Ice Melt is 20 Years Ahead of Schedule

[calamity]

At the turn of the 21st century, unbeknownst to the world, the Greenland ice sheet likely entered a state of sustained mass loss that will persist for the foreseeable future, according to a new study.

So, we don't even have the 12 years that AOC warned about. That comes as no surprise to me. However, I am sure there will be a lot of denials and citations from dubious websites.

There always are.

...beginning around the year 2000, ice discharged through outlet glaciers—channels that flow outward to the sea—started to outpace annual snowfall that, in a balanced year, would replenish lost ice. The authors sifted through 40 years of satellite data, tracking outlet glacier velocity, thickness, and calving front position over time to determine the rate of ice loss. The shift they found represents a tipping point that is unlikely to be reversible in the near future. King told GlacierHub, "It's like a gear change… we've accelerated the drainage at the edge of the ice sheet, and now… we expect mass loss to be the new norm for the ice sheet in the near future."

Greenland ice sheet reached tipping point 20 years ago, new study finds

 

[OrphanSlug]

Who's schedule are we talking about here, or was this one path presumed with another path actual?

 

[calamity]

Who's schedule are we talking about here, or was this one path presumed with another path actual?

The schedule that said we still had some time to react. That ship has sailed.

IMO, we can bet that those saying, "Meh, what's the big deal about a quarter inch of sea level change by 2100?" are in for a rude awakening when the real number will probably be closer to 20 feet.

 

[charliebrown]

Go Tesla!!!! Keep building those cars. we need them more than ever.

 

[WCH]

The schedule that said we still had some time to react. That ship has sailed.

IMO, we can bet that those saying, "Meh, what's the big deal a quarter inch of sea level change by 2100?" are in for a rude awakening when the real number will probably be closer to 20 feet.

Do this mean we only have so little time to hear the doom-speak?

 

[longview]

So, we don't even have the 12 years that AOC warned about. That comes as no surprise to me. However, I am sure there will be a lot of denials and citations from dubious websites.

There always are.

Not denial, simply perspective.
The statement is that the Greenland Ice sheet is loosing 480 gigatons of ice annually.
While it is rather difficult to find, the total mass of the Greenland ice sheet is 2,900,000 gigatons.
https://web.viu.ca/earle/geol305/The Greenland Ice Sheet.pdf

The total volume of Greenland’s ice sheet is about 2,900,000 km3

A cubic kilometer is a gigaton!
So a loss of 480 gigatons of ice annually, is a loss of .00165%
A century of such losses, would reduce the mass of the Greenland ice sheet by 1.65%.

 

[WCH]

Not denial, simply perspective.
The statement is that the Greenland Ice sheet is loosing 480 gigatons of ice annually.
While it is rather difficult to find, the total mass of the Greenland ice sheet is 2,900,000 gigatons.
https://web.viu.ca/earle/geol305/The Greenland Ice Sheet.pdf

A cubic kilometer is a gigaton!
So a loss of 480 gigatons of ice annually, is a loss of .00165%
A century of such losses, would reduce the mass of the Greenland ice sheet by 1.65%.

Pesky facts...

 

[Jack Hays]

So, we don't even have the 12 years that AOC warned about. That comes as no surprise to me. However, I am sure there will be a lot of denials and citations from dubious websites.

There always are.

This is of course based on a ludicrous lack of perspective. Over 99.5% of the Greenland ice sheet in place in 1900 is still there today, and losing even half of it would take thousands of years. The alarmism in this OP reminds me of our prehistoric ancestors who looked at an eclipse and thought the sun and moon were the same size.

 

[bluesmoke]

Not denial, simply perspective.
The statement is that the Greenland Ice sheet is loosing 480 gigatons of ice annually.
While it is rather difficult to find, the total mass of the Greenland ice sheet is 2,900,000 gigatons.
https://web.viu.ca/earle/geol305/The Greenland Ice Sheet.pdf

A cubic kilometer is a gigaton!
So a loss of 480 gigatons of ice annually, is a loss of .00165%
A century of such losses, would reduce the mass of the Greenland ice sheet by 1.65%.

And that .00165% is more than ever before and does have impact on sea level rise, however miniscule the science deniers pretend it to be. Science deniers that believe COVID is overblown, ignore it and it will go away. There is no AGW, no sense in doing anything about it. The earth is flat and is circled by the sun...

 

[longview]

And that .00165% is more than ever before and does have impact on sea level rise, however miniscule the science deniers pretend it to be. Science deniers that believe COVID is overblown, ignore it and it will go away. There is no AGW, no sense in doing anything about it. The earth is flat and is circled by the sun...

Is it more than ever before? Ever before what? How long have we been able to measure the ice mass?
Where did I deny anything? I simply showed that the numbers talked about are very tiny compared to the total mass of ice.

 

[istodolez]

Not denial, simply perspective.
The statement is that the Greenland Ice sheet is loosing 480 gigatons of ice annually.
While it is rather difficult to find, the total mass of the Greenland ice sheet is 2,900,000 gigatons.
https://web.viu.ca/earle/geol305/The Greenland Ice Sheet.pdf

A cubic kilometer is a gigaton!
So a loss of 480 gigatons of ice annually, is a loss of .00165%
A century of such losses, would reduce the mass of the Greenland ice sheet by 1.65%.

And has been noted many times before: the "small numbers" fallacy doesn't really matter much. The melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is significant and even more sobering in that it won't require the entire melting of it to dramatically alter the thermal functioning of the North Atlantic. We've already seen some reorganization of the AMOC in that area likely due to the dumping of fresh water in that region.

It's like a giant red flag that we are having possibly irreversible impact on a relatively fragile system like the high latitudes.

 

[calamity]

Do this mean we only have so little time to hear the doom-speak?

Do what?

 

[istodolez]

Is it more than ever before? Ever before what? How long have we been able to measure the ice mass?
Where did I deny anything? I simply showed that the numbers talked about are very tiny compared to the total mass of ice.

Easy enough to find:

Sea-level rise from melting of polar ice sheets is one of the largest potential threats of future climate change. Polar warming by the year 2100 may reach levels similar to those of 130,000 to 127,000 years ago that were associated with sea levels several meters above modern levels; both the Greenland Ice Sheet and portions of the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be vulnerable. The record of past ice-sheet melting indicates that the rate of future melting and related sea-level rise could be faster than widely thought.

SOURCE: Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise | Science

 

[Jack Hays]

Easy enough to find:

SOURCE: Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise | Science

Fourteen-year-old BS remains BS.

 

[longview]

And has been noted many times before: the "small numbers" fallacy doesn't really matter much. The melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is significant and even more sobering in that it won't require the entire melting of it to dramatically alter the thermal functioning of the North Atlantic. We've already seen some reorganization of the AMOC in that area likely due to the dumping of fresh water in that region.

It's like a giant red flag that we are having possibly irreversible impact on a relatively fragile system like the high latitudes.

The idea that the melting ice sheet will alter the Gulf Stream is highly speculative,
and at the current rate we are looking at only 1.6% in the next century, and only if the rate of loss is real, and continues.
14 years worth of data from the GRACE satellite, is a very limited set.

 

[istodolez]

Fourteen-year-old BS remains BS.

This is not a robust response to data one disagrees with.

 

[Jack Hays]

This is not a robust response to data one disagrees with.

Model projections are not data.

 

[longview]

Easy enough to find:

SOURCE: Paleoclimatic Evidence for Future Ice-Sheet Instability and Rapid Sea-Level Rise | Science

Polar warming by the year 2100 may reach levels similar to those of 130,000 to 127,000 years ago that were associated
with sea levels several meters above modern levels; both the Greenland Ice Sheet and portions of the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be vulnerable.

What conditions and levels of warming are tied to that "MAY"?

 

[istodolez]

The idea that the melting ice sheet will alter the Gulf Stream is highly speculative,

Well, it actually makes sense physically and chemically and we ALREADY SEE EVIDENCE of it.

"the Arctic sea-ice decline may explain the suggested slow-down of the AMOC and the ‘Warming Hole’ persisting in the subpolar North Atlantic." (SOURCE: Arctic sea-ice decline weakens the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation | Nature Climate Change)

and at the current rate we are looking at only 1.6% in the next century, and only if the rate of loss is real, and continues.
14 years worth of data from the GRACE satellite, is a very limited set.

That's why it's important to look at the paleoclimate data (as I posted, there are also others).

 

[istodolez]

Model projections are not data.

I believe what I posted was paleoclimate-based data. So it is relying on data from events that have already happened.

You asked how the current estimates relate to things in the past I provided information based on things in the past. Data.

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, it actually makes sense physically and chemically and we ALREADY SEE EVIDENCE of it.

"the Arctic sea-ice decline may explain the suggested slow-down of the AMOC and the ‘Warming Hole’ persisting in the subpolar North Atlantic." (SOURCE: Arctic sea-ice decline weakens the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation | Nature Climate Change)



That's why it's important to look at the paleoclimate data (as I posted, there are also others).

[h=2]Multiple Recent Papers Dispel Gulf Stream Collapse, Alarming The Climate Alarmism Industry[/h]By P Gosselin on 10. June 2019
No Reason For Panic: The Oscillating Gulf Stream By Die kalte Sonne (German text translated/edited by P Gosselin) Image: NASA JPL (public domain) The Gulf Stream provides heating for Western Europe. Some climate activists paint horror scenarios on the wall that the Gulf Stream is slowing down or even stopping due to climate change – […]

 

[Jack Hays]

I believe what I posted was paleoclimate-based data. So it is relying on data from events that have already happened.

You asked how the current estimates relate to things in the past I provided information based on things in the past. Data.

There is no way to turn the paleo data into a future projection without modeling.

 

[Helix]

The right will sell it as helping to create beachfront property in central Ohio.

 

[Logophile]

Model projections are not data.

Very true. However, I think the ice sheet melt can't be factored as a constant, because as it melts, it will accelerate. There will be less mass to insulate it, which will in turn cause the fresh water dump to become exponential. Because the Atlantic is rising in temperature it will accelerate the icy Greenland flow which will eventually cause the north Atlantic to cool. That will push the Gulf Stream current south, and leave much of western Europe - which depends on the Gulf Stream for its tepid weather - void of the Gulf's mitigating influence. Needless to say, there will be an impact on growing seasons, the concomitant food production, wildlife migration and wildlife and domestic habitat. Remember the little guy with his finger in the dyke?? It won't take much in the way of degrees to keep the mighty Atlantic from land grabbing. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Great Britain, etc. will feel the effects in short order. So, even though it seems a minor concern now, it really should be taken seriously. I don't think much can change the climate trajectory at this point, but we should certainly do everything we can to curb its acceleration. Thanks!!

 

[longview]

Well, it actually makes sense physically and chemically and we ALREADY SEE EVIDENCE of it.

"the Arctic sea-ice decline may explain the suggested slow-down of the AMOC and the ‘Warming Hole’ persisting in the subpolar North Atlantic." (SOURCE: Arctic sea-ice decline weakens the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation | Nature Climate Change)



That's why it's important to look at the paleoclimate data (as I posted, there are also others).

It is still simple projetcions, we do not know all the variables at play in the earlier inter glacial periods,
or even the current one.