Comment on ‘‘Catastrophic ice shelf breakup as the source
[1] Hulbe et al. [2004] argue that the original binge-purge model of their coauthor MacAyeal [1993a, 1993b] is not appropriate for Heinrich events but that a new ice-shelf-collapse mechanism may work. We believe that the new collapse mechanism disagrees with important data and that MacAyeal’s origin...
| Other Authors: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.482.7619 http://web.pdx.edu/~chulbe/science/reprints/2004PA001086.pdf |
| Summary: | [1] Hulbe et al. [2004] argue that the original binge-purge model of their coauthor MacAyeal [1993a, 1993b] is not appropriate for Heinrich events but that a new ice-shelf-collapse mechanism may work. We believe that the new collapse mechanism disagrees with important data and that MacAyeal’s original model remains viable after appropriate modifications. We have enjoyed a fascinating discussion with Hulbe et al. on this topic, which is stimulating our thinking and research, and we present some of the arguments here for a wider audience. [2] In MacAyeal’s model, thermal cycling in the Hudson Strait region of the Laurentide Ice Sheet caused an alterna-tion between long-lived ice sheet growth and short-lived ice stream draw-down. The main evidence used by Hulbe et al. [2004] against MacAyeal [1993a, 1993b] is that each |
|---|