Arctic ice still rapidly decreasing

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote: I don't have time to dispute your figures ...

Of course you don't.

spot wrote: ... but I'm sure If I investigated them they would turn out to be wrong,

... and you being sure that he's wrong is completely sufficient.


.

He said the aircraft cost about 2 grand thats including paying someone to do the work and outfitting it.




Now I'm not an expert in pricing up aircraft, I'm not Donald Trump. but considering 2 grand will only get you a crap old car I think it's fair to say it's a bit more than that Also I'm betting the figure for the satellite program was also pulled out of his arse.

They already have the aircraft all fitted out.

It would take a day to do.

Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php

Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php

Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php

Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.

1, Do you think that the ice in the glacier 20km from the bottom of the glacier where it is retreating will change it's speed of flow much due to whatever happens down at the bottom?

2, Do you think 40cm by 2100 is likely to drown many people? If so where?

Surface Detail wrote: Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?

Naturally, his belief / acceptance in this idea is of the utmost concern to you wrt your efforts to preach your religion.

You have no rational reason for believing that the Greenland ice sheet is somehow losing ice. All evidence shows it is continually accumulating ice. The only reasons one could have for BELIEVING that the Greenland ice is rapidly disappearing are completely irrational (religious) ones. If you had some rational reason you would have presented it, given the importance you place on others accepting your faith.

You have no rational reason for believing that the ocean level is rising. As far as you know, the ocean level could be lowering. Again, if you had some rational reason you would have presented it.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php

Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.

1, Do you think that the ice in the glacier 20km from the bottom of the glacier where it is retreating will change it's speed of flow much due to whatever happens down at the bottom?

2, Do you think 40cm by 2100 is likely to drown many people? If so where?

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php

Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.

1, Do you think that the ice in the glacier 20km from the bottom of the glacier where it is retreating will change it's speed of flow much due to whatever happens down at the bottom?

2, Do you think 40cm by 2100 is likely to drown many people? If so where?

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?

No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

Surface Detail wrote:If you have any specific criticisms on the article, then say so and we'll discuss them. If you've nothing intelligent to contribute, I'll ignore you.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php

Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.

1, Do you think that the ice in the glacier 20km from the bottom of the glacier where it is retreating will change it's speed of flow much due to whatever happens down at the bottom?

2, Do you think 40cm by 2100 is likely to drown many people? If so where?

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?

No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php

Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.

1, Do you think that the ice in the glacier 20km from the bottom of the glacier where it is retreating will change it's speed of flow much due to whatever happens down at the bottom?

2, Do you think 40cm by 2100 is likely to drown many people? If so where?

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?

No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?

No I don't accept that the best way to measure the amount of ice on Greenland is by the deviation of the path of a satellite. Just like the guy in your link.

Do you acept the 4cm number in your link or the 40cm number for the total sea level rise by 2200?

Surface Detail wrote:If you refuse to accept evidence and refuse to indicate why you refuse to accept evidence, then it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.

Surface Detail wrote: There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?

Do you accept 400MHz ground-penetrating radar to be a valid measurement tool of ice depth?

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php

Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.

1, Do you think that the ice in the glacier 20km from the bottom of the glacier where it is retreating will change it's speed of flow much due to whatever happens down at the bottom?

2, Do you think 40cm by 2100 is likely to drown many people? If so where?

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?

No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?

No I don't accept that the best way to measure the amount of ice on Greenland is by the deviation of the path of a satellite. Just like the guy in your link.

Do you acept the 4cm number in your link or the 40cm number for the total sea level rise by 2200?

If you refuse to accept evidence and refuse to indicate why you refuse to accept evidence, then it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?

No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?

No I don't accept that the best way to measure the amount of ice on Greenland is by the deviation of the path of a satellite. Just like the guy in your link.

Do you acept the 4cm number in your link or the 40cm number for the total sea level rise by 2200?

If you refuse to accept evidence and refuse to indicate why you refuse to accept evidence, then it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.

Get your head out of the sand.

The guy in your link is not happy with the satellite because of isostatic rebound. Yeah, and the rest of all the factors that can cause a deviation in the satellites path.

