Megaengineering challenge: Polar refrigeration system

[SpaceMarine93]

I will be honest with you, when the idea first hit me even I find it very absurd and impractical

But considering the current state of the environment and amount of progress, the lack of that is, in reducing greenhouse gasses, I guess sooner or later even ideas as absurd as this one would eventually be considered feasible, especially when things get desperate enough.

Recent reading of scientific studies had shown a disturbing threat becoming imminent: As we all know, in the polar regions of this world, buried deep underneath the ice lays enormous deposits of methane and other very dangerous natural greenhouse gasses. There are enough of them in the Arctic alone to, if ever released, cause catastrophic damage to the environment, beyond our capability to handle. Some scientists are considering putting this as up

Look up information about the deposits and the rate of polar ice melting - you will get the idea.

It appears to be a clear and present danger, relatively speaking - we are melting the polar ice caps with man-made global warming, and that alone is already causing increasing amount of ecological and environmental damage, and will continue to do so in the future with an increasing impact on Human civilization. But even then we might still be able to handle it. But if the methane blows in the near future, Human civilization WILL collapse.

But so far, little progress had been made in curbing greenhouse gasses worldwide. On the contrary, there is an increasingly stronger skepticism and denialism from the public, fueled by corporate interests, which viewed the whole crisis as alarmist exaggeration and any attempt to stop it either as a threat to their way of life or some form of conspiracy. Nations meanwhile continue to find it difficult

They will continue their misguided path, and the Earth will suffer for it.

So here's the thing. If political and economic means of stopping global warming and the melting of the ice caps are ineffective, why not a technological one?

I mean, I know there are already many technological proposals; putting millions of mirrors in orbit, use offshore carbon dioxide filters to fix excess carbon dioxide and green house gasses beneath the sea bed, but what I mean is a solution that would solve this problem of meting ice caps once and for all at its source.

What I am proposing here is a massive machine system, a network spanning the entire Arctic and Antarctic regions of the Earth, to be constructed, underneath the ice, which would prevent any further melting of the polar ice caps by means of refrigeration on an epic, continental scale. This would keep the ice from melting any further, preventing temperature from rising higher, prevent the water levels from getting any higher, preventing the droughts, famines, and other natural disaster that could come from this from getting any more frequent.

I am not saying some kind of miracle machine that could reverse all our damage to the ice caps, but a system which would prevent the ice from melting any further, at least by a century, while Human civilization gets its act together. It is not entirely in the realm of science fiction - I know many of the technologies to do it is already available.

It will be the ultimate test of 21st Century Human ingenuity. All to save the Human race.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but if it works it would be worth it.

Anyone here had any suggestions on how to accomplish something like this, before it is too late?

Alternatively, anyone here could provide a cheaper but effective alternative?

[Lord Zentei]

You do realize that refrigerators generate heat, don't you? They pump X thermal energy from a colder area to a warmer environment, expending Y extra energy in the process which also goes into the environment as heat. Only in the case you're talking about, the colder area is IN the environment.

That's not counting the energy and resources that would go into the project.

Not to mention the fact that you're trying to save the natural environment by turning it into an artificial one (with Coruscant-scale construction sprawl).

Yeah, I'm not seeing the utility of this.

[Shadow6]

I mean, I know there are already many technological proposals; putting millions of mirrors in orbit, use offshore carbon dioxide filters to fix excess carbon dioxide and green house gasses beneath the sea bed, but what I mean is a solution that would solve this problem of meting ice caps once and for all at its source.

I'm not sure what you think "at its source" means, but polar ice cap melting is a symptom, and treating the symptom rather than the cause is always going to, in the long run, be more expensive to do.

What I am proposing here is a massive machine system, a network spanning the entire Arctic and Antarctic regions of the Earth, to be constructed, underneath the ice, which would prevent any further melting of the polar ice caps by means of refrigeration on an epic, continental scale. This would keep the ice from melting any further, preventing temperature from rising higher, prevent the water levels from getting any higher, preventing the droughts, famines, and other natural disaster that could come from this from getting any more frequent.

I am not saying some kind of miracle machine that could reverse all our damage to the ice caps, but a system which would prevent the ice from melting any further, at least by a century, while Human civilization gets its act together. It is not entirely in the realm of science fiction - I know many of the technologies to do it is already available.

