[ad_1]
Every day, science fiction and reality are getting closer and closer. In the latest edition of "Could you do it?", Scientists published a new study that weighs the construction of massive berms to protect retreating Antarctic glaciers.
The results focus on one of the most at-risk glaciers in Antarctica and show that we could actually save it with a sufficiently large berm. Now, we just need to know how to build the berms, if we can save other glaciers, who decides if it's a good idea, who pays for it and if it's worth it. Not much
Geoengineering is a panoply of technological climate mitigation strategies that tend to be controversial, in part because they could screw up the planet. The idea most often mentioned is to hack the entire planet by protecting it from the sun, which would cool everyone while humanity is confused about carbon pollution. But while this idea can really disrupt rainfall patterns and have many other negative consequences, Antarctic piracy is a bit different.
This more focused geoengineering strategy would only affect glaciers, which Michael Wolovick, author of the new study, called "very important points". That's not to say that it's a perfect plan, but an intriguing concept on how to slow down climate change.
The study, published Thursday in the cryosphere, examines how we could protect the Thwaites Glacier from melting snow. This glacier is part of the West Antarctic region which is experiencing serious problems due to the presence of hot water beneath the ice floes that extend over the sea. The bedrock in this area goes down inland, which means that the front of the glacier is getting bigger and bigger, which increases the risk of instability. The region may already be in an unstable melting phase that could lead to sea level rise of several feet.
"The societal consequences of the rapid rise in sea level are enormous," said Wolovick, a Princeton researcher, in an email to Earther. "Even a meter in height would require society to spend tens of billions of dollars a year by supporting coastal defenses such as dikes, dikes, and so on. However, one meter of sea level is relatively low compared to the ice caps. . "
Faced with this crisis, a group of scientists, including Wolovick, has already proposed building huge underwater berms to help maintain glaciers and prevent the circulation of hot water. This could give them time to grow back and harden. The new analysis examines the degree of success of ice stabilization under different types of protection. In one scenario, they examined "isolated fixation points", which did not block hot water, but allowed the glacier to cling while, in other scenarios, they observed small berms the water as well. a very large berm prevented him from blocking any further from the glacier itself.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the last iteration was more efficient depending on their model simulations, preserving the glacier 100% of the time. However, even isolated berms were still effective in 30% of cases, according to a relatively common warming scenario. And these berms are within the reach of today's human abilities. The study indicates that the South-North China water transfer project requires a similar excavation volume. The largest berms are an order of magnitude beyond our current capabilities, but that does not mean they will always be unrealistic. The paper suggests that we could start trying to do that with smaller glaciers and from there.
"The specific designs we examined are far from ready for implementation, and we do not advocate that glacial geoengineering begins soon," Wolovick said. "What we advocate rather, it's the beginning of an iterative design improvement process."
"Although this project is always on the side of fantasy, it could one day be our only alternative reality," Andrea Dutton, a geologist at the University of Florida, told Earther. "It will be much easier to reduce emissions than to do it – we have the technology in place and we know what we need to do. At the end of the day, treating only the symptoms rather than the cause is not an effective solution. "
The lure of a project like this for the millions of people living on the east coast is clear, especially in the lower islands that could become uninhabitable by the middle of the century. But it also opens up a huge Pandora's box.
There is currently no form of global governance for this type of geoengineering project. This opens up questions of equity. Are we going to spend our money to protect the coastline while the West burns in a crisp area or the Sahel region in Africa is consumed by the Sahara? How can we decide which glaciers – which each contribute to different levels of sea level rise due to the weird planetary physics – to change first once we have solved the problems? Are those who save the poor or those who have the most money to finance the project? Where will the money come from anyway? (The researchers focus on the US military budget, which is right.)
Additional research and discussion is essential to answer these questions. We are running out of time to reduce emissions and avoid the worst effects of climate change, making geoengineering more likely. But we must know at what price.
This post has been updated with comments from Andrea Dutton.
Source link
