• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Greenland ice sheet passes point of no return

istodolez said:
Well.....As the Greenland Ice Sheet melts it dumps tons of fresh water into the North Atlantic, very close to the upper branch of the Thermohaline Circulation in the Atlantic (the "Gulf Stream"). It's already measurably altered the Meriodonal Overturning in that area...meaning there's a possibility it could dramatically reorganize or even shut down the Thermohaline Circulation!

And since the Gulf Stream is responsible for pumping vast amounts of heat from the low latitudes to the high latitudes it is probably going to be a very, very cold walk from bars to the week shacks there in Narsasuaq. Even as the globe warms on average.

Fun times in store!
Click to expand...

Consider the volume flow rate of the NAC and the volume flow rate of ice melt.

It is not significant.
 
calamity said:
Ahead of schedule but following the path exactly as predicted.

Warming Greenland ice sheet passes point of no return
Click to expand...

And yet here we have all the climate changers still wasting fossil fuel on their selfish inane need to post on the internet. What do you have to say for yourself. You know how many factories had to gobble up massive amounts of fossil fuel to produce that computer and cell phone of yours? We havent even gotten to the energy servers are gobbling up just so debabtepolitics.com can let you all be hypocrites. Reminds me of lefties when they cheer a windmill being built but dont see the thousands of vehichles and contruction equipment gobbling up fossil fuel like a mother****er.
 
Jack Hays said:
I used to drive past a recessional moraine every day.
In Greenland, the ice loss is not enough to matter.

Max Planck Institute For Meteorology Director Not Worried About Climate Tipping Points…Worried About Panic

“I don’t see any risk with Greenland”
". . . And not even the melting of the Greenland ice sheet worries the MPIM Director. He told the FAZ: “It’s gonna take so long – a couple thousand years. I don’t see any risk with Greenland.”. . . "
Click to expand...

I am going to assume you have read virtually nothing on the stability of the AMOC other than what you find in your favorite denialist/skeptic blog.

Marotzke has written for many years on the AMOC's impact from the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. And many, many, many, many others have as well.

Since you and I both fail to have sufficient background in the nuances of the modeling necessary to assess who is "most likely right" we have to ask ourselves a big question.

If Martozke's right in 2006 and their estimates that the impact to the AMOC can be significant but transitory and not necessarily an issue, but if Hoffman et al (2009) is right and Marotzke's models are "overly stable" vs the real world then there's a significant chance of a VERY bad outcome.

(Pro tip: note here how I used PRIMARY references rather than a blog post. They will provide a more robust analysis AND it shows that I'm looking in the LITERATURE moreso than just waiting for a biased source to filter out only those things that confirm my bias!)

At the end of the day you and I are placing a "bet". We are entering into this bet with little in the way of surety on our bet.

Who should you and I, who are non-professionals in this area, believe?

1. If Martozke is right and we do nothing: no harm/no foul. It's all good.
2. If Marotzke is WRONG and we do nothing: we have destroyed much of our economy and society and collapsed Western Europe's agriculture and probably their entire economy
3. If Marotzke is right and we still do things to help fix climate change we run the risk of adding costs to our daily life but little else changes
4. If Martozke is WRONG and we still do things to help fix climate change we might help save ourselves from the damage of choice #2 but it will cost something

Choice #1 is literally the only choice where you need to do nothing and you win big. But the other choices are going to cost. I can see how you would WISH for Choice #1 to be the only thing to consider and if you live your life on skeptic/denialist blogs you will be able to comfort yourself that your bet will "pay off". Choice #1 is "comforting" and requires constant bias confirmation.

Good luck with that approach.
 
AlphaOmega said:
And yet here we have all the climate changers still wasting fossil fuel on their selfish inane need to post on the internet. What do you have to say for yourself. You know how many factories had to gobble up massive amounts of fossil fuel to produce that computer and cell phone of yours? We havent even gotten to the energy servers are gobbling up just so debabtepolitics.com can let you all be hypocrites. Reminds me of lefties when they cheer a windmill being built but dont see the thousands of vehichles and contruction equipment gobbling up fossil fuel like a mother****er.
Click to expand...

Some of us put our money where our mouth is.

I sometimes envy science denialists for their "freedom". They need to do literally nothing! They don't have to worry about learning or understanding even basic science! They don't have to worry about anything (because they see no reason for fear). The ONLY thing they have to do is hope that the vast majority of experts on this topic over the last 60 to 100 years are all idiots and incompetents.

That seems like an easy way to approach life. (Until they need "expertise" to solve a problem. Then they will have to struggle briefly with their belief system...but they usually find a way around that.)
 
istodolez said:
Too bad data shows otherwise.

Recent increases in Arctic freshwater flux affects Labrador Sea convection and Atlantic overturning circulation | Nature Communications

Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation | Nature Climate Change

(You should try hitting up some of the actual scientific literature.)
Click to expand...

The NAC transports 20 Gt/second over the North Atlantic ridge. https://climate.fas.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/rossby96rg.pdf

So any melting of 100Gt/summer (or 260Gt 0r 600 0r some other number you can try to find) is uterly insignificant to this.
 
Last edited:
istodolez said:
Some of us put our money where our mouth is.

I sometimes envy science denialists for their "freedom". They need to do literally nothing! They don't have to worry about learning or understanding even basic science! They don't have to worry about anything (because they see no reason for fear). The ONLY thing they have to do is hope that the vast majority of experts on this topic over the last 60 to 100 years are all idiots and incompetents.

That seems like an easy way to approach life. (Until they need "expertise" to solve a problem. Then they will have to struggle briefly with their belief system...but they usually find a way around that.)
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority is the lowest form of argument.
 
Tim the plumber said:

The NAC transports 20 Gt/second over the North Atlantic ridge. https://climate.fas.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/rossby96rg.pdf

So any melting of 100Gt/summer (or 260Gt 0r 600 0r some other number you can try to find) is uterly insignificant to this.
Click to expand...

That's a gross oversimplification. You act as if this freshwater influx must somehow alter the salinity of the ENTIRE NORTH ATLANTIC...but that's not how it works.

The ocean has currents and the "Gulf Stream" is one of them. So it only needs to alter the salinity in a relatively narrow zone which just happens to be right at that point where the southern tip of Greenland is!

Figure-1-637x619.jpg



It's understandable that if one doesn't have any experience in oceanography or even basic earth science to assume that the oceans are giant tubs of static water. It is a lot more complex than that and small changes can have a big difference.

This is where science eduction is actually quite valuable! With science education you can take facile "little numbers" fallacies and tear them apart.
 
istodolez said:
That's a gross oversimplification. You act as if this freshwater influx must somehow alter the salinity of the ENTIRE NORTH ATLANTIC...but that's not how it works.

The ocean has currents and the "Gulf Stream" is one of them. So it only needs to alter the salinity in a relatively narrow zone which just happens to be right at that point where the southern tip of Greenland is!

Figure-1-637x619.jpg



It's understandable that if one doesn't have any experience in oceanography or even basic earth science to assume that the oceans are giant tubs of static water. It is a lot more complex than that and small changes can have a big difference.

This is where science eduction is actually quite valuable! With science education you can take facile "little numbers" fallacies and tear them apart.
Click to expand...

If we go with 600Gt/summer outflow from all of Greenland then that is 0.00057% of the volume that the NAC sent over the mid Atlantic.

So half a hundred thousanth of it.

And you think that this will croipple the wind caused flow of the NAC?

Get a grip.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If we go with 600Gt/summer outflow from all of Greenland then that is 0.00057% of the volume that the NAC sent over the mid Atlantic.

So half a hundred thousanth of it.

And you think that this will croipple the wind caused flow of the NAC?

Get a grip.
Click to expand...

I'll wait for you to find a real science article that supports your position. (I assume you know how to find those.)
 
Tim the plumber said:
If we go with 600Gt/summer outflow from all of Greenland then that is 0.00057% of the volume that the NAC sent over the mid Atlantic.

So half a hundred thousanth of it.

And you think that this will croipple the wind caused flow of the NAC?

Get a grip.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Tim the plumber said:
At least we are numerate.
Click to expand...

The fun thing about debating people who prefer a facile, detail-free version of reality is to point out that what they are arguing against probably happened in the past already.. (ie paleoclimatology and earth history show that the THC has probably reorganized a number of times in the past during warming events).

Error - Cookies Turned Off

There's a lot of actual real-world calculations which show that Greenland ICe Sheet melting can have a significant impact on THC and the AMOC in particular:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsta.2003.1245

Transient Responses of a Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Model to Gradual Changes of Atmospheric CO2. Part I. Annual Mean Response | Journal of Climate | American Meteorological Society

Time-dependent greenhouse warming computations with a coupled ocean-atmosphere model | SpringerLink

Page unavailable | SpringerLink

If only these folks were able to read your posts. Perhaps you should publish?
 
Most of us knew that this was going to happen. Like most problems, politicians put off important life-changing-decisions so they are not saddled with the "He raised taxes!..crap."
They pass it on to the next person that holds the same office, knowing they'll be long gone before their actions are held up to the light. Very typical in the USA.
 
HIP56948 said:
Most of us knew that this was going to happen. Like most problems, politicians put off important life-changing-decisions so they are not saddled with the "He raised taxes!..crap."
They pass it on to the next person that holds the same office, knowing they'll be long gone before their actions are held up to the light. Very typical in the USA.
Click to expand...

This seems to be exactly the issue.

It explains why facile denialist or "skeptic" views are so attractive. It is exactly how the "Merchants of Doubt" were able to hold up action on the tobacco-cancer linkage for as long as they were, it's how they attempted to stall response to acid rain in the 1980's, it's how they fought against the Montreal Protocols to address CFC's in the atmosphere.

The worst part is that those who have no real experience in science have a "cover" for their personal "opinion" by leveraging "doubt". If someone somewhere can call into question SOMETHING about something it means, in their minds, that their "opinion" must have significant support.

Casinos make billions of dollars based on this approach by gamblers as well.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Ocean Currents | Oceanflow

This says it is 150Gt/s.

Your choice of numbers, go find some.
Click to expand...


Here's an article from Nature that finds significant changes in salinity of the waters in this area:

Evidence of local and regional freshening of Northeast Greenland coastal waters | Scientific Reports

"Here we present 13 years of summer measurements along a 120 km transect in Young Sound, Northeast Greenland and show that sub-surface coastal waters are decreasing in salinity with an average rate of 0.12 ± 0.05 per year."


(This is significant freshening of the water.. Significant.)

Guess your "small numbers" don't impress people who actually STUDY this topic. Huh.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Ocean Currents | Oceanflow

This says it is 150Gt/s.

Your choice of numbers, go find some.
Click to expand...

Here's a nice "simplified" discussion from Columbia University (I assume you are familiar with the work of folks at LDEO on this topic).

Could Climate Change Shut Down the Gulf Stream?

Note the reference to THIS paper which found a significant slowdown of the AMOC linked to 20th century global waming....melt water content of "4,500 cubic miles (19,000 km3) between 1961 and 1995" apparently did this.

And HERE'S ANOTHER paper showing the calculations.

This is fun! Thanks!
 
istodolez said:
This seems to be exactly the issue.

It explains why facile denialist or "skeptic" views are so attractive. It is exactly how the "Merchants of Doubt" were able to hold up action on the tobacco-cancer linkage for as long as they were, it's how they attempted to stall response to acid rain in the 1980's, it's how they fought against the Montreal Protocols to address CFC's in the atmosphere.

The worst part is that those who have no real experience in science have a "cover" for their personal "opinion" by leveraging "doubt". If someone somewhere can call into question SOMETHING about something it means, in their minds, that their "opinion" must have significant support.

Casinos make billions of dollars based on this approach by gamblers as well.
Click to expand...

Wonderful post. You laid it down. Ever notice how the populace completely freaks out-of-their-mind when a brave soul/politician says that they'll have to raise taxes? The opposing faction rarely says "how much" Good example> Here in red-infested Sarasota, Florida, the 2 out of the five waste-treatment plants were leaking sewage all over the place..even miles down the run-off water ditches. One of the honorable commissioners wanted to fix the disgusting problem by raising taxes a little. (1/4 of one percent). After much hand-wringing and shouting..it actually happened..by ONE vote on the board (of commissions) Forward ahead to the present. The right-wing, in all the political ads, now are screaming "So and So took money out of your hard-earned paycheck to spend it on one of their so-called emergencies!!" Christ, it was a stinking 25 cents for every 100.00 dollars. I didn't live in one of the smelly disgusting areas but now I wish that the brave souls has not done a damn thing about it and let the turds flow onto everybody's lawns. Perhaps then they might not have been burdened with the overwhelming 25 pennies per 100 bucks. Boy, talk about wanting to beat your head against the wall. :) :)
 
istodolez said:
Some of us put our money where our mouth is.

I sometimes envy science denialists for their "freedom". They need to do literally nothing! They don't have to worry about learning or understanding even basic science! They don't have to worry about anything (because they see no reason for fear). The ONLY thing they have to do is hope that the vast majority of experts on this topic over the last 60 to 100 years are all idiots and incompetents.

That seems like an easy way to approach life. (Until they need "expertise" to solve a problem. Then they will have to struggle briefly with their belief system...but they usually find a way around that.)
Click to expand...
Cool post. I'm a Scientist. Have been one for 35 years. I get the biggest kick out of armchair internet scientists like you. For example you dont even know what instrument was used to generate your first data point in your "science". Right?
 
Jack Hays said:
The problem is your woefully inappropriately scaled graphic. Here's some perspective.

Alarmists Gone Wild: Greenland losing 400 cubic km ice cubes per year!!!

[FONT="]. . . Using [I]The Economist[/I] ratio of 400 km[FONT=inherit]3[/FONT] to 375 gigatonnes, 2,600,000 km[FONT=inherit]3[/FONT] works out to 2,437,500 gigatonnes. When some actual perspective is applied, it is obvious that “the ice sheet goeth” nowhere:[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]
greenland_mass.png
The ice sheet goeth nowhere.​
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Despite all of the warming since the end of Neoglaciation, the Greenland ice sheet still [URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/30/greenland-retained-99-7-of-its-ice-mass-in-20th-century/"]retains more than 99% of its 1900 AD ice mass[/URL].[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Even the hockey stick graph, scaled correctly looks like a straight line on a sheet of paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom