Greenland ice sheet passes point of no return

[Jack Hays]

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.

I'm fine where I am, thanks.

Multiyear Prediction of Monthly Mean Atlantic Meridional ...

science.sciencemag.org › content › 76.abstract

by D Matei - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 93 - ‎Related articles
Jan 6, 2012 - This AMOC predictive skill arises predominantly from the basin-wide upper-mid-ocean geostrophic transport, which in turn can be predicted ...

 

[Robertinfremont]

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.

Alarmists need to refrain from opinining on at least 3 issues.

Music and it's creation and composition. Not for amateurs.
Climate where they read what they liked in some internet article that is alarming, never reassuring, only alarming and accept it as truth at face value.
Women who no man truly understands. Best thing we can do for women we love is house them in a wonderful home, ensure the children are healthy and well fed and educated and keep your mouth shut until asked to talk to her.

 

[istodolez]

For example you dont even know what instrument was used to generate your first data point in your "science". Right?

To what are you specifically referring here? What "first data point" are you referring to?

 

[istodolez]

Music and it's creation and composition. Not for amateurs.

Agreed.

Climate where they read what they liked in some internet article that is alarming, never reassuring, only alarming and accept it as truth at face value.

Thankfully I'm not on that one! Yikes! No, I've got a doctorate in geology and 30+ years background in chemical R&D so I kinda have a feel for how to read real science. I'm not a climate scientist, that much I will freely admit. However I have enough of the physical science background to understand more than just the average bear.

 

[istodolez]

I'm fine where I am, thanks.

The Science article is, as you no doubt noted, another one from Martozke and Jungclaus. So you've got Marotzke and Jungclaus supporting Marotzke and Jungclaus! That's casting a pretty wide net. Good to get your support from only one corner.

Do you ever follow citation maps? In other words: who cited this work? I stumbled across this one from the literature that cites your Maortzke and Jungclaus article.

"Does the AMOC Possess Any Predictability?
The RAPID AMOC estimate at 26.5°N provides an observational data set against which seasonal to interannual AMOC hindcasts and predictions can be evaluated. However, as discussed at the beginning of this section, large intra‐annual variability in the AMOC is the direct response to local wind variability and thus is thought to have little predictability [Sinha et al., 2013]. Attempts to predict AMOC anomalies on intra‐annual to interannual timescales have yielded mixed results, with various studies differing on whether skillful predictions can be made. Matei et al. [2012a] report skill for up to 4–5 years, as measured by correlations between observed and modeled monthly mean AMOC transport anomalies at various lead times. This predictability appears to originate from the Upper Mid‐Ocean component of the AMOC, associated with east‐west density differences; the eastern influence dominates, likely because the seasonal cycle of the AMOC is dominated by the eastern boundary at this latitude [Chidichimo et al., 2010; Kanzow et al., 2010]. Vecchi et al. [2012] argue that the predictability seen by Matei et al. [2012a] is due to the dominance of the seasonal cycle over the short observational record and question whether Matei et al. [2012a] outperform reference forecasts based on the seasonal cycle (but see the reply by Matei et al. [2012b])." (Emphasis added...oh yeah and your science article is the "Matei et al 2012a" reference.)

So it's not without it's critics.

Which, again, calls into question why you prefer "Matei et al"?

As I've said here before; I will admit I have less than perfect knowledge here. I prefer the mainline science because it:

1. Makes sense at the more basic levels (where I DO have experience....even worked a research cruise in the North Atlantic measuring parts of the Deep Western Boundary Current in the North Atlantic, sadly, however as just a "grunt" running a gas chromatograph.)

2. The majority of the earth's experts in this field are lining up behind the overall AGW hypothesis as more data comes in. This gives me pause. While I know it is epistemologically weaker to go with the consensus, but again, all things being equal, in a case where I am lacking the higher degree of skill to choose a side based on my own analysis of the raw data itself, I am left with little rational option.

You seem unconstrained by either of these things. It must be a comfort to lack those things.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Agreed.



Thankfully I'm not on that one! Yikes! No, I've got a doctorate in geology and 30+ years background in chemical R&D so I kinda have a feel for how to read real science. I'm not a climate scientist, that much I will freely admit. However I have enough of the physical science background to understand more than just the average bear.

Professionals such as you definitely rank a lot higher than your local plumber as to science.

But there are scads of professional scientists who urge all of us to settle down, that the end is not near and there are other important issues than the grandiose idea man is the master of global climate.

We may know a lot about how to make it rain, but we are not able to start and stop wind storms. We have no control over the heat input from our Sun nor can we moderate where the heat goes.

I am no scientist yet have passed a number of important science courses as have you.

My major issue was a long time ago, in the 1990s I think when democrats were predicting the virtual end of life on earth. I knew from my climate/weather training as a pilot it was pure nonsense.

As Jack Hays pointed out accurately here, the ice that has melted off Greenland amounts to a fly speck of ice.

So rule out greenland ice as the savior of mankind. We also have the massive ice resting on the continent of Antarctica.

We encounter serious problems when the politicians are doing the talking.

 

[Jack Hays]

The Science article is, as you no doubt noted, another one from Martozke and Jungclaus. So you've got Marotzke and Jungclaus supporting Marotzke and Jungclaus! That's casting a pretty wide net. Good to get your support from only one corner.

Do you ever follow citation maps? In other words: who cited this work? I stumbled across this one from the literature that cites your Maortzke and Jungclaus article.

"Does the AMOC Possess Any Predictability?
The RAPID AMOC estimate at 26.5°N provides an observational data set against which seasonal to interannual AMOC hindcasts and predictions can be evaluated. However, as discussed at the beginning of this section, large intra‐annual variability in the AMOC is the direct response to local wind variability and thus is thought to have little predictability [Sinha et al., 2013]. Attempts to predict AMOC anomalies on intra‐annual to interannual timescales have yielded mixed results, with various studies differing on whether skillful predictions can be made. Matei et al. [2012a] report skill for up to 4–5 years, as measured by correlations between observed and modeled monthly mean AMOC transport anomalies at various lead times. This predictability appears to originate from the Upper Mid‐Ocean component of the AMOC, associated with east‐west density differences; the eastern influence dominates, likely because the seasonal cycle of the AMOC is dominated by the eastern boundary at this latitude [Chidichimo et al., 2010; Kanzow et al., 2010]. Vecchi et al. [2012] argue that the predictability seen by Matei et al. [2012a] is due to the dominance of the seasonal cycle over the short observational record and question whether Matei et al. [2012a] outperform reference forecasts based on the seasonal cycle (but see the reply by Matei et al. [2012b])." (Emphasis added...oh yeah and your science article is the "Matei et al 2012a" reference.)

So it's not without it's critics.

Which, again, calls into question why you prefer "Matei et al"?

As I've said here before; I will admit I have less than perfect knowledge here. I prefer the mainline science because it:

1. Makes sense at the more basic levels (where I DO have experience....even worked a research cruise in the North Atlantic measuring parts of the Deep Western Boundary Current in the North Atlantic, sadly, however as just a "grunt" running a gas chromatograph.)

2. The majority of the earth's experts in this field are lining up behind the overall AGW hypothesis as more data comes in. This gives me pause. While I know it is epistemologically weaker to go with the consensus, but again, all things being equal, in a case where I am lacking the higher degree of skill to choose a side based on my own analysis of the raw data itself, I am left with little rational option.

You seem unconstrained by either of these things. It must be a comfort to lack those things.

There's simply no issue, no matter how hard you try to find one.

 

[istodolez]

But there are scads of professional scientists who urge all of us to settle down, that the end is not near and there are other important issues than the grandiose idea man is the master of global climate.

Not as many as you would hope.

We may know a lot about how to make it rain, but we are not able to start and stop wind storms. We have no control over the heat input from our Sun nor can we moderate where the heat goes.

You will be shocked to learn there is a difference between "weather" and "climate".

We DO also have a pretty good insight into how much energy is coming in from the sun and we can tell pretty well that it's forcing is incapable to account for the increase in global average temperature increase over the last half century.

My major issue was a long time ago, in the 1990s I think when democrats were predicting the virtual end of life on earth.

Do you want to talk science or just some thing some politician said some time?

As Jack Hays pointed out accurately here, the ice that has melted off Greenland amounts to a fly speck of ice.

Thanks for ignoring all the stuff I posted from actual science papers which indicate this "small numbers" fallacy is not necessarily all that common among real scientists.

We encounter serious problems when the politicians are doing the talking.

Which is why I prefer to go with the SCIENCE. If you are unaware of the actual science literature let me know, I can show you how to search it.

 

[istodolez]

There's simply no issue, no matter how hard you try to find one.

I keep forgetting that you have little taste for engaging in a topic deeply. My apologies.

 

[Jack Hays]

I keep forgetting that you have little taste for engaging in a topic deeply. My apologies.

Wrong again. It's just that I'm not interested in endless variations on "water is wet."

 

[AlphaOmega]

To what are you specifically referring here? What "first data point" are you referring to?

Its ypur global warming claim not mine. lol...Armchair scientists are fun.

 

[istodolez]

Wrong again. It's just that I'm not interested in endless variations on "water is wet."

You haven't really dug into the meat of my debate point which is: since you and I both lack sufficient background (you moreso than I but we are both ignorant of the totality of the science) then there is no reason to prefer the view of the science held by only a tiny, tiny fraction of the earth's experts.

So far your primary reason for thus doing so appears to be because someone told you there were other "revolutions" in science which overturned established science.

At that point it becomes necessary to actually know some science to know whether you are seeing a real revolution or a failed example of bad science.

Let's talk a real example of this: Cold Fusion. You are old enough to remember this and then some! Remember how exciting it was? How it was going to remake our energy infrastructure? How it beggared the imagination as to how it could work but apparently it "did"?

And, as you probably recall, a LOT of people followed up on it. And even long after Fleischmann and Pons were shown to be in massive, massive error there were still a tiny number of people who thought it worth continued pursuit. It went on for YEARS. Tiny few physicists (a lot in Italy as I recall) kept the flame alive for YEARS after F&P were shown to be in error. THERE ARE STILL COLD FUSION INVESTIGATIONS ONGOING TODAY!. They call it "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" or "Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" or some such.

Do YOU think Cold Fusion is a new revolution? Remember: the world's experts used to think the earth was flat! Better invest in some cold fusion research!

 

[Jack Hays]

You haven't really dug into the meat of my debate point which is: since you and I both lack sufficient background (you moreso than I but we are both ignorant of the totality of the science) then there is no reason to prefer the view of the science held by only a tiny, tiny fraction of the earth's experts. . . .

I find the Shaviv/Svensmark explanation more persuasive. Its context is a larger, more complex environment than that which gave rise to GHG theory, and it encompasses concepts and phenomena unknown to the creators of GHG theory.

 

[istodolez]

I find the Shaviv/Svensmark explanation more persuasive. Its context is a larger, more complex environment than that which gave rise to GHG theory, and it encompasses concepts and phenomena unknown to the creators of GHG theory.

WHY do you find it persuasive? Show me the calculations YOU find most compelling. Explain them to me.

Thanks.

 

[Jack Hays]

WHY do you find it persuasive? Show me the calculations YOU find most compelling. Explain them to me.

Thanks.

Not because of any calculation, but because of the historical context and dynamics of the question's evolution, as alluded to in my previous comment.

 

[jpn]

Complete, innumerate nonsense. 99.5% of the Greenland ice sheet present in 1900 is still there today. At present rate of loss it will take several thousand years just to lose half the ice sheet. This claim is a Jedi mind trick to fool the feeble-minded.

Right on cue. :lamo

 

[istodolez]

Not because of any calculation

So, in other words: NOT because of science.

Good to know.

 

[Jack Hays]

So, in other words: NOT because of science.

Good to know.

Because of the history of science.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I just provided you with a few examples!

Again, your reliance on "small numbers" fallacious thinking is facile and oversimplified.

No.

If the volume is 1 millionth of the North Atlantic current then how does that stop the wind driven current?

Also that is the total volume flow.

Not the increase.

How much increase do you think has happened and how much to have a significant effect on teh NAC?

 

[istodolez]

No.

If the volume is 1 millionth of the North Atlantic current then how does that stop the wind driven current?

The Thermohaline Circulation is a function of temperature and salinity of the water. Wind only drives currents in the upper portion of the water column. Deeper down salinity and temperature play a role.

Thermohaline Circulation - Currents: NOAA's National Ocean Service Education

When you express disbelief based on "small numbers" it would be very important that you understand how the numbers are actually applied.

Otherwise you have to wonder why the world's oceanographers aren't dismissing this as easily as you are. It could be that they also understand how thermohaline circulation works, as opposed to just a simplified assumption of "winds".

 

[Tim the plumber]

The Thermohaline Circulation is a function of temperature and salinity of the water. Wind only drives currents in the upper portion of the water column. Deeper down salinity and temperature play a role.

Thermohaline Circulation - Currents: NOAA's National Ocean Service Education

When you express disbelief based on "small numbers" it would be very important that you understand how the numbers are actually applied.

Otherwise you have to wonder why the world's oceanographers aren't dismissing this as easily as you are. It could be that they also understand how thermohaline circulation works, as opposed to just a simplified assumption of "winds".

As the waqrm (above 4c) water from the Carribean hit the cold (<4c) Arctic waters they mix. At the point they hit 4c the water is at max density and decends to the deep. This will continue to happen if there is an extra millionth of fresh water involved.

 

[istodolez]

As the waqrm (above 4c) water from the Carribean hit the cold (<4c) Arctic waters they mix. At the point they hit 4c the water is at max density and decends to the deep. This will continue to happen if there is an extra millionth of fresh water involved.

and you base this on what, exactly? Your inability to accept that small numbers can have a larger effect? Or do you have calculations to back up your assumption?

This is why I like to cite actual oceanographers.

 

[Tim the plumber]

and you base this on what, exactly? Your inability to accept that small numbers can have a larger effect? Or do you have calculations to back up your assumption?

This is why I like to cite actual oceanographers.

The hypothesis you push is that somehow a millionth of fresh water will stop the North Atlantic Current from flowing.

It is utterly preposterous.

The additional amount of fresh water is even less than a millionth.

The whole thing is wind driven. The vertical flow is unimportant to the transport of heat energy across the Atlantic.

The whole argument is drivel.

 

[istodolez]

The whole thing is wind driven. The vertical flow is unimportant to the transport of heat energy across the Atlantic.

You appear to understand virtually nothing about the Thermohaline Circulation. Yikes! It is NOT wholly driven by the wind!

Thermohaline Circulation - Currents: NOAA's National Ocean Service Education.

Winds drive ocean currents in the upper 100 meters of the ocean’s surface. However, ocean currents also flow thousands of meters below the surface. These deep-ocean currents are driven by differences in the water’s density, which is controlled by temperature (thermo) and salinity (haline). This process is known as thermohaline circulation.

(Emphasis added).

 

[istodolez]

The whole thing is wind driven. The vertical flow is unimportant to the transport of heat energy across the Atlantic.

The whole argument is drivel.[/COLOR]

Let's continue educating you on OCEANOGRAPHY.

The surface currents we have discussed so far are ultimately driven by the wind, and since they only involve surface water they only affect about 10% of the ocean’s volume. However, there are other significant ocean currents that are independent of the wind, and involve water movements in the other 90% of the ocean. These currents are driven by differences in water density.

Recall that less dense water remains at the surface, while denser water sinks. Waters of different densities tend to stratify themselves into layers, with the densest, coldest water on the bottom and warmer, less dense water on top. It is the movement of these density layers that create the deep water circulation. Since seawater density depends mainly on temperature and salinity(section 6.3), this circulation is referred to as thermohaline circulation.

(Emphasis added)

(SOURCE)

(Sorry to embarrass you, but it is a great opportunity for you to learn how the ocean works. It's pretty complex and requires a small amount of education.)