From the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) some “could be might be” research with a possible conclusion. I wonder why there doesn’t seem to be evidence for a complete melt long ago in this paper: New study shows temperature in Greenland significantly warmer than present several times in the last 4000 years. And I laughed out loud at this line: “In contrast, if global warming would be limited to 2 degrees Celsius, complete melting would happen on a timescale of 50.000 years.” Amazing how that 2°C lines up with with activist memes, doesn’t it? Oh, and Milankovitch cycles, natch.
The Greenland ice sheet is likely to be more vulnerable to global warming than previously thought. The temperature threshold for melting the ice sheet completely is in the range of 0.8 to 3.2 degrees Celsius global warming, with a best estimate of 1.6 degrees above pre-industrial levels, shows a new study by scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Today, already 0.8 degrees global warming has been observed. Substantial melting of land ice could contribute to long-term sea-level rise of several meters and therefore it potentially affects the lives of many millions of people.
The time it takes before most of the ice in Greenland is lost strongly depends on the level of warming. “The more we exceed the threshold, the faster it melts,” says Alexander Robinson, lead-author of the study now published in Nature Climate Change. In a business-as-usual scenario of greenhouse-gas emissions, in the long run humanity might be aiming at 8 degrees Celsius of global warming. This would result in one fifth of the ice sheet melting within 500 years and a complete loss in 2000 years, according to the study. “This is not what one would call a rapid collapse,” says Robinson. “However, compared to what has happened in our planet’s history, it is fast. And we might already be approaching the critical threshold.”
In contrast, if global warming would be limited to 2 degrees Celsius, complete melting would happen on a timescale of 50.000 years. Still, even within this temperature range often considered a global guardrail, the Greenland ice sheet is not secure. Previous research suggested a threshold in global temperature increase for melting the Greenland ice sheet of a best estimate of 3.1 degrees, with a range of 1.9 to 5.1 degrees. The new study’s best estimate indicates about half as much.
“Our study shows that under certain conditions the melting of the Greenland ice sheet becomes irreversible. This supports the notion that the ice sheet is a tipping element in the Earth system,” says team-leader Andrey Ganopolski of PIK. “If the global temperature significantly overshoots the threshold for a long time, the ice will continue melting and not regrow – even if the climate would, after many thousand years, return to its preindustrial state.” This is related to feedbacks between the climate and the ice sheet: The ice sheet is over 3000 meters thick and thus elevated into cooler altitudes. When it melts its surface comes down to lower altitudes with higher temperatures, which accelerates the melting. Also, the ice reflects a large part of solar radiation back into space. When the area covered by ice decreases, more radiation is absorbed and this adds to regional warming.
The scientists achieved their insights by using a novel computer simulation of the Greenland ice sheet and the regional climate. This model performs calculations of these physical systems including the most important processes, for instance climate feedbacks associated with changes in snowfall and melt under global warming. The simulation proved able to correctly calculate both the observed ice-sheet of today and its evolution over previous glacial cycles, thus increasing the confidence that it can properly assess the future. All this makes the new estimate of Greenland temperature threshold more reliable than previous ones.
Article: Robinson, A., Calov, R., Ganopolski, A. (2012): Multistability and critical thresholds of the Greenland ice sheet. Nature Climate Change [doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE1449]
Weblink to the article once it is published: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1449
For further information please contact:
PIK press office
Phone: +49 331 288 25 07
E-Mail: press@pik-potsdam.de
I got a call one day. I’ve no idea where the company got my number from, but my bank was the only place that knew I was investing in a workplace retirement plan besides work.
The salesman starts off talking about the real power of asset modeling and forecasting asset growth and how their very expensive program also allowed back casting and how for a small yearly lease fee ($300) I would get their updates.
“What’s back casting?” I asked. “Oh”, says the salesman, “that allows you to perform whatif scenarios to learn from past mistakes”.
I ask the inevitable question; “are you telling me that your program accurately predicts future asset growth?” The salesman responds “No, of course not. No program can do that”.
“Silly me”, I thought. “So, if I understand it; your program allows me to list assets and enter annum growth rates and the program calculates the results?” “Exactly!” responds the salesman. “And you can provide me a list of satisfied owners of your program?” I ask. “Sure can,” the salesguy responds and proceeds to rattle off a list that I remember included Warren Buffet and several large banks.
“Of what use is that program to me?” I ask. “I have a spreadsheet that does exactly that and it doesn’t cost $300 per year and I’d be happy to share it with the big guys”.
“B B But, this program does accurate hindcasts and will keep you up to date on your current asset status and allow you to plan your financial future”. “So?” Says I, “I can check my status online anytime and my spreadsheet will allow anyone to play fantasy asset trading”. “Fantasy asset trading is still fantasy no matter which direction you want to cast it”. “I got better places to put my money and it ain’t in your pocket.”
That final response got me a curse and the phone slammed down in my ear.
A model or a simple spreadsheet can be the most accurate calculation machine in the world. Fantasy is fantasy whether you’re positing (guessing) -3 or +12 degrees in your personal software playground. Who cares? Obviously this, I’m sure, well funded ‘research’ doesn’t allow anyone to decide if they’re planting wheat, rye or moss in Greenland.
“Substantial melting of land ice could contribute to long-term sea-level rise of several meters and therefore it potentially affects the lives of many millions of people.”
The perfect profit opportunity, following the demonstrated ethical and moral principles of the proponents of AGW. Buy millions of Greenland’s current ice covered frozen inland acres at below dirt-cheap prices, wait for AGW to melt said acreage**, the melted ice water to raise oceans levels, thus displacing millions of people from their beachfront properties, then make a killing selling those displaced people – 50’x100′ plots on said acreage at drastically inflated prices.
**Ensure and accelerate AGW process by increasing CO2 production using GW funding to lower MPG of vehicles, remove carbon scrubbers from power plants, and switch plants to highest CO2 producing fuels.
Is this another scare story about the Greenland ice sheet meting? I think this scare can be put to bed.
For all that I think of the bias of the BBC, they did once had a programme called ‘Hardtalk’ (God bless them). In one episode, Gert Leipold, then executive director Greenpeace, is caught in a lie about Greenland ice sheet disappearing within 20 years. Because, surprisingly, the BBC interviewer decides to pursue this allegation (surely against BBC policy?) and the executive director of Greenpeace is caught in a lie and has to back down. He ends up by admitting that the Greenland ice sheet is not going to disappear at all.
If anyone has missed this embarrassing Greenpeace lie, then you can see it here in this 90 second Youtube clip.
This is worth your subscription to Youtube or the BBC licence fee. and 90 seconds of your time. Well worth watching as Greenpeace have to finally admit they made it all up.
The director of Greenpeace then tries to defend his lie by saying that “ As a pressure group, we have to emotionalise issues and we’re not ashamed of emotionalising issues.”
The best way to deal with these cuddly groups is simply not to donate any more money to them.
That picture of Greenland from space is amazing. The atmosphere is very thin, oceans so shallow, compared to the globe. The space is very cold, the globe is very hot from inside.
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research , another place that simply does not need to exist if there is no CGW , so guess if their interested in ‘finding it ‘ or not ?
Bunch of bureaucrats. No CAGW, no bureau.
First they claim, “Our study shows that under certain conditions the melting of the Greenland ice sheet becomes irreversible… will continue melting and not regrow – even if the climate would, after many thousand years, return to its preindustrial state.”
Then they claim, “The simulation proved able to correctly calculate both the observed ice-sheet of today and its evolution over previous glacial cycles, thus increasing the confidence that it can properly assess the future.”
How is it possible that their computer simulation could successfully reproduce the “evolution” of the ice-sheet in the past but is incapable of reproducing it in the future, even after the climate returns to normal? If the Greenland ice sheet evolved once, why couldn’t it evolve again under similar conditions? They seem to be implying that glacial cycles are a thing of the past even if CO2 returns to its historical level. What is their basis for that idea and why is it valid for them to put that assumption into their simulation program?
Sea ice in Davis Strait looks like record high. If those two open pockets near Svalbard ans Novaya Zemlya would close, total arctic ice would be very high.
Nobody plays “Doom” anymore. It might have been “Left 4 Dead”.
Actually, I believe the numbers for the melt rates. 2000 years to melt the Greenland ice sheet if we get 8C of warming sounds reasonable. But I don’t think that there is even a remote chance that we will ever get 8C. First of all, we will run out of oil in the next 100 to 200 years. Second of all, the effect of increasing CO2 is a logarithmic increase in temperature – meaning that we get less and less effect for every PPM that we add. And third of all, climate sensitivity is likely between .6C and 1.5C per CO2 doubling.
