[dohboi]

Traces of Giant, 2,700-Year-Old Solar Storm Detected in Greenland Ice

https://gizmodo.com/traces-of-giant-2-7 ... 1833205336

Evidence of an unusually strong solar storm that hit Earth in 660 BCE has been detected in Greenland ice cores—a finding which shows we still have lots to learn about these disruptive events.

An extreme form of solar storm, known as a solar proton event (SPE), struck our planet 2,679 years ago, according to new research published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. If an event of such magnitude were to happen today, it would likely wreak havoc on our technological infrastructure, including communications and navigation. Lund University geologist Raimund Muscheler and his colleagues presented evidence in the form of elevated levels of beryllium-10 and chlorine-36 isotopes embedded within ancient Greenland ice cores.

It’s now the third massive SPE known to scientists, the others occurring 1,245 and 1,025 years ago. This latest discovery means solar storms of this variety are likely happening more frequently than we thought—perhaps once every 1,000 years—but more data is required to create more reliable estimates.

https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1815725116

[Newfie]

Wiki says a complete melt of the GIS would result in a 23’ SLR.

Not 80’.

The 80 to 100 predictions assume a lot more of Antarctica ice will melt also.

This whole thing started with you talking about a localized warming event in the Artic, no?

[vtsnowedin]

Wiki says a complete melt of the GIS would result in a 23’ SLR.

Not 80’.

The 80 to 100 predictions assume a lot more of Antarctica ice will melt also.

This whole thing started with you talking about a localized warming event in the Artic, no?

This thread goes back to 2005 which is three years before I joined the forum. Which subject shift start that I caused are you talking about?

[Newfie]

This

The abrupt changes in the past did not lead to a hothouse but just a temporary bit warmer period, interglacial that with time and natural variations went back to a glacial.
.

I suppose it comes down to the definition of hot house.
From Wiki on D-O events:

In the Northern Hemisphere, they take the form of rapid warming episodes, typically in a matter of decades, each followed by gradual cooling over a longer period. For example, about 11,500 years ago, averaged annual temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet warmed by around 8 °C over 40 years, in three steps of five years (see,[3] Stewart, chapter 13), where a 5 °C change over 30–40 years is more common.

Now 8 deg. C for forty years is a lot more then what we have been repeatedly told is more then enough to cross multiple tipping points and kill us all. But the ice core evidence in Greenland shows it was not enough to melt all the ice in Greenland hence the existence of the cores. The cores do stop at the beginning of the last glacial period showing that Greenland was ice free in the period between the last two glacials while Antarctica was not.

[vtsnowedin]

What of it? White fang had his point and I countered it.

[Newfie]

And I just point out it may have been a local condition not overall climate change.

Let’s just drop it, I’m totally confused at what you were driving at.

[jawagord]

Interesting study linking D-O events to Norwegian Sea ice. Basically the abrupt warming event is due to reduction in Norwegian Sea ice cover, not Arctic sea ice or Antarctica.

Greenland ice core records reveal that the last glacial period was marked by abrupt climate changes, leading to alternating cold Greenland stadials (GS) and warmer Greenland interstadials (GI), known as Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles (1, 2). These D-O climate fluctuations involved dramatic changes in northern high-latitude air temperature, hydroclimate, and atmospheric circulation transitioning in a matter of decades (2–4), and also affected Eurasian (5) and tropical climates (6).

We conclude that the glacial sea ice variability in the Norwegian Sea acted as an important factor that contributed to abrupt glacial changes in ocean circulation and climate in the North Atlantic and over Greenland. We suggest that sea ice reduction and resumption of deep-water formation in the Nordic Seas may have played a persistent role in triggering the abrupt GS-GI climate transitions, terminating both “normal” stadials and “most extreme” stadials that were characterized by severe iceberg surges and collapse of deep-water formation in the North Atlantic and extreme AMOC breakdowns, as, for example, associated with Heinrich Event 4 during GS9 (8, 10). This corroborates previous hypotheses that relate the D-O warming events observed in Greenland ice cores to changes in Nordic Seas sea ice cover.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/3/eaau6174

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/ ... .large.jpg

[Whitefang]

https://paulbeckwith.net/

Paul on GIS collapse and SLR, Earth spasms from profoundly abrupt CC.

Interesting coupling as the GIS collapses, WAIS follows. Southwest Greenland first as we already see the breaking up of cubic mile large blocks of ice forming there. Will produce very large tsunamis alike the one that will follow from one of the canary islands sliding into the Atlantic ocean.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ca ... &FORM=VIRE

I thought the GIS does not have a lot of large glaciers terminating at sea like the WAIS and I read a study, at least the presentation of the WAIS collapsing before the GIS, a million years ago. 2008 study...
Paul thinks tsunamis from calving ice sheets moved 600 ton boulders up the beach, Hanson, James thinks those storms of our grandchildren did it.....we'll see soon enough.

https://www.slideserve.com/tender/wais- ... s-collapse

I think if we see the death of the arctic sea ice next decade, we will see the GIS starting to collapse soon after, that immense chunk of ice is fragile and will response to a sudden large uptick in sea surface temperature.
No, the arctic will not instantly boil over but a 10 degree increase in average temp. will change about everything.
Imagine the huge extremes that will follow, no more moderation of sea ice, stable jet and so on.

[Newfie]

https://paulbeckwith.net/

Paul on GIS collapse and SLR, Earth spasms from profoundly abrupt CC.

Interesting coupling as the GIS collapses, WAIS follows. Southwest Greenland first as we already see the breaking up of cubic mile large blocks of ice forming there. Will produce very large tsunamis alike the one that will follow from one of the canary islands sliding into the Atlantic ocean.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ca ... &FORM=VIRE

I thought the GIS does not have a lot of large glaciers terminating at sea like the WAIS and I read a study, at least the presentation of the WAIS collapsing before the GIS, a million years ago. 2008 study...
Paul thinks tsunamis from calving ice sheets moved 600 ton boulders up the beach, Hanson, James thinks those storms of our grandchildren did it.....we'll see soon enough.

https://www.slideserve.com/tender/wais- ... s-collapse

I think if we see the death of the arctic sea ice next decade, we will see the GIS starting to collapse soon after, that immense chunk of ice is fragile and will response to a sudden large uptick in sea surface temperature.
No, the arctic will not instantly boil over but a 10 degree increase in average temp. will change about everything.
Imagine the huge extremes that will follow, no more moderation of sea ice, stable jet and so on.

White,

Something wrong there. No cubic mile ice sheets to break up on SW Greenland.

I have seen large (LARGE) flat ice sheet bergs from Greenland, not sure exactly how the propagated. Some years ago (2010?) there was a big hunk of ice shelf break up off NW Greenland. This may be a remnant I photoed in 2012.

DEABBB98-880B-46A9-B830-F075A9F11C02.jpeg

[vtsnowedin]

People need to remember that Greenland is ringed by mountains that rise to above 10,000 ft elevation with only a few gaps for ice and water to flow from the interior out to the sea and only the Jakobshavn glacier on the south west side of the island being south of the arctic circle. The ice pack in the middle rises to 10,500 ft above sea level and is held there like an egg cradled in the palm of your hand with your fingers being the mountains. While there is plenty of ice on the ocean facing sides of the mountains that could melt as fast as temperatures (both air and sea water) rise the vast bulk in the center is going to sit there for a long time reguardless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _Greenland
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6990
From the second link"

Morlighem's team used the maps to refine their estimate of Greenland's total volume of ice and its potential to add to global sea level rise, if the ice were to melt completely -- which is not expected to occur within the next few hundred years. The new estimate is higher by 2.76 inches (7 centimeters) for a total of 24.34 feet (7.42 meters).

[jawagord]

People need to remember that Greenland is ringed by mountains that rise to above 10,000 ft elevation with only a few gaps for ice and water to flow from the interior out to the sea and only the Jakobshavn glacier on the south west side of the island being south of the arctic circle. The ice pack in the middle rises to 10,500 ft above sea level and is held there like an egg cradled in the palm of your hand with your fingers being the mountains. While there is plenty of ice on the ocean facing sides of the mountains that could melt as fast as temperatures (both air and sea water) rise the vast bulk in the center is going to sit there for a long time reguardless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _Greenland
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6990
From the second link"

Morlighem's team used the maps to refine their estimate of Greenland's total volume of ice and its potential to add to global sea level rise, if the ice were to melt completely -- which is not expected to occur within the next few hundred years. The new estimate is higher by 2.76 inches (7 centimeters) for a total of 24.34 feet (7.42 meters).

Many people here don’t understand Greenland accumulates more ice mass from snow each winter than melts each summer. It’s only gravity pushing the massive heights of ice toward the ocean that yields a small “net” loss each year and a tiny unmeasurable increase in sea level. While it’s imposible for all this ice to flow to the ocean per mountainous terrain, if we assumed it could it would take 15,000 years to lose all this ice at the average loss rate used by DMI.

Based on this data, it can be seen that during the period 2003-2011 the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost 234 km3 of water per year, corresponding to an annual contribution to the mean increase in sea level of 0.65 mm (Barletta et al. (2013).

http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarpo ... 190320.png

[vtsnowedin]

@jaragord:
Your post contradicts itself. If there is a net loss of 234km3 per year then the snow accumulation is less then the melt.

[Whitefang]

Thanks for the pic Newfie, eye witness account of the incredible affairs unfolding as we speak

The ice loss is has a doubling time so is exponential and accelerating, it has multiple feedbacks mechanisms that will likely push the whole thing over the brink, a tipping point that will sometime destabelize the whole ice sheet, since we are going for a hot house, the death of the GIS is a certainty. The question is how fast this can happen.
Current SLR is increasing with a doubling time, I think most of the melt coming from Greenland, bit of Baffin/Nova Zembla and the ice down under, bit of mountains in between.

Paul B. talks about signs that point to a collapse, no linky but I am sure we can find some report or paper on it.
Just like we thought CC were a gradual process taking centuries, I think we are finding out that giant ice sheets like the GIS can collapse abruptly, in decades.

I'd love to find that paper on tsunamis caused by a Heinrich event
Could we find pics from cracks on the Southwest part of the GIS?

For starters, a bit old from 2011:

https://www.clim-past.net/7/1297/2011/c ... 7-2011.pdf

A major effort has been devoted in the last decade in order to understand rapid glacial climate variability as registered in many climatic archives. Greenland ice core records indicate that the last glacial period was punctuated by more than 20 abrupt warmings larger than 10 K (Dansgaard-Oeschger events) followed by progressive cooling (Dansgaard et al., 1993; Grootes et al., 1993). As revealed by the study of marine sediment cores in the North Atlantic, six of the temperature minima in Greenland were also coeval with unusual amounts of ice rafted debris (IRD) originating primarily from the areas around Hudson Bay (Bond et al., 1992). Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain these anomalous ice discharge events, known as Heinrich events. The first considers these to be internal oscillations of the Laurentide ice sheet (LIS) associated with alterations of basal conditions (MacAyeal, 1993; Calov et al., 2002). A sudden break-up of ice shelves has also been implicated via atmospheric warming (Hulbe et al., 2004) or tidal effects (Arbic et al., 2004).

VT and jara, it is true that the GIS sits encaged within a ring of mtns, the immense weight must push the Earths crust down as well.
We'll have to look into recent papers to find out what is happening.
Before the discovery of moulins working all the way down to the bedrock, we thought of the GIS as a stable mass of ice, a block instead of a dynamic fluid wonder of nature it seems to be.

[Newfie]

Jakobshavan glacier is North of the Arctic Circle. It’s roughly mid way on the West coast tucked behind Disko Island.

There are no ice sheets in the SW Greenland coast, it is largely ice free. Actually it’s greatest ice is typically during May/June when the EAST coast ice wraps around Cape Farewell.

Today’s ice coverage....

EA0689C9-D212-4345-BFB8-4EBB48842E83.jpeg

https://www.dmi.dk/dmidk_byvejrWS/rest/ ... Colour.pdf

[jawagord]

@jaragord:
Your post contradicts itself. If there is a net loss of 234km3 per year then the snow accumulation is less then the melt.

No it doesn’t, more snow accumulates each year than ice melts. The ice that flows to the ocean and breaks off is not melting in place it is calving. Calving results in the net loss (except for last year). If not for the tremendous height of ice built up from millenia of accumulation there would be no flow of ice to the coast for calving. If you want to call it all melting, call it all melting, it’s not the way DMI defines it.

[vtsnowedin]

Jakobshavan glacier is North of the Arctic Circle.

You are correct. But that only enforces my point that the outlets to the interior ice are so far north that a major melt out from the interior ice mass is unlikely.

[vtsnowedin]

@jaragord:
Your post contradicts itself. If there is a net loss of 234km3 per year then the snow accumulation is less then the melt.

No it doesn’t, more snow accumulates each year than ice melts. The ice that flows to the ocean and breaks off is not melting in place it is calving. Calving results in the net loss (except for last year). If not for the tremendous height of ice built up from millenia of accumulation there would be no flow of ice to the coast for calving. If you want to call it all melting, call it all melting, it’s not the way DMI defines it.

Are you just being dense here? It makes no difference if ice melts and flows off the land as water or gets pushed out by the glacier above it and calves off. A loss is a loss and the snowfall on top of the ice dome needs to keep up with all losses wet or solid.

[vtsnowedin]

Thanks for the pic Newfie, eye witness account of the incredible affairs unfolding as we speak

The ice loss is has a doubling time so is exponential and accelerating,

Says who based on what measurements?

it has multiple feedbacks mechanisms that will likely push the whole thing over the brink, a tipping point that will sometime destabelize the whole ice sheet, since we are going for a hot house, the death of the GIS is a certainty. The question is how fast this can happen.

More likely the recent doubling is a one time thing without enough causation to make it double again.

Current SLR is increasing with a doubling time, I think most of the melt coming from Greenland, bit of Baffin/Nova Zembla and the ice down under, bit of mountains in between.

Paul B. talks about signs that point to a collapse, no linky but I am sure we can find some report or paper on it.
Just like we thought CC were a gradual process taking centuries, I think we are finding out that giant ice sheets like the GIS can collapse abruptly, in decades.

I'd love to find that paper on tsunamis caused by a Heinrich event
Could we find pics from cracks on the Southwest part of the GIS?

For starters, a bit old from 2011:

https://www.clim-past.net/7/1297/2011/c ... 7-2011.pdf

A major effort has been devoted in the last decade in order to understand rapid glacial climate variability as registered in many climatic archives. Greenland ice core records indicate that the last glacial period was punctuated by more than 20 abrupt warmings larger than 10 K (Dansgaard-Oeschger events) followed by progressive cooling (Dansgaard et al., 1993; Grootes et al., 1993). As revealed by the study of marine sediment cores in the North Atlantic, six of the temperature minima in Greenland were also coeval with unusual amounts of ice rafted debris (IRD) originating primarily from the areas around Hudson Bay (Bond et al., 1992). Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain these anomalous ice discharge events, known as Heinrich events. The first considers these to be internal oscillations of the Laurentide ice sheet (LIS) associated with alterations of basal conditions (MacAyeal, 1993; Calov et al., 2002). A sudden break-up of ice shelves has also been implicated via atmospheric warming (Hulbe et al., 2004) or tidal effects (Arbic et al., 2004).

VT and jara, it is true that the GIS sits encaged within a ring of mtns, the immense weight must push the Earths crust down as well.
We'll have to look into recent papers to find out what is happening.
Before the discovery of moulins working all the way down to the bedrock, we thought of the GIS as a stable mass of ice, a block instead of a dynamic fluid wonder of nature it seems to be.

All of that indicates that we have little understanding about what makes the GIS wax and wane.
All those that pronounce they have it figured out should be viewed with a very skeptical eye.

[jawagord]

@jaragord:
Your post contradicts itself. If there is a net loss of 234km3 per year then the snow accumulation is less then the melt.

No it doesn’t, more snow accumulates each year than ice melts. The ice that flows to the ocean and breaks off is not melting in place it is calving. Calving results in the net loss (except for last year). If not for the tremendous height of ice built up from millenia of accumulation there would be no flow of ice to the coast for calving. If you want to call it all melting, call it all melting, it’s not the way DMI defines it.

Are you just being dense here? It makes no difference if ice melts and flows off the land as water or gets pushed out by the glacier above it and calves off. A loss is a loss and the snowfall on top of the ice dome needs to keep up with all losses wet or solid.

Actually I am being PRECISE using the process description of Danish Meteorology Institute which I posted a link to. If you need things dumbed down I’ll try to accomodate you in the future.

[vtsnowedin]

You were or are being precisely wrong. Feel free to carry on that way. We can add you to the list that short is at the top of.