salbers Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 We also know the Larsen Ice Shelf and others have been disintegrating around the peninsula lately. We also know the mass of the ice sheets is decreasing - in an accelerating fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 There are numerous problems with every dataset, whether it Be UAH, RSS, GISS, NSIDC, there is no such thing as an "accurate" dataset actually....depending on your definition of "accurat". I guess the argument is, we really dont know. There is more evidence that the Pennisula is warming, and there is more evidence that the interior is cooling. We know sea ice has been increasing. We'll be able to better measure in the future hopefully. There is plenty of evidence the interior has warmed as well.. several interior research stations show slight warming since the 50s. The recent O'Donnell paper shows slight warming in the interior. AVHRR satellite skin temperatures also show warming. The only thing that shows cooling is UAH, and UAH is a flawed analysis that most researchers agree is biased too cold for its TRENDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 There is plenty of evidence the interior has warmed as well.. several interior research stations show slight warming since the 50s. The recent O'Donnell paper shows slight warming in the interior. AVHRR satellite skin temperatures also show warming. The only thing that shows cooling is UAH, and UAH is a flawed analysis that most researchers agree is biased too cold for its TRENDS. UAH is not the only source that shows mostly cooling over the past 30 years. In addition, if the majority of the Antarctic region was warming the past 30 years, how has Antarctic sea ice managed to increase? If the Arctic decrease in ice can be correlated to increase in Arctic temperatures, doesn't the increase in Antarctic ice correlate to cooling temperatures down there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Has anybody calculated how quick glaciers and ice packs in Antarctica and Greenland can respond to environmental changes. For example, Lake Vostok lies under 4,000 meters of ice. What kind of temperature perturbation would it take to increase its growth? When? I assume the lake is created by pressure of the immense column of 4000m of ice, plus the slow diffusion of Earth Core Heat. Does one have to calculate in the 80 calories/cc to melt the ice? Do we have direct measurement temperature readings of the Vostok core (or other cores)? I would expect to see somewhat of a linear progression of temperatures from the surface at the average temp of the region (-50°C or so?) going down to the lake at just below 0°C. Could one see pulses of heating/cooling cycles travelling down the core? Glaciers, of course, would be thinner, but if they are 100m thick, it would likely take a significant amount of time to see changes in the glacier iteself. People have noted changes in the sea/glacier interface which would be quicker responding. I have no doubt that ice shelves would go through cycles of crumbling and reconstruction. A warm ocean should have continent wide effects... and it would be difficult to explain a warm ocean and cold continent, unless perhaps warming the ocean increases snowfall which would increase the flux of high-level atmosphere temps to the continent. Snowfall perturbations should be able to be tracked with surface measurements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.