I first went to the Arctic in the summer of 1970, aboard the Canadian oceanographic ship Hudson, which was carrying out the first circumnavigation of the Americas. The ship was ice-strengthened and needed to be. Along the coasts of Alaska and the Northwest Territories, Arctic Ocean ice lay close in to land, leaving a gap of only a few miles to do our survey. Sometimes ice went right up to the coast. That was considered normal.
Today a ship entering the Arctic from the Bering Strait in summer finds an ocean of open water in front of her. Water extends far to the north, stopping only a few miles short of the pole. From space the top of the world now looks blue instead of white. Things are worse than appearances would suggest, however. What ice is still left is thin—average thickness dropped 43 percent between 1976 and 1999, sonar measurements show. By 2015, at this rate, summer melting will outstrip the accumulation of new ice in winter, and the entire ice cover will collapse. Once summer ice goes away entirely, the physics of latent heat will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to get it back. We will have entered what Mark C. Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, calls the Arctic “death spiral.”
Once ice yields to open water, the albedo—the fraction of solar radiation reflected back into space—drops from 0.6 to 0.1, which will accelerate warming of the Arctic. According to my calculations, the loss of the remaining summer ice will have the same warming effect on the earth as the past 25 years of carbon dioxide emissions. Because a third of the Arctic Ocean is composed of shallow shelf seas, surface warming will extend to the seabed, melt offshore permafrost and trigger the release of methane, which has a much greater greenhouse warming effect than CO2. A Russian-U.S. expedition led by Igor Semiletov has recently observed more than 200 sites off the coast of Siberia where methane is welling up from the seabed. Atmospheric measurements also show that methane levels are rising, most likely largely from Arctic emissions.
To avoid the consequences of a collapse of summer ice, we need to bring back the ice we have lost. That will require more than merely slowing the pace of warming—we need to reverse it.
Reducing carbon emissions and replacing fossil fuels with renewables, including nuclear power, are the most sensible long-term solutions, of course. But these measures are not going to save the Arctic ice. After decades of our trying, CO2 levels in the global atmosphere continue to rise at a more than exponential rate.
It is time to consider a radical course: geoengineering. By this I mean techniques to artificially lower surface temperatures by blocking the sun. One proposal entails “whitening” low-level clouds by injecting fine sprays of water into them; another involves releasing solid sulfates into the atmosphere from balloons, causing radiation-reflecting aerosols to form. A simpler step would be to paint roofs and pavements white. Such measures are sticking-plaster solutions. They would have to be continuously applied, given that any cessation would bring warming back at an accelerated rate. Nor do they counter direct CO2 effects such as ocean acidification. But they might buy us time.
Is there a geoengineering technique that would cool the entire planet? Is there a way to cool only the Arctic in summer, to keep sea ice from disappearing? What effect would cloud whitening or chemical release over the Arctic have on precipitation patterns and on temperature? Finding out will require much research and modeling. This must be done urgently. We can no longer afford the luxury of talking about reducing CO2 emissions by some conveniently distant date in the future. We need action now.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ONLINE
Comment on this article at ScientificAmerican.com/dec2012
This article was originally published with the title The Arctic “Death Spiral”.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentThe only geo-engineering which 'might' be legitimate / effective is the solar parasol that JAXA proposed as an energy gatherer. Forget the solar PV (on the parasol) for the moment, it could provide albedo to the solar regions. The other virtue is that it's in near space, and could be destroyed/ undeployed as necessary. The huge expense might be overcome by its virtue of a commonsense 'workability', and minimal interaction with our biosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI strongly agree with Prof. Wadhams - and thanks to SA for including his short note. I am concerned that there is so little space available with SA to get across the severity of early arctic ice disappearance and the urgency of doing something. Somewhat solving the problem is a continuing dialog, mentioning Prof. Wadham's leadership, that is occurring now at http://www.climatedialogue.org/melting-of-the-arctic-sea-ice/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood graphical material on this topic is at
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas
Perhaps whitening/lightening of soil to reflect more (improve albedo) might be sufficiently economic. Unfortunately biochar will darken soil, but enough added whitener (potentially also a carbon sink) could make an albedo change fairly quickly even with biochar - and simultaneously start the needed process of removing excess atmospheric carbon.
