Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
spacecowboy342

Study shows Greenland's ice loss accelerating

26 posts in this topic

I'm on the Gulf Coast - about 10 miles from the beach as the crow flies. I wonder when I'll have waterfront property? If saving the planet means finding consensus among nations and actually DOING something that costs resources then we are screwed.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on the Gulf Coast - about 10 miles from the beach as the crow flies. I wonder when I'll have waterfront property? If saving the planet means finding consensus among nations and actually DOING something that costs resources then we are screwed.

Average sea level rise is currently a little over 10 mm a year, a little bit faster than a tree grows - do the math. But note that storms usually mean that the beach shifts in a matter of two or three days, then sits there for 50 years doing nothing.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... havn't we been here before ? According to ice cores, there where trees growing in Central Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, suggesting that the Glaciers had all gone (at least from the central zones). AT the same time, however, there are no stories of unusually high water levels, or unusual flooding, during this period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... havn't we been here before ? According to ice cores, there where trees growing in Central Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, suggesting that the Glaciers had all gone (at least from the central zones). AT the same time, however, there are no stories of unusually high water levels, or unusual flooding, during this period.

Links to these ice cores showing trees in Greenland during the medeival period? From my knowledge we have ice cores from Greenland continuously for at least 40,000 years
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... havn't we been here before ? According to ice cores, there where trees growing in Central Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, suggesting that the Glaciers had all gone (at least from the central zones). AT the same time, however, there are no stories of unusually high water levels, or unusual flooding, during this period.

Greenland has not been clear of ice for thousands of years. The relatively warm zone of the MWP was restricted to a strip along the southern edge. At no time in the MWP have trees grown in the central zone which houses the main ice sheet.

If you disagree with this please support your claim with evidence.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... havn't we been here before ? According to ice cores, there where trees growing in Central Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, suggesting that the Glaciers had all gone (at least from the central zones). AT the same time, however, there are no stories of unusually high water levels, or unusual flooding, during this period.

There are small stands of small trees growing right on top of some glaciers, so the presence of tree trunks in an ice core may not mean much. Now if we could ring-date those trunks....

There were also trees (birches) in Iceland at about the same time. Grazing took care of them, though.

The high stand of the global ocean during the Holocene occurred from about 250 to 400 AD with ocean levels of 5.6 feet above modern (1950). For Br. Cornelius: check out bore holes drilled by marine mollusks in the sea wall at Caesarea. The only reason rising sea levels are a problem is that we have built things on the bottom of what used to be ocean and will be so again in a hundred to two hundred years. When New Orleans (which is sinking) meets sea levels (which are rising), something's gotta give.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a distance (I am not privy to the discussions) it appears the Vietnamese government has already decided sea levels are going to rise and nothing will be done. So it has adopted appropriate coastal management policies to minimize the problems come one of those storms or just a slow rise in sea levels. Of course this is a generational plan; more politicized states can't do that sort of thing, or if they do they see the efforts turned about by the next political swing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a distance (I am not privy to the discussions) it appears the Vietnamese government has already decided sea levels are going to rise and nothing will be done. So it has adopted appropriate coastal management policies to minimize the problems come one of those storms or just a slow rise in sea levels. Of course this is a generational plan; more politicized states can't do that sort of thing, or if they do they see the efforts turned about by the next political swing.

Don't worry. Those that plan ahead will change. Those that don't plan ahead will change, too.

In the US we permit development on the barrier islands (Dauphin Island, Alabama, for example). The occasional hurricane doesn't seem to bother us. Dog Island (30.245, -88.783) in Mississippi was a resort/hotel/tourist town in the 1930s. One good hurricane took care of that, island and all.

I think that's how the Koch Brothers plan to solve the problem of sea level rise.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first line of your response puzzles me. Frankly I would prefer to be where the authorities plan ahead than where short term money makes the decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Average sea level rise is currently a little over 10 mm a year, a little bit faster than a tree grows - do the math. But note that storms usually mean that the beach shifts in a matter of two or three days, then sits there for 50 years doing nothing.

Doug

Doug, can you post link(s) to study(ies) showing that (I'm too lazy to search by myself).

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first line of your response puzzles me. Frankly I would prefer to be where the authorities plan ahead than where short term money makes the decisions.

Me too. All I'm saying is that rising sea levels will force people to move out of the way - or drown.

Rising seas are something we in the US can adapt to, with or without regulation or planning: if, we are prepared to see substantial parts of New York City go under water; if, we are willing to see New Orleans disappear below the waves; and if: we are prepared to see Washington DC become a cypress swamp again, then we don't have a problem. Most of our coastlines cannot be saved from rising sea levels and the ecosystems will be better off if we don't try.

However, there are places that can't adapt. The Pacific Island Nations and Bangladesh will cease to exist - they have nowhere to go. Venice will be increasingly difficult to keep dry, as will London and Cairo. A rise of 63 feet will reopen the Aquatania Channel. At some point above that, oceanic circulation will be rerouted from the Indian Ocean through the Red Sea and Mediterranean into the Atlantic (Actually, it will only take about 30 feet of rise to open a channel through Wadi Tumilat.).

The US (and the world) have not felt planning was needed in the case of hurricanes. That same muddle-through mentality seems to be the way we are going this time.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all started with a hole in the ozone ~ then everything else just snow balled ~

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the reduction of the release of CFC's into the atmosphere has led to a reduction in the ozone hole

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANd the positives gained from this reduction of the ozone hole is not only negated but also over stretched by the other exponentially increasing contributory factors exacerbating the problems, not to mention establishing more problems instead of providing solutions ~

This intent hell hound pursuit for that one 'villainous' individual representing the singular black sheep or bad guy that is to be held solely responsible is a wild goose chase and only achieved by pulling the wool over the eyes of all who takes a closer look at the problem. Thing is there is no 'one' magic bullet, there isn't that magic technological Scientific know how that will pull it out of the fire like some superhero swooping down from the skies ~ this particular problem requires the efforts of all, now and the future, top down to left and right inclusive of front and back , all it takes is a 'reexamination' of what constitutes 'standards of living' and 'way of life' ~

Are we here only to live for ourselves (as the human race) and make everything else on the face of this planet solely for the purpose of establishing itself to be rendered into 'resources' strictly used to affirm our accepted levels of comfort or familiarity in terms of 'way' of life ?

It takes everyone ... every single living soul on the planet ... we'd already messed the planet up for the next few generations ~ how much more of the future generation's time on this precious planet of ours are we still willing to gamble for another run at perfectoupia (sic)?

~

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I gave you a figure that's a little too high. Three mm per year would be more like it.

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=263870

Doug

Hmmm... Link is to this same topic :unsure2:

Found it - doi:10.1038/ngeo1829 (I guess you took number from this paper?): 3.13 mm/yr (1993-2012), 2.39 mm/yr (2005-2012)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ozone problem and the global warming problem should not be confused. They are different things with different chemicals involved and different effects. It looks that the ozone problem will go away or at least not get out of control because the chemicals involved are relatively easy to just simply ban.

Banning the emission of co2 along with other greenhouse gases (methane, etc.) is not in the cards; the world is too dependent and has too much infrastructure based on their use.

What seems to have happened is that politicians of the left decided to make political hay out of it, rather than making responsible proposals -- to use scare tactics rather than being accurate in their warnings -- and generated a denial movement that we are only now beginning to overcome. The science is too arcane to expect voters to be able to assess. This is the standard procedure in democratic societies where short-term politics dominates.

I'm nevertheless hopeful that a combination of developments will rescue us (even though places like Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta may be doomed. We know what is coming, so reasonable governments put their development effort into cities protected from rising oceans and discourage or ban development on the ocean itself (except for things like salt pans and shrimp cultivation).

Then there is the fact that oil and even natural gas prices should be rising relative to other costs, although technology predictably has come along to delay this process, at least oil may be pushed largely out of the picture. Finally, a lot of both public and private money is being put into solar and other replacement technologies and things like electric cars and natural gas trucks that may mitigate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ozone problem and the global warming problem should not be confused. They are different things with different chemicals involved and different effects. It looks that the ozone problem will go away or at least not get out of control because the chemicals involved are relatively easy to just simply ban.

Banning the emission of co2 along with other greenhouse gases (methane, etc.) is not in the cards; the world is too dependent and has too much infrastructure based on their use.

What seems to have happened is that politicians of the left decided to make political hay out of it, rather than making responsible proposals -- to use scare tactics rather than being accurate in their warnings -- and generated a denial movement that we are only now beginning to overcome. The science is too arcane to expect voters to be able to assess. This is the standard procedure in democratic societies where short-term politics dominates.

