Heat wave over Greenland causing massive ice melt

I sure am thankful that the nation of Israel has developed the technology to do desalination of ocean water on a truly huge scale. It is now theoretically possible to desalinate a similar amount of H2O and add fresh water to the water table of nations with lots of desert as is melting off Greenland, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet or the world's glaciers.


Heat wave over Greenland causing massive ice melt

"More than 10 billion tonnes of ice was lost to the oceans by surface melt on Wednesday"
The Associated Press · Posted: Aug 01, 2019 5:18 PM ET | Last Updated: August 1








Megascale Desalination
The world’s largest and cheapest reverse-osmosis desalination plant is up and running in Israel.
Availability: now

 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/worl...-graph-that-s-shocked-climate-scientists.html


This does not seem like a laughing matter.....
it is a good thing that New Mexico biologist and coach Carl Cantrell has an alternative theory on stabilization of the climate that is certainly more so win - win - win - win than a silly Carbon Tax that would do NOTHING to protect vulnerable cities, towns and homes from the threat of rising ocean levels.

 

Make Greenland

Green Again!​

Support Global Warming.
Take Deep Breaths To Create Extra CO2!

Do Your Part​

 

Well, this has only been happening recently in the Geologic Scale for about 30,000 years or so.

Just think how much was dumped into the oceans when the ice caps that once stretched down to Indiana and New York melted off.

Myself, my interest in such is largely in geological scales, not the small ones that most tend to concentrate on. For example, during ice ages the oceans reach higher salinity levels, and during interglacials the ocean salinity lowers. It is just part of change on the planet.

In fact, most do not even seem to be aware that until fairly recently geologically speaking (5-6 million years, give or take a few hundred thousand), there was no Mediterranean Sea. This set off a "Salinity Crisis", and affected global climate as a huge chunk of salt and the runoff that introduces salt to the oceans was cut off.

The Med is still one of the largest known "salt sinks" on the planet, and the source of a huge number of salt mines.

And desalinizing ocean water can have some interesting consequences if it becomes wide spread. Most such operations simply dump the concentrated brine back into the ocean, raising salinity levels locally. This as of yet has had no impact on salinity levels on a global scale, but if this technology increases it may well have some major affects.

We know that much of the Ice Age cycle is caused by ocean salinity levels. As captured ice melts and is dumped into the oceans, the salinity level decreases. This affects how fresh water reacts and over time ultimately changes the ocean currents. And that is the real regulator of temperature on a global scale.

One of the main theories is that decreased salinity eventually chokes off the Atlantic Conveyor, which runs clockwise around the Northern Hemisphere. Turn that off, and you no longer get the hurricanes sweeping in from Africa on the backs of the warm current. But it also means the ending of the rains those and other storms bring.

The SE US would start to at that time start to resemble California. One of the speculations is that the end of the last ice age may have started when the Pacific current reversed. So instead of the flow off California going from South to North as it does today, it went from North to South. We know that California 35kya+ was much cooler and wet. And the occasional El Niño still shows the extensive floodplains that developed to handle such annual flooding.

 

I notice that you didn't say anything about the impact on the US northeast were the Atlantic conveyor to slow or cease to move in that direction.

Also, the California current moves southward along the west coast from British Columbia to Southern California, leaving the west coast waters cooler than east coast waters at equivalent latitudes such as that of Virginia.

 

Yes.. . Dr. James Hansen has stated that the last time that global temperatures rose by three degrees ocean levels rose by about twenty five meters in four centuries. We have some preparation to do to get ready for ocean level rise of one meter every twenty years or so.......

 

Yes, I realize myself that I accidentally reversed the flow. That is why in California only tourists and surfers are foolish enough to go into the ice cold ocean. Yet even further north in New York on the East coast the water is nice and warm.

Not much is known for sure about the main ocean currents, since they leave little real evidence. But there has been a lot of modeling of them in recent decades and how they can affect global weather patterns.

 

Well yea, the ocean levels have shifted a great deal over the millennia.

I remember a few years ago watching some "ecologist" going on and on about the "History of the San Francisco Bay", and laughing. He was talking about how the Indians had first set up there 30,000 years ago, on the shore of the Pacific Ocean and the bay they would call home.

Uhhh, yea. Right. To bad that as little as 20,000 years ago what we know of as San Francisco was a small inland valley. The waterfront of Pacific Ocean at even that time was around 27 miles further West. At what is now the Farallon Islands.



And at that time there was not even a "North Sea", England and Ireland were still connected by land to Europe, and the North Sea was also under a permanent glacier.

And global temperatures then were 3.5 degrees C lower than now.

So knowing what I know of geology, glaciation and sea level change, I have to say that that either Dr. James Hanson is full of crap or you are just pulling those numbers out of nowhere.