Ron
Dr. Wadhams's article is an excellent summary of the consequences of the reduced ice in the Arctic. Well done. Of note, the albedo reduction will also be impacted by the accumulated soot on the ice due to the increased shipping in the Arctic allowed due to ice melt and increased access to passageways, searching for oil and other minerals, and military shipping. Hence, the soot on the ice will aggravate the problem and increase the rate of melt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurprised anyone related to this publication does not realize that geoengineering has been going on for over a decade. Take a walk in the woods and see that the forests are dying. Why? Megatons of aluminum (do your own research) dumped into the atmosphere (ever notice the white lines across the sky, contrails disappear by the way) are chocking the roots and trees are drying up. Amazing that people who think reflecting the sunlight out doesn't backfire when the heat at night is reflected back to earth. Geoengineering (in the wrong hands) is taking us in the wrong direction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's my problem:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the growing number of reports about methane release from the permafrost, destabilizing hydrate formations, and other greenhouse gas (GHG) feedback loops, the chances of geoengineering actually lowering the temperature any meaningful amount, for any meaningful period of time, are VERY low.
Either way, as long as CO2 and other GHGs continue to increase, any geoengineering solution would have the desired effect, at best, for a couple years.
Meanwhile, the planet's ecosystems, which are growing increasingly unstable, are vulnerable, and calls to geoengineering by messing with clouds, or seeding the oceans, or spraying aerosols are almost universally being made by engineers and physicists, with no regard for the impact on the ecosystems that form the world's biggest carbon sinks, not to mention the base for much of our food supply.
While further research may include investigation into those issues, it is not, ultimately, the scientists that will be making the decision to take action. It will be politicians and businessmen with even less interest in side effects than these physicists seem to have (like the fellow who seeded the north Pacific a short time ago), and for THEM, all that's needed to push something forward is a few letters like this that tout geoengineering as a "fix", especially since it means they can use it as an excuse to delay focus on emissions even more.
This is a problem, no question, but there is a very real danger of making it worse by attempting to sidestep it altogether. It IS going to get warmer, and we ARE going to have to deal with the consequences of that. Things like painting roofs white, or using fast-growing plants to capture and store CO2 will work slowly, but they will work, in time. NONE of the methods proposed will have any significant effect without cutting emissions, and calls from the generations that ignored this issue for DECADES to "stop focusing on slowing it down, and use geoengineering to cool the planet" sound an awful lot like ANOTHER attempt to kick the can down the road, and leave it to my generation and younger to deal with.
We know what we have to do to stop our contribution to the problem. We know what was have to start planning for to avoid the worst effects of catastrophes. We have concrete plans and predictions to act on, and THAT is where we should focus our efforts, NOT in a vain search for a geoengineering "fix" that will, at best, put the problem on hold for a decade and make it even worse after that.
Peter Wadhams seems to believe that intelligent people will respond promptly to his alarm in, “The Arctic ‘Death Spiral.’ I bet the for-profit sector will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot only would geo-engineering projects reap astronomical profits, the corporation controlling the world’s thermostat would also trump all governments.
Won’t pay us $10 trillion? Here, have a crop-killing drought! Whom will your drones target when ownership of the weather is chiseled in Swiss granite under a legal pyramid of alpine proportions?
Yes, I’m sure many multinationals have long been poised to seize the ‘opportunity’ presented by melting poles. If I were a multinational, I would be.
Professor Wadhams elaborates about the failing of our ice cap. Has he ever wondered if his epic "first circumnavigation of the America's" aboard the Hudson was one of the true final straws that is spiraling us into a meltdown? As professor of Ocean physics he must certainly realize the effects of continously tearing up the insulating ice blanket and allowing the massive ocean heat sink to prevent the yearly freeze of the aritic ice. This is what the icebreakers do. This is what circumnavigation does. We don't need radical solutions, as the good professor suggests, we need smarter actions. Actions that consider the long range effects of our actions. It is a simple matter of energy balance. Entropy will continue to increase, there is no stopping it. Move away from the beaches, find yourself a safe haven away from the floods, earthquakes and tsunamis and let nature take its course. Houses build of straw are the quick easy solutions. We all know the results of quick easy solutions - natural selection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaking farms more water-efficient:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have been using the old technology from the Faro's time for adapting to drought and use water and fertilizer more efficiently.
We are saving 50% or more of the irrigation water and accumulating the fertilizers, so nothing of this is peculating from the root zone.
The only difference from the old technique to our version is that we use less than 1% of the minerals as they used way back.
In virgin dry sandy soils the treated areas are giving 4 times more yield when one uses minimal amount of fertilizers and in the same time saves 50+% of irrigation water.
This is true water-saving technology today.
Best regards
Kristian P. Olesen, CEO – Desert Control Institute Inc.
If it is desired to further a wider public discussion of the pros and cons of the geoengineering alternative(s), it could be useful if the friends and supporters of geoengineering could create (and find a way to publicize) one or more videos/DVDs graphically illustrating the alternative(s).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed, the absolute focus needs to be on the root of the problem. The focus for any sort of geoengineering whatsoever should be on methods of CO2 reduction. Massive mucking with the atmosphere is out, we don't know 1/10th enough, space mirrors are fantasy (it will take decades at the least just to learn to unfurl and manage one, let alone the cost of such a program), etc. Painting roofs white is trivial but simple, carbon capture SHOULD work, but honestly good old efficiency improvements are best, just burn less coal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAddressing the surface substance of the issue, how typical that the only answer "science" offers for tampering with the earth is more tampering, that the answer for a despoiled planet is to saddle the "rank and file" with a further preverted world, rather than ordering the rich and influential despoilers to stop! Placing giant umbrellas in order to rob mankind of bright days and blue skies, the kind of things that make life pleaant enough that people are inspired to try to improve life rather than let miseries slide. Artificial fog, coal black on the oceans to poison sea life, but allow excess heat to be absorbed by the oceans rather than the air. And not one word about bringing those who damage the atmosphere to justice! Let a single individual put out as much fossil fuel vapors as the average mega corporation and the govenrment will move in with Predator drones to take that person out! Let a corporation ruin the atmospher and govenrment "negotiates with them to ease controls on employee abuse and bribing of politicians in order to induce them to change by one ten thousandth of one percent". "Science", like government, exists to make the rich richer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich brings up another aspect of the article. Something somewhat less obvious than the immediate topic but related to it.
"Alternative energy" technologies are touted as the solution to climate change. Correction, it appears climate change is being engineered to, among other things, facilitate the expansion of alternative energy sources! With the increase in chaotic weather and heat transport expected of climate change, wind farming seems a natural outgrowth! How soon before it's recommended to harness the negating of moving air patterns to curb wind destruction and even storm development? And how soon before it's recommended to install huge platforms of reflective solar cells near the Arctic to "undo the decrease in albedo and heat shedding"? It's already obvious that the lessening of sea ice has greatly benefited drilling for oil and gas in the seas around the pole.
And it should be remembered that this doesn't look as much like big business taking advantage of a situation as big business, with government's quisling help, engineering the situation. The process of climate change, in fact, appears to be the result of the doping of the air with weather control chemicals by the program that has come to be known as chemtrailing, beginning near 1950 and reaching full saturation by 1997, when new chemicals deposited in the air began to condense out and form obvious trails. If it was truly carbon dioxide contaminating the air so much, being such a heavy molecule, it would concentrate near the ground. But that would make fires and even engine sparking much more difficult, if not impossible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who promote untruth know they cannot rely on the focus of their loyalty to provide adequate proof of its rightness to counter contradiction. As a result, they tend to rely on non argument methods of non validated dismissiveness, arrogance, contempt, viciousness, mockery, vulgarity.
People, we are screwed. Its time to determine how to adapt. This problem can not possibly be solved by "painting our roofs white", the surface area is relatively insignificant and the cost would be astronomical. Placing chemicals in the air is just like releasing wolves to get rid of pigeons, trading one nusense for another. On top of this, what is the carbon output associated with creating all these materials?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich company, or country, or continent-size organization is in the condition of implementing any geo-engineering project that may have a noticeable effect on global warming and other environmental issues? Is there as of today any realistic and affordable proposal for this kind of public work? Do we have a list of them, including their costs, time needed, time to effect, and if the effects are going to be significant? Having questions that can entertain people is good, they even give income to writers and scientists, but dealing with a serious, planetary level problem, requires a very wise approach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf possible, side effects and untoward or unexpected effects of geo-engineering should be listed too along with the proposals, and one of the questions may be that we lack the computing power or a trustable model for accurate and comprehensive predictions in this field, and a trial-and-error approach, at least may result expensive and with poor efficacy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe it may be feasible to provide some mitigation of Arctic sea ice loss through engineering: the use of wind and wave powered compressors on free floating rafts such that air is compressed, the heat removed and convected away, and the very cold compressed air then released below the surface so that it creates a layer of ice at the surface.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI propose also that we reverse the acidification of the ocean, sequester the excess CO2 absorbed by ocean waters so far, and create enough syngas to power all the world's shipping by growing seaweed.
