Annals of Glaciology 43 Online

The 2005 volume is online here although earlier issues seem to be pay-as-you-play. It has many interesting articles, including ones on Puruogangri and tropical glaciers. Enjoy.


10 Comments

  1. Vasco
    Posted Nov 12, 2006 at 4:40 PM | Permalink

    An interesting article in Nature describes the “seasaw” effect between the 2 poles.

    Researchers trying to understand sudden, seesawing changes in the Arctic’s prehistoric climate have found some answers in an unusual place: buried in the Antarctic ice, half a world away. Their work could help to predict the future consequences of sudden polar warming.

    By digging more than 2,500 metres down into the Antarctic ice, climate scientists have shown that changes at one pole influence the other. This ‘climate seesaw’ moves heat from south to north along the length of the Atlantic Ocean.

    Similar studies from Greenland have shown that the Arctic climate can warm by as much as 16 °C in just a few decades. The results from Antarctica confirm a theory that these warming episodes, and their subsequent cooling periods, swing back and forth between the poles.

  2. Posted Nov 12, 2006 at 4:42 PM | Permalink

    Similar studies from Greenland have shown that the Arctic climate can warm by as much as 16 °C in just a few decades. The results from Antarctica confirm a theory that these warming episodes, and their subsequent cooling periods, swing back and forth between the poles.

    How can they do these sort of wild swings without mankind being involved? Is that allowed?

  3. Steve Bloom
    Posted Nov 12, 2006 at 7:27 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for the cue, Steve M.; I’ve been waiting for this. Note also that they say more articles will be added.

    Of the articles available so far, I found this one to be of greatest interest. Yet another hockey stick, it would appear.

    Re #2: Yes, and it’s added cause for concern. Do you suppose there’s anything we could do to see if it’s possible to trigger a similar event in the middle of an interglacial? Hmm, where would we start…

  4. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Nov 12, 2006 at 9:18 PM | Permalink

    Re: 3, Steve Bloom,

    The purpose of the paper was to compare glacier change and tree rings. Unfortunately, as the authors admitted in the conclusions, they only had 100 years of glacier data for the comparison. No one is disputing that temperatures have increased since the minimum at the end of the LIA. Perhaps Mann and some of his friends might make this claim since they seem to make the claim that the LIA did not exist.

    The Gou et al tree ring data did not seem to go back much before 1100, thus it can not show much of a MWP. It does show a LIA, thus the increase of the past 150 years or so from the LIA minimum is not surprising.

  5. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Nov 12, 2006 at 9:53 PM | Permalink

    Re #3 – **Of the articles available so far, I found this one to be of greatest interest. Yet another hockey stick, it would appear.**
    You are able to see a hockey stick anywhere. Must be great exercise to stretch your imagination!!

  6. EW
    Posted Nov 13, 2006 at 8:11 AM | Permalink

    I don’t understand their conclusion.
    At first they talk about the seesaw effect, “cold conditions in Greenland tend to be associated with warming in Antarctica, and vice versa.” And at the end – “Nevertheless, these prehistoric climate shifts were relatively localized…..regional, not global.”

    So regional, that they influenced whole oceans?

  7. bender
    Posted Nov 13, 2006 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    Re #6
    “Regional” is a relative term, context-dependent. To describe “whole ocean” responses as “regional” rather than “global” would make sense … except for the authors’ argument that these “regional” shifts are inter-regionally non-independent. i.e. The shifts appear to be “global” in scale, but they are complex, regionally heterogeneous. Poor choice of words.

    Point is: “global” shifts need not be globally homogeneous. Scale of response and scale of homogeneity are two different things.

  8. Vasco
    Posted Nov 13, 2006 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

    I wonder if changes in the earth´s axis rotation has to do with this phenomenon. Recent research showed that the north pole shifted more than 50 degrees, about the current distance between Alaska and the equator, in less than 20 million years.

  9. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 13, 2006 at 5:48 PM | Permalink

    No axis shifting discussion please.

  10. welikerocks
    Posted Nov 15, 2006 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

    For #8
    “New Model Suggests Antarctic More Dynamic Than Previously Believed”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060625123103.htm

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,299 other followers

%d bloggers like this: