[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> The ice
>> melting and coldness of the meltwater itself are unimportant.
>
> Is that because slow melting is always assumed?
>
> Or because my back of the envelope is wrong? (and 1 W/m2 over fifty
> years I suppose is only 0.17 W/m2 over 300 years)
>
> Or because the cold is rapidly spread across the world / deep into the
> ocean?
Well in the case of the 50y collapse, I think we have bigger things to
worry about. Also, note that when the surface of the ice sheet gets wet,
this changes its albedo substantially for the worse, so a chunk of that
1W will come for free (from the POV of the rest of the climate system).
OTOH there may well be some inconsistency with an assumption of rapid
melt, overturning shutdown, and local cooling (which would presumably
slow the rapid melt). Somewhat similar to the assumption of economic
meltdown due to the rapidly rising emissions of rapidly growing economies...
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
