On May 26, 2:59 am, jdannan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [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.
What would be worse than the Greenland ice sheet disappearing in 50
years?
> 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).
So albedo will accelaerate the Greenland ice melt as well as the
Arctic sea ice melt?
> 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...
So, the north Atlantic will get warmer not cooler?
Cheers, Alastair.
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