Do you think the 4cm figure is OK?[3]

Do you think the 40cm figure is OK?[3]

Surface Detail wrote: I'm not sure how well 400MHz radio in particular penetrates ice but, yes, radar seems to be a standard technique for measuring ice thickness and structure. I don't know whether it can be done remotely or not. Why do you ask?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: I'm not sure how well 400MHz radio in particular penetrates ice but, yes, radar seems to be a standard technique for measuring ice thickness and structure. I don't know whether it can be done remotely or not. Why do you ask?

The 400 MHz radar was the measuring device used in the Greenland ice mass balance report we were discussing and you didn't like the conclusion of the report so you started claiming the authors "meant" things other than what the common English usage of their words indicated.

Then Tim the Plumber began questioning the conclusions derived from some report you presented and you insisted that "there's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results." You then asked Tim "Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?"

I then decided to ask you if you accept the methods used in the report whose results you don't like.

That's all.

litesong wrote:

litesong wrote:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for December 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~20,200 cubic kilometers. Present estimated December 1, 2016 sea ice VOLUME is ~10,500 cubic kilometers, ~ 9700 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for December 1.

Final measure of PIOMAS December 1, 2016 Arctic sea ice Volume is 9500km3, which is 10,700 km3 LESS than average for the decade of the 1980's, December 1.

litesong wrote: The High Arctic Berserker has been above the average High Arctic temperature for 90(+?) days, well on its way to 100 days, like I surmised & stated weeks ago, & that it could exist for 150 days.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?

No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?

No I don't accept that the best way to measure the amount of ice on Greenland is by the deviation of the path of a satellite. Just like the guy in your link.

Do you acept the 4cm number in your link or the 40cm number for the total sea level rise by 2200?

If you refuse to accept evidence and refuse to indicate why you refuse to accept evidence, then it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.

Get your head out of the sand.

The guy in your link is not happy with the satellite because of isostatic rebound. Yeah, and the rest of all the factors that can cause a deviation in the satellites path.

Do you think the 4cm figure is OK?[3]

Do you think the 40cm figure is OK?[3]

You're seeing stuff that isn't there. The "guy in my link" i.e. co-author of the paper, isn't criticising the GRACE data. His paper simply improves the rebound model used to calculate the ice mass from the GRACE data. In his own words:

"It's a fairly modest correction," said Bevis, the Ohio Eminent Scholar in Geodynamics, professor of earth sciences at Ohio State and leader of GNET, the Greenland GPS Network.

"It doesn't change our estimates of the total mass loss all over Greenland by that much, but it brings a more significant change to our understanding of where within the ice sheet that loss has happened, and where it is happening now."

Let's stick to determining whether the ice is melting now, shall we? There's no point discussing future projections until we've agreed what's going on now. Do you still claim that the Greenland ice sheet isn't melting?

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?

No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?

No I don't accept that the best way to measure the amount of ice on Greenland is by the deviation of the path of a satellite. Just like the guy in your link.

Do you acept the 4cm number in your link or the 40cm number for the total sea level rise by 2200?

If you refuse to accept evidence and refuse to indicate why you refuse to accept evidence, then it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.

Get your head out of the sand.

The guy in your link is not happy with the satellite because of isostatic rebound. Yeah, and the rest of all the factors that can cause a deviation in the satellites path.

Do you think the 4cm figure is OK?[3]

Do you think the 40cm figure is OK?[3]

You're seeing stuff that isn't there. The "guy in my link" i.e. co-author of the paper, isn't criticising the GRACE data. His paper simply improves the rebound model used to calculate the ice mass from the GRACE data. In his own words:

"It's a fairly modest correction," said Bevis, the Ohio Eminent Scholar in Geodynamics, professor of earth sciences at Ohio State and leader of GNET, the Greenland GPS Network.

"It doesn't change our estimates of the total mass loss all over Greenland by that much, but it brings a more significant change to our understanding of where within the ice sheet that loss has happened, and where it is happening now."

Let's stick to determining whether the ice is melting now, shall we? There's no point discussing future projections until we've agreed what's going on now. Do you still claim that the Greenland ice sheet isn't melting?

I think it is increasing the scientist says it is melting at a rate that will cause 4cm sea level rise by 2200.

Do you agree with this number (4cm)? [4]

Do you agree with the 40cm for the total?[4]

Surface Detail wrote:1) You claim that the Greenland ice cap is increasing in mass based, apparently, purely on personal conviction, and despite gravimetric and altimetry data indicating the opposite. Very convincing.

Surface Detail wrote:2) Projections made in 2007 based on just surface melting indicate that Greenland will lose sufficient ice by this mechanism to raise sea levels by 4 cm by 2100 (not 2200). This includes the caveat that increased glacier flow rate is not taken into account, thus giving too conservative an estimate for the overall rise of 40 cm.

Surface Detail wrote:3) The latest (2014) IPCC report acknowledges recent data.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:1) You claim that the Greenland ice cap is increasing in mass based, apparently, purely on personal conviction, and despite gravimetric and altimetry data indicating the opposite. Very convincing.

That's certainly a gross mischacterization. You claim that the Greenland ice sheet is decreasing in mass based, apparently because your religious dogma controlls any cognitive functions you might have, despite boots-on-the-ground 400MHz radar measurements that say the opposite. Your reliance on egregiously inadequate measuring techniques to provide enormous fudging potential to enable the cross-country stretching of conclusions to finally fally into the same ballpark as your WACKY dogma is all the reason anyone needs to summarily dismiss your argument.

Surface Detail wrote:You are, I presume, still failing to understand this report:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:You are, I presume, still failing to understand this report:

You are, I presume, still operating under cognitive dissonance.

You completely EVADED the concrete examples I provided of Glacier Girl and Camp Century. I invited you to discuss the numbers. You would have none of it.

You have absolutely nothing concrete that indicates anything other than ~2% per decade increase in ice mass balance.

So, we're apparently done.

Maybe someone else can explain why Glacier Girl happened if the Greenland ice sheet is disappearing.

Surface Detail wrote:Your claim that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at about 2% per decade isn't just wrong; it's utterly absurd.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Your claim that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at about 2% per decade isn't just wrong; it's utterly absurd.

You had your chance to make your case but you EVADED.

Let me know when you want to discuss Glacier Girl and those numbers.

Good day.

Surface Detail wrote:I did not evade;

spot wrote: I think whenever he's not comfortable with the discussion he claims his opponent is evading, ...

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:I did not evade;

You EVADED my concrete examples like a pick-pocket running from the police. You apparently won't go anywhere near them.

Surface Detail wrote: You claimed that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at 2% per decade. I proved you wrong. Case closed.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: You claimed that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at 2% per decade. I proved you wrong. Case closed.

You proved nothing. You won't touch the concrete numbers because they destroy your argument.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: You claimed that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at 2% per decade. I proved you wrong. Case closed.

You proved nothing. You won't touch the concrete numbers because they destroy your argument.

Scroll up a little and look at my post containing the colourful precipitation map. The curvy symbols of Arabic origin represent numbers. We use them to count and do sums. There are many of them in my post.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: You claimed that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at 2% per decade. I proved you wrong. Case closed.

You proved nothing. You won't touch the concrete numbers because they destroy your argument.

Scroll up a little and look at my post containing the colourful precipitation map. The curvy symbols of Arabic origin represent numbers. We use them to count and do sums. There are many of them in my post.

Your numbers are guesstimates that are nothing more than attempts to change the subject away from the actual measurements I presented.

All you have are your assertions that the Glacier Girl numbers are "absurd." This is reality that you are calling "absurd." You"ll turn right around and claim that violations of physics are reality.

Pick a place in Greenland and show that it isn't accumulating ice ~2% per decade. I'm not interested in your numbers that are probably way off because you took them from some warmizombie website.

Surface Detail wrote:

Your numbers are guesstimates that are nothing more than attempts to change the subject away from the actual measurements I presented.

All you have are your assertions that the Glacier Girl numbers are "absurd." This is reality that you are calling "absurd." You"ll turn right around and claim that violations of physics are reality.

Pick a place in Greenland and show that it isn't accumulating ice ~2% per decade. I'm not interested in your numbers that are probably way off because you took them from some warmizombie website.