What kind of disaster are you talking about. For example: 1993 we had
record cold all over the planet. 1997 flooding in the Mississippi
river created a great lake for about 6 weeks. There were more
hurricanes in the 1990s then in the previous two decades. More
tornadoes were reported and reported in places where tornadoes are not
common.
won't shrug off? I don't think you would get universal acknowledgement from climatologists that these events were all caused by global warming. I think it would take that, and the events being sudden and catastrophic before humanity would be particularly united in an effort to reverse the situation. As for what I was thinking of, it's been theorized that melting in Antarctica might result in the sudden collapse of the Ross Ice Shelf, which might raise ocean levels much more precipitously than what we'll otherwise get by gradual melting.
Regards,
Mike Combs
> As for what I was thinking of, it's been theorized that melting in
> Antarctica might result in the sudden collapse of the Ross Ice
Shelf, which
> might raise ocean levels much more precipitously than what we'll
otherwise
> get by gradual melting.
>
negliably, less than 1 mm by my calculations. The sudden collapse will
create a tidal wave in the pacific, but that is a one time event.
Tidal waves happen for other reasons without massive policy changes
and it can be argued successfully this one would never happen again.
The problem that most people attribute to global warming crisis is
that there is no catestraphic events to point to and say if we don't
mend our ways this will happen again.
Bill
>
> > As for what I was thinking of, it's been theorized that melting in
> > Antarctica might result in the sudden collapse of the Ross Ice
> Shelf, which
> > might raise ocean levels much more precipitously than what we'll
> otherwise
> > get by gradual melting.
> >
> The Total volume of the Ross Ice Shelf will increase the sea level
> negliably, less than 1 mm by my calculations. The sudden collapse will
> create a tidal wave in the pacific, but that is a one time event.
> Tidal waves happen for other reasons without massive policy changes
> and it can be argued successfully this one would never happen again.
>
> The problem that most people attribute to global warming crisis is
> that there is no catestraphic events to point to and say if we don't
> mend our ways this will happen again.
difference to sea level if it floats away and melts or stays where it
is. Shouldn't create any tidal waves either. However, Antartica does
have enough ice in its land glaciers to raise global sea levels by at
least 10's of meters. There may be signs now that some of them are
deteriorating faster than expected - if one of the great Antarctic ice
sheets were to be somehow rapidly destroyed, that would be pretty
dramatic.
Arthur Smith (apsmith@...
> > As for what I was thinking of, it's been theorized that melting in
> > Antarctica might result in the sudden collapse of the Ross Ice
> Shelf, which
> > might raise ocean levels much more precipitously than what we'll
> otherwise
> > get by gradual melting.
>
> The Total volume of the Ross Ice Shelf will increase the sea level
> negliably, less than 1 mm by my calculations. The sudden collapse will
> create a tidal wave in the pacific, but that is a one time event.
> Tidal waves happen for other reasons without massive policy changes
> and it can be argued successfully this one would never happen again.
>
> The problem that most people attribute to global warming crisis is
> that there is no catestraphic events to point to and say if we don't
> mend our ways this will happen again. I agree, that's a problem with the situation. An ice shelf (which is already floating on the sea) will make no
difference to sea level if it floats away and melts or stays where it
is. If we were talking about an iceberg, this would be true, due to the well known truism that most of an iceberg is below the surface. But here we are talking about ice shelveswhich are sitting above sea level, but might collapse downward into the sea if warming trends continue. This would actually add volume to the world's oceans not originally there. Shouldn't create any tidal waves either. However, Antartica does
have enough ice in its land glaciers to raise global sea levels by at
least 10's of meters. There may be signs now that some of them are
deteriorating faster than expected - if one of the great Antarctic ice
sheets were to be somehow rapidly destroyed, that would be pretty
dramatic. I went back and checked my source (Mark Prado's PERMANENT reference). I was in error in attributing the entire effect to the Ross Ice Shelf by itself. There is a much larger shelf known as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet or WAIS which is what Mark was talking about. He was citing DOE studies which suggested that the WAIS had melted before around 120,000 years ago, raising ocean levels by 7 meters. It was estimated that if this happened again, world ocean levels might rise by 5-6 meters. Mark was discussing this in the context of the possible economic consequences of NOT implementing SPS.
Regards,
> >
> > > As for what I was thinking of, it's been theorized that melting
in
> > > Antarctica might result in the sudden collapse of the Ross Ice
> > Shelf, which
> > > might raise ocean levels much more precipitously than what we'll
> > otherwise
> > > get by gradual melting.
> > >
> > The Total volume of the Ross Ice Shelf will increase the sea level
> > negliably, less than 1 mm by my calculations. The sudden collapse
will
> > create a tidal wave in the pacific, but that is a one time event.
> > Tidal waves happen for other reasons without massive policy
changes
> > and it can be argued successfully this one would never happen
again.
> >
> > The problem that most people attribute to global warming crisis is
> > that there is no catestraphic events to point to and say if we
don't
> > mend our ways this will happen again.
>
> An ice shelf (which is already floating on the sea) will make no
> difference to sea level if it floats away and melts or stays where
it
> is. Shouldn't create any tidal waves either. However, Antartica does
> have enough ice in its land glaciers to raise global sea levels by
at
> least 10's of meters. There may be signs now that some of them are
> deteriorating faster than expected - if one of the great Antarctic
ice
> sheets were to be somehow rapidly destroyed, that would be pretty
> dramatic.
>
> Arthur Smith (apsmith@...
sealevel by about 60 m
The Ross Shelf is a sheet locked on three side. It is the only major
part of the Antarctic Shelf not on land. The shelf itself is not
actually floating in boyuant equilibrium and has never been. It is
possible for it to crack break and fall into the ocean. How much of a
wave it would produce is anyones guess.
If you are talking about real hazards. The Greenland Icesheet is on a
slope towards the Atlantic. It is being kept in place by the southern
glaciers that act like a wedge. If that wedge is to melt, which it is
doing, the whole Greenland Icecap could catestrophically slip and end
up in the middle of the Atlantic oOcean. This would effectively change
the albedo of the planet, change the direction of the Gulf Stream, and
change the weather in North America and Europe.
Bill