Upwelling To Bring Back Northern Arctic Ice

[cyclonebuster]

Let's discuss how to bring the Northern Arctic Ice back to pre-inductrial revolution values (extent/mass) by upwelling colder waters to the surface of the Gulfstream.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Let's discuss how to bring the Northern Arctic Ice back to pre-inductrial revolution values (extent/mass) by upwelling colder waters to the surface of the Gulfstream.

It won't matter because as long as GHG's collect Solar strength get's stronger and the ice won't resist at all and if we did that, it wouldn't matter because the heat is coming from the sun not the oceans.

[cyclonebuster]

It won't matter because as long as GHG's collect Solar strength get's stronger and the ice won't resist at all and if we did that, it wouldn't matter because the heat is coming from the sun not the oceans.

Suppose the idea allows the incoming solar insulation to re-radiate (escape) back out to space by reducing GHG's that traps it?

[TerryM]

Suppose the idea allows the incoming solar insulation to re-radiate (escape) back out to space by reducing GHG's that traps it?

I think there is some huge prize ($15M?) being offered by the guy who runs Virgin Airline for anyone who comes up with a way to remove atmospheric CO2 in an efficient manner. Probably not the easiest way to make $15M, but it might be easier than rerouting the Gulf Stream.

Terry

[cyclonebuster]

I think there is some huge prize ($15M?) being offered by the guy who runs Virgin Airline for anyone who comes up with a way to remove atmospheric CO2 in an efficient manner. Probably not the easiest way to make $15M, but it might be easier than rerouting the Gulf Stream.

Terry

Don't have to reroute it just turn it over a bit and let upwelling cool the planet off a bit while making electrical power from it all at the same time so as to reduce electrical power from fossil fuels and to let that green enegy power our electrical cars,homes and busineses. It would be easy to regulate the surface temperature of the Gulfstream anywhere between 70 and 90 degrees anytime of the year for any time period. Hurricanes,Typhoons and cyclones cool the planet off by upwelling imagine how hot it would be without them.........

[WeatherRusty]

Sounds like the best way to potentially return Europe to Little Ice Age conditions I have heard of.

If that didn't happen, then consider this. The thermohaline circulation depends on dense, salty water to sink in the higher latitudes. Cooling the surface water of the Gulf Stream would likely speed up the circulation and serve to drive more heat out of the tropics poleward.

Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences!

[Jonger]

My idea is from the beginning was to dam up the Fram straights... Jet an extension off the Greenland coast 1000 miles into the straight... its not very deep water either.

I love this animation too, it coincides to my accepted time frame of reliable arctic ice, very obviously declining since the start of this era.

[cyclonebuster]

Sounds like the best way to potentially return Europe to Little Ice Age conditions I have heard of.

If that didn't happen, then consider this. The thermohaline circulation depends on dense, salty water to sink in the higher latitudes. Cooling the surface water of the Gulf Stream would likely speed up the circulation and serve to drive more heat out of the tropics poleward.

Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences!

I think computer modeling of these will dampen unintened consequences as long as we can regulate SSTs with them.

Patent Pending

[cyclonebuster]

good grief.

from the article:

[10] For the standard pipe experiment with 1 cm/day artificial upwelling from a maximum depth of 1000 m the simulated artificial upwelling of all pipes taken together is about 20 Sv in year 2010. With vertical gradients of anthropogenic CO₂ increasing with time, the area suitable for artificial upwelling also gets larger, and simulated artificial upwelling reaches a global value of 26 Sv in year 2100 (Schmittner et al., 2008]. The stronger overturning in the pipe experiment enhances the upwelling of deeper waters generally rich in CO₂ and thereby partly compensates the fertilization-induced carbon drawdown.

[11] As expected, pumping up nutrients into the otherwise nutrient-depleted upper ocean results in a significant enhancement of biological production, which may have benefits such as enhancing mariculture [Table 1). This includes the contribution from nitrogen fixation, which for the model's simple parameterization in terms of excess phosphate almost doubles from 129 Tmol N/yr to 251 Tmol N/yr when pipes are implemented. This corresponds to an additional carbon fixation of 0.7 PgC/yr. Despite the substantial increase in the export of organic carbon, the cumulative oceanic carbon sequestration amounts to only 18 PgC by year 2100, which is about 7% of the cumulative increase in export production. About 70% of the exported carbon returns to the atmosphere on a centennial time scale because of shallow remineralisation [ Figure 2. (a) Simulated sequestration of atmospheric CO₂ relative to the standard run without pipes. ( Simulated surface air temperature difference of ocean pipe simulation relative to the standard run without pipes. © Simulated radiation balance at the top of the atmosphere. Green lines refer to the standard pipe experiment with pipes deployed wherever a reduction in surface pCO₂ can be expected, and with a maximum vertical pipe extension of 1000 m. Red lines show results from simulations with artificial upwelling stopped after 10, 20, and 50 years, respectively. The blue line in Figure 2a denotes carbon sequestration due to oceanic uptake, the black line in Figure 2b refers to the control experiment without pipes.

