Cold Winter THC Shutdown

[parmenides3]

So the fact that we won't freeze as we re-locate any-one living within the flooded zones (up to 25ft above present sea level) is supposed to reassure us eh? :lol:

I'm sure you realised, G-W, but in case others don't, the paper artificially created a GIS meltdown, to see what might happen. They didn't model such a thing. Still, I'd tend to invest in waders rather than snowshoes, for the time being.

By the way, a recent paper gave a meltdown of the entire GIS timescale, at current warming rates, at around 200-300 years, so I won't be expecting the sea-level rise just yet...

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

By the way, a recent paper gave a meltdown of the entire GIS timescale, at current warming rates, at around 200-300 years, so I won't be expecting the sea-level rise just yet...

P

I like your attempt to re-assure but I'm not too convinced that we know the 'current warming rates' as ,to me, it seems a very dynamic system at the moment. :lol:

If we take the rate of warming as that of the last 15yrs of warming then this is different from the past 50yrs of warming (our beloved 'Hockey stick') If the trend over the past 50 years gave the Time-scale then recent (past 15yrs) changes in the increase would have the melting providing significant cause for concern within our lifetimes. And who's to say the rate of warming isn't still increasing with even more potential for dramatic S.L. rises within our lifetimes?

[parmenides3]

I like your attempt to re-assure but I'm not too convinced that we know the 'current warming rates' as ,to me, it seems a very dynamic system at the moment. :lol:

If we take the rate of warming as that of the last 15yrs of warming then this is different from the past 50yrs of warming (our beloved 'Hockey stick') If the trend over the past 50 years gave the Time-scale then recent (past 15yrs) changes in the increase would have the melting providing significant cause for concern within our lifetimes. And who's to say the rate of warming isn't still increasing with even more potential for dramatic S.L. rises within our lifetimes?

Sorry, my previous post should have said 2000-3000 years, at current warming rates. The GIS is contributing about 2% of current sea-level rise. Even if temps in Greenland went through the roof and the rate of glacier acceleration increased five-fold, it wouls still only account for a small percentage of sea-level rise. I'll look up the numbers and suggest how much in while; the dog needs a walk.

For sudden, rapid and disastrous sea-level rise, we'd probably need a collapse of the Ross Shelf and the West Antarctic Ice Shelf behind it. This is possible, but again, not so likely in the next hundred years; recent analysis puts the odds at 25% in 100 years in a 'business as usual' CO2 scenario.

:)P

Edit: Here; I nicked this from Wiki.

Greenland contribution

Krabill et al. (Science, Vol 289, Issue 5478, 428-430, 21 July 2000) estimate a net contribution from Greenland to be at least 0.13 mm/yr in the 1990s. Joughin et al. (Nature, Vol 432, p608, December 2004) have measured a doubling of the speed of Jacobshavn Isbrae between 1997 and 2003. This is Greenland's largest-outlet glacier; it drains 6.5% of the ice sheet, and is thought to be responsible for increasing the rate of sea level rise by about 0.06 millimeters per year, or roughly 4% of the 20th century rate of sea level increase. [18] In 2004, Rignot et al. (Geophysical Research Letters, v31, L10401) estimated a contribution of 0.04±0.01 mm/yr to sea level rise from southeast Greenland.

Rignot and Kanagaratnam (Science, 311, pp. 986 et seq., 2006) produced a comprehensive study and map of the outlet glaciers and basins of Greenland. They found widespread glacial accleration below 66 N in 1996 which spread to 70 N by 2005; and that the ice sheet loss rate in that decade increased from 90 to 200 cubic km/yr; this corresponds to an extra 0.25 to 0.55 mm/yr of sea level rise.

In July 2005 it was reported [19] that the Kangerdlugssuaq glacier, on Greenland's east coast, was moving towards the sea three times faster than a decade earlier. Kangerdlugssuaq is around 1000 m thick, 7.2 km (4.5 miles) wide, and drains about 4% of the ice from the Greenland ice sheet. Measurements of Kangerdlugssuaq in 1988 and 1996 showed it moving at between 5 and 6 km/yr (3.1 to 3.7 miles/yr) (in 2005 it was moving at 14 km/yr (8.7 miles/yr).

According to the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, climate models project that local warming in Greenland will exceed 3 degrees Celsius during this century. Also, ice sheet models project that such a warming would initiate the long-term melting of the ice sheet, leading to a complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet over several millenia, resulting in a global sea level rise of about seven meters [20].

Edited October 9, 2006 by parmenides3

[coldfingers]

Can anyone tell me what is the relationship between the hole in the ozone layer and 'global warming'?

I only ask because I read somewhere that the hole was repairing itself and wondered whether this would have any effect of the climate.

[Gray-Wolf]

Can anyone tell me what is the relationship between the hole in the ozone layer and 'global warming'?

I only ask because I read somewhere that the hole was repairing itself and wondered whether this would have any effect of the climate.

The south pole's hole is bigger than ever this year but some-one posted that the Arctic hole was closing up!! I know about the south pole's hole but not the North!

[Calrissian]

Can anyone tell me what is the relationship between the hole in the ozone layer and 'global warming'?

I only ask because I read somewhere that the hole was repairing itself and wondered whether this would have any effect of the climate.

Hmm, these are largely entirely separate issues. Lack of ozone can be harmful for life. Global warming can change climate patterns, and where/how big the hole could be.

----

Calrissian: late night summaries

[drgl]

But does the hole have any baring on ice melt/temps?

[Mr Sleet]

But does the hole have any baring on ice melt/temps?

No. Just lets more UV through.