192 comments on DrumBeat: February 19, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
192 comments on DrumBeat: February 19, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack.”
—George Monbiot
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
IIRC, the Greenland icesheet has enough water to raise sea-levels by 23 feet, the East Anarctic sheet by 17 feet, and the WEST ANARCTIC BY OVER 200 FEET!!!! When you consider that a glacier doesn't actually need to melt, but rather may be "discharged" when enough melt water accumulates below to grease the skids, you have a conceivable scenario for relatively abrupt, catastrophic coastal flooding. I haven't heard any climate types actually model when an ice sheet (more likely segments) may discharge. I'd wager no one has a handle on it.
Aha... so the real threat isn't someone dropping an ICBM on us, they just plant one in the ice...
How did Tom Clancy miss this one???
Good heavens, do I sound THAT doomerish? Does someone need to give me a dope-slap?
FWIW, I don't think a nuke on ice has enough energy to melt enough water to make a difference. (No, I didn't run the numbers).
Your reply makes me a little queasy; after the recent flood of verbiage pollution likely intended to disrupt/misdirect/discredit TOD, such a flippant remark makes me worry about vandalism (of the thread). I'm not party to this level of discourse. I'll assume you were tongue-in-cheek.
No... you don't sound doomerish.
And no... I most definitely wasn't trying to take the thread into la-la land. Or start a sub-thread on WMD's etc... It was a poor joke. I am sorry.
That would make a good Clancy novel! The primitive types of A-bombs Iran and North Korea are striving for are big and heavy. The first H-bomb wasn't even a bomb, it was a building full of equipment. Assembling them in the middle of “Nowhere” Greenland would mean no pesky neighbors.
Of course, in reality moving all those men and equipment to the middle of the hostile environment of the ice sheet would be impractical. The extreme temperatures would adversely affect everything you did.
Now on the other hand, a half dozen hijacked Russian H-bombs.............
(Just kidding!)
"the East Anarctic sheet by 17 feet, and the WEST ANARCTIC BY OVER 200 FEET". I think you have these two the wrong way around. The West Antarctic ice sheet - the only one of the two which is in remote danger in the foreseeable future - is much the smaller of the two. The East sheet is very high, cold and climatically isolated. Just as well as it makes up most of the continent and is up to 3km thick.
Of course the big danger is the recent discoveries on Greenland of how meltwater percolates down and lubricates the flow at the ice/rock boundary. This was not taken into account in the IPCC report. The consequences for acceleration of melting are not understood, but having regard to the recent increases in measured melting rate, they do not look good. I would admit that I'm not a climate scientist, just a "general" environmental scientist, but I suspect from watching most news items and publications on these things that we are quietly passing some minor "tipping points" without even seeing them.
The scene in "An Inconvenient Truth" of the melted glacier water going into "holes in the ice sheet is my outstanding image of the film. It is obviously an opportunity for something very bad to happen very fast.