Reply With Quote
please start serious threads
Now that the volcano in Iceland is spewing ash over Greenland, how much will the ash accelerate glacier melting and flow?
Will the alarmists blame it on global warming if it happens?
please start serious threads
Why?
You never do.
Gfy
Since I live in volcano country, a rocks throw away from Mt Hood, I have witnessed their fury. I remember the ash that fell on my property in 1980.
First on is slow motion, Mt. St. Helens, initial few seconds:
LOL its spewing ash over Greenland huh?
That's what I heard earlier in the news.
Is it not? I didn't verify, so maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe? Maybe you should verify and come back and tell us what you found. After you do that maybe next you can tell me which direction the prevailing winds in that part of the world are. Then maybe you can tell me how often ash from Icelandic eruptions ends up over Greenland.
Hint: The last big eruption in Iceland put ash over Europe. What direction is Europe in?
I started an idea of a thread. At this point I don't care. What I do care about is that IF the ash is going over Greenland, it will accelerate the melting.
Now assume for a moment this is true. Don't you think it will accelerate the melting?
No Sherlock. How consistent is Mother earth anyway?
How about this:
Iceland volcano ash could reach Scotland by Tuesday
Spokeswoman Hjordis Gudmundsdottir said the ash plume was covering Iceland, but "the good news is that it is not heading to Europe."
She said the ash was blowing west toward Greenland instead. She said officials were investigating whether Iceland's other airports could take Keflavik-bound flights.
Trans-Atlantic flights were being diverted away from Iceland, and there was no sign yet that the eruption would cause the widespread travel disruption triggered last year by ash from the Eyjafjallajokull volcano.
From what I've read, large amounts of volcanic ash in the atmosphere have exactly the opposite effect of what you describe.
I guess you can act like you knew that all along.
It causes atmospheric cooling, but on the ground ice and snow, it absorbs the sun's heat rather than reflecting it, melting the ice. Thing is, it stays there. As it melts, it can stay there melting several years worth of ac ulation before being washed away.
And your source for this is?
There's another problem of yours.
You wish me to remember a source I learned 30+ years ago. There should be something in the net.
I'll look since you are too lazy.
Yes, 30 years ago you were changing volcanic ash parts on glaciers.
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/..._features.htmlOn the glacier surface the darker rock absorbs heat, which causes the ice to melt faster than if the ice were exposed. For example, a 1/4-inch dusting of volcanic ash may increase surface melting by 90 percent. When the ash layer is one inch or more thick, it will insulate the snow or ice below....
The answer to the OP is "Maybe."
One inch or more....
Very, very, unlikely with the winds and snowing in between.
Then on top of that, it doesn't stay like that. It insulates what's below, but not new ac ulations. Eventually, it warms and melts the ice.
Consider this:
Albedo of dirty snow during conditions of melt, in the abstract:
Many of the soot particles flushed through the snowpack with the mel er, and surface concentrations of soot greater than about 5 x 10^-7 kg/kg did not persist for more than a few days. The migration of particles to depth caused the snow to brighten after the initial application, thus limiting the amount of albedo reduction and the consequent effects on melting. Nevertheless, the soot remaining near the surface had a substantial, long-term effect. The residual concentration of 5 x 10^-7 kg/kg persisted for several weeks and, compared to the untreated surface, reduced the albedo by about 30% and increased melting by 50%. Particles of volcanic ash with diameters larger than about 5 um remained at or near the snow surface. Although many of the smaller particles flushed through the snow with the mel er, the surface albedo was not changed significantly by their removal.
More than 30 years ago, they used to actually teach science in School.
Then the answer to your second OP question will be "No."
[/thread]
LOL...
They blame any climate change on global warming already. Why should they stop now?
Eh, folks here blamed Obama for the light bulb changes.
I just blame liberals in general for the mandates.
I prefer the CFL's I have because I can get them in the daylight spectrum range. Much better than the yellowish tint of incandescent.
THERE ARE NO ING MANDATES!!
Really? We have a, what, 6 or 7 page thread completely disproving this idiots idea of a mandate.... (le sigh)
Sea levels set to rise by up to a meter
Sea levels are set to rise by up to a metre within a century due to global warming, a new Australian report said Monday as it warned this could make "once-a-century" coastal flooding much more common.
"We're five years down the track now, we know more about how those big ice sheets are behaving," Steffen told reporters.
"In part we have some very good information about the Greenland icesheet. We know it's losing mass and we know it's losing mass at an increasing rate.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/2...e+Raw+Story%29
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
