I don't know if this would be practical but, am putting it out for comments.
I saw something in the news a few weeks ago that got me thinking about just how easy it might be to manipulate nature.
The opposite end of the energy problem is global warming. The problem is not that there's not enough energy...in fact, there's kind of too much but it's in the wrong forms and wrong places. And, a big concern is that the heat is melting the world's ice masses.
Apparently, the only glacier in the world that is actively growing is in the crater of Mt. St. Helens. It's ice forming in the shadow cast by the rim. What's mnore, the growth is not small and measurable over only long geological time periods. After all, it was less than 30 years ago that the mountain erupted.
Now, the crater of St. Helens is not a "huge" structure by modern standards. If "shadow fences" were to be built on the polar and high-elevation glaciers and ice caps, around the world, could sufficient sunlight be shielded to allow the ice to hold its mass (or, at least, shrink more slowly)?
I saw something in the news a few weeks ago that got me thinking about just how easy it might be to manipulate nature.
The opposite end of the energy problem is global warming. The problem is not that there's not enough energy...in fact, there's kind of too much but it's in the wrong forms and wrong places. And, a big concern is that the heat is melting the world's ice masses.
Apparently, the only glacier in the world that is actively growing is in the crater of Mt. St. Helens. It's ice forming in the shadow cast by the rim. What's mnore, the growth is not small and measurable over only long geological time periods. After all, it was less than 30 years ago that the mountain erupted.
Now, the crater of St. Helens is not a "huge" structure by modern standards. If "shadow fences" were to be built on the polar and high-elevation glaciers and ice caps, around the world, could sufficient sunlight be shielded to allow the ice to hold its mass (or, at least, shrink more slowly)?