OT: Modelling the Greenland ice sheet

[Bill Sloman]

Thus week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had a slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12261.abstract?etoc

The worrying part is that economists who wrote it don't seem to have got the 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, like 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 temperature 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 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 hurry does seem to have escaped them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 05:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Thus week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had a slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12261.abstract?etoc

The worrying part is that economists who wrote it don't seem to have got the 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, like at the end of the most recent ice age.

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.

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 temperature up to a level not seen for the last 20 million years.

At least for Greenland the temperature has been as least as high about
5000 years ago (Atlantic period) and possibly also about 1000 years
ago (viking agriculture). Why didn¨t the glaciers slide into the
oceans at once ?


>It's the sort of mindless computer modelling that John Larkin thinks 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 hurry does seem to have escaped them.

There was one such event in North America with clear geological scars,
but was that a common event worldwide ?

 

[N_Cook]

On 21/06/2019 13:28, Bill Sloman wrote:

Thus week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had a slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12261.abstract?etoc

The worrying part is that economists who wrote it don't seem to have got the 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, like 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 temperature 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 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 hurry does seem to have escaped them.

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.

 

[Bert Timmerman]

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 05:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Thus week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had a slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12261.abstract?etoc

The worrying part is that economists who wrote it don't seem to have got the 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, like at the end of the most recent ice age.

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.


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 temperature up to a level not seen for the last 20 million years.

At least for Greenland the temperature has been as least as high about
5000 years ago (Atlantic period) and possibly also about 1000 years
ago (viking agriculture). Why didn¨t the glaciers slide into the
oceans at once ?


It's the sort of mindless computer modelling that John Larkin thinks 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 hurry does seem to have escaped them.

There was one such event in North America with clear geological scars,
but was that a common event worldwide ?

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 ;-)

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:c6c3269f-dcc7-4e09-947e-4f6009ff66cf@googlegroups.com:

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 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 sheet.

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?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 4:07:49 PM UTC+2, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 05:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Thus week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had a slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12261.abstract?etoc

The worrying part is that economists who wrote it don't seem to have got the 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, like at the end of the most recent ice age.

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.

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 that and the sea level rise seems to have happened in relatively brief spurts..

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

It wasn't just Lake Assagiz (and it's draining doesn't seem to have been what brought on the Younger Dryas.

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 temperature up to a level not seen for the last 20 million years.

At least for Greenland the temperature has been as least as high about
5000 years ago (Atlantic period) and possibly also about 1000 years
ago (viking agriculture). Why didn't the glaciers slide into the
oceans at once?

https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

You've been suckered by a denialist. He misunderstood the data he was working 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 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 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 quickly when that happens, and we don't know when.

It's the sort of mindless computer modelling that John Larkin thinks 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 hurry does seem to have escaped them.

There was one such event in North America with clear geological scars,
but was that a common event worldwide?

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, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 11:26:15 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:c6c3269f-dcc7-4e09-947e-4f6009ff66cf@googlegroups.com:

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 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 sheet.


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

 

On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 08:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 4:07:49 PM UTC+2, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 05:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Thus week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had a slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12261.abstract?etoc

The worrying part is that economists who wrote it don't seem to have got the 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, like at the end of the most recent ice age.

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.

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.

There are multiple examples of glaciers melting in situ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_moraine

dumping gravel at the edge of the glacier.This is not the same as
eskers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esker

We have both types in Finland.

The period from 19,000 years ago to 6000 years ago isn't long enough for that and the sea level rise seems to have happened in relatively brief spurts.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

It wasn't just Lake Assagiz (and it's draining doesn't seem to have been what brought on the Younger Dryas.

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 temperature up to a level not seen for the last 20 million years.

At least for Greenland the temperature has been as least as high about
5000 years ago (Atlantic period) and possibly also about 1000 years
ago (viking agriculture). Why didn't the glaciers slide into the
oceans at once?

https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

You've been suckered by a denialist. He misunderstood the data he was working 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 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 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 quickly when that happens, and we don't know when.

It's the sort of mindless computer modelling that John Larkin thinks 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 hurry does seem to have escaped them.

There was one such event in North America with clear geological scars,
but was that a common event worldwide?

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.

 

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:28:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Thus week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had a slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12261.abstract?etoc

The worrying part is that economists who wrote it don't seem to have got the 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, like 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 temperature 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 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 hurry does seem to have escaped them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Looks like you missed the point. The paper is not a prediction about the GIS 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 methodology for economic analysis. The GIS 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.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ae1bcfec-978b-4b5b-8bfd-90138f6f0505@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 11:26:15 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:c6c3269f-dcc7-4e09-947e-4f6009ff66cf@googlegroups.com:

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 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 sheet.


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.

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 <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3ff954e2-118e-4726-ad55-018219247b35@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ae1bcfec-978b-4b5b-8bfd-90138f6f0505@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 11:26:15 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:c6c3269f-dcc7-4e09-947e-4f6009ff66cf@googlegroups.com:

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 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
sheet.


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.


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.

Why do you want fresh water ice in Antarctica where no one can use
it? WTF!?

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.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ae1bcfec-978b-4b5b-8bfd-90138f6f0505@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 11:26:15 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:c6c3269f-dcc7-4e09-947e-4f6009ff66cf@googlegroups.com:

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 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 sheet.


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.


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.

Why do you want fresh water ice in Antarctica where no one can use it? WTF!?