A 25 meter shift in ocean levels in 400 years? Impossible. We already know that the average rise for the last 15,000+ years is only 4 feet per century. So a jump of 82 feet in 400 years? I would love to see the proof of that! Hell, I would be surprised if even the releasing of Lake Missoula (14kya, 500+ cubic miles of water) even rose global sea levels by a single millimeter. And that is one of the largest fresh water dumps known in "recent" geological history.

However, I would not be surprised if Dr. Hanson made such a claim. As a follower of geological sciences, I often laugh at the insane claims of the "Chicken Little" climatologists. They keep making claims that things we see have never happened before (which they have, many times). Or making claims like the one you just made, that seem to exist only in their heads and appear nowhere in the geological record.

 

Personally...... I am not advocating worrying about CO2 emissions at this time because what I think we need to concentrate on is gearing up to desalinate ocean water on such a massive scale that we keep ocean levels relatively stable. Trees and plants hold the key to stabilization of the climate and trees need fresh water.

The lubrication of glaciers at their base by melting water has huge implications.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-01-03/hansen-still-argues-5m-21st-c-sea-level-rise-possible/

HANSEN STILL ARGUES 5M 21ST C SEA LEVEL RISE POSSIBLE
By Stuart Staniford, originally published by Early Warning
January 3, 2012

 

Why is the Arctic warming so fast?

It could largely be the methane being released from the permafrost as AboveAlpha explained to us several years ago.

Obviously this is going to affect the land based Greenland Ice Pack but I am not advocating worrying about CO2....
we need to get geared to turn deserts green on a massive scale and in order to do that we need to openly discuss the
banking system swindle that causes our governments to appear to be bankrupt!

ATTEMPTING TO STOP THE WARMING OF THE ARCTIC THROUGH REDUCING CO2 WILL NOT WORK... IT IS TOO LATE... . MEGA-SCALE DESALINATION OF OCEAN WATER IS THE ONLY SENSIBLE OPTION OPEN TO US AT THIS TIME!!!!

Reducing atmospheric CO2 will not work in time but COOLING THE WORLD'S DESERTS MIGHT
JUST REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF HEAT GOING INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.... but taking the Carl Cantrell approach has the added benefit of DIRECTLY ADDRESSING THE THREAT OF RISING OCEAN LEVELS!!!!

 

Some impressive photos here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2019/08/heatwave-greenland-photos/595591/

 

I worry much more about the massive deforestation that has been happening than I do about emissions.

In the last century, enough Amazonian rainforest has been destroyed to offset the increased CO2 emissions more than 5 fold. People look at the increased CO2, and seem to completely ignore the fact that the main system our planet has evolved to remove that very same CO2 is being destroyed at an ever increasing rate.

But of course, that means blaming poor Indians for the problem, and it is impossible to tax them. It is much more productive for them to blame the wealthy and tax them.

 

It is something obvious, and that I have known about for over 30 years.

Ice packs are one of the best reflectors of UV and other radiation from the sun in nature. Even more so than water, because in the oceans some of that radiation is to sink into lower layers of water and be absorbed, while on ice and snow the majority is reflected right back into the atmosphere, or into space.

Remove that ice and snow, and now the radiation is absorbed by the surface. Dirt, rocks, all kinds of things now absorb that formerly reflected solar energy, causing a feedback cycle which encourages even more warmth and melting.

This is one of the things that is long known about ice age cycles. It is one of the reasons why they last for so long, and it is easier to get one kicked off (because they become self-replicating) than it is to end one.

That is one of the things that is realized when Snowball Earths were realized to have actually existed. And the massive events that were required to kick us out of such a condition.

And yes, I still hear "climatologists" asking that very question. And I will see them go through tangles of CO2 levels, changes in the oxone layer, changes in the jet stream due to air travel, even pollutants admitted into the upper atmosphere. And not a single one of them ever seems to talk about the freaking obvious cause.

That there is simply no more ice and snow to reflect back solar energy.

Either they are all really really stupid, or they think we are all really really stupid, or it is better for them to try and place the blame on something they can milk for more grant money.

Myself, I tend towards the last.

Oh, and notice I did state that the level of rise has been pretty steady for the last "15,000+ years". Yes, I know of the meltwater pulse, from 14-14.7 kya. I also know it is estimated to have been between 13-25 meter rise, the average of with is closer to the 20 meters that most use. Not taking the extreme height of 25m.

That is why I stated the 15ky that I did. It was a one time event, an aberration in the entire geologic record of the last 15ky, and nowhere near anything normal, let alone repeatable.

Because one of the main contenders for the source was the breakup of the ice sheet that covered the northern half of North America. And that this event is that such an event triggered a rise in the ocean level, triggering even more melting (like in the ice sheet that covered the North Sea), which triggered even more melting. In short, a massive cascade where one melt triggered rise, which slammed into more ice sheets which triggered even more sea level rise. Unless somebody is proposing that the entire Antarctic ice sheet is going to go through a similar event, I think that wild claim can be completely ignored.

