Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Greenland Thread

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 28 Sep 2016, 22:48:15

litesong wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote: ad hominem attacks.......

We don't attack. We describe toxic AGW denier liar whiners very accurately.

You are not even close to hitting your target.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8121
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby litesong » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 00:12:34

vtsnowedin wrote: The present rate of melt of the GIS is given at about about 400 Giga tonnes per year ( A Giga tonne being one cubic kilometer of water). The flow from the Amazon is 6600 Giga tonnes per year. So the Ice sheet has to start melting at quite a bit faster rate to become the major flow of fresh water into the Atlantic.


As the toxic AGW denier liar whiner you are & with no justification, you already downrated the present GIS off-loading twice. With the Greenland Landmass Rebound, the Grace satellite & IOM data indicate a present range of ice melt between 410 to 475 Gts. Grace & IOM show the acceleration rates, so that future annual 1000, 5000, & 10,000 cubic kilometers are readily on track.... which I've reported to you. Others have reported to you, all this is just the beginning. But, thanks for the Amazon flowrate. Its nice to know that GIS melt is already approaching 10% of the Amazon flow...... & which won't evaporate as quickly into the water cycle as the Amazon flow, which is 72 to 80 degF. The Amazon has been a part of the water cycle.... unlike the GIS. vtsnowingpeople likes to say GIS has only 400 cubic kilometers of annual melting...... & which science says GIS had over 200 cubic kilometers less annual melting in the past. It is good that vtsnowingpeople likes to verify how little the GIS had to do with the water cycle. vtsnowingpeople shouldn't have mentioned the Amazon River & related it to the GIS as if they were equal in the water cycle. But that's OK. vtsnowingpeople is a toxic AGW denier liar whiner with no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in a poorly (or un-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
litesong
permanently banned
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri 31 Jul 2009, 10:15:52

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 05:14:01

"The flush of fresh water coming out of a melting GIS would overwhelm any tide..."

???

Says the person who doesn't think there can ever be a very fast melt coming from the GIS!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Really, do you have some/any kind of evidence to back up this uncited mere assertion?

No matter how far inland, if it's at sea level, the sea will be able to get in. And remember that some of these are very deep canyons.

The Hudson is tidal 153 miles inland, all the way to Troy.

And again, the main mechanism I'm talking about involves ice calving off of ever higher and ever less stable ice cliffs rather than just direct flow of melt water. Obviously, such ice would float on the surface out to sea, allowing sea water to continue to flow in as far is it is at sea level. But even the melt water, being fresh, would tend to flow more at the surface, allowing, and even encouraging, sea water to rush in along the bottom of the trench.

(I do think we should drop the name calling here, but criticizing posters arguments, mostly what I've been doing, should not be confused with insulting the person. I, for example, was not insulted when you pointed out my slip about ocean nomenclature.)

I'll just end with a tag line I use on another forum:

"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos: "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16838
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 07:26:22

litesong wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote: ad hominem attacks.......

We don't attack. We describe toxic AGW denier liar whiners very accurately.


litesong act like an adult and make your argument from a point of view without resorting to name calling like a young child on a playground. Consider this your informal warning.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14115
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby litesong » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 10:10:52

Tanada wrote:litesong act like an adult...... Consider this your informal warning.


For you I will stop now. But your members encouraged me to post more here, because of the science & mathematics I brought. On RW climate websites, AGW deniers are allowed to threaten with terrible viciousness, driving AGW advocates away. Average websites are becoming more RW AGW denier, because of this horrific behavior, while science websites remain...... civilized. Don't worry. vtsnowedin & such are reloading with RW website propaganda non-science for its future posts of diversion & error, with its successful mission to extend non-action about AGW....... all while AGW advocates are..... civilized.
litesong
permanently banned
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri 31 Jul 2009, 10:15:52

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 12:37:50

dohboi wrote:"The flush of fresh water coming out of a melting GIS would overwhelm any tide..."

???

Says the person who doesn't think there can ever be a very fast melt coming from the GIS!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Really, do you have some/any kind of evidence to back up this uncited mere assertion?

No matter how far inland, if it's at sea level, the sea will be able to get in. And remember that some of these are very deep canyons.

