Untested claim: increased CO2 helps glacier ice to crack

From the Institute of Physics , something so overreaching I just can’t believe the Institute of Physics would put out a press release on it.  Where does one start with stuff like this? This is all modeling, they haven’t even tested any actual sea ice to see if it follows the theory. Their premise would be easy to test with some glacier water, a freezer, a controlled gaseous CO2 source, and a tensile/ductile strength mechanical force tester for brittleness. But that sort of basic testing wasn’t done. Yet, they equate their modeled posited effect to be the cause of the Pine Island Glacier breakoff, as if somehow events like that never happened before CO2 was at 392PPM.  Note the abstract and link to the paper below. – Anthony

Crack in Pine Island Glacier in 2011, supposedly abetted by increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Image acquired November 13, 2011 by NASA’s Terra satellite. At that time, the crack was 19 miles (30 kilometers) long.
Glaciers cracking in the presence of carbon dioxide

The well-documented presence of excessive levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere is causing global temperatures to rise and glaciers and ice caps to melt.

New research, published today, 11 October, in IOP Publishing’s Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, has shown that CO2 molecules may be having a more direct impact on the ice that covers our planet. 

Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute for Technology have shown that the material strength and fracture toughness of ice are decreased significantly under increasing concentrations of CO2 molecules, making ice caps and glaciers more vulnerable to cracking and splitting into pieces, as was seen recently when a huge crack in the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica spawned a glacier the size of Berlin.

Ice caps and glaciers cover seven per cent of the Earth—more than Europe and North America combined—and are responsible for reflecting 80 per cent of the Sun’s light rays that enter our atmosphere and maintain the Earth’s temperature. They are also a natural carbon sink, capturing a large amount of CO2.

“If ice caps and glaciers were to continue to crack and break into pieces, their surface area that is exposed to air would be significantly increased, which could lead to accelerated melting and much reduced coverage area on the Earth. The consequences of these changes remain to be explored by the experts, but they might contribute to changes of the global climate,” said lead author of the study Professor Markus Buehler.

Buehler, along with his student and co-author of the paper, Zhao Qin, used a series of atomistic-level computer simulations to analyse the dynamics of molecules to investigate the role of CO2 molecules in ice fracturing, and found that CO2 exposure causes ice to break more easily.

Notably, the decreased ice strength is not merely caused by material defects induced by CO2 bubbles, but rather by the fact that the strength of hydrogen bonds—the chemical bonds between water molecules in an ice crystal—is decreased under increasing concentrations of CO2. This is because the added CO2 competes with the water molecules connected in the ice crystal.

It was shown that CO2 molecules first adhere to the crack boundary of ice by forming a bond with the hydrogen atoms and then migrate through the ice in a flipping motion along the crack boundary towards the crack tip.

The CO2 molecules accumulate at the crack tip and constantly attack the water molecules by trying to bond to them. This leaves broken bonds behind and increases the brittleness of the ice on a macroscopic scale.

###

Carbon dioxide enhances fragility of ice crystals

Zhao Qin and Markus J Buehler 2012 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 45 445302 doi:10.1088/0022-3727/45/44/445302

Abstract:

Ice caps and glaciers cover 7% of the Earth, greater than the land area of Europe and North America combined, and play an important role in global climate. The small-scale failure mechanisms of ice fracture, however, remain largely elusive. In particular, little understanding exists about how the presence and concentration of carbon dioxide molecules, a significant component in the atmosphere, affects the propensity of ice to fracture. Here we use atomic simulations with the first-principles based ReaxFF force field capable of describing the details of chemical reactions at the tip of a crack, applied to investigate the effects of the presence of carbon dioxide molecules on ice fracture. Our result shows that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide molecules significantly decrease the fracture toughness of the ice crystal, making it more fragile. Using enhanced molecular sampling with metadynamics we reconstruct the free energy landscape in varied chemical microenvironments and find that carbon dioxide molecules affect the bonds between water molecules at the crack tip and decrease their strength by altering the dissociation energy of hydrogen bonds. In the context of glacier dynamics our findings may provide a novel viewpoint that could aid in understanding the breakdown and melting of glaciers, suggesting that the chemical composition of the atmosphere can be critical to mediate the large-scale motion of large volumes of ice.