I have a website for this idea:
http://weareanewspecies.blogspot.com.au/
Here is an extract from a summary on its first page:
*the most feasible cure for the ocean will be to grow billions of tonnes of extra seaweed as soon as possible and to continue doing so for as long as humans burn carbon based fuels [i.e. probably for ever]
*the most effective place to grow the extra seaweed [algae] will be in a belt of deep ocean along the equator and extending maybe five to eight degrees north and south - i.e. not in the hurricane zone
* nutriments for the algae will be obtained from ocean bottom water which, being very cold, will first be used as heat sink for the Stirling engines which will power the enterprise
* infrastructure and the communities directly involved in this large scale aquaculture will be housed on great rafts of insulated ice. These rafts will be thick enough and extensive enough to support populations and facilities both numerous, sufficiently complex, and diverse enough to be called Ocean Cities
* the various kinds of seaweeds so produced will be used to create chemicals currently derived from rock oil [e.g. "bio-diesel"], as well as food stuff for us, and for fish and for other animals
* none of this is rocket science and we can do it now
Geoengineering is worse than no solution, it is an excuse for a solution that distracts people from taking steps that will really solve the problem. A carbon tax, shifting the cost of damages resulting from burning fossil fuel onto the industry selling it, would allow clean energy to go into mass production with prices then low enough to out compete fossil fuel. http://greenismoney.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/carbon-tax-and-dividend/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHomo sapiens must keep doing what they do the nest. Think! We must constantly think of newer ideas and ways to implement them. We will succeed eventually.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was thinking of some methods of reducing global warming recently.
1. We can use the optic fiber techniques to divert the sunlight from artic to the different regions where it is needed. One way is to set up patches of solar panels in the arctic and concentrate the sunlight from surrounding regions on tjose panels. More light on panels = increased synthesis of electrical energy. Diverting light from arctic region will also slow down the melting process
2. We can also start culturing algae. They can be grown easily and anywhere. Algal blooming problems arise when water washes off minerals from frams and deposits them in freshwater reservoirs...why not we oursleves plan to fence the farming land with algal strip ? (Some algaes are edible too...)algae are easier to grow and fix more C02 than plants.
3. C02 and CH4 are the major greenhouse gases that are troubling us. So, what we can do is collect them, mass-collect them, and bury them under the surface of the earth(...or throw them off the earth?) Can also ensure that whatever carbon dioxide and polluting gases are being released by industries, get sequestered, compressed, and stored. Thus, they won't get into the atmosphere and mess with it.
4. To save the arctic ice, can we create an artificial dust screen? Just like the one which killed those big lizards ( dinosaurs) ? Probably it might be relatively easier ?
Is blocking off, in any way, the source of energy for life, sunlight, a descent proposal in geo-engineering? I would rather use it to convert greenhouse gases into bio materials and capture these in the holes we emptied by pumping oil, decompressing gas and digging coal and fix these gases in the solid earth again .So we could keep these gases sunstainably out of the atmosphere. I believe this is sound and sustainable geo-engineering. I also belief micro algeae is a key component of this process ,as is the greening of desserts al around the globe. And this greening can start by converting heat into power and into hydrogen and carry these energy vectors to replace the abuse of fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE SUSTAINABLE POSSIBILITY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe-vegetate the dry sandy deserts (and the Sahel area) according to the method mentioned in comment no. 8.
This will require water, this must be taken from available sources or produced from sea water.
But it will sustainable in producing food to increasing population and create a lot of jobs in areas where this is needed.
Our conservative measurement in Sharm El Sheik (Egypt) the 11th of November 2006 showed air temperature of 32°C and sea temperature of 28°C and sand surface temperature of 51 degree C, grass surface 33 degree C and bushes/trees 35 degree C.
The ground surface temperature reduction achieved by greening is in the range of 17°C.
The CO2 sink will minimum be 15 ton per hectare an the area are minimum 4 million square kilometer, which will sink 6 billion ton of CO2 and resulting in a lot of food.
So when the desert is planted with grass or trees the reduced heating transmission to air is reduced by 320 – 360 MW per square kilometer.
The area of 4 million km2 results in a cooling effect of 1,360,000,000 MW which is in the range of a 5 degree temperature raise in the Arctic.
The total area of our deserts is 19 million square kilometer, so there is more to go on.
In addition all the climate gas sources should be reduced as much as possible otherwise we will just postpone the problem.
Best regards
Kristian P. Olesen, CEO – Desert Control Institute Inc.