Greenland's Glacial Melt

James_ wrote:
@All,
The graph https://goo.gl/photos/93eStgFuBATwHgy57 shows that in 2017 Greenland suffered more glacial melt. And for anyone familiar with my opinion I think this is what will allow for even more warming. Kind of why I wouldn't mind seeing actual physical testing to determine CO2's role in our atmosphere.

James_ wrote:
@All,
The graph https://goo.gl/photos/93eStgFuBATwHgy57 shows that in 2017 Greenland suffered more glacial melt. And for anyone familiar with my opinion I think this is what will allow for even more warming. Kind of why I wouldn't mind seeing actual physical testing to determine CO2's role in our atmosphere.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
The graph https://goo.gl/photos/93eStgFuBATwHgy57 shows that in 2017 Greenland suffered more glacial melt. And for anyone familiar with my opinion I think this is what will allow for even more warming. Kind of why I wouldn't mind seeing actual physical testing to determine CO2's role in our atmosphere.

I think you have better read your graph again.

(Why doesn't anyone from the Church of Global Warming actually READ the graph they are presenting as evidence??)

James_ wrote:
@All,
The 2 images are to magnitude 6.0 earthquakes or greater around Greenland. This one is from
1980 - 2010 https://goo.gl/photos/RqKWPxRyPmdnZ9xr7. It shows 7 earthquakes.
This link https://goo.gl/photos/uXLAjhp2bojE3AfH6 is from 2011 - present and shows 2 earthquakes magnitude 6.0 or greater.
To average out such earthquakes, the 30 years from 1980 to 2010 averages 0.23 per year. From 2011 to present averages 0.3. While that is a slight increase they are all in the Greenland Sea abyss which is warming faster than the world ocean. Some have said by as much as 10x faster. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

I tend to think that they can cause deep sea faults which increase the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss. And this is what atmospheric and oceanic warming (the Gulf Stream) might contribute to. A search of such earthquakes shows they precede a warming or cooling of our atmosphere by about 10 years.
As for deep sea faults contributing to warming, there is http://www.plateclimatology.com/heat-from-deep-ocean-fault-punches-hole-in-arctic-ice-sheet/ and https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150813142713.htm.

And anyone can read the first post. This in my opinion is what could be accelerated.

If anyone wants to check out earthquakes, this link https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/ is to the USGS search engine. Click on draw a rectangle and while holding down the left mouse button the map can be moved. Then a tap of the left button will create one point on the map. Then move the cursor to create the area to observe and tap the left button again. The white circles can be used to move that line of the square/rectangle.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
The 2 images are to magnitude 6.0 earthquakes or greater around Greenland. This one is from
1980 - 2010 https://goo.gl/photos/RqKWPxRyPmdnZ9xr7. It shows 7 earthquakes.
This link https://goo.gl/photos/uXLAjhp2bojE3AfH6 is from 2011 - present and shows 2 earthquakes magnitude 6.0 or greater.
To average out such earthquakes, the 30 years from 1980 to 2010 averages 0.23 per year. From 2011 to present averages 0.3. While that is a slight increase they are all in the Greenland Sea abyss which is warming faster than the world ocean. Some have said by as much as 10x faster. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

I tend to think that they can cause deep sea faults which increase the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss. And this is what atmospheric and oceanic warming (the Gulf Stream) might contribute to. A search of such earthquakes shows they precede a warming or cooling of our atmosphere by about 10 years.
As for deep sea faults contributing to warming, there is http://www.plateclimatology.com/heat-from-deep-ocean-fault-punches-hole-in-arctic-ice-sheet/ and https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150813142713.htm.

And anyone can read the first post. This in my opinion is what could be accelerated.

If anyone wants to check out earthquakes, this link https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/ is to the USGS search engine. Click on draw a rectangle and while holding down the left mouse button the map can be moved. Then a tap of the left button will create one point on the map. Then move the cursor to create the area to observe and tap the left button again. The white circles can be used to move that line of the square/rectangle.

Because of the withdrawal of the widespread glaciers on Greenland they can expect to have small earthquakes as the land rebounds. This is entirely normal.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
The 2 images are to magnitude 6.0 earthquakes or greater around Greenland. This one is from
1980 - 2010 https://goo.gl/photos/RqKWPxRyPmdnZ9xr7. It shows 7 earthquakes.
This link https://goo.gl/photos/uXLAjhp2bojE3AfH6 is from 2011 - present and shows 2 earthquakes magnitude 6.0 or greater.
To average out such earthquakes, the 30 years from 1980 to 2010 averages 0.23 per year. From 2011 to present averages 0.3. While that is a slight increase they are all in the Greenland Sea abyss which is warming faster than the world ocean. Some have said by as much as 10x faster. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

I tend to think that they can cause deep sea faults which increase the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss. And this is what atmospheric and oceanic warming (the Gulf Stream) might contribute to. A search of such earthquakes shows they precede a warming or cooling of our atmosphere by about 10 years.
As for deep sea faults contributing to warming, there is http://www.plateclimatology.com/heat-from-deep-ocean-fault-punches-hole-in-arctic-ice-sheet/ and https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150813142713.htm.

And anyone can read the first post. This in my opinion is what could be accelerated.

If anyone wants to check out earthquakes, this link https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/ is to the USGS search engine. Click on draw a rectangle and while holding down the left mouse button the map can be moved. Then a tap of the left button will create one point on the map. Then move the cursor to create the area to observe and tap the left button again. The white circles can be used to move that line of the square/rectangle.

Because of the withdrawal of the widespread glaciers on Greenland they can expect to have small earthquakes as the land rebounds. This is entirely normal.

Wake,
If you did some research you would see you don't get it.

Wake wrote:


But you "get it" because not only have you done your research but you've been planning an experiment to prove your ideas that the really rises in the west.

Tell us more about this experiment of yours that you've been talking about for the last year and seems to totally change form with each incarnation? I say incarnation because when you start to explain it, your terms allow even laymen to correct your scientific knowledge and your "experiment" is DOA.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


But you "get it" because not only have you done your research but you've been planning an experiment to prove your ideas that the really rises in the west.

Tell us more about this experiment of yours that you've been talking about for the last year and seems to totally change form with each incarnation? I say incarnation because when you start to explain it, your terms allow even laymen to correct your scientific knowledge and your "experiment" is DOA.

Wake,
More bullying tactics I see. The experiment that I am pursuing hasn't changed. You claim it has without referencing any post of mine to illustrate your point.
And yes I do "get it" while you don't. I have been saying what your link shows. Thanks for showing a credible source

What you're not getting is we can increase the amount of glacial melt through AGW. At the same time you say that NO climate change is happening. Are you changing your position now and saying you think climate change might be happening ? And Greenland sits on the thinnest crust and has glaciers with a mean altitude of the ice is 2,135 metres (7,005 ft).
The earthquakes which I pointed out and that you called small are actually quite powerful as far as climate change goes. That shows lack of research on your part.

James_ wrote:
@Wake,
The link you posted from the Smithsonian Institution and you considered credible said what I have been saying. I thanked you for it and now you are throwing a tantrum. How mature of you. Does it bother you that much that I Thanked You ?
Maybe it's that you're so busy trying to discredit people that you didn't consider what you were posting ?
Quoting you;
But you "get it" because not only have you done your research but you've been planning an experiment to prove your ideas that the really rises in the west.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/melting-glaciers-are-wreaking-havoc-earths-crust-180960226/

Of course this isn't a reliable source - it's only the Smithsonian.

"The most dramatic examples of uplift are found in places like Russia, Iceland and Scandinavia, where the largest ice sheets existed."

end quote

James_ says;
And Greenland has a massive glacier on it, right ? I am hoping you did not miss that. As for this claim of yours; Tell us more about this experiment of yours that you've been talking about for the last year

Anyone can see my join date, it was 6 months ago. How did you miss that ? Can you tell the difference between 2016 and 2017 ? It seems not. Kind of why I think you are a cyber Bully. You're so busy thinking about how you can attack me that you don't even know what year we are in.
And then you say this; Tell you what punk, make my day - tell us about this experiment you are going to perform one of these days that will prove you right. And that you hesitate to perform because it would prove you wrong.

end quote

James_ says;
>> Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. <<
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html


I would be showing the IPCC the link between CO2 and the Chapman cycle. While I would be right, scientists are aware that such a link exists. If not then they would not have referenced it in their report. I think this is the part about science that you do not understand. When an observation is made that cannot be explained it is okay to try to find a solution. And yes, I do believe I am right. In the tropopause the possibilities are very limited, kind of makes it easier.

Wake wrote:


So you claim I'm wrong and then faced with references that even you can't deny you say that I'm still wrong because you really didn't say what you said.

OK.

Then despite the fact that the Chapman Cycle is purely about O2's conversion to O1 and then to O3 you are going to prove that CO2 is really the source.

Well at least we can say you're inventive if not very smart.

Wake wrote:

Then despite the fact that the Chapman Cycle is purely about O2's conversion to O1 and then to O3 you are going to prove that CO2 is really the source.

Well at least we can say you're inventive if not very smart.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


So you claim I'm wrong and then faced with references that even you can't deny you say that I'm still wrong because you really didn't say what you said.

OK.

Then despite the fact that the Chapman Cycle is purely about O2's conversion to O1 and then to O3 you are going to prove that CO2 is really the source.

Well at least we can say you're inventive if not very smart.

Are you saying I didn't say this ?

Then if melting glaciers on Greenland, in Alaska, etc. reduce the mass on the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates in the Arctic then an increase of heat being released from under water geologic activity can be increased.
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/coal-d6-e1447.php#post_20982

June 30, 2017 I posted that. Russia is on the European tectonic plate. What you posted supports what I have been saying for a number of months now.

Then you go on to say; Then despite the fact that the Chapman Cycle is purely about O2's conversion to O1 and then to O3 you are going to prove that CO2 is really the source.

end quote

CO2 might be a significant source of O2 in the upper troposphere and into the tropopause. If my experiment shows that CH2O occurs as the result of water and carbon dioxide being exposed to the absence of pressure at such elevations then it will open a new area of Atmospheric Chemistry.
A part of science is about discovering new things, I think you missed that part.
This link and quote are from 1979, the levels of ch2o went up to 6.5 ppb;
In maritime air under conditions when photochemical equilibrium was expected, formaldehyde concentrations of 0.2 ppb were observed, which can be accounted for by photochemical oxidation of methane alone. However, the high concentrations of formaldehyde found at J*lich indicate other sources of formal- dehyde.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC084iC10p06329/epdf?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1&purchase_referrer=www.google.com&purchase_site_license=LICENSE_DENIED_NO_CUSTOMER

So you see Wake, another observation without an explanation. And as the author mentions there is little research into atmospheric ch2o, it's just not that important. The O3 being observed might be bad ozone. Even so if it is occurring when ch2o occurs then that could be a significant coincidence. Yet all you can do it try to prove me wrong.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badight" bluffed: Even NASA claimed that CO2 is the source. That statement is one of the many reasons I don't respect NASA much anymore.

James_ wrote:
@All,
The graph https://goo.gl/photos/93eStgFuBATwHgy57 shows that in 2017 Greenland suffered more glacial melt. And for anyone familiar with my opinion I think this is what will allow for even more warming. Kind of why I wouldn't mind seeing actual physical testing to determine CO2's role in our atmosphere.

James_ wrote:
@All,
The 2 images are to magnitude 6.0 earthquakes or greater around Greenland. This one is from
1980 - 2010 https://goo.gl/photos/RqKWPxRyPmdnZ9xr7. It shows 7 earthquakes.
This link https://goo.gl/photos/uXLAjhp2bojE3AfH6 is from 2011 - present and shows 2 earthquakes magnitude 6.0 or greater.
To average out such earthquakes, the 30 years from 1980 to 2010 averages 0.23 per year. From 2011 to present averages 0.3. While that is a slight increase they are all in the Greenland Sea abyss which is warming faster than the world ocean. Some have said by as much as 10x faster. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

I tend to think that they can cause deep sea faults which increase the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss. And this is what atmospheric and oceanic warming (the Gulf Stream) might contribute to. A search of such earthquakes shows they precede a warming or cooling of our atmosphere by about 10 years.
As for deep sea faults contributing to warming, there is http://www.plateclimatology.com/heat-from-deep-ocean-fault-punches-hole-in-arctic-ice-sheet/ and https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150813142713.htm.

And anyone can read the first post. This in my opinion is what could be accelerated.

If anyone wants to check out earthquakes, this link https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/ is to the USGS search engine. Click on draw a rectangle and while holding down the left mouse button the map can be moved. Then a tap of the left button will create one point on the map. Then move the cursor to create the area to observe and tap the left button again. The white circles can be used to move that line of the square/rectangle.

Tim the plumber wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
The graph https://goo.gl/photos/93eStgFuBATwHgy57 shows that in 2017 Greenland suffered more glacial melt. And for anyone familiar with my opinion I think this is what will allow for even more warming. Kind of why I wouldn't mind seeing actual physical testing to determine CO2's role in our atmosphere.

What is this from?

What is the context?

What is the percentage of? Surface of all of Greenland or what?

How much mass was melted?

Tim the plumber wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
The graph https://goo.gl/photos/93eStgFuBATwHgy57 shows that in 2017 Greenland suffered more glacial melt. And for anyone familiar with my opinion I think this is what will allow for even more warming. Kind of why I wouldn't mind seeing actual physical testing to determine CO2's role in our atmosphere.

What is this from?

What is the context?

What is the percentage of? Surface of all of Greenland or what?

How much mass was melted?

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
The graph https://goo.gl/photos/93eStgFuBATwHgy57 shows that in 2017 Greenland suffered more glacial melt. And for anyone familiar with my opinion I think this is what will allow for even more warming. Kind of why I wouldn't mind seeing actual physical testing to determine CO2's role in our atmosphere.

What is this from?

What is the context?

What is the percentage of? Surface of all of Greenland or what?

How much mass was melted?

Most of the low altitude glaciers on Iceland have been melting off very rapidly. This causes rebound with causes minor earthquakes that our friend Jim denied until it was shoved in his face then he denied denying it.

You can hold your own opinions but you can't hold your own science as he has been doing.

Tim the plumber wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
The graph https://goo.gl/photos/93eStgFuBATwHgy57 shows that in 2017 Greenland suffered more glacial melt. And for anyone familiar with my opinion I think this is what will allow for even more warming. Kind of why I wouldn't mind seeing actual physical testing to determine CO2's role in our atmosphere.

What is this from?

What is the context?

What is the percentage of? Surface of all of Greenland or what?

How much mass was melted?

Wake wrote:

You told me I didn't know what I was talking about when I noted that rebound from glaciers melting caused perfectly normal earthquakes. Don't try to get out of something that you can simply look back in the string and read for yourself.

As for your unbelievable ignorance about the Chapman cycle: The atmosphere is 21% O2. Got that? CO2 comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Even presupposing that you had some sort of clue of what you were talking about, in what universe does 0.19% increase in oxygen have any measurable effect?

You don't get anything but you want to argue about your vast knowledge that no one else has. Please get lost.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

You told me I didn't know what I was talking about when I noted that rebound from glaciers melting caused perfectly normal earthquakes. Don't try to get out of something that you can simply look back in the string and read for yourself.

As for your unbelievable ignorance about the Chapman cycle: The atmosphere is 21% O2. Got that? CO2 comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Even presupposing that you had some sort of clue of what you were talking about, in what universe does 0.19% increase in oxygen have any measurable effect?

You don't get anything but you want to argue about your vast knowledge that no one else has. Please get lost.

Quoting wake >> You told me I didn't know what I was talking about when I noted that rebound from glaciers melting caused perfectly normal earthquakes. <<

You don't. You are clueless because you believe that only your opinion matters. Typical IMHO Cyber Bullying crap allows for.
I have stated many times that I believe that waste heat might be the real threat. This is because it has the potential to melt glaciers.
You posted that no climate change is happening. I don't argue but you do. An example of wake being argumentative and a Cyber Bully IMHO;

>> Even presupposing that you had some sort of clue of what you were talking about, in what universe does 0.19% increase in oxygen have any measurable effect? <<

I wouldn't know what universe because I am in this one and haven't been in any other universe. Can you show where I was talking about that ? You seem to be quoting me but give no source for such a claim.
As for glacial melt allowing for a rebound effect, I know about that because I am 1/2 Norwegian and have lived in Norway. Norwegians are aware of that.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

You told me I didn't know what I was talking about when I noted that rebound from glaciers melting caused perfectly normal earthquakes. Don't try to get out of something that you can simply look back in the string and read for yourself.

As for your unbelievable ignorance about the Chapman cycle: The atmosphere is 21% O2. Got that? CO2 comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Even presupposing that you had some sort of clue of what you were talking about, in what universe does 0.19% increase in oxygen have any measurable effect?

You don't get anything but you want to argue about your vast knowledge that no one else has. Please get lost.

Quoting wake >> You told me I didn't know what I was talking about when I noted that rebound from glaciers melting caused perfectly normal earthquakes. <<

You don't. You are clueless because you believe that only your opinion matters. Typical IMHO Cyber Bullying crap allows for.
I have stated many times that I believe that waste heat might be the real threat. This is because it has the potential to melt glaciers.
You posted that no climate change is happening. I don't argue but you do. An example of wake being argumentative and a Cyber Bully IMHO;

>> Even presupposing that you had some sort of clue of what you were talking about, in what universe does 0.19% increase in oxygen have any measurable effect? <<

I wouldn't know what universe because I am in this one and haven't been in any other universe. Can you show where I was talking about that ? You seem to be quoting me but give no source for such a claim.
As for glacial melt allowing for a rebound effect, I know about that because I am 1/2 Norwegian and have lived in Norway. Norwegians are aware of that.

In other words you're nothing more than a pantywaist little coward that doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and will run around in circles crying foul for anyone pointing out what you yourself said.

Pouring slime all over the group you refuse to explain how the Chapman cycle can be expected to be effected by CO2. That's because just like every other word out of your stupid face you heard the words "Chapman Cycle" and just knew that it would save your butt from the phony science you're trying to use to impress everyone.

Being 1/2 Norwegian doesn't mean you have one clue about continental rebound effects. The ENTIRE change for all Norwegian glaciers has been only 425 meters or a quarter of a mile. Some of the southern glaciers have even advanced.

And none of these glaciers have been large enough or have changed enough to trigger earthquakes since the rebound effects were from the last ice age and not the small changes of the glaciers today.

This is just bullying you isn't it you stupid jackass.