Thus week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had a sligh tly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet
formatting link
The worrying part is that economists who wrote it don't seem to have got th e idea that the ice sheet could suddenly start sliding off in large chunks, as ice sheets have been known to do in the not all-that-geological past, l ike at the end of the most recent ice age.
They concentrate on what the Greenland ice sheet has done over the past few million years, rather neglecting the fact that we are pushing the global t emperature up to a level not seen for the last 20 million years.
It's the sort of mindless computer modelling that John Larkin thinks he com plains about. The authors do make the right noises about complicated behavi our in the ice sheet, but the idea of large chunks sliding off in hurry doe s seem to have escaped them.
To help the ice to flow, first liquid water is needed e.g. in ice lakes during the summer, gravasses are needed so that the water will suddenly flow under the ice and there act as a lubricant between ice and stone to help the ice flowing downwards.
Of course this applies only on ice that is currently above sea level. Due to the huge ice pressure, the ground sinks up to 1 km. The ice below sea level doesn't flow anywhere, until the ground pops up due to isostacy in the next 10000 to 50000 years (about 1 cm/year).
The recent event you seem to refer in North America must have been a situation in which a large area has been surrounded by mountains and a huge lake formed inside it, with possible icebergs floating around. At some point, the stones broke and a huge flood was created, making deep scars into the geology. Most likely just a one off event, not a normal mechanism.
At least for Greenland the temperature has been as least as high about
5000 years ago (Atlantic period) and possibly also about 1000 years
oceans at once ?
There was one such event in North America with clear geological scars, but was that a common event worldwide ?
One large unknown surprisingly is the sheer strength of glacier ice in real-world situations. At least for ice-cliffs in Antartica , where the cliffs gradually get undercut by the ocean, i was reading a few months ago. Presumably the same fuzzy data applies at modelling the other end of the Earth. Its only recently they've managed to measure such undercuts and derrive the strength from that.
Why would such events be common and hapening every odd year ... and everywhere ... adapt your time scale into 100.000 years per tick ... the fact it didn't happen during the period of written history doesn't prevent it from happening ;-)
ightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenla nd ice sheet
the idea that the ice sheet could suddenly start sliding off in large chun ks, as ice sheets have been known to do in the not all-that-geological past , like at the end of the most recent ice age.
An ice sheet sliding off into the sea is always a one-off event. They don't slide back up hill again.
The problem is that ice sheets would take a long time to melt in situ.
The period from 19,000 years ago to 6000 years ago isn't long enough for th at and the sea level rise seems to have happened in relatively brief spurts .
formatting link
It wasn't just Lake Assagiz (and it's draining doesn't seem to have been wh at brought on the Younger Dryas.
few million years, rather neglecting the fact that we are pushing the globa l temperature up to a level not seen for the last 20 million years.
formatting link
You've been suckered by a denialist. He misunderstood the data he was worki ng with.
Even prolonged warming takes a while to push liquid water deep into the ice sheet. The ice sheets doesn't slide off "at once" but rather when it's mec hanical stability is gone. The difficulty of predicting whne it is going to happen is the difficulty of seeing what's going on deep in the ice sheet.
The problem is that the ice sheet is eventually going to fail mechanically long before all the ice has melted, and it will slide off relatively quickl y when that happens, and we don't know when.
complains about. The authors do make the right noises about complicated beh aviour in the ice sheet, but the idea of large chunks sliding off in hurry does seem to have escaped them.
There was a lot of sea level rise, and it seems to have happened in "pulses " which does seem to represent different ice sheets - in different places - sliding off.
Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
A new method to slow it! Go to Antarctica... Build a huge miles long slide from somewhere near the edge of the continent to an inner area many miles inland. Start gathering ice blocks from Greenland and take them all the way down there. Fill up Antarctica with Greenlands ice from the inside out. Millions of tons all fired down the slide by a mag-pulse ice cube machine gun. Redirect the last ten mile angle to 'spray' one ton blocks of ice into an Ohio sized depression. It would take years, but it all comes down to where do you want the water? On your shores, flooding your structures or in your sequestered control?
Wouldn't it just be easier to pull water from the Antarctic Ocean and spray it into the air to freeze where you want it? All that ice would be bitch to move to the south pole.
--
Rick C.
- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
ghtly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenlan d ice sheet
the idea that the ice sheet could suddenly start sliding off in large chunk s, as ice sheets have been known to do in the not all-that-geological past, like at the end of the most recent ice age.
ew million years, rather neglecting the fact that we are pushing the global temperature up to a level not seen for the last 20 million years.
omplains about. The authors do make the right noises about complicated beha viour in the ice sheet, but the idea of large chunks sliding off in hurry d oes seem to have escaped them.
Looks like you missed the point. The paper is not a prediction about the GI S and subsequent economic damage. The paper "... provides a methodology for incorporating large earth system changes into standard economic cost? ?benefit or damage-limiting analyses." IOW it is a paper about a methodol ogy for economic analysis. The GIS model used was admitted to be a "small s tructural model" and is used for illustrative purposes with a bit of realit y thrown in. The actual results are not to be taken too seriously.
Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
No. The goal is to place FRESH water ice there. A LOT of it.
Ever see the image of the Earth's water where it is all a huge cube, and the fresh water is a cube chopped out of the corner of that, and the available fresh water is a tiny cube chopped out of the corner of that? We have very little actually available to us.
We have fresh water shortages all over the place, because we stopped managing it that way back in the Roman times apparently!
We need to build more reserviors all over the world and also put millions of tons down at the south pole.
Hell, build a pyramid of it. Maybe the aliens will finally come back because we built them a landing pad.
Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
No one can use it now. We have 3 percent of the entire world's water as 'fresh', and we only get access to 1 percent of that.
Not one percent of the three percentage points available, one percent of that entire three percent slice.
99% of the world's fresh water is locked up in ice or deep in ground water.
However, global warming is going to cause an oceanic rise IF we ALLOW the frozen fresh water to melt into our oceans, DUH!
THEREFORE, we NEED to MOVE it to a place where it will not melt or cause any other type of global issue. It takes years, but we have a choice. Move it to where WEW want it, or watch it melt into where we do NOT want it.
Make more sense now? Oh and it WOULD be accessible there, as we continually fill it there, we could easily access any of it we want at any time hence. We would be in place and established there, so getting some out would be even easier then getting it there was.
Just like putting out those brush fires. GET the job done NOW, not let it linger and destroy property. It costs money to get it done faster, but it all comes down to where you want to spend the money. Putting out the fire NOW, or replacing the lost assets the poorly managed and needlessly lingering fire abatement caused.
Hmmmm... I'll try one more time. If you are concerned about fresh water me lting into the ocean causing rising sea levels, you can remove from the oce an any part of it you wish. If you remove water near the south pole and pu t it on the Antarctic continent, it will do the same job as removing the ic e before it melts into the ocean.
There is no shortage of fresh water on this planet. The only problem is wh ere it is rather than how much there is. If you put so much fresh water at the south pole as ice, it is even less accessible than if you took it from the melting glaciers directly to where you want to use it.
Make more sense now?
Just curious. Do you ever tell anyone, "Oh, yeah, that makes sense. Thank s"?
--
Rick C.
+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
As soon as some are ready to pay the same for fresh water as for crude oil, big water tankers are built shipping Arctic/Antarctic ice to dry areas close to the equator.
As long as the tanker doesn't have thermal isolation, the warm ocean waters closer to the equator will melt the ice in the tanker into water before reaching the destination ports.
There has been experiments of tugging icebergs to equatorial areas, but the transit time was so long that most of the iceberg melted before reaching the destination mixing the meltwater with the ocean water. Assuming there is a "container" around the "iceberg" the meltwater could be saved.
slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Gree nland ice sheet
got the idea that the ice sheet could suddenly start sliding off in large c hunks, as ice sheets have been known to do in the not all-that-geological p ast, like at the end of the most recent ice age.
n't slide back up hill again.
Ice sheets are bigger and thicker than glaciers.
Melting a a mile or so thick layer of ice takes quite a while.