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 1:40:41 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3ff954e2-118e-4726-ad55-018219247b35@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ae1bcfec-978b-4b5b-8bfd-90138f6f0505@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 11:26:15 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:c6c3269f-dcc7-4e09-947e-4f6009ff66cf@googlegroups.com:

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 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
sheet.


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.


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.

Why do you want fresh water ice in Antarctica where no one can use
it? WTF!?


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 melting into the ocean causing rising sea levels, you can remove from the ocean any part of it you wish. If you remove water near the south pole and put it on the Antarctic continent, it will do the same job as removing the ice before it melts into the ocean.

There is no shortage of fresh water on this planet. The only problem is where 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. Thanks"?

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 15:26:09 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:c6c3269f-dcc7-4e09-947e-4f6009ff66cf@googlegroups.com:

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 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 sheet.


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?

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.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 8:05:25 PM UTC+2, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 08:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 4:07:49 PM UTC+2, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 05:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Thus week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had a slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12261.abstract?etoc

The worrying part is that economists who wrote it don't seem to have got the 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, like at the end of the most recent ice age.

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.

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.

There are multiple examples of glaciers melting in situ.

Ice sheets are bigger and thicker than glaciers.

Melting a a mile or so thick layer of ice takes quite a while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_moraine

dumping gravel at the edge of the glacier.This is not the same as
eskers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esker

We have both types in Finland.

But you haven't got an ice sheet.

The period from 19,000 years ago to 6000 years ago isn't long enough for that and the sea level rise seems to have happened in relatively brief spurts.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

It wasn't just Lake Assagiz (and it's draining doesn't seem to have been what brought on the Younger Dryas.

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 temperature up to a level not seen for the last 20 million years.

At least for Greenland the temperature has been as least as high about
5000 years ago (Atlantic period) and possibly also about 1000 years
ago (viking agriculture). Why didn't the glaciers slide into the
oceans at once?

https://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

You've been suckered by a denialist. He misunderstood the data he was working 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 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 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 quickly when that happens, and we don't know when.

It's the sort of mindless computer modelling that John Larkin thinks 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 hurry does seem to have escaped them.

There was one such event in North America with clear geological scars,
but was that a common event worldwide?

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, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 2:29:04 AM UTC+2, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:28:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Thus week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had a slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12261.abstract?etoc

The worrying part is that economists who wrote it don't seem to have got the 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, like 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 temperature 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 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 hurry does seem to have escaped them.

Looks like you missed the point.

I didn't.

> The paper is not a prediction about the GIS and subsequent economic damage.

But it includes predictions about the Greenland Ice Sheet in a paper in a journal 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.

> 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 methodology for economic analysis. The GIS 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 the peer-reviewed literature with this kind of misleading "model".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0484cbcf-62c7-4afb-94b2-9e20da055f68@googlegroups.com:

Hmmmm... I'll try one more time. If you are concerned about fresh
water melting into the ocean causing rising sea levels, you can
remove from the ocean any part of it you wish.

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.

 

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:11:57 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 2:29:04 AM UTC+2, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:28:59 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Thus week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had a slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12261.abstract?etoc

The worrying part is that economists who wrote it don't seem to have got the 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, like 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 temperature 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 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 hurry does seem to have escaped them.

Looks like you missed the point.

I didn't.

The paper is not a prediction about the GIS and subsequent economic damage.

But it includes predictions about the Greenland Ice Sheet in a paper in a journal 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.

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 methodology for economic analysis. The GIS 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 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 that donor class money flowing into his think tank.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 04:06:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 8:05:25 PM UTC+2, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 08:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 4:07:49 PM UTC+2, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 05:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Thus week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had a slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12261.abstract?etoc

The worrying part is that economists who wrote it don't seem to have got the 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, like at the end of the most recent ice age.

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.

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.

There are multiple examples of glaciers melting in situ.

Ice sheets are bigger and thicker than glaciers.

Melting a a mile or so thick layer of ice takes quite a while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_moraine

dumping gravel at the edge of the glacier.This is not the same as
eskers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esker

We have both types in Finland.

But you haven't got an ice sheet.

I do not know what is your definition for ice sheet or continental
glacier see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet

I was talking of the Fenno-Scandic ice sheet, which was a part of the
Weichsel glacier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weichselian_glaciation

The terminal moraine and eskers I referenced are remnants of the
Fenno-Scandic ice sheet.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 2:35:28 PM UTC+2, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 04:06:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 8:05:25 PM UTC+2, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 08:16:42 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 4:07:49 PM UTC+2, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 05:28:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Thus week's Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Science had a slightly worrying paper on the economics of the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12261.abstract?etoc

The worrying part is that economists who wrote it don't seem to have got the 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, like at the end of the most recent ice age.

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.

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..

There are multiple examples of glaciers melting in situ.

Ice sheets are bigger and thicker than glaciers.

Melting a a mile or so thick layer of ice takes quite a while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_moraine

dumping gravel at the edge of the glacier.This is not the same as
eskers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esker

We have both types in Finland.

But you haven't got an ice sheet.

I do not know what is your definition for ice sheet or continental
glacier see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_sheet

I was talking of the Fenno-Scandic ice sheet, which was a part of the
Weichsel glacier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weichselian_glaciation

The terminal moraine and eskers I referenced are remnants of the
Fenno-Scandic ice sheet.

There's a terminal morraine where I am at the moment - in Nijmegen in the Netherlands. It's a heap of rocks and dirt that collected here when the Rhine 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 glacier.

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 rocks.

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 "accidentals" on the floor of the North Atlantic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney