Greenland ice sheet is disintegrating

34 comments on “Greenland ice sheet is disintegrating ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Byd0nz 1

   28 August 2020 at 7:52 pm

   I can hear the voice of Private Fraser of Dads Army: "We're doomed"
   • lprent 1.1

     28 August 2020 at 11:08 pm

     Or you could learn some science and not be a ignorant meathead all of your life ?
2. Pat 2

   28 August 2020 at 7:58 pm

   Believe there was a similar conclusion re Antarctic ice sheets last year.
   • lprent 2.1

     28 August 2020 at 11:13 pm

     The eastern ice sheet still looks pretty stable. There are only about two ice streams off it that are increasing in velocity. The only real warning sign there is that there is an increased snow deposition. That tends to indicate that the circum-Antarctica jetstream is leaking more than has been the case since the geophysical year.

     But there isn't enough of a baseline to indicate if those are significiant or not.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1

       29 August 2020 at 2:06 am

       The eastern ice sheet still looks pretty stable.

       Yeah, not any more. Published four days ago we have

       East Antarctic melting hotspot identified

       Ice is melting at a surprisingly fast rate underneath Shirase Glacier Tongue in East Antarctica due to the continuing influx of warm seawater into the Lützow-Holm Bay.

       And from two days ago:

       A new study says that many of the ice shelves ringing Antarctica could be vulnerable to quick destruction if rising temperatures drive melt water into the numerous fractures that currently penetrate their surfaces. The shelves help slow interior glaciers' slide toward the ocean, so if they were to fail, sea levels around the world could surge rapidly as a result.

       Bad news all round for the globe's large ice sheets.
3. Grafton Gully 3

   28 August 2020 at 8:16 pm

   Loss of the ice sheet would surely make prospecting and mining easier long term.

   https://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=59#:~:text=Greenland%20has%20many%20rich%20mineral,diamonds%2C%20platinum%2C%20and%20uranium

   And thinking long term has form.

   https://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/thought-leadership/wharton-at-work/2018/08/long-term-thinking/#:~:text=But%20there%20is%20growing%20evidence,environment%2C%20and%20richly%20reward%20shareholders

   NATO support may be required

   "Greenland remains a full member of the Council of Europe and NATO."

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Greenland#:~:text=Unlike%20Denmark%2C%20Greenland%20is%20no,Council%20of%20Europe%20and%20NATO
   • lprent 3.1

     28 August 2020 at 11:21 pm

     Probably why Trump keeps wanting to trade Puerto Rico for Greenland. He probably thinks that he can rename it Trumpland and in 300 years he'd be able to mind the interior.

     It will take a while before the interesting areas can be accessed. Any mining would have to be offshore or coastal for quite a while.

     Of course it'd be one of the more interesting places on earth to put in a mine because the weather there will be interesting for a quite a few centuries.
4. Stuart Munro 4

   28 August 2020 at 10:30 pm

   Apparently 50cm of sea level rise will displace 30% of Bangladesh – but NZ will not be well placed to receive them, because we will have to help many Pacific peoples for whom we have more direct responsibility.

   We really need to be making some fairly serious preparation – climate events on this scale are considered major factors in things like the bronze age collapse and the great drought that closed the era of the ancestral pueblo people.
5. Jackel 5

   28 August 2020 at 10:31 pm

   Never before in the history of humanity have so many human brains solved so little.
   • Stuart Munro 5.1

     29 August 2020 at 5:50 am

     Never before in the history of the world had such mass of human beings moved and suffered together. This was no disciplined march it was a stampede, without order and without a goal, six million people unarmed and unprovisioned driving headlong. It was the beginning of the end of civilization, of the massacre of mankind.

     The War of The Worlds H G Wells / Jeff Wayne
6. RedLogix 6

   28 August 2020 at 10:31 pm

   A good and timely post Lynn. I think I first posted here on the science predictions for the Ice caps almost 8 years ago. Well the day has arrived when the predictions became grim reality; a reality none can take pleasure in.

   Somewhere in between the denier tropes that would have us take no action, and the alarmist screeching that we have to shut the human system down in order to save it …. I'm interested in actions that will work for both the planet and for us.

   Without exception every durable human transition has at it's root a step change in how we harvest, accumulate and utilise energy. This means hyper-energising a new global civilisation. This is the fundamental consideration, that in order to progress beyond the current trap, we need the next step change, from the limited one based on carbon stored by photosythesis, to one based directly on the fuel of the stars themselves. This is the path forward, and it lies right at hand if only we can look with open eyes:

   A short 12 min excerpt from the very excellent documentary "Thorium. The Far Side of Nuclear Power.":

   
   
   
   • SPC 6.1

     28 August 2020 at 11:18 pm

     Some would say the problem will be feeding people with less arable land available – with the loss of land close to rivers into the sea to salination.

     Others will note that other land will come into production with GW – but for mine as much land will be lost as gained from GW. And then the dislocation with transition to global production and supply chains means that for some time it is also a negative impact.

     The immediate problem however will be the need for greater food reserves to cope with climate change impacts.

     Certainly this will be the issue before power generation availability.

     But as for transition away from carbon energy, nuclear is an option. So is storage of more variable power supply to make greater use more practical. As well as investment in efficient use.

     When the world prints money to solve GW issues, rather than to save banks from the GFC or to keep the public economy afloat while lives and health systems are protected – then and only then will real action be taken.

     Capitalism and its debt to government is the threat to our civilisation
     • lprent 6.1.1

       28 August 2020 at 11:28 pm

       Others will note that other land will come into production with GW …

       Climate change transitions tend to cause pretty chaotic weather effects that last decades. Our current agricultural patterns aren't very good at handling chaotic weather.

       Transition times for soil shifts can also take quite some time.
       • SPC 6.1.1.1

         28 August 2020 at 11:31 pm

         Sure.

         The Russians and Canadians are the optimists. They both have carbon and they have a lot of cold areas.
     • RedLogix 6.1.2

       28 August 2020 at 11:37 pm

       Capitalism and its debt to government is the threat to our civilisation

       The same old boring trope since Marx; a dead end. Political economy is merely the expression of what is possible; and without energy nothing is possible.

       It is science, technology and engineering which makes everything about the modern world possible, and at every step energy is involved in the story. Often in subtle and complex ways that are not immediately obvious. And certainly not obvious to our ancestors prior to the fossil carbon age who had no inkling of what marvels were possible when we burned coal in a high efficiency steam boiler.

       Well the same applies to us; we have no real idea of what is possible in our future if we unfettered ourselves from the bankrupt old orthodoxy's and took the next step; abundant, cheap and clean energy from nuclear sources that are safe, stable and efficient.

       The simple truth is that if Nixon's administration had not made the fatal error of cancelling the MSR-E program in the 1960's we would not be here having this conversation. The CC problem would have been solved decades ago, but we didn't because ideology overrode reality at the crucial moment.

       Climate change is real, it's a science and engineering problem. Lead with the science, the evidence and the data … and the politics will follow.
       • SPC 6.1.2.1

         29 August 2020 at 12:01 am

         Nuclear is not as cheap as carbon (even without the waste safety matter).

         How is non carbon energy afforded? Who affords it? And for whom?

         Solve that and then evidence led science is in the game.
         • RedLogix 6.1.2.1.1

           29 August 2020 at 12:19 am

           Nuclear is not as cheap as carbon (even without the waste safety matter).

           The old Pressurised Water technology became more expensive in the US because it became insanely over-regulated. In a number of other countries PWR reactors continued to be viable, delivering reliable affordable power at scale, despite it’s fundamental limitations.

           The goal of all the new generation reactors, and in particular the Molten Salt types is to be substantially cheaper than carbon. The fundamental engineering considerations make this a highly realistic goal, and a number of companies have programs well on track.

           PWR reactors that use solid fuel are very inefficient and create more waste volume than necessary. By contrast reactor designs where the fuel is in liquid form can easily consume 99% or better of all the fuel and actinides, resulting in a much lower volume of relatively safe material that only needs storing for a few hundred years at most. There are many places in the world where deep geological storage can achieve this safely and cheaply.

           (Almost all process technologies deal with materials in a liquid or gaseous form. Handling solid materials is extremely inefficient and cumbersome. The ORNL MSR-E reactor used to be sniffingly referred to by outside agencies as a ‘chemist’s reactor’, but in truth this was always it’s great strength.)

           Solve that and then evidence led science is in the game.

           There is a growing number of people, me included, who having looked at the actual science, have completely changed their mind on nuclear power. It's the best bet we have for navigating out of the CC trap.
           • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.1.1.1

             29 August 2020 at 2:13 am

             IMO, nuclear is not an option in NZ. There's a good reason for them being called the Shaky Isles and, as we've learned, shaking a nuclear power station isn't a good idea.