I also don’t believe the “If we loose it we’ll never get it back” part. If the albedo argument is true, then we should never have been able to get out of the ice when we had snowball earth, and we should never have been able to glaciate when we had aligators living near the poles.
This mob are called the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact…I think that explains everything.
They’re hardly likely to publish a piece saying ‘ so far as we can ascertain the increasing concentration of C02 in the earth’s atmosphere appears to be having little IMPACT on the Greenland Ice Sheet’…now, are they!!
Tenuc said @ur momisugly March 12, 2012 at 10:06 am
So we were doomed ca. 1,000 BC and again ca. 900AD. Not much point in trying to do anything about it then.
That would be a comma as decimal symbol. Fifty thousand should be 50000. I am Norwegian and officially we use a comma, but I always use full stop anyway 🙂 Much easier.
Well, gol’ dingit!
I’ll just go check out Greenland in 50,000 years and we’ll see who is right! I’ve got it marked on my pocket planner – in ink.
Who’s with me on this?
The Wicked Greenland Soothsayers of the West say “I’m Melting”
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2012/03/12/the-wicked-greenland-soothsayers-of-the-west-say-im-melting/
by pwl
How much energy is required to melt all the ice in Greenland?
How much ice is there in Greenland?
“The Greenland ice sheet (Kalaallisut: Sermersuaq) is a vast body of ice covering 1,710,000 square kilometres (660,235 sq mi), roughly 80% of the surface of Greenland. It is the second largest ice body in the world, after the Antarctic Ice Sheet. The ice sheet is almost 2,400 kilometres (1,500 mi) long in a north-south direction, and its greatest width is 1,100 kilometres (680 mi) at a latitude of 77°N, near its northern margin. The mean altitude of the ice is 2,135 metres (7,005 ft).[1] The thickness is generally more than 2 km (1.24 mi) (see picture) and over 3 km (1.86 mi) at its thickest point. It is not the only ice mass of Greenland – isolated glaciers and small ice caps cover between 76,000 and 100,000 square kilometres (29,344 and 38,610 sq mi) around the periphery. Some scientists predict that climate change may be about to push the ice sheet over a threshold where the entire ice sheet will melt in less than a few hundred years. If the entire 2,850,000 cubic kilometres (683,751 cu mi) of ice were to melt, it would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 m (23.6 ft).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
2,850,000 cubic kilometers of ice in Greenland.
So claim of a 100 years to melt 2,850,000 cubic kilometers of ice. Hmmm… we’ll get back to that.
How much energy to melt ice?
“When ice melts, it absorbs as much heat energy (the heat of fusion) as it would take to heat an equivalent mass of water by 80 °C, while its temperature remains a constant 0 °C.” – wikipedia on ice
Ok, that’s very cool, it takes a lot of energy to melt ice. Pardon the pun.
“The enthalpy of fusion is the change in enthalpy resulting from heating one mole of a substance to change its state from a solid to a liquid. The temperature at which this occurs is the melting point. The enthalpy of fusion is a latent heat, because during melting the introduction of heat cannot be observed as a temperature change, as the temperature remains constant during the process. The latent heat of fusion is the enthalpy change of any amount of substance when it melts. When the heat of fusion is referenced to a unit of mass, it is usually called the specific heat of fusion, while the molar heat of fusion refers to the enthalpy change per amount of substance in moles. The liquid phase has a higher internal energy than the solid phase. This means energy must be supplied to a solid in order to melt it and energy is released from a liquid when it freezes, because the molecules in the liquid experience weaker intermolecular forces and have a larger potential energy. When liquid water is cooled, its temperature falls steadily until it drops just below the freezing point at 0 °C. The temperature then remains constant at the freezing point while the water crystallizes. Once the water is completely frozen, its temperature continues to fall.
…
To heat one kilogram (about 1 litre) of water from 283.15 K to 303.15 K (10 °C to 30 °C) requires 83.6 kJ.
However, to melt ice and raise the resulting water temperature by 20 K requires extra energy. To heat ice from 273.15 K to water at 293.15 K (0 °C to 20 °C) requires:
(1) 333.55 J/g (heat of fusion of ice) = 333.55 kJ/kg = 333.55 kJ for 1 kg of ice to melt
PLUS
(2) 4.18 J/(g·K) = 4.18 kJ/(kg·K) = 83.6 kJ for 1kg of water to go up 20 K
= 417.15 kJ
Or to restate it in everyday terms, one part ice at 0 °C will cool almost exactly 4 parts water at 20 °C to 0 °C.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion
Ok, so we need to know the temperature of the ice in Greenland in order to calculate how much energy it takes to melt it. Most likely it’s not all one temperature. It must vary.
We can simplify for starters assuming the ice is 0c. Of course this assumption is being generous and will likely dramatically underestimate the amount of energy required to melt all the ice in Greenland, but heck this is a quick back of the envelope calculation.
2,580,000 cubic kilograms of ice is a mass of 2.85×10^18 kilograms (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2850000+cubic+kilometers+ice+in+kilograms).
Using equation (1) above we find that 333.55 kJ for 1 kg of ice to melt and we have 2.85×10^18 kg of the darn stuff which means that to melt it we need to input 333.55 kJ * 2.85×10^18 kg which is 9.51×10^20 kg kJ (kilogram kilojoules). That’s a lot of energy required.
9.506×10^20 kg kJ to melt all the ice in Greenland. For those challened by scientific notion, that is 950,600,000,000,000,000,000 kJ to melt the 2,580,000 cubic kilograms of ice.
Wolfram Alpha reports that that amount of energy, http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282.85×10%5E18%29+*+%28333.55+kJ%29, is:
3) ~1.9 x estimated energy released by the Chicxulub meteor impact;
4) ~24 x 2003 estimated energy in world’s total fossil fuel reserves;
5) ~37 x 2003 estimated energy in world’s coal reserves.
Ok, that is a huge amount of energy.
Could we intentionally melt all the ice in Greenland if we wanted to?
How?
“Nukes of course! They are the practical answer to every mega engineering problem. Wikipedia informs us that approximately 2,100,000 TJ (2.1 * 10^6 terajoules) of energy has been released by all the nukes ever tested by humans. Converting terajoules to kilojoules is done by multiplying by 10^9, that’s then ~2.1 x 10^15 kJ of energy from all nukes detonated on, above or in the Earth/Ocean.”
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/02/22/how-could-we-melt-enough-ice-for-a-20ft-rise-in-sea-levels/
So all the nukes every detonated generated ~2.1×10^15 kJ of energy and it would take 9.506×10^20 kJ to melt Greenland. Wow, we couldn’t do it with all the nukes ever detonated!!! We’d need 452,677 (4.527×10^7) times as many nukes!!! That’s a SIX ORDERS of MAGNITUDE larger amount of energy required! We don’t even have enough nukes to do the job.
Does Mother Nature have enough energy in the Earth System to melt that much ice? Over what time period?
Note that the volume of ice in Greenland would drop the temperature of four times the volumn of water at 20c to 0c with this melting. What effect would that have?
Is there any physics that would have the ice melt faster? How much more energy is required? What if it’s flowing water over the ice? Does that make it melt faster? It would still need the same amount of energy would it not? Ice causes the air temperature to be cooler thus limiting the rate of melting further.
About the only way that we could melt all the ice in Greenland is to manouver an asteroid the size of the Chicxulub and get it to drop on Greenland. Baring unpleasant side effects of doing that it would get the job done quickly. No doubt about that.
So how can Mother Nature do this? Where does the Earth Climate System have a spare 9.506×10^20 kJ kicking around?
The Climate Scientists claim that it could do that in 100 years? Really? There’s really 9.506×10^18 kJ of extra energy kicking around in the Earth’s Climate System to do that? Really? Please oh where are you energy?
So if the Earth’s atmosphere did warm up and Greenland started melting like crazy, four times the volume of water that melted would drop from 20c to 0c in the process and that would alter the temperature of the oceans on a global scale which would cool the planet and stop or dramatically shift the atmospheric temperatures likely enough to stop the warming. So maybe this is part of the climate negative feed back system?
All this from a desire to do a back of the enveolop calculation. Damn us system scientists and engineers, always with our back of the envelop calculations. If you find any mistakes or have additional calculations please please comment.
Peter
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2012/03/12/the-wicked-greenland-soothsayers-of-the-west-say-im-melting/
Richard S Courtney says
So, we “MIGHT” be approaching the “critical threshold” that would induce a change over so long a time that few if any people would notice it.
