Posted on 01/23/2008 2:49:50 PM PST by neverdem
Thanks for posting it.
The first statement is completely unscientific. Do you have temperature or latent heat measurement for Jan 2002? Also the melt streams lubrication theory seems like more of a meme than a theory to me.
Um, no. We're talking about an area on the planet where there's a significant heat loss for a good chunk of the year with no appreciable heat inflow.
Warm air is not dense enough to have a significant impact on bringing in heat, nor is there enough mixing of the atmosphere between the temperate and polar regions.
The ocean currents encircle Antarctica no appreciably warmer water is being brought in, like the Gulf Stream or the Japan Current are doing to the Arctic.
Net heat loss over the period between the equinoxes is pretty large.
Warmer air is capable of holding more moisture than colder air, so the closer the temperature is to freezing, the more likely snowfall is to increase. So the little snowfall that the Antarctic gets now that just never melts will be replaced by much greater amounts of snowfall that may melt some, but the net result could be an increase in the polar ice cap if snow and ice accretion is greater than the melting that is occurring.
For the caps to really make any progress in melting, there would need to be a much larger inflow of heat than there is now with temperatures enough above freezing for long enough periods of time to make a difference.
For a part of the planet that spends most of the winter in total darkness, and has weak insolation during the summer, this is going to be somewhat problematic.
This is of course inaccurate since no one factored in the INCREASE in surface area due to the rise in water level and the subsequent area flooded by the inundation.
In other words, the calculation only allows for the water to move upwards (20 feet)at the current coastline but does not account for the area inland from the old coastline that will be under water, for instance, the whole of Holland could be under water...
OK. I guess I will take that as a “No, the Larsen B ice shelf has never melted (for a very long time) before.” I also take it from what you said that it has not reformed. )
you have to read this one....
Here's a view from 1/17/08 ( you have to search around for a clear day, which is unusual in the area. ) At this date the sea ice still covers the whole area, but as I say, I don't think this is an indication of a shelf reforming.
Here's a site that tells a lot more about it, including some additional "calving" from the remaining Larsen Ice Shelf in 2006.
Thank you. I appreciate your work on that. I expect sea ice would have to form before snows could begin accumulating on top of it. But I will check those links and see what I can learn about it.
Ask someone diffusing a time bomb
To make an error doesn't mean that you don't understand. Thanks for catching that one.
If Iceland melts. Will they then just call it Land or landland?
An easy way to see what the weather is in Antarctica -
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/89664.html
Remember, this is the height of Summer down there. Blistering heat!
I’m rather glad to see ice sheets breaking up. They continually grow, eventually they can no longer support their mass and must collapse. If they didn’t, wouldn’t the ice sheet continually grow until it enveloped the entire cold water portion of the ocean?
‘Science owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to Science.’ ~L. J. Henderson (1917)
-very intelligent comments by Henderson on carbon dioxide, in page 134 of his book “The Fitness of the Environment”
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9039988/Lawrence-Joseph-Henderson#2087.hook
Provided that Hillary does not go there..... no.
Right. That is my point. The word 'approximately' means different things in different situations. This whole calculation about melting ice was a rough estimate. The guy said he was doing an order of magnitude calculation. When doing order of magnitude, 10% is pretty good, since the goal is only to get the power of 10 correct after rounding. For a machinist, 10% is horrible. For the bomb squad defusing a bomb, it could be fatal.
But for calculating the amount of ocean rise due to melting ice, saying that water and ice have approximately the same density if not a problem. The figure of 6 m is not given as 6.000 m, so it already is an approximation. Knowing the densities of water and ice to 5 decimal places does not change the final result.
Are you forgetting that the volume would also increase as a factor of increased diameter on the sphere? You can't go and start pointing out unsubstantiated variables, the whole house of cards could collapse.
Another point of interest are the lakes that would remain where there is now only ice, and there are some large ones in Antarctica as well as Greenland.
Then you must account for the elasticity of the now buried continental shelves, which will spring back up after all of the weight is removed. And likewise, the added weight of additional water will push down the ocean floors.
And then there is the water which will be incorporated into all of the new plant and animal life which will cover the newly hospitable arctic regions. And the generally clear skies of the arctic will hang heavy with cumulus nimbus packed with water.
Ah, it just goes on and on.
It's the first time it collapsed in thousands of years. After it collapsed they did sediment coring to get a "picture" of the climate conditions in that region.
Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss
This is dated -- today. Wow. But I thought I read about this last week.
If there was any reason currently to think that another LIA might happen, I'd agree with you. But there isn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.