Underneath? As in, underneath the continental ice of Greenland and Antarctica (which averages 2 kilometres thick)? (Remember, sea ice is actually less dense than liquid water, and hence the sea level would go down if the only thing that melted was the northern sea ice. Actually, on that note, the sea ice melts and refreezes every year - do you propose constantly keeping it frozen, messing up the ecology of the place, or some sort of bizzare refrigeration framework just under the surface that you adjust as necessary?)

Putting aside that, what about the thermodynamics of such a machine? Refrigeration only moves heat around (in a non one hundred percent efficient process - i.e. more waste heat) - try feeling the back of your own fridge or air conditioning heat pump to understand. Where is this excess heat being dumped? Not to mention this machine would have its own rediculously large energy requirements (to pump the coolant, construct, etc.) that, apart from heat generation and emissions, takes away from more useful applications.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but if it works it would be worth it.

Yes, it does, and no, it won't.

Edit: Well, so much for that.

[Lord Zentei]

hence the sea level would go down if the only thing that melted was the northern sea ice

Nitpick: the sea level would remain unchanged if only the northern sea ice melted. The ice displaces water equal to its weight, the excess volume sticks out above sea level.

[Ziggy Stardust]

There are so many problems with this I don't even know where to begin.

Who is going to pay for it? Who is going to build it? How do you convince countries nowhere near the polar regions to pay for it, especially if they are countries without comparatively little greenhouse gas emissions? They are going to quite rightly decry having to foot part of the bill for a problem that is largely the fault of countries like the U.S., China, India, etc. etc.

How do you separate any technological solution (even one as idiotic as this) from the political and economic ramifications? How is this plan going to in any way address the obstacle that you brought up:

On the contrary, there is an increasingly stronger skepticism and denialism from the public, fueled by corporate interests, which viewed the whole crisis as alarmist exaggeration and any attempt to stop it either as a threat to their way of life or some form of conspiracy.

How does it work? Where does the waste heat go? What is the energy source going to be? Fossil fuels? That compounds the problem you are trying to solve in the first place. Nuclear? That creates its own immensely complicated logistical issue. Solar? In your fucking dreams. How much energy is it going to take to run this? It is going to be a hideously inefficient process.

How do you "install" it or build it, even if you overcome the non-trivial issues related to energy generation/waste heat? How do you get it under all of that ice? Is it going to be on the ocean floor? Floating? How do you go about constructing this without COMPLETELY DESTROYING THE POLAR ICE CAPS? What about the polar bears, walruses(?), narwhales, proper whales, bird species, fish species, krill, plankton, etc. etc. etc? How do you go about completing this project without disrupting (in reality, COMPLETELY DESTROYING) their ecosystem?

This is only scratching the surface of the questions this idea brings up. I could keep going, but in reality if you seriously think that such a momentously retarded idea has any possible chance of working then there really is no point in trying to argue this rationally with you.

[Number Theoretic]

Any geoengineering project of this scale, aimed at "fixing" the climate has a hole gordic knot of problems that are all related to each other. This begins even in principal realms:

No one has ever done something on this scale, so there is no empirical data that could support any theoretical model. And speaking of theoretical models: our current meterological models have some difficulty of predicting the weather further than two weeks. Climate research refuses to predict the climate on a longer scale than 100 years, because 1) the climate is a chaotic system and therefore tends to diverge drastically even with nearly identical initial conditions and 2) there are currently some hard limits on the precision of exactly these initial conditions. So even if the model is prefect, there will always be some uncertainty. And if even the theory has its limits of predicting the long-term outcome, it is understandable to be reluctant against anything that screws with our cllimate. Especially, because earth is currently the only place, where humanity can live. I hope this will change, but even in a hundred years it is unlikely that millions of people can move into O'Neill colonies in orbit. So, we essentially have "all eggs in one basket" here.

Second comes economic questions: Who pays for it? And if no profit can be made from it, it is _very_ unlikely to gather sufficient funds in a reasonable amount of time. Take a look at current climate negotiations: they are stuck even in questions that are not only technologically and economically feasible but also obviously necessary. But, alas, it costs all money and there are no short-term benefits, that's why everyone is waiting for each other to make the first move.

Third, and somewhat related to the economic ones are engineering difficulties. The energy requirements alone are massive. Without large scale nuclear fusion or billions of square-miles of orbital solar energy collectors this would frankly be impossible. And this doesn't touch the core technologies that are needed to massively manipulate the climate of the entire planet. No, a cheaper and more likely way to cool down the world climate would be nuclear war. Ugly side effect: millions, even billions will die and the rest will starve because of the ashes in the atmosphere.

However, maybe it's not that bad for global economy if the arctic is free of ice, at least in summer: the legendary north-west passage will then be open

[madd0ct0r]

i like silly engineering, but I can't see a good way to vent the heat here.

on a similar note:

assume sea rise of 55mm to be accounted for by 2100.
sea area is 361 million square kilometres

which gives us about 2E13 meters cubed of water we'll need to loose down the back of the sofa.
Fortunately, that comes to only 2890m3 per person (assuming an average pop of seven billion)

If we allocate that as swimming pools, that's a bit more then a single olympic swimming pool per person. (1.16 to be exact)

Area wise, we'll need 8.75E12 m2 (if we stick with the minimum depth allowed of 2m)
I like diving in the pool, so lets double that to 4m deep, so we need 4.375E12m2, or 4375 thousand square kilometers.
this is about 2/3 of austrailia. and let's face it, the aussies do like their olympic swimming pools.

problem solved. NEXT!

[Starglider]

It would be cheaper and more effective to make a space-based reflector array to reduce insolation of the polar regions. People have come up with various schemes to do this that use solar sails and light pressure to keep the reflectors in position.

[SpaceMarine93]

Meh, now that I thought about it, it is kind of a silly idea anyway.

So, is there any viable alternatives?

[VarrusTheEthical]

As with anything worth doing, it's better to do it in space! If your goal is to curb global warming, why not do it by reducing the amount of light that strikes the Earth's surface? Thus, I present to you the Space Sunshade. Essentially a 1000 KM lens placed between the Earth and the Sun that would block enough energy from reaching the Earth to theoretically offset the energy trapped by greenhouse gasses.

[Simon_Jester]

Meh, now that I thought about it, it is kind of a silly idea anyway.

So, is there any viable alternatives?

...Stop spamming greenhouse gases?

[NoXion]

Meh, now that I thought about it, it is kind of a silly idea anyway.

So, is there any viable alternatives?

...Stop spamming greenhouse gases?

Really? Because I sometimes hear rumblings about "tipping points" and similar stories about how fucked we could be even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gasses right now.

Of course, I could have heard wrong.

[His Divine Shadow]

There was a book by stephen baxter with a similar plot like this (Transcendent).

[General Trelane (Retired)]

[. . .]our current meterological models have some difficulty of predicting the weather further than two weeks. Climate research refuses to predict the climate on a longer scale than 100 years, because 1) the climate is a chaotic system and therefore tends to diverge drastically even with nearly identical initial conditions and 2) there are currently some hard limits on the precision of exactly these initial conditions. So even if the model is prefect, there will always be some uncertainty. And if even the theory has its limits of predicting the long-term outcome, it is understandable to be reluctant against anything that screws with our cllimate.

I suggest you read better websites for your climate information. Here's a start.

[Simon_Jester]

Really? Because I sometimes hear rumblings about "tipping points" and similar stories about how fucked we could be even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gasses right now.

Of course, I could have heard wrong.

At the least, it's a question of damage control. Global warming will be a lot worse if we keep burning fossil fuels until they're all gone without thinking about emissions control. Global warming will be a lot less bad if we are careful and restrained and reduce emissions. That doesn't mean there will be no consequences- you don't get that in real life- but the consequences will be less bad.

It's like quitting smoking. Quit smoking after ten years and you've hurt your lungs permanently, but you hurt them less and are at less risk than if you just kept smoking till the day you die.

[Number Theoretic]

I suggest you read better websites for your climate information. Here's a start.

Ok, it seems that you are misunderstanding me as being a climate sceptic. Let me assure you that this is not the case: i do believe that this is happening and i do believe that current climate models can predict the macroscopic climate until the end of the century with high confidence, precisely because of the properties of deterministic chaotic system that your link discusses.

But my point was, that it is not possible to predict the climate beyond roughly a hundred years. At least to my knowledge, there are no sound predictions of our climate ranging over a thousand or a hunderd thousand years. And when we aren't using magitech it is likely that terraforming processes happen on the scale of thousands of years or at least several centuries. But since i'm no expert in that field, i'm open to educaction. So if you happen to have more links pointing to material explaining that and how it is possible to make climate predictions on that timescale, please share them with us.