 

Human population is the man made component of global warming. Not the objects we build. Hundred of thousands of acres of forested land are clear cut each year. Yet that fact is typically ignored by the chicken littles of the world.

 

It is also completely unneeded. These are individuals living on the most primitive slash and burn farming. They only stay in a single area for a few years before they exhaust the nutrients in the soil, then repeat the process in another area.

https://news.mongabay.com/2018/11/amazon-deforestation-at-highest-level-in-10-years-says-brazil/

Our planet has evolved a natural way to remove CO2 from the environment. It is literally plant food, so nature responds by increasing the amount of plants. Yet we are breaking this cycle, not by releasing large amounts of CO2, but by removing the plants that remove that CO2.

It is the equivalent of on Apollo 13 instead of fixing the CO2 scrubbers, NASA instead obsessed with trying to find a way to stop the astronauts from exhaling CO2 in the first place.

Heck, want a simple solution to this issue? Install desalinization plants all along the California Coast, and pump the fresh water into the Mojave Desert, turn it into a huge wetlands, then marsh, eventually into a forest then rainforest. Instead of releasing that salt back into the ocean, pump it to Death Valley. It is already below sea level, so it becomes the perfect salt sink.

The same process can be repeated in the Middle East, using the Dead Sea as a salt sink and reforest the land around Israel-Jordan.

But the best solution is simply to make the poor people in the areas around our rainforests stop cutting them down.

 

j

If you have a suggestion, go for it!

 

Yes... .the decrease in snowfall on the Greenland Ice Pack has left it dirtier.... and darker than ever before..... .So what is happening is logical.

 

Does not matter. Nothing will be done. Just as nothing will be done about the massive deforestation and ecological damage being done in China for mining and fossil fuels. The same way as the mining in Northern South America is destroying thousands of miles of forest a year.

Nothing will be done, so even suggestions are pointless. The "do-gooders" will still scream and rant and demand actions be taken against a dairy farmer because he has cows that fart, and the family of 8 dirt farmers in Brazil will cut down another 10 square miles of the Amazon.

 

We can't push for other countries to solve their problems when WE are the worst emitters of greenhouse gasses on a percapita basis.

FAR more importantly, our Republican leadership isn't suggesting we can't do anything - it is stating that they don't believe the science. So, why should they "do something"?

Plus, our experience under this administration is that there is no possibility of creating a cooperative approach on anything with any other country. Every time we even try it ends up looking stupid. You want Africa or China to do something different? That's going to require internationl relations - which we just don't have.

 

CO2 emissions went down last year.

 

Cite please.

 

Likely he found something like this and ignored everything else;
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/k...ed-co2-levels-in-the-atmosphere-to-stabilize/

 

Greenland Green, Again.
Maybe Gaia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
is moving north
to maintain the planet's bio parameters.
You got a better theory?
CO2 Alarmist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis#Processing_of_CO2


psst, Green devours CO2.
Just don't go Carboniferous
and end like Apollo 1 on a planetary scale
I am so very bad. Apollo 1 indeed.


Gaia protects life, not individuals.


Moi

​

 

And that does not matter!

Tell me, if you are sick to you treat the fever, or the cause of the fever?

Right now, what we have is a lot of people screaming about the fever, but not doing a damned thing about it.

In the last century, the amount of rainforest we have destroyed was far more than enough to offset our CO2 output, even if we were to double it again! It does not freaking matter how much CO2 we pump out, because when left unchecked nature will simply absorb it. We have not broken that cycle by producing more CO2, we broke it by destroying rainforests.

Hell, until 75 years ago the main source of power was coal. How much do you think that put out? And before that we burned wood for almost everything. Yet somehow magically we only broke things the last half century or so?

No, I laugh at you all because you keep doing the worst mistake in science. And that is "Chasing the data". You all have a belief, and then push and push trying to get your theories to fir into the data. And if they do not fit, you simply "adjust" one or the other.

Kinda like the screaming about CO2. It is a natural gas, every living thing other than plants emits it. Plants absorb it, they can not live with out. And we have had era of higher CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as period of lower CO2. But inly in the last 20 years or so has it become some kind of weird fetish. Like somebody who evolved on Mars, wondering at that fictional element called "Water" and "Steam", since it does not exist in their environment.

 

I don't see any science in your post AT ALL.

If science has found that CO2 is a big deal, then you saying it is a fetish is just you suggesting we discard science as a methodology.

And, a substance being "natural" has no bearing on whether it is a problem or not.

Let's remember that humans don't have to be the primary source of CO2 in order to change the balance. You should know that if you had studied ANY of the natural sciences.