Remember me
▼ Content

President Trump and climate change policy



Page 2 of 3<123>
26-11-2016 17:00
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
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.


If you can account for the obvious (possibly wrong but..) situation of the rivers coming out of Greenland not being big enough to justify the position of it losing mass then foind please do so.

I would take exactly the same position with a climate scientist to their face. I am not in the habit of running from a punch up.
26-11-2016 18:03
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
26-11-2016 19:03
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
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.
26-11-2016 19:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?
Edited on 26-11-2016 19:09
26-11-2016 19:10
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi Tim

Thanks it's good to be back.

I was not recommending that you read the whole chapter. Section 4.4 is relating to ice sheets, and this is only ~11 pages long. Within this, section 4.4.2.2 is relating to the Greenland ice sheet itself and is only ~2 pages.

Firstly, this is not my field of expertise, and secondly, calculating changes in the mass balance of an ice sheet is a complicated process, with quite large uncertainties (~10% for Greenland).

I'm happy with your value of Mississippi discharge, although I prefer to work in units of Gt/yr. 16790 cm3/s is about 530 Gt/yr of water.

But your other numbers, I am not so sure about. For example, I think your calculation for the precipitation in Greenland is over-estimated. Your figure yields a value of ~1026 Gt/yr, whereas the IPCC states that for Greenland, the value is about 734 Gt/yr.

Also, the melt season is longer than 1 month. If one is conservative and assumes that the melt season only lasts for 3 months, and uses the IPCC value for precipitation, then you only need about 5.5 Mississippi rivers to break even.

But as others have mentioned, there are processes that you are not accounting for, such as evaporation (small but not negligible), calving and ice loss across the grounding line. This last one refers to ice loss where glaciers from the ice shelf meet the sea, and can be quite substantial and hard to quantify, as the losses can be under the sea surface. Calving refers to large ice bergs breaking off from the ice sheet where the ice meets to ocean, thus this loss is separate to the runoff loss from the rivers.

I have been looking in the literature for numbers for these individual processes, but they are hard to come by. The IPCC report states that runoff and evaporative processes come to 274 Gt/yr. If you subtract this from the precipitation (input) then you get 469 Gt/yr. So you are right that runoff does not counter balance the mass input from precipitation, and if this was the whole story then the ice sheet would be growing. I haven't yet found numbers for the other two processes, but as far as I understand it, ice loss across the grounding line is about the same as the runoff, and if you add in the losses from calving too, then you outweigh the 469 Gt/yr gain that you would have if these processes did not exist.

Overall, the ice sheet appears to be losing about 120 Gt/yr of mass, which is equivalent to about 23% of the annual average Mississippi discharge. This estimate is calculated from three methods, one of which is Grace, but there are two other methods also used: the mass budget method and repeated altimetry. Both these methods are explained in Chapter 4 of the IPCC report in sections 4.4.2.1.1 and 4.4.2.1.2 respectively.

I will keep looking for published quantities for the Greenland ice sheet calving and grounding line losses, which will help to finalise the mass balance. The only other thing to consider is that in reality, the ice sheet is not a box, and not all processes operate on the same time scales, so on yearly timescales this mass balance would not hold true owing to high interannual variability, but over the long-term, I think it is appropriate to use such a 'box model' approach.
26-11-2016 19:30
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
Climate Scientist,

Thanks for your reply.

The thing with the idea that ice bergs are racing off Greenland is that if you look on Google earth they are not.

The other thing is that whilst the summer is more than 30 days for some of Greenland it is optimistic to get that much on the ice sheet.

The rest of Greenland has to also drain its' waters mostly during this brief summer period.
26-11-2016 19:31
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
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?
26-11-2016 20:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
26-11-2016 22:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
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.
27-11-2016 01:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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).
27-11-2016 09:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
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.
.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

Edited on 27-11-2016 09:31
27-11-2016 18:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
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?
27-11-2016 19:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
27-11-2016 19:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?

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.

At Tim pointed out, a generous estimate of the average annual precipitation on Greenland is about 600mm, which is nowhere near enough to add 5 m of ice per year, even if there were no ice loss whatsoever from calving, melting and evaporation.

To add mass at the rate you suggest, Greenland would need about twice the precipitation of the Amazon, and there would have to be no glacier flow or melting at all!
28-11-2016 01:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
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


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
28-11-2016 01:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?
28-11-2016 02:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:The report you cited does not state that the Greenland ice sheet net ice balance is increasing by 2% per decade.

Yes it does, but the report is meant strictly for those who don't feel compelled to redefine the words therein due to strong feelings that their religion is being threatened. Ergo, the report is not for you.

The report clarifies right up front that it is discussing net ice mass balance. The "accumulation" pertains to that. You misread the English, intentionally or otherwise.

I gave you two other examples that align with the findings of that report. You have no direct measurements that run counter.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
28-11-2016 02:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
28-11-2016 02:45
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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
28-11-2016 10:51
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

There are no measurements claiming the opposite. The paper you cited does not claim that the Greenland ice balance is growing. Have you actually read the paper? They couldn't possible make that claim because they didn't measure the ice mass or thickness; they measured the accumulation rate. The notion that the Greenland ice sheet is growing at 2% per decade, as you (and not they) claim, is simply absurd. Greenland receives nowhere near enough precipitation for this.

We know that the Greenland ice mass is diminishing from both gravitational anomaly data provided by the GRACE experiment and direct measurements of the altitude of the ice sheet surface. Your claim that there is evidence that the Greenland ice mass is growing is false and presumably due to your obvious inability to comprehend scientific papers (or your blind trust in others with a similar lack of ability).
28-11-2016 11:54
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Surface detail is correct, the Hawley et al. 2014 paper is not about whether the Greenland ice sheet is growing or not. The paper refers to the accumulation of snow only (inputs), but recognises that there are significant outputs, e.g. calving, runoff, etc.

Here are some quotes from the paper:

"The growth and decay of ice sheets is driven by a balance between accumulation of snow on the surface, primarily in the high-elevation interiors, and the melting, runoff, evaporation, sublimation and iceberg calving that takes place primarily along the lower-elevation margins."

"The mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, in particular, is of increasing importance to scientists and policymakers, as rising air and ocean temperatures have increased the rate of melting and the velocity of calving outlet glaciers, contributing to a rising sea level."

"Thus, due to a warmer atmosphere driving an increased capacity for moisture, and in common with the findings of Davis and others (2005) in East Antarctica, snow accumulation in the interior of the Greenland ice sheet has increased slightly in the currently warming climate."

"The significance of this for the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, is that at least some of the increased mass loss from melting at the lower-elevation margins of the ice sheet is balanced by the small increases in mass gain from increased accumulation in the higher-elevation interior."

It is clear from these quotes that the authors agree with climate change.

Here is the link to Bob Hawley's webpage, where you can find more information about his research.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ice/research.php
28-11-2016 14:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
28-11-2016 14:45
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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.


So, do you still advocate for this paper, given the quotes I posted above, or have you decided to back-track on this?
28-11-2016 15:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
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"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
28-11-2016 15:36
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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"?


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?
28-11-2016 17:08
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
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.


Evidence of the low level of significantce;

The speed at which the new iceburgs wander away from the glacier being very very slow. Generally they have to wait for the wind to drive them along.
28-11-2016 17:11
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
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.
28-11-2016 17:17
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1283)
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


What do you think the anual flow rate for that galcier down its' valley is? In cubic kilometers per year?
28-11-2016 17:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
28-11-2016 17:40
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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.


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.
28-11-2016 17:45
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

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?
28-11-2016 17:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
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.

The report in question is not an opinion piece nor is it an editorial. It is not a matter of agreement or disagreement.

The team took direct measurements over a wide area. Any "disagreement" you might have would better be called "denial."

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."

Some of the references:

Rignot E, Box JE, Burgess E and Hanna E (2008) Mass balance of the
Greenland ice sheet from 1958 to 2007. Geophys. Res. Lett.,
35(20), L20502 (doi: 10.1029/2008GL035417)

Hanna E and 12 others (2011) Greenland Ice Sheet surface mass
balance 1870 to 2010 based on Twentieth Century Reanalysis,
and links with global climate forcing. J. Geophys. Res.,
116(D24), D24121 (doi: 10.1029/2011JD016387)


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
28-11-2016 19:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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."

How are you failing to comprehend this? As the author states, accumulation is a key parameter governing the mass balance, not a synonym for mass balance. It is the accumulation that is increasing by 2% per decade, not the mass balance.

Perhaps this analogy will help. Imagine that the mass balance is equivalent to your bank balance. The accumulation is then equivalent to your income (which is a key parameter governing your bank balance), while melting, glacier calving, etc. is equivalent to your various items of expenditure. Increasing accumulation by 2% per decade is the equivalent of increasing your income by 2% per decade, not your bank balance.
28-11-2016 19:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
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?

Your figures are in question. At issue here is your denial. Let's examine:

Do you deny Glacier Girl was buried in 268 feet of ice over 50 years?

Do you deny this averages to 1.634 meters per year, hence 16.34 meters per decade?

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?

Let's home in on your specific area of denial first THEN we can more accurately address the rest of your "questions."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
28-11-2016 19:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:How are you failing to comprehend this?

It's hard to believe you're this stupid. Of course the rate of increase is a key parameter of the net balance when the net balance changes over time. When this is the opening statement, you have to be very slow to not understand it.

How can we walk you through 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.

Does this help, or is cognitive dissonance, fueled by serious denial, preventing you from understanding the obvious?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
28-11-2016 19:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?

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

I suggest we'll progress better by using my data from actual measurements rather a figure you just pulled out your ass.
28-11-2016 19:27
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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.


But you are wrong. Accumulation is the amount of snow only, not the amount of ice mass. So accumulation is the deposits only, not the deposits minus the withdrawals.

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


Yes, this is true, the amount of snow accumulation is a key parameter governing the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, but it is not the only key parameter.

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."


Yes, exactly. The amount of snow accumulation has increased by ~2% per decade, because the climate has warmed, and this causes more evaporation from the oceans, which causes more snow to fall on the land. This quote is providing evidence of climate change.

You are consistently confusing the accumulation of snow in Greenland with the mass balance. The authors say that the snow has increased by 2% per decade, and that this increase has offset some of the losses from melting/runoff/sublimation/calving, but not all of the losses. The Greenland ice sheet is still losing mass.
28-11-2016 19:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

Read the paper. The accumulation, as defined by this paper, is not equivalent to the deposits minus the withdrawals. It is equivalent to the deposits alone. The authors determined just the change in the rate at which ice was added to the surface of the ice sheet over time; they did not address the rate of ice loss.

Even if they were including both, a 2% increase in the rate of addition of ice would still not be the same as a 2% increase in mass balance. It would be a 2% increase in the rate of change of the mass balance.
28-11-2016 20:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
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?

We could select shallower ice depths but that would only result in more pronounced accumulation percentages and hence, greater denial on your part.

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.

So I suggest we stay with this exact measurement for the moment, irrespective of how it rubs your religion the wrong way.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
28-11-2016 20:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

Bullshit. What map would have a 10m - 1000m band? It's quite obvious you're making this up as you go along. And even if you weren't, this method makes no sense. The rate of ice accumulation isn't proportional to the ice thickness, as you must assume for this method to be valid. Rather the reverse: accumulation tends to be least at the centre of the continent, where the ice sheet is thickest.

It is quite obvious from easily obtained meteorological data that the precipitation on Greenland is nowhere near sufficient to add 2% ice mass per decade, and no-one with an ounce of common sense would make this claim.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate President Trump and climate change policy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Conservative Donald Trump pokes fun at Marxist Amy Klobuchar about global warming413-02-2019 23:26
Trump Connected To A Crime?909-12-2018 21:35
Fake News? Response to a Trump Tweet...1801-12-2018 20:19
Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump - Michael Mann127-05-2018 09:29
Chris Hedges "Fascism in the Age of Trump"202-04-2018 17:47
Articles
Appendix A - Tracing China's Climate Policy
Analysis - Explaining China's Climate Policy
The Dependent Variable - How Ambitious Is China's Climate Policy
John McCain: Remarks on Climate Change Policy
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact