June 2006 [
HOME ] Table of
Contents for printer
Ice Sheets and Rising Seas
A big enough rise of global temperatures would eventually melt the
world's glaciers, and indeed a retreat of mountain glaciers since the
19th century was apparent in some regions. That would release enough water
to raise the sea level a bit. Worse, beginning in the 1960s, several glacier
experts warned that part of the Antarctic ice sheet seemed unstable. If
the huge mass slid into the ocean, the rise of sea level would wreak great
harm, perhaps within the next century or two. While that seemed unlikely
(although not impossible), by the 1980s scientists realized that global
warming would probably raise sea level enough to damage populous coastal
regions.
|
Glaciologists, the scientists who study how ice behaves in
seriously large quantities, have a special interest in floods. They
even have their own word, jökulhlaup (from Icelandic), to describe
the spectacular outbursts when water builds up behind a glacier and
then breaks loose. An example was the 1922 jökulhlaup in Iceland.
Some seven cubic kilometers of water, melted by a volcano under a
glacier, had rushed out in a few days. Still grander, almost unimaginably
grand, were floods that had swept across Washington state toward the
end of the last ice age when a vast lake dammed behind a glacier broke
loose. In the 1940s, after decades of arguing, geologists admitted
that high ridges in the "scablands" were the equivalent of the
little ripples one sees in mud on a streambed, magnified ten thousand
times. By the 1950s, glaciologists were accustomed to thinking about
catastrophic regional floods. |
- LINKS - |
|
Also within their purview was flooding on
a far grander, but much slower, scale. Since the heroic polar explorations
of the late 19th century the world had known that great volumes of
water are locked up in ice sheets. If there were substantial melting
of the Greenland ice cap, and especially of the titanic volume of
ice that buries Antarctica, the water released would raise the oceans
in a tide that crept higher and higher for centuries. It had happened
before geologists identified beaches far above the present
sea level, cut by waves in warmer periods when the Earth was entirely
free of ice. In the last interglacial period, some 125,000 years ago,
the planet had reached a temperature about as high as was likely to
come from greenhouse warming in the next century or two. Back then,
even though most of Antarctica had remained ice-covered, the sea level
had been roughly six meters (20 feet) higher than at present. This
was about what would be expected if most of Greenland melted. The
next time that happened, sea water would swamp coastal regions where
a good fraction of the world's population now lived. All this became
familiar to anyone who followed scientific discussions of global warming.
|
=>Public
opinion
|
|
Up to the 1960s, if
there was any global warming, scientists expected it to steal in over
thousands of years, so the threat of flooding lay in a comfortably
vague and remote future. To be sure, a few scientists had begun to
imagine more abrupt change if the melting of the ice itself brought
on conditions that accelerated the warming. Transitions between glacial
and warm climates and back again might come in a matter
of mere centuries. As one example, in 1947 the New York Times
quoted a prominent Swedish geophysicist, Hans Ahlmann, who suggested
that a global warming might be underway that could eventually bring
a "catastrophic" rise of sea level as glaciers melted. "Peoples living
in lowlands along the shores would be inundated," he explained, calling
on international agencies to undertake studies as an urgent task.
Most scientists, however, expected that within the foreseeable future,
the main effect of any global warming on ice would be to shrink the
icepack on the Arctic Ocean. Since that ice was floating, it could
melt entirely away without changing sea level at all.(1)
|
Full discussion in
<=Rapid
change
<=Simple
models
|
|
Glaciers on land could affect sea level, and they were notoriously
sensitive to climate. Advances and retreats of glaciers in the Alps
in particular had been conspicuous for generations, reacting to small
changes not just in temperature but also in the amount of snowfall.(2*) In 1962, John Hollin opened
up speculation about how relatively small climate changes might also
affect ice in Antarctica. He argued that great volumes of ice there,
piled up kilometers high and pushing slowly toward the ocean, were
held in place by their fringes. These edge sheets were pinned at the
marginal "grounding line" where they rested on the ocean floor. A
rise of sea level could float an ice sheet up off the floor, releasing
the entire stupendous mass behind it to flow more rapidly into
the sea.(3*) |
|
|
The idea was picked
up by Alex Wilson, who pointed to the spectacle of a "surge." Glaciologists
had long been fascinated by the way a mountain glacier might suddenly
give up its usual slow creeping, to race forward at a rate of hundreds
of meters a day. They figured this happened when the pressure at the
bottom melted ice so that water lubricated the flow. As the ice began
to move, friction melted more water and the flow accelerated. Could
the ice in Antarctica become unstable in this fashion? If so, the
consequences sketched by Wilson would be appalling. As the ice surged
into the sea, the world's sea-coasts would flood. And that would not
be the worst of humanity's problems. Immense sheets of ice would float
across the southern oceans, cooling the world by reflecting sunlight.
It could bring a new ice age.(4*)
Hollin joined in with observations of deposits in England that recorded
past sea levels, showing rapid rises of as much as ten meters. It
could happen any time, he thought, perhaps in mere decades
or even faster if the sea-level change set off tsunamis. He pointed
to unusual features that suggested an abrupt disaster, such as "the
curiously intact remains of large mammals" buried whole.(5)
Few scientists gave much credence to any of these speculations. The
ice that covered most of Antarctica, in places more than four kilometers
thick, seemed firmly grounded on the continent's bedrock. |
=>Simple
models
=>Rapid
change
|
|
Concern first began to stir in 1968
when John Mercer, a bold and eccentric glaciologist at Ohio State
University, drew attention to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. This is
a smaller (but still enormous) mass of ice, separated by a mountain
range from the bulk of the continent. Mercer argued that this mass
was held back, in an especially delicate balance, by the floating
ice sheeets ("ice shelves") at its rim. The shelves might
disintegrate under a slight warming. Just so, he suggested, a collapse
of Arctic Ocean ice sheets might have caused the more local, but remarkably
sudden, cooling of the North Atlantic around 11,000 years ago that
other scientists had identified. A West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse
could be very rapid, Mercer said. The sea level would not rise as
far as if all of Antarctica surged, but it would be bad enough
up to five meters (16 feet). Much of the world's population lives
near the shore. Such a rise would displace perhaps two billion people
and force the abandonment of many great cities. Mercer thought it
could happen within the next 40 years.(6*) |
<=Rapid
change
The West
Antarctic
Ice Sheet (WAIS)
= Milestone
|
|
The problem, one expert complained, "could be argued indefinitely if it
is not quantized."(7) In fact
glaciologists had been working for decades on ways to calculate numbers
for the flow of ice masses. In the 1970s they made rapid progress
in formulating abstract mathematical models and putting the powerful
new computers to work. The calculations, with many approximations,
suggested that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was indeed unstable. Apparently
the floating ice shelf that held it back could break up with surprising
ease, and the whole mass might begin sliding forward. The idea was
backed up by data from adventurous survey expeditions that traversed
parts of Antarctica during the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year
and on many later occasions. One scientist who made a landmark calculation,
Johannes Weertman, concluded that it was "entirely possible" that
the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was already now starting its surge.(8) Most climate specialists and geologists felt that the ice
sheet models were highly speculative. It seemed scarcely possible
that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could disintegrate in less than
a few centuries. But a surge that dumped a fifth of a continent of
ice into the oceans over the next few centuries would be no small
thing, and they could not rule it out. The picture fitted with a new
feeling that was emerging in the climate community, a feeling that
the climate system in general was unstable or even radically chaotic.
|
<=External input
<=Government
<=>Rapid change
|
|
Concern sharpened in
1975 when Cesare Emiliani at the University of Miami reported measuring
deep-sea cores that showed a shockingly rapid rise of sea level
a rate of meters per decade around 11,600 years ago. (He remarked
that this was exactly the time Plato had given for the fall of Atlantis!)
Emiliani thought the cause of the flooding might not have been an
Antarctic surge, but water rapidly released from enormous lakes that
had been penned up behind the North American ice sheet, a titanic
jökulhlaup. In places like Florida where the land sloped gently
into the ocean, he wrote, "the sea would have been seen to advance
inland 300 feet in... a single summer."(9) Other areas at risk included the Nile
Delta and the Netherlands. Science journalists made sure that the
more spectacular warnings reached a broad public.(10)
|
<=Rapid
change
=>Public
opinion
|
|
Meanwhile radar surveys from airplanes showed that the ice of West
Antarctica moved toward the sea not as a single sheet but through
a set of enormous ice streams. Terence J. Hughes (who started out
studying metallurgy but moved on to a different sort of solid material)
and other glaciologists developed increasingly elaborate models of
ice sheet dynamics.(11) They
showed how a slight shift in conditions could prompt an ice shelf
to break up into flotillas of icebergs. Looking over the new data
and theories, Mercer worried that most climate experts still assumed
that ice sheet changes would take many centuries. In 1978, he caught
their attention with an article contending that because of global
warming from that humanity’s use of fossil fuels, "a major disaster...
may be imminent or in progress." Mercer admitted that the computer
models were loaded with uncertainties, but "there is, at present,
no way of knowing whether they err on the optimistic or the
pessimistic side."(12) |
|
|
Mercer, Hollin and Hughes had a chance to argue their case to a
group of experts at a meeting convened in April 1979 in Annapolis,
Maryland. One participant noted in his diary that their arguments
convinced him that the deglaciation of West Antarctica was "a plausible
hypothesis." The majority felt that this was "not a cause for immediate
alarm however. We are talking about centuries."(13)
In a published review, a trio of experts laid out arguments explaining
why the collapse of an ice sheet would probably take several centuries
to run its course. Yet they admitted that "little is known about the
glaciers," and a 5-meter rise in sea level could possibly happen within
a century. "Mercer's warning," they concluded, "cannot be dismissed
lightly."(14) |
|
|
That continued to be the most common view through the 1980s. Most
studies found that an ice sheet collapse was likely to take centuries
rather than decades. But experts knew too little about the behavior
of Antarctica's mammoth ice rivers to agree on any firm conclusion.
Field glaciologists, a small but hardy group, measured one or another
ice sheet as best they could at a few scattered locations. They found
ice streams moving at speeds of hundreds of meters a year, far faster
than ordinary mountain glaciers. Meanwhile, their mathematically-minded
colleagues back home constructed simplified models for the flow.(15) Some studies foresaw the possibility of a sea-level rise
of two or three meters (6-10 feet) by 2100, but most found this unlikely
so soon. In particular, for a 1983 National Academy of Sciences report,
the dean of oceanographers, Roger Revelle, estimated that within the
next hundred years the sea level would probably rise some 70 cm (about
two feet). That would be harmful but not catastrophic. He did worry,
however, about an Antarctic collapse later on.(16*) |
|
|
Some rise of sea level in the coming century seemed not just possible,
but nearly certain. The oceans had already risen 10 or 20 centimeters
in the 20th century, about ten times as fast as the average sea-level
rise in previous millennia. Just where all the water had come from
remained uncertain. As one example, it was not until the 1990s that
experts realized that significant volumes of water were engaged by
human activities like irrigation and building reservoirs, and they
could not say whether the net result of such activities was to take
water from the oceans or to put more in.(17)
|
|
|
One contribution to the sea-level rise was entirely clear. Water
expands when heated. The consequences may seem obvious, but amid all
the talk of melting glaciers, for decades nobody seems to have given
a thought to other simple effects. Finally in 1982 two groups separately
calculated that the global warming observed since the mid-19th century
must have raised the sea level significantly by plain thermal expansion
of the upper ocean layers. But a thermal expansion could not account
for all of the observed rise. The scientists figured the rest came
from melting glaciers (most of the world's small mountain glaciers
were in fact shrinking).(18) |
|
|
The rising waters might help the West Antarctic Ice Sheet float
off its moorings and slowly break up. Even if that never happened,
there would still be problems. Scientists warned that tides would
probably mount a half meter or even a meter and a half higher by the
end of the next century, bringing severe harm to coastal regions.
Beaches would erode back hundreds of feet. Salt water would advance
into fragile estuaries. Entire populations would flee from storm surges.(19*)
|
|
|
While the calculations of thermal expansion were straightforward,
the actual sea level rise would depend on a much tougher problem
what would happen to the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica? So
long as they did not surge and disintegrate, global warming would
not necessarily make them dwindle. A warmer atmosphere would hold
and transport more water vapor, so it would drop more snow. Thus the
polar ice sheets might actually grow thicker, withdrawing water from
the oceans. The future sea level depended crucially on just what happened
to glaciers and ice sheets, one pair of experts concluded, and predicting
that would be "a daunting task."(20)
|
|
|
After 1988 |
=>after88 |
|
To sketch out an answer to the great question of ice-sheet collapse,
since the early 1980s scientists had bundled up in parkas and gone
out onto the windswept wastes of Antarctica. Their difficult goal
was to measure the motions of the immense slow ice currents, using
radar pulses, seismic measurements, and boreholes to study how ice
moved over the rock beneath. One example was a scientist who had been
skeptical of surge models he recalled that he "felt the whole
thing was like a house of cards" but who changed his mind when
he discovered that a kilometer-thick Antarctic ice stream rested not
on bedrock but on a layer of slippery mud.Another unsettling discovery
was that in recent centuries some of the great ice streams had stopped
or started moving, for no clear reason.(21)
Far more such data would be needed to bring a definitive answer. The
dynamics of ice sheets and the streams that fed them turned out to
be, like most things geophysical, a complicated snarl of influences.