[12] An unexpected result evident in all pipe runs is a reduction in atmospheric CO₂ that is much larger than the increase in the oceanic carbon inventory (Table 1). In the standard pipe run the reduction in atmospheric CO₂ compared to the control run has, by year 2100, reached 83 PgC or 41 μatm, i.e., more than four times the oceanic sequestration. Thus, in our model about 80% of the carbon sequestered from the atmosphere enters the terrestrial carbon pool. The reason for the pipe-induced enhancement in terrestrial carbon storage is the temperature sensitivity of the terrestrial carbon pools. Artificial upwelling leads to colder sea surface waters, which cool the overlying air and, eventually, the continental soils. As shown in Table 1).

[13] In the carbon-climate model used here, the climate sensitivity of the modeled terrestrial carbon pool is in the middle range of the Coupled Climate–Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project (C⁴MIP) models [Matthews and Caldeira, 2007], both surface temperature and atmospheric CO₂ rise to levels even higher than those of the control experiment (Table 1), an extra warming would pose an additional threat to ecosystems and society.

Figure 3a). Besides mitigating global warming, this might weaken the intensity of tropical storms [Figure 2c). By lowering surface temperatures, simulated artificial upwelling thus leads to an additional heat uptake of the planet, with the extra heat stored predominantly in the ocean's low-latitude subsurface waters (Figures 3c and Figure 2c).

Good grief why would they do that and NOT generate electrical power with the same water to offset Co2 generated by the fossil Fuel Industries? Far More Co2 and other GHG's can be removed from the atmosphere this way in order to restore our Northern Arctic Ice. It allows the heat to escape back to space once again.......

[cyclonebuster]

Watch it work..........

[cyclonebuster]

this is cyclonekiller, banned from eastern already:

http://www.wundergro...tml?entrynum=29

So what's your agenda to get me banned here or to get Northern Arctic Ice restored?

[Jonger]

also cyclonebuster has posted this spam, along with TUNNELS!!!! crap all over the interwebs.

more trash in this forum.

also:

read the comments. :lmao: :lmao:

What amazing contributions have you made to try and figure out ways to fix "climate change"? I assume you must be mainly involved in the fear department and don't really care about solutions.

[cyclonebuster]

this thread isn't about a solution. it's about a well-known crackpot idea that science has debunked (and I posted a link to peer-reviewed science debunking it).

The Debunkers only showed half the problem and left generation phase out of the equation........

[A-L-E-K]

She is a vile bitter woman, don't expect much better from "her".

care to elaborate?

[Jonger]

this is cyclonekiller, banned from eastern already:

http://www.wundergro...tml?entrynum=29

Do you think silencing people who are trying to find ideas is a good thing?

Here is a news flash:

This site is for hobbiests and professionals, we don't need to post peer reviewed papers or have credentials to post. I think you might be confused about where you are right now.

[WeatherRusty]

OK, I'm having a good laugh now! Thanks.

[Jonger]

this forum is for discussion of a scientific issue. the stuff he posted is tin foil hat nonsense.

http://conference.americanwx.com/about/

Bringing cold water to the surface to change warm water transport north is beyond the realm of possibility?

We build 1200+ foot sky scrapers, built the hoover dam and put a man on the moon, but sinking a few hundred pipes in the ocean is beyond possible?

[Jonger]

you're free to rebut the science I posted which shows why this idea is crap.

you won't, though. every single time you are asked to back up one of your assertions, you run away.

So anything less then a peer review paper and we need not speak....

Get a life.

Most of that link you posted was to do with CO2 sequestration in the Ocean in regard to upwelling, I don't think that's what hes trying to accomplish anyhow.

[WeatherRusty]

you're free to rebut the science I posted which shows why this idea is crap.

you won't, though. every single time you are asked to back up one of your assertions, you run away.

trix,

Leave them be to play in their thread. Just so long as this kind of stuff doesn't contaminate the more 'scientific' threads. No harm, no foul.

[Jonger]

trix,

Leave them be to play in their thread. Just so long as this kind of stuff doesn't contaminate the more 'scientific' threads. No harm, no foul.

You find her to be rational?

[cyclonebuster]

http://conference.am...anwx.com/about/

Bringing cold water to the surface to change warm water transport north is beyond the realm of possibility?

We build 1200+ foot sky scrapers, built the hoover dam and put a man on the moon, but sinking a few hundred pipes in the ocean is beyond possible?

1,020 of them to be exact.That will span the entire width of the Gulfstream unless you want to make them less wide..........

[cyclonebuster]

So anything less then a peer review paper and we need not speak....

Get a life.

Most of that link you posted was to do with CO2 sequestration in the Ocean in regard to upwelling, I don't think that's what hes trying to accomplish anyhow.

Correct! Totally off base from my concept........

[WeatherRusty]

You find her to be rational?

Yes, very much so in fact.

This tread is designed to make a mockery of climate science by someone who does not take the threat of climate change seriously.

Many of us do take climate change seriously, including wxtrix and myself.

[Jonger]

Yes, very much so in fact.

This tread is designed to make a mockery of climate science by someone who does not take the threat of climate change seriously.

Many of us do take climate change seriously, including wxtrix and myself.

This guy has an interest in fixing something he supposedly doesn't take seriously makes little sense.

Paradox.

[MacChump]

This guy has an interest in fixing something he supposedly doesn't take seriously makes little sense.

Paradox.

why did you put "her" in quotation marks?

[Jonger]

why did you put "her" in quotation marks?

I guess it was in regard to her acting less then lady like, a high degree of unwarrented hostilility toward everyone she feels threatens her narrow view. I typically see this with male posters and I generally hold women in higher regard. I don't question her gender, it was a simple dig at a pattern of hostility... I Probably shouldn't have gone there, I should have known the PC police would be monitoring this.... as they have.

Jon

[MacChump]

I guess it was in regard to her acting less then lady like, a high degree of unwarrented hostilility toward everyone she feels threatens her narrow view. I typically see this with male posters and I generally hold women in higher regard. I don't question her gender, it was a simple dig at a pattern of hostility... I Probably shouldn't have gone there, I should have known the PC police would be monitoring this.... as they have.

Jon

friggin' PC police...

(you don't deal with a lot of professional women on a day-to-day basis, do you?)

[PhillipS]

The Debunkers only showed half the problem and left generation phase out of the equation........

Your concept goes against basic physics in several ways:

1. Deep colder water is not going to rise to the surface just because you put an inclined pipe in place. The deep water is colder and denser than the surface water - raising it to the surface requires the addition of energy through pumping. So, in essence, your concept is based on water flowing uphill. Good luck with that.

2. The current of the Gulf Stream represents a lot of energy but it is too diffuse to easily extract power from. Think of it as a big river like the Mississippi, Nile or Amazon - if you just put a turbine in it the water will take the path of lowest drag and flow around the turbine. You'd have to dam the Gulf Stream to confine the flow and drive a generator. Or have massive, low speed turbines hundreds of meters in diameter to have sufficient cross-section to drive generators.

3. All of the piping in your concept adds drag (friction) which inhibits the flow of water. If you were to place your system in the Gulf Stream that drag would cause the flow through the system to stagnate, especially if there are turbine blades in the pipe, and the water would simply flow around your system.

As the writer Robert Heinlein wrote - TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

And to close - Forum rules prohibit advertising and BustedCyclone is advertising his proprietary concept. He should be banned for doing so.

[TerryM]

You find her to be rational?

In spades. Seldom see that amount of passion coupled to such a great memory (or filing system). Trix sees through BS and brings us back to reality rapidly.

I've followed the whole pipes thing some time ago and don't remember it ever advancing much beyond what has already been posted. It was an innovative idea that was found worthy of testing - that's actually a huge accomplishment. The fact that it failed the test, and that subsequently the inventor claims the test wasn't fair shouldn't come as a surprise.

My suggestion to Cyclonewhatever would be to explore other innovations rather than persistently flogging this dead horse. However, if you can restrain yourself to this one thread, I, for one will not object too strenuously.

Terry

[PhillipS]

This guy has an interest in fixing something he supposedly doesn't take seriously makes little sense.

Paradox.

Wrong! This guy has an interest in making money off of a concept of his - the technical term for that is advertising, which is banned by the Forum rules.