The Hudson is tidal 153 miles inland, all the way to Troy.

And again, the main mechanism I'm talking about involves ice calving off of ever higher and ever less stable ice cliffs rather than just direct flow of melt water. Obviously, such ice would float on the surface out to sea, allowing sea water to continue to flow in as far is it is at sea level. But even the melt water, being fresh, would tend to flow more at the surface, allowing, and even encouraging, sea water to rush in along the bottom of the trench.

"

You and others here have posted that the melt rate has reached an "alarming" 400Gt per year. I pointed out that at that rate it would take 7000 years to melt it all. The counter argument was that the rate was increasing and might accelerate exponentially. I pointed out that even at the highest figure proposed 10,000GT per year. (a figure no scientist has hung his reputation on) that it would take 285 years to melt 2,850,000GT of the GIS.
Then we get the canyons and the ice being underrun by hot sea water. Don't know if that is supposed to get us to 10,000GT a year or if that is supposed to be above and beyond 10,000.
Now some amount of water is leaving Greenland each melt season( and always has) and in the future it will probably increase beyond the 400GT of the present. How much of an increase? I don't know and I don't think anybody does scientist or not.
The canyon proposal is interesting and the example of the Hudson instructive even though the flows are much less then what a melting (If it in fact starts melting faster) GIS would produce. True some salt water does get all the way to Troy during the low flow summer months but it mostly gets flushed out all the way down to the East river during the spring high water season.
The dynamics in Greenland would undoubtedly be quite different. For one thing the ice currently on the bottom of those canyons maybe frozen sea water. What difference that might make I don't know. Then the water that is leaving along with the icebergs is probably moving along a plane close to sea level or above it so is not carrying heat down to the bottom of the canyons. But what if it does melt back in a layer deep enough to let sea water intrude under the moving glacier above. Maybe a layer from sea level to a hundred feet deep or so. I could see that that might eat back the calving face of the glacier quite a ways but at some point when the ice melts back to the sides where the sea water has no effect it would stop and the head of the glacier would reach a height where it collapsed down in a pile at its angle of repose which would refreeze at the end of each melting season. So I can see the possibility of several long ice canyons with towering ice cliffs on their sides and still frozen ice on their floors.
They might know the answer for sure about the year 2350.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8121
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 14:37:23

vt wrote: "...may be...might...probably..."

Lots of unknowns there.

It may indeed be that all the unknowns will turn out to all act together to slow down ice melt, and the transport of ice and melt water to the sea.

Glacioligists are still discovering pretty basic (and something pretty bizarre and scary) thing about what can happen and why, with many mysteries left both in the reconstructed early record and even in what just happened a few weeks ago:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/16 ... ck-and-ice

The main thing is that things tend to happen faster that we would expect them to, but in this instance, and in much of the paleodata. R. Alley often talks about how glaciers tend to be very stable for a long time with only relatively minor movement, until relatively suddenly, they collapse completely.

Up until quite recently most scientists that I read about thought as you did that Greenland would remain relatively stable and a relatively small contributor to sea level rise for a long time.

That seems to be changing now. But I'm sure that we will learn more in the coming weeks and months, if research is allowed to continue (and if we're not already all under water by then!! :lol: 8) :cry: 8O :shock: ).
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16838
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 14:53:08

Sorry about Antarctica, there the massive ice sheets have the capacity to float out rather suddenly. GIS is a problem, yes. Antarctica is a bigger threat.

But it's unlikely we can predict either with sufficient lead time to do a whole lot of good.

At this point we are really only discussing which organs shut down when in our death spiral.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9526
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 15:06:47

dohboi wrote:vt wrote: "...may be...might...probably..."

Lots of unknowns there.

.

I picked those terms up watching the videos you guys linked to. :roll:
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8121
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 15:36:51

dohboi wrote:The main thing is that things tend to happen faster that we would expect them to, but in this instance, and in much of the paleodata. R. Alley often talks about how glaciers tend to be very stable for a long time with only relatively minor movement, until relatively suddenly, they collapse completely.


A couple of years ago half of the Ghost glacier at Mount Edith Cavell in Jasper National Park, Alberta collapsed, falling into a small lake at the bottom of the mountain. This triggered a flood of water that washed out part of the parking lot and destroyed the washroom facilities and picnic area. All of these facilities were on a hillside above the valley leading away from the lake so the flow of water had to be pretty large to cause this destruction. The Ghost glacier is tiny in comparison to the nearby Angel glacier that also rests on the side of the mountain at approximately the same elevation. Most visitors who come up to view the Angel glacier probably don't even notice the Ghost glacier. The park authorities had not considered the possibility of this glacier collapsing and prior to this incident there were marked trails into the valley and down to the lake. Those trails are gone and signs now warn people against walking down to the lake. I'd have to assume that a partial collapse of the Angel glacier is a possibility in the future and that would likely be even more devastating. Luckily, no one was killed or injured by the collapse of the Ghost glacier as it happened at around 05:00 in the morning.
yellowcanoe
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby litesong » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 15:51:42

dohboi wrote: vt wrote: "...may be...might...probably..."Lots of unknowns there.
////////
vtsnowedin volunteered:
I picked those terms up watching the videos you guys linked to.
////////
litesong wrote:
On its own, vtsnowedin never reads science studies that use such terms.
litesong
permanently banned
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri 31 Jul 2009, 10:15:52

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby kiwichick » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 16:25:20

we need to remember that we are adding GHG's to the system at 30 times faster than any previous time in the planets history

That's 30 x !!!!!!!!!!

so if the previous highest estimate of sea level rise is 30mm per year and we multiply that by 30 we get

900 mm per year or 3 feet per year for those still stuck in the dark ages

not saying that' s what will happen but obviously it can't be completely discounted at this point
User avatar
kiwichick
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2220
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 18:49:30

kiwichick wrote:we need to remember that we are adding GHG's to the system at 30 times faster than any previous time in the planets history

That's 30 x !!!!!!!!!!

so if the previous highest estimate of sea level rise is 30mm per year and we multiply that by 30 we get

900 mm per year or 3 feet per year for those still stuck in the dark ages

not saying that' s what will happen but obviously it can't be completely discounted at this point

I suspect the highest estimate already takes in the 30 X GHGs we are emitting.
One meter in a hundred years will be bad enough for those humans that survive long enough to see it.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8121
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 19:22:46

N wrote: "Antarctica is a bigger threat.

But it's unlikely we can predict either with sufficient lead time to do a whole lot of good.

At this point we are really only discussing which organs shut down when in our death spiral."

Nicely put. I would only add that we can now predict with much certainty that, for example, Thwaites is now doomed to eventually all end up in the sea. At this point, though, we can't be certain about the time frame.

Alley, iirc, said that a few years ago if someone asked him if he would see in in his life time he would have said absolutely now. Now he says he's not as sure. And I believe Alley is in his about 60.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16838
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby litesong » Thu 29 Sep 2016, 23:40:15

Licenses for mineral & petroleum rights explorations are pouring out of Greenland. It has been said that Greenland has NOT the ability to control the exploding desires of multi-national companies, come to exploit Greenland & that appears to be true. A public result of this inability, is the exploding costs of housing, rentals & services to these incoming businesses, with their rape & mayhem kits already in place. Greenlanders themselves can't afford the new homes, rentals & buildings, & are being pushed aside. Greenland doesn't even have government agencies ready to deal with all concerns, & are unable to deal with the assault of business upon their shores.

Here's a listing of exploratory licenses: https://www.govmin.gl/images/list_of_li ... 160916.pdf

Geesh..... These licenses are huge, one already covering a plot as large as the equivalent of 52 kilometers by 52 kilometers square, two thirds the size of Rhode Island! The one license alone will use the resources of the entire license bureau to regulate it, if not more. Raping, pillaging & mayhem have once again come to the shores of Greenland.... & I ain't talkin' Vikings this time. Well, maybe a couple of Vikings.
litesong
permanently banned
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri 31 Jul 2009, 10:15:52

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 30 Sep 2016, 01:32:12

litesong wrote:Licenses for mineral & petroleum rights explorations are pouring out of Greenland. It has been said that Greenland has NOT the ability to control the exploding desires of multi-national companies, come to exploit Greenland & that appears to be true. A public result of this inability, is the exploding costs of housing, rentals & services to these incoming businesses, with their rape & mayhem kits already in place. Greenlanders themselves can't afford the new homes, rentals & buildings, & are being pushed aside. Greenland doesn't even have government agencies ready to deal with all concerns, & are unable to deal with the assault of business upon their shores.