———–
Aahhh! The good old
1. throw a moral outrage hissyfit if the scientist express uncertainty.
2. also throw a moral outrage hissyfit if the scientist express certainty.
I call this tactic the” get em coming and going” technique. Seen it all before. Some guys tried it me once. They ended up on the wrong end of a court case. Didnt work them either.
Richard S Courtney says
Oh! In that case “their insights” are merely their opinion which they programed into the computer.
———-
[SNIP: LT, I’m sure Dr. Courtney has heard about physics. Please dial back the snark when addressing fellow commenters. Thank you. -REP]
SAMURAI says: (March 12, 2012 at 9:13 am)
“Why stop at 8.0 C? Why not input 18 C into this new “novel” computer model and really be cooking.”
That feature will be in the sequel, when Hansen’s boiling oceans are modelled properly.
Look, we’re wasting time with this. I’ve just produced a Carbon Reducing Anthropogenic Program which models global heat and reduction strategies and provides methodologies to vary global temperature for optimum human and green requirements. I’ve just turned the temperature down by 3 degrees just in case. So all’s well, we can get back to what we were doing before. If you need it turning down another notch or two just give me a bell and I’ll sort it out.
I’m just working on an acronym for my model before launching an investment scheme. There’s a great deal of interest so far from the usual suspects.
Without a doubt, terabyte analysis of plate tectonic dispositions 14-million years from now show North and South America plus Greenland firmly migrated to Gaia’s equatorial regions, thereby exhibiting “global warming” by purely geophysical processes vs. atmospheric/oceanic circulation patterns.
Not often do we encounter asininities certifiable through the Pleistocene to its succeeding geologic era. PIK’s utter hogwash is a thing of beauty and a joy forever.
Clarification to March 12, 2012 at 2:27 pm: “The Climate Scientists claim that it could do that in 100 years? Really? There’s really 9.506×10^18 kJ of extra energy kicking around in the Earth’s Climate System each year for one hundred years to do that? Really? Please oh where are you energy?”
50,000 years would require 1.901×10^16 kilojoules each year of energy focused on melting the ice in Greenland, which is 9 times the energy of all the nukes ever detonated each year for 50,000 years.
Oh, over 50,000 we’d have another ice age or two… setting back any such calculations… not only that the melting ice would lower the temperature of four times the volume of the ice from 20c to 0c thus altering the ocean temperatures thus stalling any global warming (mann made or not) and thus a rapid warming could or would likely bring on a swing via ocean cooling to a new ice age sooner thus there would be no 50,000 or 2,000 or 100 years of super warming!!!
“to restate it in everyday terms, one part ice at 0 °C will cool almost exactly 4 parts water at 20 °C to 0 °C.”” – see equation (1) and (2) above in prior comment.
The fact of melting that much ice would by the simple physics of ice melting cause a huge negative cooling feedback effect as four times the volume of water compared with the ice that melted cooled the oceans which would cool the atmosphere ending the warming rather quickly. It would have to be a really slow melting to avoid that.
A really slow melting by definition isn’t a problem. 50,000 years is a non problem. 2,000 years is highly unlikely due to the amounts of energy required.
100 years to melt Greenland is pure fantasy unless an asteroid hits Greenland, and in that case we have a few bigger problems to deal with to say the least.
Could would might may can possibly imagine doomsday act now and fork over all your money to save us all. Hurry. There is no time left.
“if global warming would be limited to 2 degrees Celsius, complete melting would happen on a timescale of 50.000 years.”
That should be “if global warming WERE limited to 2 degrees Celsius, complete melting would happen on a timescale of 50.000 years.”
General rule of thumb: no “would” in the “if” clause.
LazyTeenager:
I quote your post at March 12, 2012 at 2:28 pm in full.
“Richard S Courtney says
So, we “MIGHT” be approaching the “critical threshold” that would induce a change over so long a time that few if any people would notice it.
———–
Aahhh! The good old
1. throw a moral outrage hissyfit if the scientist express uncertainty.
2. also throw a moral outrage hissyfit if the scientist express certainty.
I call this tactic the” get em coming and going” technique. Seen it all before. Some guys tried it me once. They ended up on the wrong end of a court case. Didnt work them either.”
———————-
And I call your post Bollocks.
Can we call it quits now are do you want to continue to embarrass yourself?
Richard