Speaking of models, i also happen to have a link. True, it talks about economic and not about climate models, but the point is about methods of fitting a mathematical model to actual measurement data. Curiously, it turns out, that the model can make false predictions even if it is the perfect model. Of course it is possible that this does not apply to climate models because economic models tend to be of stochastic nature and climate models not necessarily so. And i admit that i have only a very vague idea of how climate models actually look like. But perhaps the premise of the article still applies to them. If however climate models turn out to indeed have stochastic components within them, it is more likely than not that the phenomenon depicted in the article applies to them as well, at least in the long run of at least several centuries.

[Jaepheth]

Could you replace the icecaps with concrete caps?

[madd0ct0r]

yes, theoretically, over decades., but the amount of carbon dioxide produced by manufacturing all that concrete?
oops. same result.

[Patrick Degan]

It would be easier to engage in efforts such as sinking pipes deep enough to allow colder deep water to mix with warmer surface water, as well as spraying seawater onto existing ice in the colder months to thicken it and slow the rate of melting. The two methods combined might gradually restore and reinforce the Arctic polar ice cap, but the question would be the rate at which the "rebuilding" process would occur and if it would be sufficient to offset the melting rate or slow it by any significant degree, depending upon the scale of the project.

[Simon_Jester]

Plus, as pointed out, you have to burn fuel to sustain an effort on this scale, so it's questionable what the payoff is.

[mithie]

I can think of a couple of solutions.

Solution 1: It has been experimentally demonstrated that mixing testosterone into the water will substiantially raise the freezing point. So you get a bunch of guys, say, 400 million, to march to the polar ice caps, stand there, and show them a manly movie like, oh, 300, or Bridge Over the River Kwai or something.


Solution 2: Build a giant, airtight dome over the polar icecaps with the base extending all the way to the mantle. Then, vent the atmosphere inside. Voila!

[Malagar]

As with anything worth doing, it's better to do it in space! If your goal is to curb global warming, why not do it by reducing the amount of light that strikes the Earth's surface? Thus, I present to you the Space Sunshade. Essentially a 1000 KM lens placed between the Earth and the Sun that would block enough energy from reaching the Earth to theoretically offset the energy trapped by greenhouse gasses.

Why waste energy moving stuff into space?
How about just covering a large part of the tropics in some highly reflective material.
That would probably reflect a roughly equal amount of energy for a far lower cost than making something that huge and putting it that far into space.

[Bakustra]

As with anything worth doing, it's better to do it in space! If your goal is to curb global warming, why not do it by reducing the amount of light that strikes the Earth's surface? Thus, I present to you the Space Sunshade. Essentially a 1000 KM lens placed between the Earth and the Sun that would block enough energy from reaching the Earth to theoretically offset the energy trapped by greenhouse gasses.

Why waste energy moving stuff into space?
How about just covering a large part of the tropics in some highly reflective material.
That would probably reflect a roughly equal amount of energy for a far lower cost than making something that huge and putting it that far into space.

Because people and animals and plants all live on the ground, where they would be suffocated by the addition of reflective material, while space is empty.

[Malagar]

As with anything worth doing, it's better to do it in space! If your goal is to curb global warming, why not do it by reducing the amount of light that strikes the Earth's surface? Thus, I present to you the Space Sunshade. Essentially a 1000 KM lens placed between the Earth and the Sun that would block enough energy from reaching the Earth to theoretically offset the energy trapped by greenhouse gasses.

Why waste energy moving stuff into space?
How about just covering a large part of the tropics in some highly reflective material.
That would probably reflect a roughly equal amount of energy for a far lower cost than making something that huge and putting it that far into space.

Because people and animals and plants all live on the ground, where they would be suffocated by the addition of reflective material, while space is empty.

OK, that is somewhat problematic.
Then how about just plastering the parts of the tropics, and subtropics that don’t contain that much life to begin with, like the various deserts.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There actually was a serious proposal to reduce carbon emissions by changing absolutely nothing about the way humans live and our wasteful ways sort of like this in principle. It's requiring that all current black objects--namely, roads, parking lots, airport runways and other tarmac, as well as the shingles/roofing on houses and buildings and everything of that sort--be painted a pinkish off-white (to avoid the glare problem pure white would cause). This would, as opposed to the existing black colouration, have an effect greater than Kyoto had everyone including the US implemented it, as I recall--substantially so. Some very large part of human environmental heating activity comes simply from the colour of the stuff we build.