Experts could not even agree on whether the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
had disintegrated during previous warm epochs over the past few million
years. The past sea level rises might have come from Greenland ice,
or from something else entirely. But according to evidence developed
in the 1990s, during a dramatic episode at the end of the last ice
age, something had once raised the sea level 16 meters within
three centuries. The rate of rise might have reached two feet per
decade. Antarctica was the most likely source of all that water. The
rush of new data fed what one observer called "polite but emotional
debate" among experts about the future possibilities.(22*)
|
|
|
Meanwhile satellite pictures revealed that
some of the smaller floating ice shelves poking out from Antarctica
were rapidly disintegrating, perhaps because of rising temperatures.(23)
Back in 1978, Mercer had called for keeping an eye on just these ice
shelves, contending that their breakup would be "one of the warning
signs that a dangerous warming trend is under way in Antarctica."(24)
In fact it was not clear whether the changes had anything to say about
the possibility of a catastrophic ice-sheet collapse. They might have
been a type of normal, regional event, which just had not been noticed
before the age of intensive global monitoring. Yet the public's concern
about global warming was reinforced from time to time when satellite
images showed tabular icebergs bigger than cities floating off. |
=>Public
opinion
|
|
Specialists in glacier flow worked up increasingly
elaborate ice-sheet models. Entirely aside from the question of Antarctic
surging, these models might be useful in explaining the ice ages.
It seemed increasingly likely that the reason ice sheets came and
went in cycles of around 100,000 years had something to do with the
length of time needed for a continent of ice to form and flow and
melt. Nothing else on Earth seemed to change on the right timescale.
|
=>Simple
models
|
|
The models failed to answer the question of how fast a major ice
sheet could surge into the ocean. The improved models did show, reassuringly,
that there was no plausible way for a large mass of Antarctic ice
to collapse altogether during the 21st century. Probably the West
Antarctic Ice Sheet, if it diminished at all, would discharge its
burden only slowly over the following centuries, not placing too heavy
a burden on human society. Yet scientists could not altogether rule
out the possibility of a shocking surprise in some future generation.
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet remained what one expert had called it
a quarter-century earlier "glaciology's grand unsolved problem."(25) |
|
|
Scientists were still less able
to answer the question of whether climate change was gradually melting
the rest of the world's glaciers and ice caps, or instead was adding
snow to them. In "those huge areas where little or no information
is available," an expert explained in 1993, "almost anything might
be happening." By 2005, however, a survey of mountain glaciers around
the world for which historical records existed found most of them
shrinking. Some that had survived for many thousands of years were
vanishing, a striking sign of unprecedented climate change.Experts
could not say how far this might be counteracted by increased snowfall
in the frozen and remote highlands of Antarctica.(26*) |
![glacier shrinking](images/glaciers.gif)
Glacier
1875/2004
|
|
Many things were certainly happening. Scientists
had begun to turn up all sorts of changes, now that they were giving
close attention to ice movements, thanks to views from satellites
and airplane overflights along with increasingly precise measurements
by grueling expeditions on the ice itself. "Perhaps the most important
finding of the past 20 years," a glaciologist reported in 2002,
"has been the rapidity with which substantial changes can occur
on polar ice sheets." Antarctic ice streams the size of a province
suddenly accelerated or came to a halt. Entire floating ice shelves
rapidly thinned or broke up completely. Grounding lines under ice
sheets were altered by vigorous melting of the sheet’s underside.
The new observations made it seem only too possible that within
a few centuries, or possibly even sooner, global warming might release
huge volumes of ice that would raise the sea level by many meters.
But whether Antarctica was currently losing ice, or perhaps gaining
it overall through increased snowfall, remained uncertain. |
=>Rapid
change |
|
Further computer simulations and observations
nailed down the idea, originally so speculative, that removing an
ice shelf could dramatically speed up the drainage of glaciers pinned
behind it. In 2004 new evidence was published that some of the enormous
ice streams leading from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to the ocean
were in fact speeding up. Scientists were no longer sure how many
centuries it might take to drain the entire sheet. "The response
time scale of ice dynamics is a lot shorter than we used to think
it was," admitted a leader of the WAIS
research.(27*) |
= Milestone |
|
Meanwhile,
starting around 2000, a few studies raised the additional possibility
that the Greenland Ice Sheet, contrary to what most scientists had
figured, might not be entirely stable over the next few centuries.
Under some scenarios, increased summer temperatures would cause more
than the usual amount of water to drain to the bottom of the ice and
lubricate it. As the flow of its huge glaciers accelerated, the ice
cap would thin around the edges. As the ice surface reached lower
altitudes where the air was warmer, it could melt all the faster.
Conceivably, an armada of icebergs would invade the North Atlantic
and melt, as had happened around the end of the last ice age, when
the sea level had risen at a rate that would be catastrophic for coastal
areas. Glaciologists could only speculate about the likelihood and
timing of such a misfortune. One respected scientist called the ice
sheets a "ticking time bomb."
Concern sharpened in 2006 when analysis of satellite radar data
found that the velocities of large ice streams in southern Greenland
had doubled in the past five years — which most experts would
have thought impossible. They certainly knew too little to guess
whether the rapid flow would continue.(28*) |
![Greenland ice stream](images/Isfjord-sm.jpg)
Surging
ice stream
=>Rapid
change
|
|
At least one thing was certain. If temperatures
climbed a few degrees, as most climate scientists now considered
likely, the sea level would rise simply because water expands when
heated. This is almost the only thing about global change that can
be calculated directly from basic physics. The additional effects
of glacier melting are highly uncertain (scientists were still arguing
over how much of the 20th century’s sea level rise was due
to heat expansion and how much to ice melting). In 2001 an international
panel of experts made a rough guess for the total rise expected
by the end of the 21st century — perhaps half a meter. Later
studies of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica raised worries it
might be twice that.(29*)
A meter may not sound like much, but in many areas it will bring
the sea inland a hundred meters or more (a few hundred feet), and
even farther if storm-driven surges grow stronger. While such a
rise will not be a world disaster, in the late decades of this century
it will bring significant everyday problems, and occasional storm-surge
catastrophes, to populous coastal areas from Bangladesh to New Orleans.
[That last was written in 2002.]
|
![sea level rise](images/sea_level-sm.gif)
Sea
level rise, NY
|
|
Scientists had warned
for decades that New Orleans was at risk, and some had pointed out
that the chance of disaster would mount as global warming raised sea-levels
and perhaps increased storminess. But now some experts asked whether
Hurricane Katrina 2005 would have devastated the city, if the heat
in the Gulf of Mexico's waters — a main source of the storm's
energy — had not been higher than normal? Such a question can
never be answered for a single event. The important question is not
what global warming did in one case, but what it would mean for the
future probability of terrible storms. |
= Milestone
|
|
Scientists had only a sketchy
idea of how storms worked. Nevertheless, when the 21st century began,
nearly all experts had been confident that storms would not become
seriously worse for many decades. Even Kerry Emanuel, who had explained
in 1987 how a warmer sea surface would provide energy for greater
storms, had not expected a noticeable change anytime soon. But when
he analyzed decades of data on tropical storms, he found a disturbing
trend. While the number of hurricanes and typhoons had
not been increasing, the intensity of the worst storms
had climbed in recent decades. The rapid increase in destructive
power, so different from what experts had expected, correlated surprisingly
well with the observed rise of sea-surface temperatures. "For
the first time in my professional career," Emanuel recalled,
"I got alarmed." In mid 2005 he wrote a warning of gathering
danger. It attracted much attention three weeks later, when Katrina
struck.(30)
|
=>Models (GCMs) |
|
Meanwhile a separate group had been doing
similar studies, and got similar results. A fervent, sometimes personal
controversy broke out when experts of the old school confronted
those who believed global warming was already making storms worse.