But you haven't got an ice sheet.
that and the sea level rise seems to have happened in relatively brief spu rts.
what brought on the Younger Dryas.
st few million years, rather neglecting the fact that we are pushing the gl obal temperature up to a level not seen for the last 20 million years.
rking with.
ice sheet. The ice sheets doesn't slide off "at once" but rather when it's mechanical stability is gone. The difficulty of predicting whne it is going to happen is the difficulty of seeing what's going on deep in the ice shee t.
ly long before all the ice has melted, and it will slide off relatively qui ckly when that happens, and we don't know when.
he complains about. The authors do make the right noises about complicated behaviour in the ice sheet, but the idea of large chunks sliding off in hur ry does seem to have escaped them.
ses" which does seem to represent different ice sheets - in different place s - sliding off.
lightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenl and ice sheet
t the idea that the ice sheet could suddenly start sliding off in large chu nks, as ice sheets have been known to do in the not all-that-geological pas t, like at the end of the most recent ice age.
few million years, rather neglecting the fact that we are pushing the glob al temperature up to a level not seen for the last 20 million years.
complains about. The authors do make the right noises about complicated be haviour in the ice sheet, but the idea of large chunks sliding off in hurry does seem to have escaped them.
I didn't.
e.
But it includes predictions about the Greenland Ice Sheet in a paper in a j ournal with a high impact factor. These "predictions" are going to show up on some denialist web page quite soon, being touted as "real science" when they really aren't.
m changes into standard economic cost?benefit or damage-limiting an alyses." IOW it is a paper about a methodology for economic analysis. The G IS model used was admitted to be a "small structural model" and is used for illustrative purposes with a bit of reality thrown in. The actual results are not to be taken too seriously.
As I said. But the denialist propaganda machine has a history of salting th e peer-reviewed literature with this kind of misleading "model".
Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
You are a goddamned IDIOT. Desalinization costs a LOT more than grabbing the danger to man melting glacial ice which is already fresh. WAKE THE FUCK UP.
It needs to be moved in frozen state, to a place where it will NOT melt into the oceans.
You have lost all sense of logic. The goal is to NOT let it get to the oceans, and to NOT need to reduce the oceans' levels that way.
Why don't you try one more time to see the logistics.
slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Gree nland ice sheet
got the idea that the ice sheet could suddenly start sliding off in large c hunks, as ice sheets have been known to do in the not all-that-geological p ast, like at the end of the most recent ice age.
st few million years, rather neglecting the fact that we are pushing the gl obal temperature up to a level not seen for the last 20 million years.
he complains about. The authors do make the right noises about complicated behaviour in the ice sheet, but the idea of large chunks sliding off in hur ry does seem to have escaped them.
age.
journal with a high impact factor. These "predictions" are going to show u p on some denialist web page quite soon, being touted as "real science" whe n they really aren't.
tem changes into standard economic cost?benefit or damage-limiting analyses." IOW it is a paper about a methodology for economic analysis. The GIS model used was admitted to be a "small structural model" and is used f or illustrative purposes with a bit of reality thrown in. The actual result s are not to be taken too seriously.
the peer-reviewed literature with this kind of misleading "model".
I believe the Nordhaus shill, doesn't care about the science, and has made a a career out of arguing against imposing a carbon tax. He has to keep tha t donor class money flowing into his think tank.
d a slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the G reenland ice sheet
ve got the idea that the ice sheet could suddenly start sliding off in larg e chunks, as ice sheets have been known to do in the not all-that-geologica l past, like at the end of the most recent ice age.
l
e
l.
to
a
d a
At
eep
mal
don't slide back up hill again.
.
There's a terminal morraine where I am at the moment - in Nijmegen in the N etherlands. It's a heap of rocks and dirt that collected here when the Rhin e was a glacier, and melted here when the flowing ice got warm enough.
It built up over the hundred thousand-odd years that the Rhine was a glacie r.
If an ice sheet had slid off here into the ocean (it didn't because there's no ocean handy), it would have slid off over the top of the accumulated ro cks.
The existence of a terminal morraine is not evidence that an ice sheet didn 't slide off over the area. The rocks that get into ice sheets can stay in the ice until the chunk of ice is well out to sea - as evidenced by the "ac cidentals" on the floor of the North Atlantic.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.