Ocean pipes ‘not cool,’ would end up warming climate
![otec_mode_06_animation[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/otec_mode_06_animation1.gif)
Washington, D.C.–To combat global climate change caused by greenhouse gases, alternative energy sources and other types of environmental recourse actions are needed. There are a variety of proposals that involve using vertical ocean pipes to move seawater to the surface from the depths in order to reap different potential climate benefits. A new study from a group of Carnegie scientists determines that these types of pipes could actually increase global warming quite drastically. It is published in Environmental Research Letters.
One proposed strategy–called Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, or OTEC–involves using the temperature difference between deeper and shallower water to power a heat engine and produce clean electricity. A second proposal is to move carbon from the upper ocean down into the deep, where it wouldn’t interact with the atmosphere. Another idea, and the focus of this particular study, proposes that ocean pipes could facilitate direct physical cooling of the surface ocean by replacing warm surface ocean waters with colder, deeper waters.
“Our prediction going into the study was that vertical ocean pipes would effectively cool the Earth and remain effective for many centuries,” said Ken Caldeira, one of the three co-authors.
The team, which also included lead author Lester Kwiatkowski as well as Katharine Ricke, configured a model to test this idea and what they found surprised them. The model mimicked the ocean-water movement of ocean pipes if they were applied globally reaching to a depth of about a kilometer (just over half a mile). The model simulated the motion created by an idealized version of ocean pipes, not specific pipes. As such the model does not include real spacing of pipes, nor does it calculate how much energy they would require.
Their simulations showed that while global temperatures could be cooled by ocean pipe systems in the short term, warming would actually start to increase just 50 years after the pipes go into use. Their model showed that vertical movement of ocean water resulted in a decrease of clouds over the ocean and a loss of sea-ice.
Colder air is denser than warm air. Because of this, the air over the ocean surface that has been cooled by water from the depths has a higher atmospheric pressure than the air over land. The cool air over the ocean sinks downward reducing cloud formation over the ocean. Since more of the planet is covered with water than land, this would result in less cloud cover overall, which means that more of the Sun’s rays are absorbed by Earth, rather than being reflected back into space by clouds.
Water mixing caused by ocean pipes would also bring sea ice into contact with warmer waters, resulting in melting. What’s more, this would further decrease the reflection of the Sun’s radiation, which bounces off ice as well as clouds.
After 60 years, the pipes would cause an increase in global temperature of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2degrees Fahrenheit). Over several centuries, the pipes put the Earth on a warming trend towards a temperature increase of 8.5 degrees Celsius (15.3 degrees Fahrenheit).
“I cannot envisage any scenario in which a large scale global implementation of ocean pipes would be advisable,” Kwiatkowski said. “In fact, our study shows it could exacerbate long-term warming and is therefore highly inadvisable at global scales.”
The authors do say, however, that ocean pipes might be useful on a small scale to help aerate ocean dead zones.
###
A video abstract of the paper is available here:
The Carnegie Institution for Science is a private, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., with six research departments throughout the U.S. Since its founding in 1902, the Carnegie Institution has been a pioneering force in basic scientific research. Carnegie scientists are leaders in plant biology, developmental biology, astronomy, materials science, global ecology, and Earth and planetary science.
“The newly cooled air over the ocean was denser, which created higher atmospheric pressure over the oceans relative to land….Because more than 70% of Earth is covered by ocean, the net impact of this effect in the model was to reduce global cloud cover, and hence reduce albedo (reflectivity).”
So what happens when the ocean surfaces warm?
They forgot to model the full cycle effect. The cooler water absorbs CO2 from the air. This reduces the temperature, reduces drought in California, causes more ice and snow, glaciers start growing and polar bears will be fat and happy.
So what happens when the ocean surfaces warm?
We read all about in in the Guardian?
My word. They think it is so bad we may have to shift to nukes? (Nah, nothing could be that bad.)
By decreasing cloud cover, they would cause the earth to warm.
So they are admitting that clouds dominate climate feedbacks?
These things might screw up a small area surrounding them, but affect anything globally? Not a chance. It never ceases to amaze how all these great scientists have no sense of scale. It would be like the proverbial flea on an elephant.
Exactly. The myopia and the lack of basic statistical understanding (intended or unintended I do not know), these people suffer from is astounding.
” ….. lead author Lester Kwiatkowski as well as Katharine Ricke, configured a model to test this idea and what they found surprised them.”
Why were the surprised? They configured the model. The model simply produced the output that is was configured to produce. The various outcomes were predictable, unless their model was faulty.
At least this is patronage from Bill Gates walking around money.
“Grants for research are provided …. from gifts made by Mr. Bill Gates from his personal funds. While Mr. Gates provides input from time to time on the fund, Drs. Keith and Caldera make final decisions on projects.”
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/FICER.html
“The Carnegie Institution for Science is a private, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C.”
Funny they are located there.
Things that make you go “hmmmm?”
No engineer was disturbed in making this sciencey idealized contraption. Willis will smile at the results of their simulation although what they don’t know is it wont take 50 years before warming ensues, it will simply delay the afternoon clouds by half an hour and they will be net-heating up the ocean the following afternoon!
so…in order to “fix” a supposed slight on the environment caused by man the solution was to DIRECTLY affect environment on a massive scale.
yup…no issues there….
No reference or link was provided, so here it is:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/3/034016/article
The article does not appear to be paywalled.
Took a quick look at the paper. They assume that enough of these plants will be built to produce complete mixing of the upper 1000 meters of the entire ocean. Insane. Not only is the scale insane, there is also the fact that if the plants are anything more than a small perturbation on the T gradient, they will stop working.
The model outputs reported look like nonsense. The authors seem to have the attitude: “It must be true since the computer says so”. They claim that the mixing will release CO2 from the ocean. That makes no sense. The oceans are a sink for CO2, so increased mixing should enhance ocean uptake. They claim an increase in radiative forcing of 32 W/m^2, mainly due to a reduction in net cloud cooling. That is a reduction of somewhere between 150 and 200%. Negative clouds. And it looks like the warming from the CO2 does not bring the clouds back. What nonsense.
How about having a look at cloud distribution over the world’s oceans and seeing how it varies with temperature? Cold areas seem to have at least as much cloudiness as warm areas.
My two biggest problems with their analysis are these;
1) They seem to presume the cold water pumped to the surface…would stay at the surface. No…The cold water, even after the heat exchanger, would still be colder than the surrounding water and, being mode dense, would sink back down to where it would reach it’s equilibrium level at some point deeper so it’s cooling effect would not be realized at the surface.
2) From the article:
>Colder air is denser than warm air. Because of this, the air over the ocean surface that has been cooled >by water from the depths has a higher atmospheric pressure than the air over land. The cool air over the >ocean sinks downward reducing cloud formation over the ocean. Since more of the planet is covered with >water than land, this would result in less cloud cover overall, which means that more of the Sun’s rays are >absorbed by Earth, rather than being reflected back into space by clouds.
They have no clue about meteorology either. Now, their first statement is correct. However, after that, it goes down hill. *If* the colder water were to stay at the surface, the warmer (and, presumably more moist) air would be blown over the cooler water…causing the air to cool and…create an advection inversion (cooler air at surface with warmer air above) and cause a layer of stratocumulous to form or, if the surface air is cooled enough, stratus or even sea fog. IOW – it creates a ‘marine layer’ and the fog/clouds which go along with it. This is the semi-persistent condition off the US West Coast.
Jeff
Around 1980, Illinois Power Co. built a coal gassification plant at Wood River Power Station (where I was an operator at the time). Despite promises of powering itself and producing valuable chemical byproducts, we were never able to get steady enough combustion in a gas/pulverized coal boiler to power the 50mw turbine-generator. The plant was scrapped after an attempt at using a modified gas turbine just a few years later and had mostly self-destructed from it’s own corrosive products.
I can’t help but find the power company’s theory to have been more plausible than ocean pipes. From that experience, I would predict any such contraption would never become a marketable reality.
It was funded publicly,BTW.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/east-alton
I hadn’t heard about that one! Once, I was in the IL Power nuke in Clinton, IL with a buddy who was an engineer on the project – I stood in the suppression pool underneath the fuel-rod assembly, about a month before the unit was fueled. Nice little BWR nuke plant!
OK. I’m late to the party, haven’t read all the comments (there are 120 of them, that’s a lot of reading).
But— a couple of questions. Aren’t the ocean currents that already exist doing the very thing these mechanical devices are supposed to do? Probably doing it better to boot.
Wouldn’t these machines require lots of energy? Last time I checked, the only place you could get energy on the level that these devices would require is either fossil fuels or nuclear-powered generation. It’s ludicrous to think that a device capable of moving enough ocean water to make a noticeable difference could run on solar or wind-power alone– unless it is on the global scale that the presently-operating ocean currents already employ.
“Geo-engineering” = Doing foolish things, on a large scale, at great expense to us all, for no rational or effective purpose.
Why not drive a generator with a simple siphon from sea water over a dry dock and into a sewer system?
(Grants gladly accepted.)
But since the sewer system drains to the sea the dry dock area fills up. But this is O.K. since we can pump it out with the huge energy obtained from the generator. And if we put it all together on a community scale there may even be enough energy left over for cooling the adjacent town.
(Mebbe we can partner on the project … to make the grant aplication look more appealing we need to get a community partner as well … one that isn’t culturally resistant to stupidity).
I’m just an amateur throwing ideas around, but what if gravity flow can be maintained throughout the system?
Tim
Gravity flow can’t “pump” the cold, dense (high-saline) salt water from the deep waters up to the surface to go through the high=resistance of the heat exchanger near the surface.
Thanks.
If gravity could be maintained, or created, then you would have the efficiency of a standard hydropower system.
You really have to wonder if these guys appreciate just how big the oceans are and such efforts would be amount to nothing.
don’t fall AT ANY SOME chance.
____
Long you live and high you fly
And smiles you’ll give and tears
you’ll cry
And all you touch and all you see
Is all your life will ever be
____
pink floyd, the dark side of the moon.
Sorry for pointing. Hans
Hmmmm….first, Trenberth et. al. claim that the “missing heat” is lurking deep in the abyss, and now this scheme is based upon cold, deep ocean water?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/the-heat-went-to-the-oceans-excuse-and-trenberths-missing-heat-is-awol-deep-ocean-has-not-warmed-since-2005/
One unintended benefit of the scheme would be recycling of nutrients from the abyss to the surface waters, which would stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, bait fish and apex predators such as sharks and tuna.
However, I wouldn’t touch the energetics of the thing with a dead tuna….pumping water from the abyss to the surface would probably be a net energy loser.