President Trump and climate change policy

spot wrote:
Tim,

I think I did not get your point, your saying that the fact that far more water is coming from Greenland than is falling on it is unrealistic.
But obviously the ice cap acts as a store, so if it gets warmer more water will come from Greenland then it receives in a year, if it got colder the opposite would happen. To me this is further proof that average temperatures have increased as standard physics predict and temperature records show.

You think that modern methods of tracking the ice mass balance of are unreliable and whats more you accuse The team releasing the Grace satellite figures of fraud, me and others have been over your figures and have come to differing conclusions, Surface detail has pointed out that your not accounting for everything anyway, accusing people based on the evidence that you present is wrong, it puts you in tin foil hat territory.

You seem a nice guy and If you met one of them I'm sure you wouldn't say that to their face you would ask questions and I'm sure someone more knowledgeable and patient could explain about ice mass balance to your satifaction.

Surface Detail wrote:
Tim, you're making the same mistake here that you did with the Earth's rotation speed. In both cases you have focussed on just one of a number of factors that affect some quantity, and have then claimed that the science is faulty on the basis that the quantity is not fully explained by just that one factor.

As I mentioned before, you cannot simply dismiss iceberg calving from your calculations, given that this is an important mechanism for removing ice from Greenland. An analogy would be to dismiss the British Tourist Board's figures for tourism on the basis that there are not enough boats to carry that many people, while studiously ignoring the existence of airliners.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Tim, you're making the same mistake here that you did with the Earth's rotation speed. In both cases you have focussed on just one of a number of factors that affect some quantity, and have then claimed that the science is faulty on the basis that the quantity is not fully explained by just that one factor.

As I mentioned before, you cannot simply dismiss iceberg calving from your calculations, given that this is an important mechanism for removing ice from Greenland. An analogy would be to dismiss the British Tourist Board's figures for tourism on the basis that there are not enough boats to carry that many people, while studiously ignoring the existence of airliners.

I do not dismiss ice berg calving.

I point out that they also have to come down the rivers.

You are totally avoiding the utterly obvious.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Tim, you're making the same mistake here that you did with the Earth's rotation speed. In both cases you have focussed on just one of a number of factors that affect some quantity, and have then claimed that the science is faulty on the basis that the quantity is not fully explained by just that one factor.

As I mentioned before, you cannot simply dismiss iceberg calving from your calculations, given that this is an important mechanism for removing ice from Greenland. An analogy would be to dismiss the British Tourist Board's figures for tourism on the basis that there are not enough boats to carry that many people, while studiously ignoring the existence of airliners.

I do not dismiss ice berg calving.

I point out that they also have to come down the rivers.

You are totally avoiding the utterly obvious.

Icebergs don't flow down rivers! They are formed when chunks of glacier break off into the sea. Can you really imagine a chunk of ice big enough to sink the Titanic floating along a river?

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Tim, you're making the same mistake here that you did with the Earth's rotation speed. In both cases you have focussed on just one of a number of factors that affect some quantity, and have then claimed that the science is faulty on the basis that the quantity is not fully explained by just that one factor.

As I mentioned before, you cannot simply dismiss iceberg calving from your calculations, given that this is an important mechanism for removing ice from Greenland. An analogy would be to dismiss the British Tourist Board's figures for tourism on the basis that there are not enough boats to carry that many people, while studiously ignoring the existence of airliners.

I do not dismiss ice berg calving.

I point out that they also have to come down the rivers.

You are totally avoiding the utterly obvious.

Icebergs don't flow down rivers! They are formed when chunks of glacier break off into the sea. Can you really imagine a chunk of ice big enough to sink the Titanic floating along a river?

Where on the earth, use a google earth link, is this happening?

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Tim, you're making the same mistake here that you did with the Earth's rotation speed. In both cases you have focussed on just one of a number of factors that affect some quantity, and have then claimed that the science is faulty on the basis that the quantity is not fully explained by just that one factor.

As I mentioned before, you cannot simply dismiss iceberg calving from your calculations, given that this is an important mechanism for removing ice from Greenland. An analogy would be to dismiss the British Tourist Board's figures for tourism on the basis that there are not enough boats to carry that many people, while studiously ignoring the existence of airliners.

I do not dismiss ice berg calving.

I point out that they also have to come down the rivers.

You are totally avoiding the utterly obvious.

Icebergs don't flow down rivers! They are formed when chunks of glacier break off into the sea. Can you really imagine a chunk of ice big enough to sink the Titanic floating along a river?

Where on the earth, use a google earth link, is this happening?

It's happening all around the coasts of Greenland and Antarctica.

I presume you mean a Google Maps (not Earth) link:

https://www.google.com/maps/@71.68409,-52.34793,177555m/data=!3m1!1e3

Here you can see the ends of a number of glaciers where they meet the sea. There largest ones are about 2 1/2 miles across. You can also see individual icebergs, which have broken from the glaciers, floating in the sea.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Tim, you're making the same mistake here that you did with the Earth's rotation speed. In both cases you have focussed on just one of a number of factors that affect some quantity, and have then claimed that the science is faulty on the basis that the quantity is not fully explained by just that one factor.

As I mentioned before, you cannot simply dismiss iceberg calving from your calculations, given that this is an important mechanism for removing ice from Greenland. An analogy would be to dismiss the British Tourist Board's figures for tourism on the basis that there are not enough boats to carry that many people, while studiously ignoring the existence of airliners.

I do not dismiss ice berg calving.

I point out that they also have to come down the rivers.

You are totally avoiding the utterly obvious.

Icebergs don't flow down rivers! They are formed when chunks of glacier break off into the sea. Can you really imagine a chunk of ice big enough to sink the Titanic floating along a river?

Where on the earth, use a google earth link, is this happening?

It's happening all around the coasts of Greenland and Antarctica.

I presume you mean a Google Maps (not Earth) link:

https://www.google.com/maps/@71.68409,-52.34793,177555m/data=!3m1!1e3

Here you can see the ends of a number of glaciers where they meet the sea. There largest ones are about 2 1/2 miles across. You can also see individual icebergs, which have broken from the glaciers, floating in the sea.

Yep. But the thing is that they are slowly moving away from the glacier. Not flowing out of the fjord at the speed of the Mississippi river which they would have to be to account for the snowfall.

Surface Detail wrote: Why would they? There are dozens on glaciers flowing into the sea around the coast of Greenland, some of which are miles across! OK, they don't move very fast, but they are very wide and very deep, there are lots of them, and they flow all year round.

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, you're making the same mistake here that you did with the Earth's rotation speed. In both cases you have focussed on just one of a number of factors that affect some quantity, and have then claimed that the science is faulty on the basis that the quantity is not fully explained by just that one factor.

As I mentioned before, you cannot simply dismiss iceberg calving from your calculations, given that this is an important mechanism for removing ice from Greenland. An analogy would be to dismiss the British Tourist Board's figures for tourism on the basis that there are not enough boats to carry that many people, while studiously ignoring the existence of airliners.

I do not dismiss ice berg calving.

I point out that they also have to come down the rivers.

You are totally avoiding the utterly obvious.

Icebergs don't flow down rivers! They are formed when chunks of glacier break off into the sea. Can you really imagine a chunk of ice big enough to sink the Titanic floating along a river?

Where on the earth, use a google earth link, is this happening?

It's happening all around the coasts of Greenland and Antarctica.

I presume you mean a Google Maps (not Earth) link:

https://www.google.com/maps/@71.68409,-52.34793,177555m/data=!3m1!1e3

Here you can see the ends of a number of glaciers where they meet the sea. There largest ones are about 2 1/2 miles across. You can also see individual icebergs, which have broken from the glaciers, floating in the sea.

Yep. But the thing is that they are slowly moving away from the glacier. Not flowing out of the fjord at the speed of the Mississippi river which they would have to be to account for the snowfall.

Why would they? There are dozens on glaciers flowing into the sea around the coast of Greenland, some of which are miles across! OK, they don't move very fast, but they are very wide and very deep, there are lots of them, and they flow all year round. You cannot simply ignore glacier flow and calving when determining the rate of ice loss (in the same way as you simply ignored core-mantle coupling and post-glacial rebound when discussing effects on the Earth's rotation).

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:
Tim, you're making the same mistake here that you did with the Earth's rotation speed. In both cases you have focussed on just one of a number of factors that affect some quantity, and have then claimed that the science is faulty on the basis that the quantity is not fully explained by just that one factor.

As I mentioned before, you cannot simply dismiss iceberg calving from your calculations, given that this is an important mechanism for removing ice from Greenland. An analogy would be to dismiss the British Tourist Board's figures for tourism on the basis that there are not enough boats to carry that many people, while studiously ignoring the existence of airliners.

I do not dismiss ice berg calving.

I point out that they also have to come down the rivers.

You are totally avoiding the utterly obvious.

Icebergs don't flow down rivers! They are formed when chunks of glacier break off into the sea. Can you really imagine a chunk of ice big enough to sink the Titanic floating along a river?

Where on the earth, use a google earth link, is this happening?

It's happening all around the coasts of Greenland and Antarctica.

I presume you mean a Google Maps (not Earth) link:

https://www.google.com/maps/@71.68409,-52.34793,177555m/data=!3m1!1e3

Here you can see the ends of a number of glaciers where they meet the sea. There largest ones are about 2 1/2 miles across. You can also see individual icebergs, which have broken from the glaciers, floating in the sea.

Yep. But the thing is that they are slowly moving away from the glacier. Not flowing out of the fjord at the speed of the Mississippi river which they would have to be to account for the snowfall.

Why would they? There are dozens on glaciers flowing into the sea around the coast of Greenland, some of which are miles across! OK, they don't move very fast, but they are very wide and very deep, there are lots of them, and they flow all year round. You cannot simply ignore glacier flow and calving when determining the rate of ice loss (in the same way as you simply ignored core-mantle coupling and post-glacial rebound when discussing effects on the Earth's rotation).

The Mississippi is also miles across and deep. It flows quickly.

The very slow rate of ice bergs wandering slowly down fjords is not going to add up to anything much, but how about you find flow rates for glaciers in these vallies if you think they can account for anything like the loss of ice you need?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Why would they? There are dozens on glaciers flowing into the sea around the coast of Greenland, some of which are miles across! OK, they don't move very fast, but they are very wide and very deep, there are lots of them, and they flow all year round.

Their flow rate is appallingly slow. You could watch one for days before you get to see a chunk fall into the ocean. Then you would realize, that chunk doesn't represent very much water at all...a trivial amount in fact. Multiply that by the dozens that break off into the sea and it still amounts to a trickle.

This explains why the Greenland ice sheet is growing in net ice mass balance by about 2% per decade.
.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Why would they? There are dozens on glaciers flowing into the sea around the coast of Greenland, some of which are miles across! OK, they don't move very fast, but they are very wide and very deep, there are lots of them, and they flow all year round.

Their flow rate is appallingly slow. You could watch one for days before you get to see a chunk fall into the ocean. Then you would realize, that chunk doesn't represent very much water at all...a trivial amount in fact. Multiply that by the dozens that break off into the sea and it still amounts to a trickle.

This explains why the Greenland ice sheet is growing in net ice mass balance by about 2% per decade.
.

Why do you keep making this ludicrous claim?

Surface Detail wrote:The average thickness of the Greenland ice sheet is about 2,500 m, so an increase in mass balance of 2% per decade would imply that the thickness is increasing by 50 m per decade or 5 m per year.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Why would they? There are dozens on glaciers flowing into the sea around the coast of Greenland, some of which are miles across! OK, they don't move very fast, but they are very wide and very deep, there are lots of them, and they flow all year round.

Their flow rate is appallingly slow. You could watch one for days before you get to see a chunk fall into the ocean. Then you would realize, that chunk doesn't represent very much water at all...a trivial amount in fact. Multiply that by the dozens that break off into the sea and it still amounts to a trickle.

This explains why the Greenland ice sheet is growing in net ice mass balance by about 2% per decade.
.

Why do you keep making this ludicrous claim?

You can't claim to have conveniently forgotten the thoroughness with which we have treated this topic while nonetheless remembering the times I elaborated on this topic.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/lets-revisit-earths-ice-accumulation-d6-e1199.php

Surface Detail wrote:The average thickness of the Greenland ice sheet is about 2,500 m, so an increase in mass balance of 2% per decade would imply that the thickness is increasing by 50 m per decade or 5 m per year.

I don't think that's the average thickness. Anyway, we have our report based on actual measurements that aren't under dispute, so, yes, we have to go with 2% per decade increase in the Greenland ice sheet net ice balance. I'd love to help you out of a jam if I could but in this case it appears Greenland is putting its foot down.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/lets-revisit-earths-ice-accumulation-d6-e1199-s240.php#post_13568

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/lets-revisit-earths-ice-accumulation-d6-e1199-s240.php#post_13717

Surface Detail wrote:The report you cited does not state that the Greenland ice sheet net ice balance is increasing by 2% per decade.

Surface Detail wrote: Since it is you who is claiming that glacier calving transports an insignificant amount of ice, it is you who needs to quantify the loss by this mechanism and demonstrate that it is insignificant. It is simply illogical to claim without any justification that it is minimal and that satellite measurements of mass balance must therefore be wrong.

Tim the plumber puffed: The very slow rate of ice bergs....is not going to add up to anything much...

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Since it is you who is claiming that glacier calving transports an insignificant amount of ice, it is you who needs to quantify the loss by this mechanism and demonstrate that it is insignificant. It is simply illogical to claim without any justification that it is minimal and that satellite measurements of mass balance must therefore be wrong.

Since it is you who is claiming that glacier calving transports so much ice as to result in a decrease of the Greenland net ice mass balance, despite direct measurements that say the opposite, it is you who needs to quantify the loss by this mechanism and provide your valid, unmodified, raw data.. It is simply illogical to claim without any justification that it is massive and that satellite measurements of mass balance can actually be accurate.

climate scientist wrote:Surface detail is correct, the Hawley et al. 2014 paper is not about whether the Greenland ice sheet is growing or not.

Nope. You preceded Surface Detail in making lame attempts to redefine English words. You are scientifically illiterate, poor at math and horrendous at formal logic, so it comes as no surprise that your English reading comprehension is as poor as it is. I'm guessing you couldn't be bothered to pay attention in school. I'm guessing you could read the authors' clarification of "net ice mass balance" a hundred times and continue convincing yourself that it somehow doesn't pertain to the report.

It's not the first time both Surface Detail and yourself have attempted to redefine words/terms in some lame attempt to make reality appear to conform to your WACKY religious dogma. Unfortunately your lame attempts don't work on those who actually speak and understand English.

"net ice mass balance" ... one can only guess at how many different things you imagine that to mean.

climate scientist wrote:So, do you still advocate for this paper, given the quotes I posted above, or have you decided to back-track on this?

I don't "advocate" for papers. I don't "advocate" for any particular information or for any particular inanimate objects/empirical evidence.

As such, I can't "back-track" on such.

I dedicated a post to addressing your excerpts. Did you read it? Did you read it and understand it? Did you need me to explain any of the words to you?

Did you ever look up the meaning of "net ice mass balance"?

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:
Tim, you're making the same mistake here that you did with the Earth's rotation speed. In both cases you have focussed on just one of a number of factors that affect some quantity, and have then claimed that the science is faulty on the basis that the quantity is not fully explained by just that one factor.

As I mentioned before, you cannot simply dismiss iceberg calving from your calculations, given that this is an important mechanism for removing ice from Greenland. An analogy would be to dismiss the British Tourist Board's figures for tourism on the basis that there are not enough boats to carry that many people, while studiously ignoring the existence of airliners.

I do not dismiss ice berg calving.

I point out that they also have to come down the rivers.

You are totally avoiding the utterly obvious.

Icebergs don't flow down rivers! They are formed when chunks of glacier break off into the sea. Can you really imagine a chunk of ice big enough to sink the Titanic floating along a river?

Where on the earth, use a google earth link, is this happening?

It's happening all around the coasts of Greenland and Antarctica.

I presume you mean a Google Maps (not Earth) link:

https://www.google.com/maps/@71.68409,-52.34793,177555m/data=!3m1!1e3

Here you can see the ends of a number of glaciers where they meet the sea. There largest ones are about 2 1/2 miles across. You can also see individual icebergs, which have broken from the glaciers, floating in the sea.

Yep. But the thing is that they are slowly moving away from the glacier. Not flowing out of the fjord at the speed of the Mississippi river which they would have to be to account for the snowfall.

Why would they? There are dozens on glaciers flowing into the sea around the coast of Greenland, some of which are miles across! OK, they don't move very fast, but they are very wide and very deep, there are lots of them, and they flow all year round. You cannot simply ignore glacier flow and calving when determining the rate of ice loss (in the same way as you simply ignored core-mantle coupling and post-glacial rebound when discussing effects on the Earth's rotation).

The Mississippi is also miles across and deep. It flows quickly.

The very slow rate of ice bergs wandering slowly down fjords is not going to add up to anything much, but how about you find flow rates for glaciers in these vallies if you think they can account for anything like the loss of ice you need?

Since it is you who is claiming that glacier calving transports an insignificant amount of ice, it is you who needs to quantify the loss by this mechanism and demonstrate that it is insignificant. It is simply illogical to claim without any justification that it is minimal and that satellite measurements of mass balance must therefore be wrong.

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Why would they? There are dozens on glaciers flowing into the sea around the coast of Greenland, some of which are miles across! OK, they don't move very fast, but they are very wide and very deep, there are lots of them, and they flow all year round.

Their flow rate is appallingly slow. You could watch one for days before you get to see a chunk fall into the ocean. Then you would realize, that chunk doesn't represent very much water at all...a trivial amount in fact. Multiply that by the dozens that break off into the sea and it still amounts to a trickle.

This explains why the Greenland ice sheet is growing in net ice mass balance by about 2% per decade.
.

Why do you keep making this ludicrous claim?

You can't claim to have conveniently forgotten the thoroughness with which we have treated this topic while nonetheless remembering the times I elaborated on this topic.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/lets-revisit-earths-ice-accumulation-d6-e1199.php

Surface Detail wrote:The average thickness of the Greenland ice sheet is about 2,500 m, so an increase in mass balance of 2% per decade would imply that the thickness is increasing by 50 m per decade or 5 m per year.

I don't think that's the average thickness. Anyway, we have our report based on actual measurements that aren't under dispute, so, yes, we have to go with 2% per decade increase in the Greenland ice sheet net ice balance. I'd love to help you out of a jam if I could but in this case it appears Greenland is putting its foot down.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/lets-revisit-earths-ice-accumulation-d6-e1199-s240.php#post_13568

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/lets-revisit-earths-ice-accumulation-d6-e1199-s240.php#post_13717

The report you cited does not state that the Greenland ice sheet net ice balance is increasing by 2% per decade. You misunderstood the report. It states that the accumulation has increased by 2% per decade. The accumulation is not the same thing as the mass balance.

Doesn't the implication of your interpretation of the report that Greenland receives twice the precipitation of the Amazon Basin make you think that, just maybe, you might have got this wrong?

litesong wrote:

Tim the plumber puffed: The very slow rate of ice bergs....is not going to add up to anything much...

Puff this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

climate scientist wrote:But you posted a link to the Hawley et al. 2014 paper, did you not, stating that the paper claimed that the Greenland ice sheet was increasing? But this is not what the paper actually says, as clearly shown by the sentences I posted from it.

So do you agree with this paper or not?

Once again, i.e. for the second time, I wrote a post to address your quotes. I'm not going to repeat it. If you didn't read it when I posted it, then go read it now and get back to me with any questions you might have.

Remember, you need to take the entire context into account, i.e. employ good reading comprehension. I have the utmost confidence you can succeed if you put your mind to it.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Why would they? There are dozens on glaciers flowing into the sea around the coast of Greenland, some of which are miles across! OK, they don't move very fast, but they are very wide and very deep, there are lots of them, and they flow all year round.

Their flow rate is appallingly slow. You could watch one for days before you get to see a chunk fall into the ocean. Then you would realize, that chunk doesn't represent very much water at all...a trivial amount in fact. Multiply that by the dozens that break off into the sea and it still amounts to a trickle.

This explains why the Greenland ice sheet is growing in net ice mass balance by about 2% per decade.
.

Why do you keep making this ludicrous claim?

You can't claim to have conveniently forgotten the thoroughness with which we have treated this topic while nonetheless remembering the times I elaborated on this topic.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/lets-revisit-earths-ice-accumulation-d6-e1199.php

Surface Detail wrote:The average thickness of the Greenland ice sheet is about 2,500 m, so an increase in mass balance of 2% per decade would imply that the thickness is increasing by 50 m per decade or 5 m per year.

I don't think that's the average thickness. Anyway, we have our report based on actual measurements that aren't under dispute, so, yes, we have to go with 2% per decade increase in the Greenland ice sheet net ice balance. I'd love to help you out of a jam if I could but in this case it appears Greenland is putting its foot down.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/lets-revisit-earths-ice-accumulation-d6-e1199-s240.php#post_13568

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/lets-revisit-earths-ice-accumulation-d6-e1199-s240.php#post_13717

The report you cited does not state that the Greenland ice sheet net ice balance is increasing by 2% per decade. You misunderstood the report. It states that the accumulation has increased by 2% per decade. The accumulation is not the same thing as the mass balance.

Doesn't the implication of your interpretation of the report that Greenland receives twice the precipitation of the Amazon Basin make you think that, just maybe, you might have got this wrong?

IBDaman is right on this one. It says mass balance +2% per decade.

climate scientist wrote:I read your post, but it did not address my question. I would like to know whether you agree or disagree with the Hawley et al 2014 paper.

IBdaMann wrote:
First line: "ABSTRACT. Accumulation is a key parameter governing the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet."

From Conclusions: "Comparison of our measured accumulation rates with
those measured in the 1950s by Benson (1962) indicates a 2% decade increase in accumulation between the periods 1945–55 and 1997–2007."

Surface Detail wrote: Nope, IBdaMann is wrong on this, as he is wrong on most things. Unless, of course, you or he can explain how precipitation of 0.6 m per year could result in the addition of 5 m of ice per year?

Surface Detail wrote:How are you failing to comprehend this?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Nope, IBdaMann is wrong on this, as he is wrong on most things. Unless, of course, you or he can explain how precipitation of 0.6 m per year could result in the addition of 5 m of ice per year?

Do you deny the ice in the region of the landing site varies between roughly 10 to 1000 meters of thickness?

Do you deny that if we assume 800 meters thickness (closer to the higher end) an accumulation of 16.34 meters per decade would represent about 2% per decade accumulation of the ice mass balance of that area?

Perhaps this analogy will help. Imagine that the mass balance is equivalent to your bank balance. The accumulation is then equivalent to your deposits minus your withdrawals. This becomes a key parameter when analyzing changes in your net account balance over time.

First line: "ABSTRACT. Accumulation is a key parameter governing the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet."

From Conclusions: "Comparison of our measured accumulation rates with
those measured in the 1950s by Benson (1962) indicates a 2% decade increase in accumulation between the periods 1945–55 and 1997–2007."

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:How are you failing to comprehend this?

Perhaps this analogy will help. Imagine that the mass balance is equivalent to your bank balance. The accumulation is then equivalent to your deposits minus your withdrawals. This becomes a key parameter when analyzing changes in your net account balance over time.

Surface Detail wrote:If we're picking a random depth between 10 metres and 1000 metres, why assume 800 meters? Why not 200 m? Or 20 m?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:If we're picking a random depth between 10 metres and 1000 metres, why assume 800 meters? Why not 200 m? Or 20 m?

The reason for selecting 800m is that I used a reasonable authoritative ice depth chart of the Greenland ice sheet, noted where the landing site was (in a region in the 10m - 1000m band) and estimated its proximity to the next band (1000 - x meters). Yes, I gauged it. You are welcome to provide your own estimates based on location.