Refreezing the Arctic

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Interesting new article just published

[Paul Klinkman]

It's good to see a first writer beginning to recognize that polar-only sulfur would make more sense than dousing the entire planet.

Next I want to see, "only in late spring and early summer"   Sulfur over the North Pole on December 21 doesn't strain out any sun at all.  Sulfur when the polar sun is at a low angle might work wonders.

Next I want to see an acknowledgment that sulfur particles prematurely kill millions of asthmatic people each year.  However, only perhaps 1000 people live south of the tip of Chile.

By then people will start to compare total costs of all options, including my dirt cheap little seawater-pumping pipes with heating coils, moved around once a  week by drones on fairly good days.

Yours in Hope,

Paul Klinkman

On Tuesday, February 3, 2026 at 12:38:28 AM UTC-5 Robert Tulip wrote:

Interesting new article just published

[John Nissen]

Thanks Robert,

I am annoyed with the Economist because they refused to publish a letter I wrote to them about the Arctic.  But let me put that aside.

This article reminds me of how Operaatio Arktis should be on our side for lowering the Arctic temperature and starting to refreeze the Arctic.  

Sea level rise

I must show them my letter to the FT making an argument for refreezing the Arctic, on economic grounds alone, to prevent dangerous sea level rise.  A likely metre of sea level rise this century would cost $70 billion per year according to one study, whereas cooling with SAI would only cost $11 billion a year.  But the human cost of even half a metre would be devastating, likely triggering global conflict.

Tsunami

There is a growing tsunami threat from ice collapse, rather casually mentioned in the NOAA Report Card 2025.  I reported evidence of megatsunamis being generated by glacier collapse at the end of the Eemian and in the early Holocene, both in similar conditions as pertain today.  We've already had an inland megatsunami from the collapse of a cliff, previously held together by ice.

Sea ice

Lowering the Arctic temperature is almost certainly the only way to retain the sea ice throughout the year.  The multiyear ice is nearly gone, so there is extreme urgency for the cooling.  But cooling intervention could be supplemented by ice thickening, e.g. with ice bridges to help to preserve multiyear ice. 

Permafrost

This is thawing, which threatens buildings built on a permafrost foundation.  It is also bad for the reindeer herds on which many indigenous people depend for their livelihoods.

Methane

There may be a small probability this century of a giant outburst of methane from methane hydrates at the 50 gigaton level, but the effect of such an outburst would almost certainly thrust the planet into a hot-house state, unsurvivable by our civilisation.  If risk is defined as probability times impact, then the risk is certainly huge.

AMOC

There is a real danger of AMOC collapse, some estimate 50% probability by 2050 [please check].  This would have a devastating effect on ocean circulation worldwide, and deplete the oxygen on which many marine species depend, especially at depth.

Polar vortex 

There is a growing trend for the vortex to break up and blocks of freezing air to move southwards: hence extremes of cold cropping up ever further south.  At the same time, the Arctic is subject to heatwaves.  I remember people sunbathing on a Greenland beach in temperatures of 22C a few years ago!

Rossby wave behaviour

The polar vortex breakup is just one manifestation of a reduced temperature gradient between Arctic and tropics.  This reduces the energy driving the polar jet stream eastward round the planet.  An effect of this is "stuck weather".  When the weather is stuck for weeks on hot, cold, wet or dry weather, we get extremes of heat, cold, flooding and drought respectively.  This trend is growing, leading to the increase in the number of inhospitable climates around the world.

ITZ

This has been moving northward and intensifying.  A refreezing of the Arctic would help to restore the ITZ to its old position and intensity.

Emergency intervention urgent

In essence the melting of the Arctic, initiated by GHG-induced global warming, has become a global security crisis.  But the crisis can be averted simply by refreezing the Arctic, while it is still just possible.

The key take-home point for me from the Economist report on Operaatio Arktis is this:

"They called on their fellow activists, and the world at large, to take on a new attitude to such climate interventions, rooted in a refusal to accept the damage being done by greenhouse gases already emitted."

According to the Economist, Matthew Henry of Exeter University reckoned that MCB would be sufficient to refreeze the Arctic, but my calculations, using figures from Stephen Salter, shows that MCB hasn't nearly enough cooling power.  Of all available techniques, only SAI has the necessary cooling power to reduce the Arctic temperature, in the face of declining albedo and atlantification.  But the SAI is chasing a moving target, as albedo loss and atlantification grow.  Hence there is extreme urgency for SAI deployment up to strength ASAP.

There is no time to lose.  Arctic meltdown has to be stopped while it may just be possible with SAI and other supporting techniques.  The Economist has got it wrong: refreezing the Arctic is not just advisable but essential to save humanity from unmitigated disaster.

Cheers, John

On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 5:38 AM <rob...@rtulip.net> wrote:

Interesting new article just published

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/01ee01dc94cf%244de55ad0%24e9b01070%24%40rtulip.net.

[John Nissen]

Oops, $70 billion per year should be $700 billion per year, as the cost for one metre of sea level rise.

[John Nissen]

Hi all,

Below is a link to my letter to the FT, just dealing with the sea level threat. 

Letter: Greenland meltdown and the reasons it matters

https://www.ft.com/content/f22de995-3b86-4e09-bf1b-379d6b587d2f

Cheers, John