Arctic ice still rapidly decreasing

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Consequences > Arctic ice still rapidly decreasing > Page 3

Page 3 of 3

15-12-2016 15:50
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Tim the plumber wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Perhaps you could be more specific. Which numbers do you consider to be part of the warmizombie conspiracy? The area of the Greenland ice sheet (1.71 million square kilometres)? The volume of the ice sheet (2.85 million cubic kilometres, equivalent to an average thickness of 1670 metres)? The density of ice (920 kg per cubic metre)? The precipitation on the ice sheet (ranging from about 170 cm/year in the snowy south to about 20 cm/year in the desert-like north)? Feel free to provide non-warmizombie alternatives. Or is it the general principle of conservation of matter that offends your right-wing sensibilities? Does matter appear from nowhere in the conservative universe? By the way, we have just two numbers from the Glacier Girl find: the thickness of the ice under which she was found (268 feet, or about 82 metres) and the time for which she was buried for (48 years). This gives an accumulation rate of 1.7 m/year, which is entirely consistent with the rate of precipitation in the southern coastal regions of Greenland. So the fast glacier draining 6.5% of Greenland we looked at would be the one draining the area where it gets 1.7m w.e. of snowfall. Clearly this glacier is not even keeping up with the snowfall there. I do not consider the 2% increase per decade number to match other numbers. But I do think that clearly Greenland is increasing in ice mass. There is no 2% number referring to ice mass balance. As has been repeatedly pointed out (see IBdaMann's signature), this stems from a misunderstanding of a scientific paper that reported an increase of 2% per decade in the rate of accumulation, not the ice mass balance! You would have to be naive in the extreme to believe that this refers to ice mass balance. As I've shown, this would require Amazonian levels of precipitation across the whole of the ice sheet as well as zero melting or glacier flow. You can believe what you like, but the actual evidence from satellite and aircraft borne laser and radar altimetry as well as gravitational analysis indicates that Greenland is currently losing ice mass at a rate of about 250 billion tons per year.
15-12-2016 16:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Surface Detail wrote:You can believe what you like, As has been pointed out repeatedly, you will EVADE whatever is necessary to ensure your WACKY religious beliefs are not put in jeopardy. Surface Detail wrote: the actual evidence from satellite and aircraft borne laser and radar altimetry as well as gravitational analysis indicates All of that is incredibly inaccurate, but that's exactly what you need in order to get the sufficiently-off numbers that add up the way you want. The moment hard, accurate numbers are injected from direct "boots on the ground" surveying measurements, you fear for your precious religious beliefs and you EVADE. Do you have any surveying measurements that show something drastically different from ~2% per decade increase in ice? Let's assume for argument's sake that you have adequately pouted and have shouted a thousand times that "it's totally absurd" and "it's not fair." Do you have any concrete surveying measurements? [ * - e - * - v - * - a - * - d - * - e - * ] I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-12-2016 16:47
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Surface Detail wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Perhaps you could be more specific. Which numbers do you consider to be part of the warmizombie conspiracy? The area of the Greenland ice sheet (1.71 million square kilometres)? The volume of the ice sheet (2.85 million cubic kilometres, equivalent to an average thickness of 1670 metres)? The density of ice (920 kg per cubic metre)? The precipitation on the ice sheet (ranging from about 170 cm/year in the snowy south to about 20 cm/year in the desert-like north)? Feel free to provide non-warmizombie alternatives. Or is it the general principle of conservation of matter that offends your right-wing sensibilities? Does matter appear from nowhere in the conservative universe? By the way, we have just two numbers from the Glacier Girl find: the thickness of the ice under which she was found (268 feet, or about 82 metres) and the time for which she was buried for (48 years). This gives an accumulation rate of 1.7 m/year, which is entirely consistent with the rate of precipitation in the southern coastal regions of Greenland. So the fast glacier draining 6.5% of Greenland we looked at would be the one draining the area where it gets 1.7m w.e. of snowfall. Clearly this glacier is not even keeping up with the snowfall there. I do not consider the 2% increase per decade number to match other numbers. But I do think that clearly Greenland is increasing in ice mass. There is no 2% number referring to ice mass balance. As has been repeatedly pointed out (see IBdaMann's signature), this stems from a misunderstanding of a scientific paper that reported an increase of 2% per decade in the rate of accumulation, not the ice mass balance! You would have to be naive in the extreme to believe that this refers to ice mass balance. As I've shown, this would require Amazonian levels of precipitation across the whole of the ice sheet as well as zero melting or glacier flow. You can believe what you like, but the actual evidence from satellite and aircraft borne laser and radar altimetry as well as gravitational analysis indicates that Greenland is currently losing ice mass at a rate of about 250 billion tons per year. And mear adding up of the maximum rate at which Greenland is draining, either by river water or by glacier gives a figure that is inline with the WWII aircraft being burried under the ice and the accumulation of more and more ice on Greenland as per the Corps of Engineers study and the day length changes and the base on the top of the ice sheet where they drill for th eice cores where they have to move the tents all the time to avoid being burried by the new snow fall. But it could not possibly be that the more complex and uncheckable number is false could it???