             Wouldn't say no to nuclear powered ships though. They'd be okay unless they got caught in harbour during a tsunami.
             • RedLogix …

               29 August 2020 at 9:31 am

               In the medium term NZ is in the rare position of not needed nuclear for electricity. I'm perfectly happy for us to extend our renewables within reason.

               However it's a complete misconception to imagine that nuclear power plants are inherently fragile. Current generation PWR designs are incredibly overbuilt from an earthquake perspective. The containment dome is designed to withstand the much greater forces involved in the event of a massive steam leak.

               I've personally been literally inside of a large industrial machine during an earthquake violent enough to throw me off my feet. Scary as hell, but afterwards we found zero damage and the entire plant restarted with nothing but some repairs to a few peripheral things like air handling ducts. The massive amount of steel and highly reinforced concrete that I was surrounded with meant that I was actually in the safest possible place.

               In the Sendai earthquake in Japan every single reactor in the entire country was automatically and safely scrammed before the operators even knew there was a quake. Sensors picked up the fast P-wave and dropped the control rods, stopping all fission, long before anyone was aware of the quake.

               The inherent flaw of all PWR reactors is however that they are not 'walk away safe'. If you park your car and turn it off, it will safely sit there doing nothing until you need it next. Large utility scale PWR reactors by contrast need a continuous flow of coolant for the next 24 – 72 hrs in order to avoid heat damage due to the residual reactivity from the fission products. Earthquakes threaten the security of the electricity supply needed to run these coolant flow pumps. Failure of this coolant flow was the root cause of the infamous Three Mile Island and Fukushima events.

               The man who has his name on the patent for the PWR reactor, Alvin Weinberg, actually understood this. His 1940's design worked well at small scales in submarines, but he foresaw this thermal vulnerability long before anyone else did. And then got ignored when he challenged the wisdom of relying on PWR reactors when scaled up to 1000's MW. With the passing of time he has been absolutely vindicated.

               Instead Alvin headed down the path of Molten Salt reactors. Whether the fuel is thorium or uranium it doesn't matter. The crucial points are these:

               1. The fuel is already liquid, it cannot undergo a dangerous 'meltdown'.
               2. The reactor has zero water inside of it. Steam explosions are designed out. This eliminates the requirement for the huge and expensive conventional containment dome.
               3. The ionic salts are chemically highly stable. Sodium and chlorine are dangerous elements, yet we sprinkle their common salt onto our food. In liquid flouride salts all the radioactive fission products (such as cesium and iodine) are similarly bound to the solution. They cannot be dispersed as volatiles as a steam explosion would.
               4. Unlike a solid fuel reactor, when a liquid fuel reaction increases in temperature the reactivity of the core decreases. This makes them exceedingly easy to control, and I say this as an automation engineer. The guys who ran the ORNL MSR-E reactor for over 6,000 hrs in the 1960's described running it as 'boring'.
               5. Every Friday afternoon the ORNL team shut the reactor down by turning off the cooling fans on the core 'freeze plug', which would then melt, and drain under gravity into dump tanks that were designed to both ensure zero chain reaction by geometry, and passively cool by itself. No power or pumps needed. Then they'd go home for the weekend and start the whole thing up on Monday morning. Essentially they did an 'emergency core dump' every weekend for several years. Worked every time.
               6. And finally, perhaps most importantly, unlike a PWR reactor, molten salt reactors operate at very low pressures, just above atmospheric. This eliminates a huge range of expensive engineering challenges and makes the entire thing self-repairing in the unlikely event of a leak. All that would happen is the salt would dribble out and then immediately freeze into a solid. No dispersion, no need to evacuate the region. The unit itself would need cleaning up, but it's an contained and manageable problem, and a highly unlikely event anyway.

               At each and every point above, we have a design that is now inherently ‘walk away safe’. Everything about the molten salt technology is different to the conventional nuclear paradigm we became accustomed to. Of course no technology is without it's challenges, and MSR's are no different. They still demand sound engineering and close regulatory control. But the core idea was thoroughly tested by Alvin Weinburg's team at ORNL in the 1960's. It's time we caught up with him.
             • RedLogix …

               29 August 2020 at 10:47 am

               And here is a highly readable paper outlining in more detail the points I make above.

               Conclusion:

               Safety of MSRs are reviewed and assessment compared to conventional solid fueled LWRs. MSRs are safer and more stable since they don't reach high enough temperatures for meltdown (since the fuel is in a molten state) and the primary system is at a low operating pressure even at high temperature, due to the high boiling point (∼ 1400 °C at atmospheric pressure) and therefore do not require expensive containment or highly pressurized hot water. The MSR is not subject to safety concerns from chemical or mechanical violent reactions or explosions. The basic features of MSRs give the solutions for many problems for others solid fueled light water reactors, and eliminate the reasons for serious last accidents like TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima and more of basis and severe accidents will be decreased and limited.
               • Richard …

                 29 August 2020 at 11:45 am

                 Thank you for that link and your point by point summary.

                 The main takeaway for me though is what you point out above:

                 "…in order to progress beyond the current trap, we need the next step change…".

                 There needs to be an order of magnitude increase in clean energy production in order for humanity to thrive and decrease its environmental footprint. Only with the inclusion of next generation nuclear is there any realistic hope of achieving this.
           • SPC 6.1.2.1.1.2

             30 August 2020 at 10:28 pm

             The British chose – Hinkley Point – to guarantee to pay a high cost for the power. Not cheaper than carbon or (variable) renewables.

             The French seem to be continuing with the pressurised water reactors (moving to 3rd generation as they decommission older ones, albeit reducing the amount of power from nuclear sources – also looking to exporting small reactors).

             https://energypost.eu/will-france-spoil-its-nuclear-future-for-short-term-political-gain/

             With nuclear power type cost competitive in terms of price has to factor in cost of capital to build, corporates would want a rate of return on the investment to bother. Factors influencing this would be carbon taxation (or lack of) and subsidy for renewables.

             The availability of government loans for capital cost would change the game.

             How is non carbon energy afforded? Who affords it? And for whom? Solve that and then evidence led science is in the game.

             Most interested atm in the reactors you mention seems to be India.
             • RedLogix …

               30 August 2020 at 11:56 pm

               The Hinkley Point project has absolutely nothing to do with the MSR reactor types I am talking about. It's costs are irrelevant to my argument.

               Announced on Aug 1 this year is a MOU between ThorCon and the Indonesian govt for a small 50MW pilot scale MSR. The approach here is completely different to the old PWR designs like Hinkley Point.

               The EPC (Engineering, Procument and Construction) company is a large Sth Korean shipyard who have the in house capacity to manufacture units at their own facility and then literally ship them by sea to the end-users.

               Secondly, and this is also critically important to the economics, the temperature that MSR's operate at is typically around 750 degC. By contrast PWR's are limited by the properties of water to about 350 degC. This means the conventional PWR's powered plants must use special large diameter steam turbine type that are only used in these plants. They is only one manufacturer of them, and then in very low numbers, and they are hellish expensive. It's not well understood that in conventional PWR plants some 85% of the total costs are in the balance of plant outside of the reactor, because everything is so specialised. The nuclear qualified cooling pumps that are needed are incredibly expensive (I know I used to work for a vendor that made them in the US). The control systems are triple redundant, highly specialised and expensive. All through the plant the same story repeats over and over, because the industry has been forced to layer multiple levels of redundant systems and protection, to cover for the fundamental limitations of using water in the nuclear core.

               But because MSR's operate at much higher temperatures, very similar to a standard coal or gas boiler, all of the balance of plant equipment is bog standard and commonplace. Even when you go to fancy super-critical turbines for maximum efficiency, there are still many vendors lining up for the job. Most of the critical controls and layers of redundancy are simply not needed; the entire plant has a totally different safety demand profile.

               And the biggest ticket item of all, the huge containment dome necessary on the old PWR’s, and made by only one manufacturer in Japan, is simply not needed.

               The whole of ThorCon's approach is to manufacture power plants in factories using industry standard methods and materials, and then ship them to site, which is most cases will be nothing more than a sheltered sea dock and some power infrastructure to connect to. This is a far cheaper approach than the traditional site construction methods the industry has used in the past.

               Again everything about MSR's is different to the old paradigm, and that includes their economics.
       • SPC 6.1.2.2

         29 August 2020 at 1:03 am

         In reference to Nixon he seems to have changed his mind (possibly because of rising carbon prices and supply concerns) and was supporting nuclear power in 1973.

         https://atomicinsights.com/why-did-richard-nixon-so-strongly-endorse-nuclear-energy-in-april-1973/

         Carter's decision in 1977 was the decisive one.

         https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/
         • RedLogix 6.1.2.2.1

           29 August 2020 at 9:47 am

           Alvin Weinburg clearly stated that it was Nixon's administration that defunded and shut down the MSR-E program in the late 1960's. In particular an especially odious and probably corrupt man called Milton Shaw was at the centre of the matter.

           Nixon and his mates wanted to pork barrel a 'fast breeder reactor' design that was being built in Southern California, and shut down the ORNL machine to divert funds to it. It turned out very expensive, very complicated and ultimately a total failure. But it got Nixon votes. A good example of why putting politics ahead of science is always a bad idea.

           Your link to the proliferation issue is a reasonable one. There is ongoing debate over whether the thorium/protactinium/uranium cycle is more or less prone to weapons production than the conventional uranium/plutonium cycle. The point that the article misses however is that U-233 (the isotope of concern) is an intense gamma emitter and readily detectable by satellite sensors anywhere on earth. If a bad actor did attempt such a project it would be not only highly dangerous to the individuals handling the material, but obvious to authorities everywhere.

           And finally while molten salt reactors and thorium fuel are often associated, they are two separate things. It’s entirely feasible to do a conventional uranium cycle in a MSR, and indeed this is the path at least one of the next gen companies is pursuing.
           • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.2.1.1

             29 August 2020 at 1:06 pm

             A good example of why putting politics ahead of science is always a bad idea.

             Still say that legislation should conform to the known science. The free-lunch that farmers (and many other industries) have been getting for their polluting would be gone by lunchtime.
       • RedLogix 6.1.2.3

         29 August 2020 at 8:25 pm

         A brand new excerpt that includes crucial testimony on why the Nixon administration cancelled the MSR-E and Alvin Weinberg was fired from his role at ORNL for challenging the PWR industry on it's safety profile. Keep in mind this was an industry deliberately shunning the advice of the very man who had invented their design (for submarines) in the 1940’s.

         The consequences of this bad faith decision making are what we now call the climate change crisis. Ponder that.

         (And a correction to the above; it was in 1973. Not the late 1960's as I suggested above.)
7. PaddyOT 7

   28 August 2020 at 11:57 pm

   Reply re- NZ, Iprent

   Interesting recent links include the map link which gives a summary of predictions and impacts by regions.

   https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/likely-impacts-of-climate-change/how-could-climate-change-affect-my-region

   And this Climate Cloud site is more direct

   http://climatecloud.co.nz/
8. Draco T Bastard 8

   29 August 2020 at 1:19 am

   It has increased in rate significantly over the last two decades to the point that the current IPCC worst case is now the observed case.

   Hasn't that been true for every IPCC report for the last 20 years? The worst case scenario is the one that the world has been following despite the worst case supposedly being the most unlike when the projections were done.

   My guess is that the IPCC is going to have to change what its old worst case scenario is to make it the current scenario. God knows what the worst case scenario will then look like.

   And then, considering just how well we're doing to cut GHG emissions we'll likely follow that worst case scenario as well.

   I think we need to be planning on multiple metre rise in sea levels by the end of the century.
9. PsyclingLeft.Always 9

   29 August 2020 at 7:26 am

   Antarctic Ice melt bad…Arctic Ice melt worse…but the previously solidly frozen Siberian Tundra? Releasing Methane, which is a much worse Greenhouse Gas than CO2…

   National Geographic

   https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/arctic-permafrost-is-thawing-it-could-speed-up-climate-change-feature/

   NSIDC…Very Informative Site !

   https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html

   Scientists….we absolutely must listen to them…and ACTION !
10. PsyclingLeft.Always 10

    29 August 2020 at 7:42 am

    NSIDC

    https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
11. Maurice 11

    29 August 2020 at 8:22 am

    … and meanwhile the Earth is greening – the plants are loving the higher levels of FOOD – CO2
    • RedLogix 11.1

      29 August 2020 at 10:03 am

      In the long run plants (and most other life on earth) would adapt to higher levels of CO2. This kind of response is exactly why life is such a remarkably diverse and universal feature of our planet. Pretty much anywhere there is an energy source you will find some form of life adapted to exploit it.

      But this of course ignores that our present civilisation is highly adapted to a specific set of climatic and agricultural conditions that have obtained for at least the past 10,000 years. Our food supply systems are remarkably complex and sophisticated and there is absolutely zero reason to think that a rapid (on evolutionary timescales) changes in climate and CO2 levels would have anything other than destructive.

      Sure in another 10,000 years we might well see a new Jurassic era, with an intense and thriving biosphere. But if most of humanity starves inside the next 100 years due to climate disruption, I'd not call this a win. You need a better plan.
12. PsyclingLeft.Always 12

    29 August 2020 at 8:27 am

    Plants Love CO2…..

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CO2_is_Green#More_carbon_dioxide_is_good

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS