Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

news.ku.dk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 356 posts

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#331

Post by arp242 »

rsynnott wrote: post #306
arp242 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all of the glaciers were predicted to have melted 3 years ago I don't think any mainstream models predicted that? Which model was that? Also remember that our actions are influenced by models. "If current trends persist, then in 20 years [...]" may very well be true, but if we take action based on those predictions (e.g. change the trend) then the outcome will be different. You can see this clearly in population le…

Also, the ozone holes, acid rain, and things like Y2K. “This thing would have been very bad, but we (expensively, with great effort) fixed it, so it was okay” somehow becomes, in the public imagination, “this was not a real thing”.

Yup, loads of examples! I really like the population levels of threatened species because the charts for that are so incredible concrete and demonstrate the point very well in a very concise manner. Something like Y2K or acid rain is a lot less concrete.

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#332

Post by wheelerof4te »

saltymug76 wrote: post #323
wheelerof4te wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the evidence of human effect on the climate change? There is a huge effect on pollution, but hardly any on the global climate.

Considering the rapid rise in temperature on a relatively miniscule geological timescale, I'd be more interested to see evidence that it's not a manmade phenomenon.

There's a huge increase of human population living in very large cities, when compared to 100 years ago. Especially in China and India.

Of course the people will feel the local rise of temperature in asphalt-ridden and industry-polluted streets. It's logical.

This does not mean that global climate has changed.

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#333

Post by samstave »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #259
samstave wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would seem to me, that the best way to do long-scale climate models of a body ; knowing its composition in layers over time is really important to be able to calculate the flow of the layers of composition as particles. Think of the experiment of light as wave/particle... Glacial/geological scales operate as thus ; as physical masses of particles, but move in more wave-like manners - so you'll have material suspen…

Perhaps? Not sure I'm following the methodology you're suggesting. Most (perhaps all?) of the climate models I've read about or played with are based on energy balance. (energy in vs energy out) Start with Solar insolation (energy in) then subtract all the ways that energy leaves the planet (reflection and radiatively from the atmosphere.) Then add that the planet is its own heat source (molten core and all that) and…

This is off the top of my head ;;

We could use a reverse-mycelium method of acruateley mapping actual climate change, as opposed to NRO satellites with filter information.

Create a sensor (this is the reverse mycelium part) - which is effectively the FRUIT of the mycelium plant - the Mushroom.

These sensors havea range of features, but they measure aspests of soils, light, air quality, etc...

And they look like solar garden lights - but they then talk back to a system whereby they all compare notes - the Mycelium - and adjust and then are read to predict the patterns based on inputs from the other sensors of windflow with particulate...

YES this is what the NRO and the NROAA(?) [people that look from space] do - but here you just start deploying such systems such as PURPLE air monitors do...

Or adding features to those...

I think we can have a much more fine-tuned climate model if the air sensors were made larger, deeper penetrating into the earth and be able to correlate a bunch more standard measurements we typically take for a specific are (Ph, moisture, elements that can be detected, rainfall, etc - we need "smart land bouys"

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#334

Post by ChuckMcM »

brutusborn wrote: post #320
ChuckMcM wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps? Not sure I'm following the methodology you're suggesting. Most (perhaps all?) of the climate models I've read about or played with are based on energy balance. (energy in vs energy out) Start with Solar insolation (energy in) then subtract all the ways that energy leaves the planet (reflection and radiatively from the atmosphere.) Then add that the planet is its own heat source (molten core and all that) and…

Based on the criticisms I’ve seen, the melting ice / volcanism theory isn’t true. That result didn’t pop out of existing climate models, it was an effect they explicitly made a domain specific model to look for. This is how most climate models are made - bespoke models for a small application using other global models as boundary conditions. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AGUFM.G53B0673L/abstra...

Excellent link, added it to my papers collection!

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#335

Post by aeroman »

credit_guy wrote: post #300
aeroman wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a "cloud person", I just want to add a few things to the description of how clouds affect the climate (and why high clouds have a wamring effect). All clouds are white, so they all reflect sunlight back into space (during the day), cooling the Earth. All clouds are (almost) black in the infra-red, meaning the amount of energy they emit in the infra-red is determined by their temperature. Colder clouds emit less en…

I have a question for a cloud person, maybe you can answer it. When it rains, where does the latent heat go? The latent heat of evaporation (or condensation) is absolutely huge. Condensation means heat is released. I did a back of the envelope calculation. 2 mm daily rainfall x 500 million km2 = 10^15 kg; each kg of water holds 2.26 MJ of latent heat, and there are 86400 seconds in a day, so that's 26.15 W, so overal…

It heats up the atmosphere and eventually gets emitted back into space!

For the Earth's temperature to remain approximately constant, the energy leaving the system (as infra-red) has to balance the energy entering the system (as sunlight).

The atmosphere is almost transparent to visible light, so sunlight doesn't really heat the atmosphere at all, it mostly heats the surface.

In contrast, the atmosphere is mostly opaque to infra-red (apart from the 'window region' at about 10um), which means energy is mostly emitted from higher levels in the atmosphere.

This means that you have to have a way of getting energy from the surface (were it effectively 'arrives') to higher levels in the atmosphere (where it can leave the Earth system again. Latent heat is an important way for this to happen - you can see it in this figure, showing how energy flows in the Earth system

https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/earth%E2%80%9...

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#336

Post by aeroman »

this_steve_j wrote: post #302
seattle_spring wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread likely reads very interestingly for those with the "Cloud to Butt" [1] chrome plugin [1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cloud-to-butt-plus...

I didn’t install the plug-in, but made a mental substitution and reread the thread. Now I am chuckling like a grade schooler over some madlibs and dribbled coffee down my shirt.

Maybe I should describe my job differently...

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#337

Post by aeroman »

crznp wrote: post #222
aeroman wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a "cloud person", I just want to add a few things to the description of how clouds affect the climate (and why high clouds have a wamring effect). All clouds are white, so they all reflect sunlight back into space (during the day), cooling the Earth. All clouds are (almost) black in the infra-red, meaning the amount of energy they emit in the infra-red is determined by their temperature. Colder clouds emit less en…

That's interesting. How relevant is energy transport in comparison to the optical effects? Eg: my understanding is that hurricanes are net cooling because they transport heat from the ocean surface to the upper atmosphere. Presumably the same can be said for cumulonimbus/thunderheads? Or perhaps it is more relevant when they form in the day and when they dissipate at night?

This is related to my reply above, but clouds in general move heat upwards in the atmosphere through latent heating.

When you evaporate water from the surface, you cool it (like sweating keeps you cool). This water vapour is then lifted by convection until it cools enough to condense and form a cloud. As the water vapour condenses, the opposite happens and it heats the atmosphere locally (this further invigorates the convection)

Once you have condensed enough water (and the water droplets/crystals are large enough), you form precipitation. This falls back to the surface (some evaporates along the way), where the process starts again.

This transporting of energy through the water cycle is an important component of how energy moves in the Earth system - you can see it on this figure as 'latent heating', moving energy away from the surface at something like 80Wm^-2

https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/earth%E2%80%9...

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#338

Post by samstave »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #259
samstave wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would seem to me, that the best way to do long-scale climate models of a body ; knowing its composition in layers over time is really important to be able to calculate the flow of the layers of composition as particles. Think of the experiment of light as wave/particle... Glacial/geological scales operate as thus ; as physical masses of particles, but move in more wave-like manners - so you'll have material suspen…

Perhaps? Not sure I'm following the methodology you're suggesting. Most (perhaps all?) of the climate models I've read about or played with are based on energy balance. (energy in vs energy out) Start with Solar insolation (energy in) then subtract all the ways that energy leaves the planet (reflection and radiatively from the atmosphere.) Then add that the planet is its own heat source (molten core and all that) and…

>>reducing the weight of ice (by melting) increases volcanic activity kinds of things

Thank you! I was literally just thinking about how hydro-geologics(?) have an impact on the earth - e.g ;;

Do lunar tidal forces affect frozen water differently than liquid water, salt water, fresh water - if the waters have a homogenoius gravitational density for each state - then the state of these will affect lunar pulls? given each's volumes geo distributed around the globe? (the solutions affect the volume - so does a cubic meter of saline, vs sea, vs, bottled, vs spring waters have a different gravitational mass - so the distribution of the various states in global scale qty may have some impact on earths (spin?Wobble?Tides?Climate?)

/sci-fi - thanks for letting me think that out loud.

Thus as the climate changes, the wobble changes, thus the prescession, etc...

?

I wonder if you were to suspend spheres of water in different solutiuons or states inside the giant antarctic neutrino detector - with sensors for each sphere, if you would have different readings of the neutrino interactions...

So basically an array of neutrino-reflectors - such that if you detect a neutrino into the ice array - then it goes through another material sphere (whichever medium your choice is) and then the output from there....

That would be interesting to see how to affect neutrino behavior on a materials basis... and if you can LLM the heck out of all data - you get the idea...

--

So if you can aside from detecting neutrinos - you have hover materials with aversion or fondness...

point is that one may be able to take ingress, inflection/reflection (through material substance types) and learn how to reflect and steer neutrinos - unless they 100% peice their normal regardless of any input.?)

(can they be captured?

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#339

Post by ChuckMcM »

worldmerge wrote: post #325
ChuckMcM wrote: post #41

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…

I would like to ask in general to the group. How do I get a job doing field work? Like working on sensors but then also going outside and working and doing analysis?

Become a grad student or post doc? Alternatively you could get a doctorate in the science of your choice and then join and agency that is using that science in its mission.

Re: Ice core scientists in East Greenland reach bedrock

#340

Post by dredmorbius »

pmayrgundter wrote: post #329
dredmorbius wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia cites a range of 2,000 -- 13,000 km^3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_volcanic_erupt... > As for the gaseous component of ejecta: Water vapour is consistently the most abundant volcanic gas, normally comprising more than 60% of total emissions. Carbon dioxide typically accounts for 10 to 40% of emissions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_gas > Citing: H. Sigurdsson et al. (2000) Encyclo…

Good finds. Thanks! Yeah, it's the comparison between DRE and Gas ejecta that got me bogged down before. Having now given up, I asked ChatG4. It says "the mass ratio between DRE and gaseous emissions might be on the order of 20:1 to 100:1", no citations ofc. So, just as a strawman and using your 10-40%, on the low end .01 .1 = 0.001, high end .05 .4 = 0.02. So .1%-2% of ejecta by mass is CO2 emissions. Hah :) Using m…

DRE == dense rock equivalent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense-rock_equivalent>

Post reply on HN