Another point worthy of consideration is a bye-product of a POSSIBLE shut
down or diversion of the North Atlantic gyre which brings the N. Atlantic
Drift to our shores. Centrifugal and vortical forces cause the sea surface
to be slightly dish shaped around a cyclonic gyre, dome shaped over its
counter circulation; stop them and you get changes. Whether this is a "good
thing" depends on where you are and which gyres stop/move!

--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Sep 30, 9:17 am, Graham Easterling
wrote:
SNIP.



Thermal expansion of the oceans is where you need to look for sea level
rise, unless the Greenland icecap or Antarctica starts to melt (unlikely
for
long, long time yet).
______________________________
Nick
83 m amsl
Otter Valley, Devonhttp://www.ottervalley.co.uk

It's amazing how much thermal expansion is ignored in sea level
discussions, given it's the major issue for sea level rise for many
decades to come.

I think, that from an AGW perspective, the main thing to stop is the
crazy rate of rain forest destruction. If they were left then an
increase in atmospheric CO2 would result in faster forest growth, and
the hope of some sort of new equilibrium in the future. We are, in
effect, plugging the drain through which atmospheric CO2 escapes.

Pretending to offset forest destruction by planting of few trees in a
park is a joke.

Graham
Penzance

# Well said; I agree with that completely.

So do I. Rain forest destruction is almost criminal, we do not know what
species we are killing or what benefits the forest may bring - full stop,
irrespective of what you believe about climate change etc.

I also agree about thermal expansion effect. I'm amazed you did not about
that Pete, you not got one of those galileo thermometers that works on
specific density http://www.mutr.co.uk/product_info.p...cts_id=1009660
?!

Will
--

"Rodney Blackall" wrote in message
...
| Another point worthy of consideration is a bye-product of a POSSIBLE shut
| down or diversion of the North Atlantic gyre which brings the N. Atlantic
| Drift to our shores. Centrifugal and vortical forces cause the sea surface
| to be slightly dish shaped around a cyclonic gyre, dome shaped over its
| counter circulation; stop them and you get changes. Whether this is a
"good
| thing" depends on where you are and which gyres stop/move!
|

Do you mean "North Atlantic Gyre" or "North Atlantic Drift". There is some
talk of a possible shutdown / slowdown of the ocean circulation which is
generated by cold, salty water being left when sea ice forms. This sinks
towards the ocean floor, returning equatorwards at depth and so drawing more
water of tropical origin into the Arctic basin, passing the UK and Norway
along the way.

If the generation of the cold salty water is interfered with, the North
Atlantic Drift into the Arctic Ocean might shut down, but not the North
Atlantic Gyre. The global wind circulation will still drive water along the
equator into the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico and this will still force the
Gulf Stream to run up the east coast of North America. It will just all
turn right for France and Spain before turning south (as indeed some of it
does now), rather than some continuing roughly ahead for the Arctic.
--
- Yokel -

"Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

"Rodney Blackall" wrote in message
...
Another point worthy of consideration is a bye-product of a POSSIBLE shut
down or diversion of the North Atlantic gyre which brings the N. Atlantic
Drift to our shores. Centrifugal and vortical forces cause the sea surface
to be slightly dish shaped around a cyclonic gyre, dome shaped over its
counter circulation; stop them and you get changes. Whether this is a
"good
thing" depends on where you are and which gyres stop/move!

Stop stirring it Rodney.

On 29 Sep, 19:44, Pete L wrote:

are sea
levels are higher in September than they are in March

the area of sea ice at the Pole in March is 14m sq km and in Sept 3m
sq km. So, 11m has melted with as far as I can make out minimal
difference to sea levels.

If the North Pole becomes ice free in
Summer it isn't going to make any significant difference - we won't
have to move to higher ground. Let's suppose the melting is due to
Man.

Why?

According to my not highly cherrished (but the highly vaunted) copy of
the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the amount of Carbon dioxide levels by
molecules is something like 0.03%.

I had thought it was 0.5% by volume or mass but what do I know.
Besides which the output from industry is trivial compared to that
from nature. Most of which is soluable in very cold water which free
of ice the Arctic is a pretty good sump of.

Can you do something about your paragraph spacings silver pait.

An ice free NW and NE passage is going to save an awful lot of
CO2 emissions from shipping and presumably mitigate Global Warming.

Oh dear.

The idea that an ice free Pole is a 'bad' thing is nonsense. No doubt
with the temperature rise, more of the Greenland ice sheet would melt
but, as most of the inland surface is of high elevation

Since we don't know anything about Greenland under the ice any
commentas about its melting is pointless.

temperature of -20 rising to -15 isn't going to produce any melting.

Since ice is not opaque the temperatures just under the surface are
not prone to wind chill and are free of all other cooling effects too
AFAIK.

So, the BBC and other scaremongers, need not get too excited over an
ice free Summer North Pole. Yes, I do understand positive feedback and
albedo etc. - but the North Pole is cold not just because it is
covered with ice - it cools in Winter due to the lack of the sun's
radiation. It seems inconceivable that the Earth will warm enough to
prevent Winter ice forming.

The temperature of the Arctic is governed by the thermohaline column.
Mixing takes place according to ocean dynamics. Warm winters at depth
mean no ice forms if the mixing takes place upwards.

At the bottom of the ocean it is going to be about 4 degrees C
whatever is it not?

My next thought then was this - because of the shape of the earth,
that the Equator diameter is 100 miles(?) more than the Poles any rise
of sea level from Northern latitudes would find itself pushing 'uphill'

The earth is attractive to things above it but when they make contact
that is it. They are part of the matrix.

It's the main reason that the moon doesn't perform levitation. Well
apart from the lack of gravity, distance and stuff, that is.

Consider the gyres. Billions of tons at the coast of North America
shifting at millions of cubic tons per hour; and the moon raising
tides through individual particles in it?

Really? WTF?

On 29 Sep, 19:55, "Bernard Burton"
wrote:

The Greenland ice cap is one such in the northern hemisphere, and the ice
covering the Antarctic continent is another in the southern hemisphere.

Both of which affect the earth's statics with regard to our water
table. So if they were to melt the pressure would go where and from
what?

On 30 Sep, 09:17, Graham Easterling
wrote:
SNIP.



Thermal expansion of the oceans is where you need to look for sea level
rise, unless the Greenland icecap or Antarctica starts to melt (unlikely for
long, long time yet).
______________________________
Nick
83 m amsl
Otter Valley, Devonhttp://www.ottervalley.co.uk

It's amazing how much thermal expansion is ignored in sea level
discussions, given it's the major issue for sea level rise for many
decades to come.

Speaking of which; anyone know how the thermal expansion of the waters
off the eastern coast of north America works on a diurnal basis?

I think, that from an AGW perspective, the main thing to stop is the
crazy rate of rain forest *destruction. If they were left then an
increase in atmospheric CO2 would result in faster forest growth,

The fastest growth in Amazonia takes place in the dry season. Light,
carbon dioxide and fertiliser levels notwithstanding.

However the hydological cycle has been more or less destroyed. The
singlehanded removal of thousands of acres by a rich USAn in the
1960's went virtually unreported until he went broke having chosen the
wrong monoculture.

But you are right. It isn't industry per se at fault it is the poor
earth husbandry throughought the planet causing the damage. Starting
with our home grown banks and supermarkets might be the best place to
make a clean up.

On 30 Sep, 20:14, Rodney Blackall
wrote:
Another point worthy of consideration is a bye-product of a POSSIBLE shut
down or diversion of the North Atlantic gyre which brings the N. Atlantic
Drift to our shores. Centrifugal and vortical forces cause the sea surface
to be slightly dish shaped around a cyclonic gyre, dome shaped over its
counter circulation; stop them and you get changes. Whether this is a "good
thing" depends on where you are and which gyres stop/move!

--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j

Bloody two ex experts maudering on about centrigugal force. Man I need
my bumps red.

Blue ones don't work.

In article , Yokel
wrote:
"Rodney Blackall" wrote in message
...
| Another point worthy of consideration is a bye-product of a POSSIBLE
| shut down or diversion of the North Atlantic gyre which brings the N.
| Atlantic Drift to our shores. Centrifugal and vortical forces cause the
| sea surface to be slightly dish shaped around a cyclonic gyre, dome
| shaped over its counter circulation; stop them and you get changes.
| Whether this is a "good thing" depends on where you are and which gyres |stop/move!
|

Do you mean "North Atlantic Gyre" or "North Atlantic Drift". There is
some talk of a possible shutdown / slowdown of the ocean circulation
which is generated by cold, salty water being left when sea ice forms.
This sinks towards the ocean floor, returning equatorwards at depth and
so drawing more water of tropical origin into the Arctic basin, passing
the UK and Norway along the way.

[Snip]
Does not matter what you call it, if any eddy subsides or moves away there
will normally be some sort of sea level change.

--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j

In article , Lawrence Jenkins
wrote:

"Rodney Blackall" wrote in message
...
Another point worthy of consideration is a bye-product of a POSSIBLE
shut down or diversion of the North Atlantic gyre which brings the N.
Atlantic Drift to our shores. Centrifugal and vortical forces cause the
sea surface to be slightly dish shaped around a cyclonic gyre, dome
shaped over its counter circulation; stop them and you get changes.
Whether this is a "good thing" depends on where you are and which
gyres stop/move!

Stop stirring it Rodney.

Very clever; I like that (and stirring occasionally to stop stagnation).

--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j