Until the passage of years revealed the answer, those watching the
debate could only conclude that there was at least a considerable
possibility of worsening storms. The very uncertainty of the matter
was a call to action. The risk of increasing coastal devastation,
even aside from sea-level rise,was not something we could leave
for the next generation to worry about.(31*) |
=>Public
opinion
|
|
The sea-level rise alone makes it likely
that low-lying areas where tens of millions of people live will
become uninhabitable by the end of this century. Entire island nations
are at risk. Then it will get worse. Even if humanity controls greenhouse
emissions enough to halt global warming, the heat reatined by the
gases already in the air will work its way gradually deeper into
the oceans. The tides will continue to creep higher, century after century.(32)
See the essay on computer models for a summary of
predicted Impacts of Global Warming. |
=>International
|
|
|
RELATED:
Home
Rapid Climate Change
The Public and Climate
1. Gladwin Hill, "Warming Arctic climate melting
glaciers faster, raising ocean level, scientist says," New York Times,
May 30, 1947. Ewing and Donn (1956); Budyko (1962).
BACK
2. Glaciers as "sensitive indicators of climate" are stressed in the
pioneering theoretical treatment of surges, Nye (1960).
BACK
3. "The chief conclusion of this paper is that the greatest glacial
fluctuations in Antarctica were produced by changes in sea-level." The paper was motivated by
the idea that the timing of Antarctic glacial movements was set by sea-level changes that
reflected Northern Hemisphere glaciation. Hollin (1962), p. 174.
BACK
4. Wilson (1964); Wilson (1966); Wilson (1969);
Wilson's starting-point was the suggestion that the center of Antarctica was at the pressure
melting point, see Robin (1962), p. 141, who adds that "one
would not expect the ice to surge over a large part of Antarctica at one time"; the role of
frictional heat in ice-sheet instability was pointed out back in 1961 (in partial support of
Ewing-Donn theory), drawing on earlier work by G. Bodvarsson, by Weertman (1961).
BACK
5. Hollin (1965), quote p. 15.
BACK
6. Mercer's basic argument was that "fringing ice shelves... will
rapidly disintegrate by calving if the average temperature of the warmest month rises above
freezing point," Mercer and Emiliani (1970); see Mercer (1968) ; North Atlantic: Mercer (1969); meanwhile a suggestion about a more gradual
disappearance of the Greenland ice cap was advanced by Emiliani
(1969); earlier, Robin and Adie (1964), said that
catastrophic deglaciation of West Antarctica was "unlikely, but not necessarily impossible," p.
117.
BACK
7. W.J. Campbell in discussion of Wilson (1969), p. 915.
BACK
8. Data were analyzed by Hughes
(1973); Weertman (1974), "entirely possible," p. 3; the
classic theory was Thomas (1973); and Thomas (1973); Flohn (1974)
gave a more general model; on ice modeling, see also Hughes
(1977).
BACK
9. Emiliani et al. (1975);
see Science (9/24/76): 1268 for criticism. Quote: Emiliani
(1980), p. 87. BACK
10. E.g., Calder (1975); note
also the semi-popular article: Emiliani (1980).
BACK
11. Hughes (1977); Hughes et al. (1977); Thomas and
Bentley (1978).
BACK
12. Mercer (1978), quotes pp.
321, 325.
BACK
13. Elliott (1977-89), vol. 1,
4/8/79.
BACK
14. Thomas et al. (1979), p.
355.
BACK
15. E.g., Herterich (1987).
BACK
16. Revelle (1983); similarly
Thomas et al. (1979); Bentley
(1980) saw a possible ice sheet collapse in the next 500 years; but Bentley (1982) said melting could take thousands of years; this
was disputed by Hughes (1982); Hollin (1980) tried to demonstrate an East Antarctic ice sheet surge
about 95,000 years ago; for predictions of meter-scale rises, see Jones
and Henderson-Sellers (1990), pp. 10-11, 15; a skeptic: Van
der Veen (1985); Van der Veen (1988).
BACK
17. IPCC (2001), pp. 657-58.
BACK
18. Etkins and Epstein (1982);
Gornitz et al. (1982).
BACK
19. "Most workers" project 0.5-1.5m rise in next 50-100 years if
warming continues, according to Schneider (1989), p. 777; he
cites i.a. Meier et al. (1985); this range was taken as plausible
for 2100 in National Research Council (1987); but only a few
cm rise by 2025 according to the most cited of these papers, Wigley
and Raper (1987).
BACK
20. Wigley and Raper (1987),
p. 131.
BACK
21. Barclay Kamb quoted by Walker
(1999); the slippage was predicted by Blankenship
et al. (1986). For this and other history see Bindschadler
and Bentley (2002). BACK
22. Later work confirmed Antarctic ice as the source:
Clark et al. (2002); "debate": W. Sullivan, New York
Times, May 2, 1995, p. C4. 16m rise: Bard
et al. (1990); Hanebuth et al. (2000). BACK
23. Doake and Vaughan
(1991); Rott et al. (1996).
BACK
24. Mercer (1978), p.
325. BACK
25. Oppenheimer (1998);
IPCC (2001), pp. 678-79; "Unsolved Problem" was the title
of Weertman (1976); repeated in Van
der Veen and Oerlemans (1987), p. 14. BACK
26. Thomas (1993), p.
398; Oerlemans (1994); Dyurgerov
and Meier (2000); Oerlemans (2005)
surveyed 169 glacier records giving climate signals back to ca. 1600,
showing warming around the world since 1900; see review by Alley
et al. (2005). BACK
27. "Most important finding," Rignot
and Thomas (2002), p. 1505. Subsequent work pointing in the same direction
included De Angelis and Skvarca (2003), who
found that Antarctic grounded ice surged after an ice shelf breakup, and
Bindschadler et al.(2003), who reported that
a major West Antarctic ice stream started and stopped flowing as the tide
went up and down. Breakup of an ice shelf (Larsen) leads to a speedup
of glacier movement: Rignot et al. (2004),
Scambos et al.(2004) (who also note importance
of percolating water). Satellite radar measurements showed that East Antarctica
gained significant ice mass 1992-2003, probably due to increased precipitation,
but possibly larger losses in coastal regions could not be measured: Davis
et al. (2005). WAIS models: Payne (2004);
observed WAIS changes: Thomas (2004), Siegert
(2004). "A lot shorter:" Robert Bindschadler in Larry Rohter,
"Antarctica, Warming, Looks More Vulnerable,"New York Times,
25 Jan. 2005, section D. See Holmes (2004)
for discussion. . BACK
28. Concern about Greenland glacier surging
was spurred by Krabill et al. (1999). Zwally
et al. (2002)showed that lubrication from the migration of surface
meltwater to the interface between a glacier and bedrock provided "a
mechanism for rapid, large-scale, dynamic responses of ice sheets to climate
warming." Yet another new mechanism proposed was melting at the base
of an ice shelf by warmer seawater, making "Antarctica... more sensitive
to changing climates than was previously considered," Shepherd
et al. (2004). For discussion see Schiermeier
(2004) and Bindschadler (2006). Greenland
ice stream acceleration: Rignot and Kanagaratnam
(2006), q.v. for references to several other studies. Small earthquakes
in Greenland, caused by sliding glaciers, became twice as frequent in
the previous five years: Ekström et al. (2006).
Hansen raised the question of iceberg armadas, see essay
on rapid change; "ticking time bomb:" Hansen
(2005), p. 275. BACK
29. Following measurements of total heat
absorbed by the oceans by Levitus et al. (2000)
and Levitus et al. (2001), "20th-century
sea level remains an enigma — we do not know whether warming or
melting was dominant, and the budget is far from closed," according
to Munk (2003). IPCC
(2001), pp. 641-42, estimated 0.1 to 0.4 m rise from thermal expansion
with a total anywhere between 0.1 and 0.88 m. The problem will be compounded
in many river deltas (Nile, Ganges, Mississippi, etc.) by a half meter
or so of subsidence, thanks to dams that impound sediment and the withdrawal
of water from aquifers. Rapid sea-level changes (10 meters within 1000
years) were found in ancient coral reefs: Thompson
and Goldstein (2005). BACK
30. "For the first time" quoted
Kunzig (2006), p.22. Emanuel
(1987); Emanuel (2005), published 4 Aug.,
found that "longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities...
correlated with [higher] sea surface temperatures."BACK
31. Webster et
al. (2005) (Sept. 16) found in all ocean basins "a large increase...
in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5."
Also influential was a computer study, Knutson
and Tuleya (2004), and a leading expert's insistance, in response
to the violent 2004 storm season, that "hurricanes are changing,"
Trenberth (2005). See also Hoyos
(2006)). For the controversy: Pearce (2005);
Kunzig (2006); Witze
(2006); Valerie Bauerlein, "Hurricane Debate Shatters Civility
of Weather Science," Wall Street Journal, Feb. 2, 2006,
p. 1. BACK
32. Recent results for sea level are in
Meehl et al. (2005). BACK
copyright
© 2003-2006 Spencer Weart & American Institute of Physics
|