New Hurricane Record

[paul tall]

I think you'll find water at the base of the ice sheets in both Greenland and Anarctica. When you have 2 miles of ice above you the pressures you are dealing with leads to the liquid state of water being possible at very low temps, we even have 'super cooled water (as in clouds) to further muddy the issue. The friction of the movement of such fluids leads to further melting of the surrounding ice. The studies of sub-ice lakes in Anarctica even witnessed 2km of ice hoyed up 25m or so by hydrolic pressure alone (2003-2005).

As mentioned on the relavent thread Greeland and Antarctic ice will melt when it floats to water warm enough to do the job. The collapse leading to it's floatation is purely mechanical and not in the realm of temperature alone.

How on earth is liquid water under 2km of ice even relevant? If it exists now, it will have existed 10, 100, 1,000 years ago and the temperature 2km above would make no difference, if what you say is correct. Meanwhile, at the ice surface, its too cold to melt.

[Gray-Wolf]

How????? Take a glass of water, drop in a couple of ice cubes, draw a line on the glass to mark the water level, sit back and wait for the ice cubes to melt, now check the water level. Ice displaces it's own volume in water. FACT.

Greenland and Antarctica melting? The fringes of Greenland are melting in some places (as they have done in the past, including the 1930's&40's) - the interior is growing. Down south, the peninsula is melting, could be warmer oceans, could be volcanic influence as it's a very active area - regardless of cause the peninsula is not land based ice so will not cause levels to rise.

Jethro, you know full well that the ice sheets that 'feed' the peninsula are land based and current observations well document what happens once the 'buttress' that is the shelf is lost.

At present the basins affected are small but can we say the same of the Pine island/Wilkins basin? My pet topic (Ross) has recently also come into the debate (as it had too!!!) and even a moderate collapse their would put 10's of feet onto current sea levels over a matter of years (have you checked out 'my crack' recently? nice eh? )

[paul tall]

Ross? Tell me more.

[jethro]

Jethro, you know full well that the ice sheets that 'feed' the peninsula are land based and current observations well document what happens once the 'buttress' that is the shelf is lost.

At present the basins affected are small but can we say the same of the Pine island/Wilkins basin? My pet topic (Ross) has recently also come into the debate (as it had too!!!) and even a moderate collapse their would put 10's of feet onto current sea levels over a matter of years (have you checked out 'my crack' recently? nice eh? )

If's, but's and maybe's.....

If the temperature down here dropped from a balmy 3.4c to -7c but was accompanied by thick, heavy cloud, maybe we'd have a foot of snow; instead I look out the window at sunshine and rainy showers - business as usual then, nowt to panic about.........

Go find your sledge Ian and enjoy the day, stop worrying it's bad for your health.

[Gray-Wolf]

How on earth is liquid water under 2km of ice even relevant? If it exists now, it will have existed 10, 100, 1,000 years ago and the temperature 2km above would make no difference, if what you say is correct. Meanwhile, at the ice surface, its too cold to melt.

The moulins that are fundamental in shelf collapse (as they run from surface to base) are re-activated during the uppy downy motions that the filling/draining of the lakes provides. When a moulin forms it is torn appart by sub glacial landforms and the pressures on the lee side are enough to 'heal the wound' , not so when hoyed up , and domed, by water pressure. NASA's measurement of upland melt (1 mile up) across the TransAntarctic Mountains (2005 news release) would show that 2m temps are not the be all and end all of ice dynamics and help to further enlarge them on their way to the Ross shelf (also lessening their abilities to 'heal' by coating the surfaces with 'glaze').

To keep us vaguely on topic B13b was shattered by a storm surge generated an Ocean away in Alaska. Should we see a continuation of intensification of cyclones how long before we get more 'wilkins' type events driven by wave action alone?.

Jethro is only partly right regarding the peninsula as much of the ice is not 'floating' but 'grounded' well below sea level. Any 'floating of these shelves would lead to instant collapse due to the stresses that wave action would generate in them. Ross is also well below sea level and it appears that it is now being breached by sub ice water from behind (P.T's 'old news' water) and infront from the Ross sea. Seeing as the BAS measured a mile deep 'ruck' of 'tied up motion' behind Ross then how much longer before it's potential energy will be enough to overcome the inertia of the shelf? And thereafter???

[paul tall]

All very well and good, but basically the mechanics you've described there look like they are nowt to do with climate change anyway.

If the Ross Ice Shelf collapsed I'd be more worried about a tsunami.

Aaaaaaand, how much have the sea levels risen in the last 30 years? Can anybody give an answer to this?

[Gray-Wolf]

All very well and good, but basically the mechanics you've described there look like they are nowt to do with climate change anyway.

If the Ross Ice Shelf collapsed I'd be more worried about a tsunami.

Aaaaaaand, how much have the sea levels risen in the last 30 years? Can anybody give an answer to this?

two years at the 1880/1980 levels and 13 years at the 1980/2000 rates and then 5 years at a little above that. Do you know the rate of isostatic uplift along the NE coastline over the same period?. Aaaaaand from my time up at Sunderland I saw Roker beach extend back a good 5m in one section (and overnight!!!) so I do'nt know which bit of beach you play on but I bet it too has suffered areas of collapse. Go down as far as Scarborough and you can watch estates collapsing into the sea......some would say due to the changes in storms/sea level AGW has brought us Further south still and you have villages logged in the 'doomsday Book now 1km out to sea.....but then the SE is sinking as the NW of Scotland rises now all that pesky ice has shoved off........

[Admiral_Bobski]

two years at the 1880/1980 levels and 13 years at the 1980/2000 rates and then 5 years at a little above that. Do you know the rate of isostatic uplift along the NE coastline over the same period?. Aaaaaand from my time up at Sunderland I saw Roker beach extend back a good 5m in one section (and overnight!!!) so I do'nt know which bit of beach you play on but I bet it too has suffered areas of collapse. Go down as far as Scarborough and you can watch estates collapsing into the sea......some would say due to the changes in storms/sea level AGW has brought us Further south still and you have villages logged in the 'doomsday Book now 1km out to sea.....but then the SE is sinking as the NW of Scotland rises now all that pesky ice has shoved off........

But GW, the isostatic movement you're talking about is the result of deglaciation over the British Isles - something that happened many thousands of years ago. The weight of glaciers to the north of the British Isles literally pushed Scotland down and tipped Southern England up. Because of the speed of geological movements we are still rebounding from that deglaciation, which is why the south is "slipping into the sea". This is not sea level rise at all, but rather ground level fall. Nothing to do with AGW at all.

CB

[paul tall]

two years at the 1880/1980 levels and 13 years at the 1980/2000 rates and then 5 years at a little above that. Do you know the rate of isostatic uplift along the NE coastline over the same period?. Aaaaaand from my time up at Sunderland I saw Roker beach extend back a good 5m in one section (and overnight!!!) so I do'nt know which bit of beach you play on but I bet it too has suffered areas of collapse. Go down as far as Scarborough and you can watch estates collapsing into the sea......some would say due to the changes in storms/sea level AGW has brought us Further south still and you have villages logged in the 'doomsday Book now 1km out to sea.....but then the SE is sinking as the NW of Scotland rises now all that pesky ice has shoved off........

Britain is tipping a few cm every year. Nothing to do with global warning.

Bits of Scarborough falling into the sea? Erosion mate. Natural erosion. Never heard of it?

But hey, lets put it down to climate change.

Do you work in the climate change industry?

Do you have the measurement of sea level rise?

[Gray-Wolf]

But GW, the isostatic movement you're talking about is the result of deglaciation over the British Isles - something that happened many thousands of years ago. The weight of glaciers to the north of the British Isles literally pushed Scotland down and tipped Southern England up. Because of the speed of geological movements we are still rebounding from that deglaciation, which is why the south is "slipping into the sea". This is not sea level rise at all, but rather ground level fall. Nothing to do with AGW at all.

CB

Exactly! there will be a point in the Uk that ,by pure fluke, will appear to suffer no sea level rise as it rises at approximately the rate of the isostatic uplift. The point is to highlight that global sea levels are not like your bath, many factors are involved in the 'apparent' rate of change.

The fact that ocean basins take so long to redistribute any rapid inundations would mean that the Pacific basin would be temporarily spared from a Greenland collapse whereas the Atlantic basin would tend to bottle it all up for a while whilst it migrated across the other basins leading to more flooding for a while for us before the 'peak flooding' pulled back as the waters flowed out into the other oceans.

Folk have an overly simplified idea of the planet, nature is a complex beastie (I find).

[paul tall]

The parts of the UK that are sinking, coupled with the alledged sea level rise - that makes a double whammy if you like, should have seen some definite action in the last 20-30 years.

Where is the evidence of town A for example being, I dunno, 500 yards closer to the sea because the sea level has risen enough for the coast to disappear? I've seen no news reports to that effect.

[Cookie]

we seem to have moved away from hurricanes with this thread!

[pottyprof]

And I agree Cookie..

Can we please get back on topic.

Open a new thread if it doesn't fit in anywhere else.. You have that facility..

Ta muchly..

[jethro]

Back on topic, here's a report from Dr. William Gray:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Gray12-08.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

From 'Wikki';

"He is a controversial figure in the global warming debate, as he does not subscribe to anthropogenic causes for global warming."

Glad to see we are not 'weighting' our imputs

Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Though we are entering the 'second phase' of 'global dimming' the changes within the cryosphere alone will more than offset the 'sulphate sunscreen' that indo-china are assembling for us all......

I do not take kindly to folk who accuse us of 'brainwashing our children'....better ways of phrasing thing I feel.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

From 'Wikki';

"He is a controversial figure in the global warming debate, as he does not subscribe to anthropogenic causes for global warming."

Glad to see we are not 'weighting' our imputs

Oh for goodness sakes!! Firstly that would require "prior knowledge" - I didn't Wikki him, I read the report and thought you might find it interesting. Obviously the author means ALL his data and this report is drivel, despite coming from Colorado State University??

We either discuss all viewpoints from all sources (controversial or otherwise), look at all the evidence, weigh up all the data or we all individually open a thread, censor input from anyone else, and only allow posts from folk who agree and support our own individual take on this situation.

I'll happily do the former, count me out if it's the latter.

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry Jethro , not the best post I've ever made.

I do think that your 'direction' of study may be coloured by your beliefs if you find yourself in a minority searching for a way to strengthen your position.

Seeing as we have had number of recent statements from folk employed by both NOAA and NASA regarding ocean temps and storm intensities it just seemed like a paper trying to balance out the subject.

The ocean is an immense energy sink and ,indeed, takes a lot of energy in before they can start to manifest the 'effects' of the change. As with the rapid (past 7 or 8 years) acceleration in the changes in the northern polar regions the oceans (across some basins) now seem at a point where the energy is starting to impact upon areas of the climate system. It would appear (by the rapid fall of the 'majors per consecutive months' record) that we are starting to see such a step change in the Atlantic basin.

As ever there will be folk who want to see the corpse before they are willing to diagnose what ailed it( rather than treat the living body). I'm not put together in that way.

[jethro]

I see your point, and it would be valid if I had any deep seated or profound beliefs on all this climate change stuff. Trouble is, I don't. After probably two years or more or reading stuff from both sides, the picture's still no clearer for me. The signature at the bottom of my posts is a genuine one, no other agenda.

I don't have a position to strengthen - honestly. From all I've read, I cannot honestly see how anyone would or could have a polarised view on this, there are just far too many unknowns and uncertainties.

If the paper I posted "seemed like a paper trying to balance out the subject" then I'm glad, that's what I always try to do.

Listening to just one side of any argument isn't me, IMO it never leads to an informed, balanced view. There's always at least two sides and invariably, the truth resides somewhere in the middle.

[HighPressure]

Just a couple of points, its very difficult just to talk about climate change effects in isolation, be it hurricanes, ice loss or even animal extinctions. I am guilty of wandering off topic purely because I see the whole process of climate change as a series of integrated links in a chain. As soon as someone mentions what they feel as a contributory cause to one of the effects, in this case hurricanes which does not confirm to the text book belief off we go again on the same old arguments.

Hi Jethro: I do find it very tiresome that people like us have to express our innocence in this debate every time we want to make a point of question something about mainstream understanding or official views. You do get the feeling you have to post 500 times, "I am not a denier!" before you get that point across.

Sorry for being off topic