Here's a listing of exploratory licenses: https://www.govmin.gl/images/list_of_li ... 160916.pdf

Geesh..... These licenses are huge, one already covering a plot as large as the equivalent of 52 kilometers by 52 kilometers square, two thirds the size of Rhode Island! The one license alone will use the resources of the entire license bureau to regulate it, if not more. Raping, pillaging & mayhem have once again come to the shores of Greenland.... & I ain't talkin' Vikings this time. Well, maybe a couple of Vikings.

How big do you think an oil exploration lease is in the Gulf of Mexico or West Texas?
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8121
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 30 Sep 2016, 01:55:58

It appears that exploration has already peaked and not much has been found.
The only company who has undertaken serious drilling activity in Greenland is Cairn Energy.6 To date, Cairn has drilled eight wells offshore Greenland. In 2010 Cairn drilled three wells, one of which, the Alpha-1S1 well drilled in the Sigguk Block in Baffin Bay, had hydrocarbon shows. On 21 September 2010 Cairn Energy announced that “Oil has also been observed intermittently over a 400m section…” and “…confirms the presence of two oil types which have different origins and levels of maturity”.7 Following this early promise, Cairn drilled a further five wells in Greenlandic waters in 2011. However, despite spending around US$1.2 billion on its well programme in Greenland, Cairn’s efforts have resulted in no commercial discoveries. In its pre-close announcement on 21 January 2014, Cairn clearly indicated a de-prioritising of its operations in Greenland in favour of its African activities.8

https://www.andrewskurth.com/insights-1165.html
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8121
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby litesong » Fri 30 Sep 2016, 09:57:19

vtsnowedin wrote:How big do you think an oil exploration lease is in the Gulf of Mexico or West Texas?...........It appears that exploration has already peaked and not much has been found.


Automatically, vtsnowedin thinks of oil. The on-land mineral exploration rights are already awesomely out of control. Unless the tiny gov't of Greenland gears up faster, Greenland is set up for devastation. vtsnowedin don't care, no how, no way.
litesong
permanently banned
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri 31 Jul 2009, 10:15:52

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 30 Sep 2016, 10:05:28

litesong wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:How big do you think an oil exploration lease is in the Gulf of Mexico or West Texas?...........It appears that exploration has already peaked and not much has been found.


Automatically, vtsnowedin thinks of oil. The on-land mineral exploration rights are already awesomely out of control. Unless the tiny gov't of Greenland gears up faster, Greenland is set up for devastation. vtsnowedin don't care, no how, no way.


I am curious what your definition of 'devastation' is?

Most of the territory now being opened up for open cast mining was buried under ice within the last few decades and is now exposed rock with very little soil on the surface. Is is devastation to turn a bare rock slope into a bare rock hole that will naturally fill and become a moderate size fresh water lake? I am a firm believer of protecting the natural environment, but that does not extend to defending the right of bare rocks to remain bare rocks just because that was how the glaciers left them.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14115
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: The Greenland Thread

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 30 Sep 2016, 10:11:14

litesong wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:How big do you think an oil exploration lease is in the Gulf of Mexico or West Texas?...........It appears that exploration has already peaked and not much has been found.


Automatically, vtsnowedin thinks of oil. The on-land mineral exploration rights are already awesomely out of control. Unless the tiny gov't of Greenland gears up faster, Greenland is set up for devastation. vtsnowedin don't care, no how, no way.

No the story I linked to was about oil and gas but my comment about exploration peaking comes from the last table of the list you linked to.
In 2013 there were 48684 km^2 active leases and by 2015 that had dropped to 20,404 km^2. The table is labeled " mineral exploration in Greenland" not just oil & gas. Don't you read your own stuff?
https://www.govmin.gl/images/list_of_li ... 160916.pdf
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8121
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests