6 ms·

This is a very important project. There is a joke in here about "why not wait 2 years for the ice to melt off if you wanted to look at the mud underneath?" But

This is a very important project. There is a joke in here about "why not wait 2 years for the ice to melt off if you wanted to look at the mud underneath?" But as the article states, "'This will change climate models because it redefines our basic understanding of how ice moves,' explains Dorthe Dahl-Jensen." Much, if not the majority, of climate science is the creation of models (differential equations mostly) that describe the "response to influence" of the big chunks of things that cause the climate on the planet. The better the model, the better able we are to guess what will happen next (which is sorely needed in a system where you cannot control the input variables by declaration). One of the big unknowns in the model is "where will the clouds show up?" That unknown stems from our understanding of the water capacity of air by temperature, the increase in air temperature leads to the air holding more water, and water is the basis for cloud formation. If the clouds form "low" they increase albedo and create colder temperatures, if they form "high" they act as a semi-mirrored surface and reflect light that has been reflected from the surface back down for another shot at generating heat. Much of the IPCC's work has been done in MATLAB[1,2] so if you have a reasonably powerful workstation you can play around with various initial conditions and settings yourself to see what might happen in the future. No matter what the far future holds, the near future holds more violent storms as storms are powered by the temperature differentials of the air, land, and sea. It is of note (for me, probably not for many others) that we don't have good models for how an ice age starts. There are a few papers that talk about ice ages being a response to warming (hit a tipping point, generate clouds, and get a "nuclear winter" scenario without the nuclear part). But much of the nuclear winter work has been refined and that scenario is generally considered unlikely AFAICT from what people seem to be publishing these days. Turco's work[3] and things that cite it are a good jumping off point if you want to read up on that. It isn't perfect because smoke/soot are not clouds (different albedo numbers, different cooling attributes) but the accumulation and dispersion of atmospheric obstructions is solid stuff. [1] Some code and information used to generate plots in the IPCC reports -- https://github.com/IPCC-WG1/Chapter-9 https://github.com/IPCC-WG1/Chapter-9 [2] Mathworks trying to get you to buy their climate data toolbox -- https://www.mathworks.com/discovery/climate-stress-testing.html https://www.mathworks.com/discovery/climate-stress-testing.h... [3] Climate and Smoke: an Appraisal of Nuclear Winter -- https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.11538069 https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.11538069

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
Wow, thanks for the links, this is really neat
earthscienceman 3y ago
You're adding important context but I would like to clarify something to highlight just how complex climate change really is. I also am going to make a few related comments, as I do most of my research on melt in Greenland. Full disclosure: I do know some of the people in this article but I have never been to eGRIP specifically. I will be in Greenland in a week nearby though. No matter what the far future holds, the near future holds more violent storms as storms are powered by the temperature differentials of the air, land, and sea. This is true, sort of. There's a lot nuance needed for this broad statement. In particular, "Arctic amplification" means that the pole-to-equator temperature gradient is actually weakening. If you were inclined to believe the covid lab leak theory you would also be inclined to jump on this and say "then the extreme storms are nonsense". However, what's really happening is that the waves in the upper atmosphere ("Rossby waves") are getting more wave-y. Which is really saying that additional energy from CO2 warming is resulting in stronger transport and more significant variability. It's not resulting in larger gradients. Although sometimes the gradients are also extreme. Climate is a question of two things, time scales and spatial scales. Dumping a bunch of CO2 in the atmosphere messes with both. I also want to point out that this isn't the first time a core has been dug to the bed of the Greenland ice sheet. It's also not the second. Some comments seem to be implying this. I have a bad taste for science reporting/announcements like this that fail to provide context. Of course this is important work but it's following up and improving on several previous deep core drilling experiments. We still have many samples from these previous cores. This is still a very good thing to research and will hopefully provide important new insight. But there is significant previous work it builds on [1]. And the title kind is vague enough that outsiders/the public might not understand that. Also also, to be a little vitriolic, the IPCC Matlab code is a crime against humanity and fuck Mathworks. [1]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210315165639.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210315165639.h...
- sleet_spotter 3y ago
  Also work on ice, though not with cores. Just 2nd'ing this as being a great point. Arctic amplification is fascinating and IMO understudied relative to its importance. The distinction I believe the article is trying to make around the "first-core-to-ground" sentiment, is that this is the first time a core has been drilled through the full thickness of an ice *stream*. These are regions of an ice sheet with very rapidly moving ice. Ice loss from ice streams may have a larger and more immediate impact on sea level than other regions in Greenland and Antarctica. However, I do not actually know whether this is the first core drill ed through an ice stream, but I'm assuming that was the article's intent.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago

Wow, thanks for the links, this is really neat

earthscienceman 3y ago

You're adding important context but I would like to clarify something to highlight just how complex climate change really is. I also am going to make a few related comments, as I do most of my research on melt in Greenland. Full disclosure: I do know some of the people in this article but I have never been to eGRIP specifically. I will be in Greenland in a week nearby though. No matter what the far future holds, the near future holds more violent storms as storms are powered by the temperature differentials of the air, land, and sea. This is true, sort of. There's a lot nuance needed for this broad statement. In particular, "Arctic amplification" means that the pole-to-equator temperature gradient is actually weakening. If you were inclined to believe the covid lab leak theory you would also be inclined to jump on this and say "then the extreme storms are nonsense". However, what's really happening is that the waves in the upper atmosphere ("Rossby waves") are getting more wave-y. Which is really saying that additional energy from CO2 warming is resulting in stronger transport and more significant variability. It's not resulting in larger gradients. Although sometimes the gradients are also extreme. Climate is a question of two things, time scales and spatial scales. Dumping a bunch of CO2 in the atmosphere messes with both. I also want to point out that this isn't the first time a core has been dug to the bed of the Greenland ice sheet. It's also not the second. Some comments seem to be implying this. I have a bad taste for science reporting/announcements like this that fail to provide context. Of course this is important work but it's following up and improving on several previous deep core drilling experiments. We still have many samples from these previous cores. This is still a very good thing to research and will hopefully provide important new insight. But there is significant previous work it builds on [1]. And the title kind is vague enough that outsiders/the public might not understand that. Also also, to be a little vitriolic, the IPCC Matlab code is a crime against humanity and fuck Mathworks. [1]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210315165639.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210315165639.h...

sleet_spotter 3y ago
Also work on ice, though not with cores. Just 2nd'ing this as being a great point. Arctic amplification is fascinating and IMO understudied relative to its importance. The distinction I believe the article is trying to make around the "first-core-to-ground" sentiment, is that this is the first time a core has been drilled through the full thickness of an ice *stream*. These are regions of an ice sheet with very rapidly moving ice. Ice loss from ice streams may have a larger and more immediate impact on sea level than other regions in Greenland and Antarctica. However, I do not actually know whether this is the first core drill ed through an ice stream, but I'm assuming that was the article's intent.