15-12-2016 17:21
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: Do you have any surveying measurements that show something drastically different from ~2% per decade increase in ice? You already posted them here. It's not my fault that you're too thick to understand what you were reading. Here's the paper again: Recent accumulation variability in northwest Greenland from ground-penetrating radar and shallow cores along the Greenland Inland Traverse Look at the abstract. The authors write: The measured accumulation rates vary from ~0.1m w.e.a–1 in the interior to ~0.7m w.e.a–1 near the coast, and correspond broadly with existing published model results, though there are some excursions. Do you understand this? It means that they measured accumulation rates as low as 10 cm/year in the interior, where the ice thickness is over 2 km. This gives an annual accumulation rate of less than 0.005% (by your chosen metric, not that it makes much sense to express it this way). This is not 2% per decade. Edited on 15-12-2016 17:31
15-12-2016 17:22
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Tim the plumber wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Perhaps you could be more specific. Which numbers do you consider to be part of the warmizombie conspiracy? The area of the Greenland ice sheet (1.71 million square kilometres)? The volume of the ice sheet (2.85 million cubic kilometres, equivalent to an average thickness of 1670 metres)? The density of ice (920 kg per cubic metre)? The precipitation on the ice sheet (ranging from about 170 cm/year in the snowy south to about 20 cm/year in the desert-like north)? Feel free to provide non-warmizombie alternatives. Or is it the general principle of conservation of matter that offends your right-wing sensibilities? Does matter appear from nowhere in the conservative universe? By the way, we have just two numbers from the Glacier Girl find: the thickness of the ice under which she was found (268 feet, or about 82 metres) and the time for which she was buried for (48 years). This gives an accumulation rate of 1.7 m/year, which is entirely consistent with the rate of precipitation in the southern coastal regions of Greenland. So the fast glacier draining 6.5% of Greenland we looked at would be the one draining the area where it gets 1.7m w.e. of snowfall. Clearly this glacier is not even keeping up with the snowfall there. I do not consider the 2% increase per decade number to match other numbers. But I do think that clearly Greenland is increasing in ice mass. There is no 2% number referring to ice mass balance. As has been repeatedly pointed out (see IBdaMann's signature), this stems from a misunderstanding of a scientific paper that reported an increase of 2% per decade in the rate of accumulation, not the ice mass balance! You would have to be naive in the extreme to believe that this refers to ice mass balance. As I've shown, this would require Amazonian levels of precipitation across the whole of the ice sheet as well as zero melting or glacier flow. You can believe what you like, but the actual evidence from satellite and aircraft borne laser and radar altimetry as well as gravitational analysis indicates that Greenland is currently losing ice mass at a rate of about 250 billion tons per year. And mear adding up of the maximum rate at which Greenland is draining, either by river water or by glacier gives a figure that is inline with the WWII aircraft being burried under the ice and the accumulation of more and more ice on Greenland as per the Corps of Engineers study and the day length changes and the base on the top of the ice sheet where they drill for th eice cores where they have to move the tents all the time to avoid being burried by the new snow fall. But it could not possibly be that the more complex and uncheckable number is false could it??? Could you please try to write in sentences.

26-12-2016 08:14
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	litesong wrote: Improved GRACE regional mass balance estimates of the Greenland ice sheet is 208 plus/minus 18Gt/year mass loss rate for the period 2003 to 2008 from the GRACE solution, while the I(nput)O(utput)M solution shows a mass loss rate of 195 plus/minus 25 Gt/yr. The mass loss rates increase by ~ 67% and 85% in the 2009-2014 period in the GRACE and IOM solutions, respectively. The 10 year acceleration in the GRACE data is -25 plus/minus 8 Gt/yr/yr, consistent with the IOM solution,-26 plus/minus 12 Gt/yr/yr. According to GRACE & IOM data, present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses range from ~ 393 Gtons/yr to 456 Gtons/yr. A new study about Greenland Landmass Rebound affects, indicate that present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses increase to ~ 410 Gtons/yr to 475 Gtons/yr. /////// Suspect Greenland ice sheet loss will escalate past 1000 billion tons per year & the lack of science chemistry astronomy physics algebra in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas for toxic topix AGW denier liar whiners(& winers), will allow them to say, "what, da ain't no Greenlund iace ameltin'....". The latest study to use the precision altimetry data being gathered by the European Space Agency's CryoSat platform determines annual Greenland icemass loss at 375 cubic kilometers plus/minus 24 cubic kilometers per year. 1Gton ice ~ = 1 cubic kilometer ice. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28852980 According to GRACE & IOM data, present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses range from ~ 393 Gtons/yr to 456 Gtons/yr BEFORE the study determining an increased approximation to Greenland Rebound landmass. The newest CryoSat study does NOT mention the latest increased Greenland landmass increase. Therefore, this latest CryoSat loss estimate of 375 cubic kilometers/yr. plus/minus 24 cubic kilometers/yr ~ = 375 Gtons/yr plus/minus 24 cubic kilometers/yr, can be compared effectively with the Grace & IOM data indicating Greenland ice mass losses mentioned above. With consideration of the newest Greenland landmass Rebound estimate, the CryoSat Greenland ice loss per year estimate is 391 Gtons/yr plus/minus 25 Gtons/yr. As mentioned above, the revised Grace & IOM methods for Greenland landmass change, would be ~ 410Gtons/yr to 475 Gtons/yr. Edited on 26-12-2016 08:24
26-12-2016 20:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Surface Detail wrote:Look at the abstract. The authors write: The measured accumulation rates vary from ~0.1m w.e.a–1 in the interior to ~0.7m w.e.a–1 near the coast, and correspond broadly with existing published model results, though there are some excursions. Do you understand this? It means that they measured accumulation rates as low as 10 cm/year in the interior, where the ice thickness is over 2 km. This gives an annual accumulation rate of less than 0.005% (by your chosen metric, not that it makes much sense to express it this way). This is not 2% per decade. In that particular spot. Great! Which is why it saves time to jump to their overall CONCLUSIONS whereby the authors roll it all up for all of the Greenland ice sheet. Comparison of our measured accumulation rates with those measured in the 1950s by Benson (1962) indicates a 2% per decade increase in accumulation between the periods 1945–55 and 1997–2007. So we ask "what do the authors mean by 'accumulation'"? If we're warmizombies then we fight tooth and nail to deny the author's intent of accumulation to the net ice mass balance as clarified in the very opening line of the abstract you mentioned. ABSTRACT. Accumulation is a key parameter governing the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet. The authors weren't interested in discussing "accumulation" in any context beyond growth of the ice mass balance. It's all clarified in the opening line. So if we're warmizombies in a death-struggle before blatant sacrilege then we resort to claiming the English words mean something else entirely from what we've been led to believe our whole lives. Glacier Girl was in one local area as well. Shall we revisit those numbers? I know, why don't you explain how this report shows that the Greenland ice sheet is disappearing? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-12-2016 20:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Surface Detail wrote:Look at the abstract. The authors write: The measured accumulation rates vary from ~0.1m w.e.a–1 in the interior to ~0.7m w.e.a–1 near the coast, and correspond broadly with existing published model results, though there are some excursions. Do you understand this? It means that they measured accumulation rates as low as 10 cm/year in the interior, where the ice thickness is over 2 km. This gives an annual accumulation rate of less than 0.005% (by your chosen metric, not that it makes much sense to express it this way). This is not 2% per decade. In that particular spot. Great! Which is why it saves time to jump to their overall CONCLUSIONS whereby the authors roll it all up for all of the Greenland ice sheet. Comparison of our measured accumulation rates with those measured in the 1950s by Benson (1962) indicates a 2% per decade increase in accumulation between the periods 1945–55 and 1997–2007. So we ask "what do the authors mean by 'accumulation'"? If we're warmizombies then we fight tooth and nail to deny the author's intent of accumulation to the net ice mass balance as clarified in the very opening line of the abstract you mentioned. ABSTRACT. Accumulation is a key parameter governing the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet. The authors weren't interested in discussing "accumulation" in any context beyond growth of the ice mass balance. It's all clarified in the opening line. So if we're warmizombies in a death-struggle before blatant sacrilege then we resort to claiming the English words mean something else entirely from what we've been led to believe our whole lives. Glacier Girl was in one local area as well. Shall we revisit those numbers? I know, why don't you explain how this report shows that the Greenland ice sheet is disappearing? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-12-2016 23:32
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	IBdaMann wrote: ABSTRACT. Accumulation is a key parameter governing the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet. I can't believe that anyone with even the most tenuous grasp of English would understand that sentence to be stating that accumulation is a synonym of mass balance, as you appear to be claiming. Is English not your first language?
27-12-2016 06:37
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ABSTRACT. Accumulation is a key parameter governing the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet. I can't believe that anyone with even the most tenuous grasp of English would understand that sentence to be stating that accumulation is a synonym of mass balance, as you appear to be claiming. Is English not your first language? We've been around this block before. All the AGW denier liar whiners read the first of three AGW Science Papers. All three papers, together, estimate mass balance. But, AGW denier liar whiners, as they have always done with education, stopped after the first paper estimating accumulation. ....... ....... END OF STORY of AGW denier liar whiners.
11-01-2017 23:55
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	litesong wrote: Can't find my nice warm hat with earflaps. Haven't needed it so far, this late fall. Hey, I found my hat with earflaps just about the time the cold moved through the Canadian Frasier River valley & spread over the Salish Sea (Puget Sound). Been watching the end of the winter migration. The Snow Geese in ten thousand member flocks have been spectacular! & the Trumpeter Swans have been in magnificent flight in 20 power super wide angle binoculars. Last three days, I saw Bald Eagles with very poor table manners.... no plates or knife & fork, anywhere near. Oh, yeah. I got to get my topographical maps out after seeing the wonderful snow covered mountains in detail.
12-02-2017 18:42
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	litesong wrote:.....the cold moved through the Canadian Frasier River valley & spread over the Salish Sea (Puget Sound). Been watching the end of the winter migration. The Snow Geese in ten thousand member flocks have been spectacular! & the Trumpeter Swans have been in magnificent flight in 20 power super wide angle binoculars. Last three days, I saw Bald Eagles with very poor table manners.... no plates or knife & fork, anywhere near. Oh, yeah. I got to get my topographical maps out after seeing the wonderful snow covered mountains in detail. Didn't report findings from the good views I had of the Olympic Mnts from the low Salish Sea (Puget Sound) area & review of the topographical maps. Think I did see the top of Mt. Olympus in the center of the Olympic Nat'l Park, behind the east front mountains. But can't be sure without surveyor equipment to precisely determine directions. The front mountains of the Olympic range are magnificent in their own right, but have less height than Mt. Olympus. From the low perspective tho, Mt. Olympus could easily be covered by lots of candidate mountains. But if Mt. Olympus was aligned with left or right dropping slopes of front mountains, it might be seen. Mt. Deception, Mt. Constance could block Mt. Olympus, but Mt. Buckhorn is another candidate. From Seattle, Mt. Anderson, Crystal Peak & Sentinel Peak are blocking candidates, too. Sure the Mountaineers would know. Ascending from the rainforests, Mt. Olympus is hammered with 150+ inches of precipitation per year, much of it as snow. After 15+ years of attempts, the true Mt. Olympus west peak was topped. Edited on 12-02-2017 19:19
09-04-2017 18:54
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	11-01-2017 22:55 litesong wrote: litesong wrote: Can't find my nice warm hat with earflaps. Hey, I found my hat with earflaps... While on the one of the Salish Sea (Puget Sound) shorelines, my wife borrowed my warm hat. As stated often, the Northeast Pacific Ocean anomalously cold up-welling waters have depressed temperatures for months in western & often further east Canada & in the Northwestern U.S. Latest months of the year we've used that hat for some years now.
19-08-2017 03:00
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Here's an interesting article, differing from the present determination that underlying rocky surface of Greenland will hinder & slow Ice Sheet loss. http://conceptnewscentral.com/index.php/2017/08/18/melting-greenland-glacier-speed-study/ Initially, as melt water on the Greenland Ice Sheet percolates down to rocky surface, the water would lift the Ice Sheet, allowing the Sheet to speed up towards seas & oceans. However, the underlying rocky surface would more readily drain water & the rocky surface would drag on the Ice Sheet, slowing its progress toward sea level waters. The article now contends that there is enough sedimentary material on the rocky surface to act as a slurry(?) & not hinder the Ice Sheet as much as previously thought. Edited on 19-08-2017 03:02
16-11-2017 17:28
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for November 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~18,100 cubic kilometers. Present November 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~ 7600 cubic kilometers, ~10,500 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for November 1. The missing ice volume is equivalent to an ice cube, 22 kilometers wide, by 22 kilometers long by 71,000+ feet high. The energy needed to melt the missing ice is 32+ times the U.S. annual consumption of energy. Edited on 16-11-2017 17:39

20-12-2017 23:59
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for December 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~19,900 cubic kilometers. Present December 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~10,900 cubic kilometers, ~9000 cubic kilometers less than the 1980-89 period for December.
21-12-2017 03:51
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	IBdaMann wrote: 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. Good news! Someone happened to catch it on a cell phone camera! Now, this Present High Arctic Berserker(2), or PHAB (2) or FAB (2) has reached ~ 115 day in length, almost 2.9 times greater than the longest over-temperature periods of the 1950's, & ~ half the length of FAB (1). Also, FAB (2) is presently 10degC over-temperature.
02-01-2018 09:23
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	litesong wrote: IBdaMann wrote: 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. Good news! Someone happened to catch it on a cell phone camera! This Present High Arctic Berserker(2), or PHAB (2) or FAB (2) has reached ~ 135 day in length, almost 3.4 times greater than the longest over-temperature periods of the 1950's, & ~ 58% the length of FAB (1). Also, FAB (2) is presently 7degC over-temperature. Edited on 02-01-2018 09:24
12-02-2018 02:52
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for February 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~26,700 cubic kilometers. Present February 1, 2018 sea ice VOLUME is ~17,500 cubic kilometers, ~9200 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for February 1.
01-03-2018 04:34
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	litesong wrote: litesong wrote: FAB (2) has plunged 10degC, which I stated on other threads could happen. However, it is still 11 degC over average. We'll see if further drops occur, that could endanger FAB (2) life, as it nears its 200th day of existence. From another thread: Yes, continued temperature drops now occur, with FAB (2) dropping more, this time to "only" 8degC above average. Again, possible further temp decreases may continue. Did you go up there with a thermometer? More "adjusted" numbers. Spam.
01-03-2018 05:01
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"[quote] "old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: More "adjusted" numbers. Spam. Oh, good. Your opposition means the article was valid.
06-03-2018 03:16
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Yes, continued temperature drops now occur, with FAB (2) dropping to "only" 5degC above average. For the immediate future, there are smaller cold fronts & warm fronts contending to set High Arctic temperatures. The sun has moved 18arcdeg higher in the sky & southern heat will now warm the High Arctic. We'll see how long AGW excess heat can keep High Arctic temperature above the general solar average temperature & keep the Present High Arctic Berserker(2) or FAB (2) alive & above the average temperature of the High Arctic graph. Edited on 06-03-2018 03:49
06-03-2018 05:31
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	The maximum Arctic sea ice extent for the past 3 years have been UNDER 14 million square kilometers. The present Arctic sea ice extent is rapidly approaching the time AND has a good chance of ALSO remaining UNDER a maximum of 14 million square kilometers. No other years back to the 1980's have been under a maximum of 14 million square kilometers, but some of the years have had maximums 2 million square kilometers greater than recent maximums. It is good that many AGW denier liar whiners state that the Earth is cooling. Edited on 06-03-2018 05:36
31-03-2018 01:34
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ABSTRACT. Accumulation is a key parameter governing the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet. I can't believe that anyone with even the most tenuous grasp of English would understand that sentence to be stating that accumulation is a synonym of mass balance, as you appear to be claiming. Is English not your first language? So you understand what "ABSTRACT" means? If so WHY would you speak of IBdaMann's English? Before the little ice age that island was named Greenland BECAUSE IT WAS HEAVILY FARMED. Unlike the ignorant believe, that was not a PR stunt to get more immigration. They didn't even HAVE knowledge of PR. Nor of what use it would be. During the little ice age there were a couple of hundred years of HEAVY glaciation by climate conditions. The melting off of this has been occurring ever since the end of that some couple of hundred years ago. As the glaciers retract there is FARMED LAND beneath them. There is still more to go but we may already be out of the present Warm Period which I suggest we should name - the "Official Warmies Screaming Crying Demand for Attention Warm Period." Even if the warm period is over there will be continued melting in Greenland because the glaciers are still not back to the level they were at in the period between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. But those glaciers that are there begin at around 10,000 ft. In Alaska - about the same latitude, glaciers that are formed at 10,000 ft. go all the way down to 2,000 ft and HAVE NOT MELTED. I suggest that people talking about Greenland glaciers should actually learn something about history, geography and geology before saying one single word about it.

Page 3 of 3

Join the debate Arctic ice still rapidly decreasing:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The new President elect of Haagen Dazs, demonstrating an ice cream filled donut	0	17-11-2023 14:07
Co2 ice samples	11	02-06-2022 22:44
Arctic sea ice cover	19	09-04-2022 08:29
New Ice age by 2030	140	04-04-2022 16:10
Arctic ice cover	2	02-04-2022 09:26