credit: NASA

While this may sounds like a huge figure, they are quick to point out that the cast covering the entire Arctic with ice-creating pumps – which could save trillions in GDP and countless lives- is equivalent to just 0.64 percent of current world gross domestic product (GDP) of $78 trillion. For a country like the United States, it represents just 13 percent of the current federal budget ($3.8 trillion).

And while there are several aspects of this proposal that still need to be worked out (which Desch and his team fully acknowledge), the concept does appear to be theoretically sound. Not only does it take into account the way seasonal change and climate change are linked in the Arctic, it acknowledges how humanity is not likely to be be able to address climate change without resorting to geoengineering techniques.

And since Arctic ice is one of the most important things when it comes to regulating , it makes perfect sense to start here.

Explore further: Enhanced nitrous oxide emissions found in field warming experiment in the Arctic

More information: Steven J. Desch et al. Arctic ice management, Earth's Future (2017). DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000410

Related Stories

Polar bears losing crucial sea ice: study

September 14, 2016

Polar bears are losing life-sustaining sea ice crucial for hunting, resting and breeding in all 19 regions of the Arctic they inhabit, a study warned on Wednesday.

2016 climate trends continue to break records

July 19, 2016

Two key climate change indicators—global surface temperatures and Arctic sea ice extent—have broken numerous records through the first half of 2016, according to NASA analyses of ground-based observations and satellite ...

Recommended for you

Carbon coating gives biochar its garden-greening power

October 20, 2017

For more than 100 years, biochar, a carbon-rich, charcoal-like substance made from oxygen-deprived plant or other organic matter, has both delighted and puzzled scientists. As a soil additive, biochar can store carbon and ...

Cool roofs have water saving benefits too

October 20, 2017

The energy and climate benefits of cool roofs have been well established: By reflecting rather than absorbing the sun's energy, light-colored roofs keep buildings, cities, and even the entire planet cooler. Now a new study ...

7 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BubbaNicholson
1 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2017
Additional sunlight into additional ocean area will stimulate additional photosynthesis to remove additional CO2. Likely their model allows for that.
The lack of wind generators in arctic regions suggests impracticality.
Large reflective balloons in orbit can diminish solar radiation sufficiently to allow winter accumulations.
Not shooting off nuclear explosions might diminish global warming with time, too. Thousands of such explosions have contributed to global warming. Nuclear reactors and fossil fuel generators require cooling, too. That heat contributes to global warming.
evan60
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2017
Presumably these wind generators and pumps would have to be ambulatory, moving and organizing themselves on the growing ice edges, advancing then retreating again as the seasons change. Might be quite a spectacle, the biannual transmigration of the windgenerating icemakers, a tourism rival to the wildebeest of the Masai Mara. Though it's hard to imagine how they would distribute their pumped water on to the ice without it freezing back into the pumping system.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Feb 26, 2017
Re the pic
Wow only 50 years. Imagine how quickly an ice age could return.

Re the article
Wouldnt it be more efficient to use actual windmills that pumped mechanically?
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2017
http://thefederal...science/

Good god, this giant AGW scam cannot end one moment too soon! And be aware, some of your student loan debt is paying these "Researchers" salaries.
FactsReallyMatter
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2017
Well, at least the scheme is consistent with the science. It is chalk full of taxpayer money and built on total BS.
howhot3
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2017
Additional sunlight into additional ocean area will stimulate additional photosynthesis to remove additional CO2. Likely their model allows for that.
Or there is another scenario, Additional sunlight stimulates additional photosynthesis creating an algae bloom which dies off and releases vast amounts of methane from the algae's rotting fonna, thus creating more greenhouse gasses for which to bake the planet with.

Sometime you just need numbers to put a finger on greenhouse gases. Lets look at this site;

http://cdiac.ornl...ghg.html

And please denier goon squad, don't let it explode your heads.

FactsReallyMatter
3 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2017
If we had sharks in the arctic then this proposal could jump them!

This, they claim, could be done on a relatively modest budget of $500 billion per year for the entire Arctic


Really, someone actually printed this paper??

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.