I'm nevertheless hopeful that a combination of developments will rescue us (even though places like Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta may be doomed. We know what is coming, so reasonable governments put their development effort into cities protected from rising oceans and discourage or ban development on the ocean itself (except for things like salt pans and shrimp cultivation).

Then there is the fact that oil and even natural gas prices should be rising relative to other costs, although technology predictably has come along to delay this process, at least oil may be pushed largely out of the picture. Finally, a lot of both public and private money is being put into solar and other replacement technologies and things like electric cars and natural gas trucks that may mitigate it.

Frank you have strayed into conspiracy ravings. The proposals of climate scientists are based on evidence and go far further than any of the weak offerings from politicians of the left. The denial is a response to the fact that the science challenges vested interests and the tactics follow a well worn path which has been followed by all threatened vested interests.

Nothing has been over stated - quite the opposite since the trajectory of climate change has been far worse than any of the early predictions envisaged.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ozone problem and the global warming problem should not be confused. They are different things with different chemicals involved and different effects. It looks that the ozone problem will go away or at least not get out of control because the chemicals involved are relatively easy to just simply ban.

Banning the emission of co2 along with other greenhouse gases (methane, etc.) is not in the cards; the world is too dependent and has too much infrastructure based on their use.

What seems to have happened is that politicians of the left decided to make political hay out of it, rather than making responsible proposals -- to use scare tactics rather than being accurate in their warnings -- and generated a denial movement that we are only now beginning to overcome. The science is too arcane to expect voters to be able to assess. This is the standard procedure in democratic societies where short-term politics dominates.

I'm nevertheless hopeful that a combination of developments will rescue us (even though places like Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta may be doomed. We know what is coming, so reasonable governments put their development effort into cities protected from rising oceans and discourage or ban development on the ocean itself (except for things like salt pans and shrimp cultivation).

Then there is the fact that oil and even natural gas prices should be rising relative to other costs, although technology predictably has come along to delay this process, at least oil may be pushed largely out of the picture. Finally, a lot of both public and private money is being put into solar and other replacement technologies and things like electric cars and natural gas trucks that may mitigate it.

Frank, you are correct about ozone depletion and warming due to CO2 being different effects. The only similarity is that in both cases man can be seen influencing the environment. Unfortunately, unlike in the case of ozone depletion, where banning CFC's has improved the problem, I have read that, even if CO2 emissions were reduced to 0, the ocean's have already warmed too much to prevent sea level rise due melting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The melting ice and the drop in salinity of the ocean waters are causing something more concerning in the short term sense of the word disaster ~

Related topics

Dead zones are hypoxic . . . areas in the world's oceans and large lakes, caused by ``excessive nutrient pollution from human activities coupled with other factors that deplete the oxygen required to support most marine life in bottom and near-bottom water. Wikipedia

Explore: Hypoxia

Aquatic and marine dead zones can be caused by an increase in chemical nutrients . . . in the water, known as eutrophication. Wikipedia

Explore: Eutrophication

. . . the Gulf of Mexico's dead zone, off the coast of Louisiana and Texas, is the largest hypoxic zone in the United States. Wikipedia

Explore: Gulf of Mexico

~

Edited by third_eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ that is frightening. Dying oceans is a very bad thing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its how all the mass extinctions happened.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so bro? the oceans have become nearly lifeless before.. and Revived ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so bro? the oceans have become nearly lifeless before.. and Revived ?

CO2 spiking is generally the trigger. This causes acidification which makes many of the zooplankton unable to form shells which causes a collapse of the bottom of the food chain. Anoxic conditions go hand in hand since warmed surface waters carry less oxygen which makes it difficult for phytoplankton to survive which leads to less uptake of CO2 and less O2 production. This becomes a vicious cycle of ever reducing ocean primary productivity.

The system only recovers subsequently when external factors such as the Milankovich cycle leads to a overlayed cooling trend which allow the dead zones to start to shrink and the CO2 to be reaborbed by the biosphere.

The oceans represent the bulk of the biosphere and anything which effects their balance and productivity will have significant effects on the land which relies on the oceans for its nutrient cycling and its oxygen production. This is why small changes in CO2 levels tend to amplify over time and can lead to large scale state changes within the whole planetary system.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.