Introduction

Ice caps and glaciers cover 7% of our planet, greater than the land area of Europe and North America combined [1]. They reflect 80–90% of the solar radiation and trap a large

amount of carbon dioxide. Specifically, the Arctic accounts for 10–15% of the earth’s carbon sink [2]. The glaciers’ dynamical behaviour and stability play important roles in controlling the global climate [3, 4]. Thereby, the facture mechanism of ice is of paramount importance for the understanding of glacial dynamics [5], and at a fundamental level is controlled by how a single crack propagates in ice crystals via the

breaking of chemical bonds [6]. Such growth of cracks eventually mediates the breakdown of ice, as exemplified in recent incidents of large-scale fracture of glaciers [7, 8]. Very

large-scale ice fractures occurred recently close to the Pine Island Glacier in the Antarctic region, which generated an iceberg with an area of around 880 square kilometres, the size

of the city of Berlin [9].

While the macroscopic mechanical properties of pure ice are well understood by laboratory tests and its behaviour has been characterized by existing fracture

mechanics models [10], the effect of environmental conditions such as the concentration of carbon dioxide, have not been incorporated into existing models. Lack of such knowledge prevents us from understanding how changes in the chemical environment affect the stability and movement of glaciers, which is important given the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

[Suggestion: do some laboratory testing to get the same level of understanding]

Conclusion

Using atomic simulations with the ReaxFF reactive force field, we investigated the effect of carbon dioxide on the fracture behaviour of ice. We find that the material strength

and fracture toughness are decreased significantly under increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide molecules. This phenomenon is caused by the interaction between water and carbon dioxide molecules. Carbon dioxide molecules first adhere to the crack boundary by forming hydrogen bonds, and then migrate along the crack boundary towards the crack tip.

The dissociation energy of hydrogen bonds at the crack tip is decreased under the attack by carbon dioxide. This migrationattacking process repeats itself and renders the ice crystal more brittle by mediating crack propagation. Our theoretical model quantitatively accounts for the effect of carbon dioxide on the surface energy and fracture toughness of ice. It could be instrumental for further studies of ice fracture in various chemical environments and may be scaled up by incorporating it into models of glacier dynamics.

paper here (you may need to register for free account to read it)

http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/45/44/445302/pdf/0022-3727_45_44_445302.pdf

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
132 Comments
Hu McCulloch
October 12, 2012 1:41 pm

Ice caps and glaciers cover 7% of our planet, greater than the land area of Europe and North America combined [1]. They reflect 80–90% of the solar radiation and trap a large
amount of carbon dioxide.

This seems to say the 80-90% of the radiation that hits icecaps and glaciers gets reflected. But the press release seems to say that thanks to them 80-90% of the radiation that hits the earth gets reflected!
More like a hype release.
Anyway, how do glaciers trap so much CO2? They entrain air bubbles that contain CO2, but then they are entraining N2 and O2 along with the CO2, so it’s not obvious there’s a differential effect.
In fact, if the ice all evaporated, wouldn’t it be releasing ancient N2 and O2 in greater proportions, relative to present levels, than CO2? Wouldn’t this reduce atmospheric CO2 ppm?

October 12, 2012 1:47 pm

Lars P. says:
October 12, 2012 at 10:08 am
4) what validation was done for the model? None.
==============================================================
I was just watching something on The History Channel about locomotives. It had a segment about crash research. They use computer models to lessen the damage and danger of locomotive crashes. The particular segment i’m referring to had to do with a design feature the keep the front coupler from riding up and into the cab of another engine in a head on crash. The point is that after the design was made on a computer model, they actually went out and crashed a few to see if the models reflected reality. We know Hansen’s and Mann’s models don’t reflect reality. It doesn’t sound like this one will reflect the real world either.

Lars P.
October 12, 2012 3:16 pm

Gunga Din says:
October 12, 2012 at 1:47 pm
I was just watching something on The History Channel about locomotives. It had a segment about crash research. They use computer models to lessen the damage and danger of locomotive crashes. The particular segment i’m referring to had to do with a design feature the keep the front coupler from riding up and into the cab of another engine in a head on crash. The point is that after the design was made on a computer model, they actually went out and crashed a few to see if the models reflected reality. We know Hansen’s and Mann’s models don’t reflect reality. It doesn’t sound like this one will reflect the real world either.
—————————————————————
Yes, exactly Gunga Din. That was engineering and they had to know if their model reflects reality.
Total different situation here. There is no interest to know if the models reflect reality. The “result” is already available and can be used for propaganda. All that can happen now is that reality maybe invalidates the model. So what use to test it? And then they use model over model pyramids – as this model result goes into the next model as “input variable”:
” It could be instrumental for further studies of ice fracture in various chemical environments and may be scaled up by incorporating it into models of glacier dynamics.”
Somebody said so pertinently: its models all the way down…

Max Beran
October 13, 2012 1:30 am

I speculate, but I guess what happened went something like this
1. Department has just invested in a computer package for simulating chemical processes at the tens of molecule scale. A graduate student is told to get familiar with the programme which he does by setting up a toy system comprising a small block of frozen water with a cavity in it.
2. He inputs (after all it is just a computer programme) a few molecules of various gases, one of which is CO2, into this cavity to see what the programme does.
3. He is limited to high concentrations because the computational load means there can only be a few ice molecules in this toy system.
4. He notes that some of the CO2 molecules migrate off to the corners of the cavity (in the program) and get to work loosening hydrogen ion bonds.
5. He asks his supervisor if this is worth writing up for a journal.
6. His supervisor recognises that it is just a handle-turning exercise with a brought in computer package so little of genuine novelty.
7. But then he has a bright idea – he has noted how easy it is to get noticed if you hitch your wagon to climate, and CO2 and ice have definitely got something to do with climate.
8. It’s not his field so he doesn’t know quite what, but not to worry because a moment’s googling leads him to ice sheets and cracks so there’s his opening – the student’s hand cranking of the computer package could after all just about justify a place in the Applied Physics section of the Journal. After all, haven’t they just applied a model to a real system.
9. He instructs his student to squeeze in some token references to climate and ice which his student complies with.
10. They’re not prominent enough so they move the climate link to the beginning of the abstract even though it is screamingly obvious that the simulations have only the most tenuous connection with macroscale reality. They get it a little bit wrong – albedos and percentages and stuff – but not to worry, none of the Journal readership are familiar with the details.
11. And now supervisor and student sit back and wait for the kudos to come rolling in – they’ve helped to save the planet, and they can chalk up a paper to boost the statistics for the next departmental review.

October 13, 2012 5:33 am

Hu McCulloch says:
October 12, 2012 at 1:41 pm
In fact, if the ice all evaporated, wouldn’t it be releasing ancient N2 and O2 in greater proportions, relative to present levels, than CO2? Wouldn’t this reduce atmospheric CO2 ppm?
As said before, some 3% of the ice sheets is air, which contains 180-300 ppmv CO2. If it was all released at once, the current atmosphere would see a reduction of less than 1 ppmv CO2…
I suppose that they mixed the polar sinking waters (THC) as CO2 sink with the properties of ice, which isn’t selective for CO2…

Dwayne Oxford
October 14, 2012 3:36 pm

Wonder why they never checked CO2 levels in the air bubbles trapped in amber? Afraid to?
http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov/gips/na/amber.html

Reply to  Dwayne Oxford
October 14, 2012 7:42 pm

Dwayne Oxford says:
October 14, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Wonder why they never checked CO2 levels in the air bubbles trapped in amber? Afraid to?
http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov/gips/na/amber.html

Well, this is a different set of “they”, but this would be worth pushing for, indeed. “What do amber bubbles say about CO2 levels?” is a questions worth asking and answering.

1 4 5 6