President Trump and climate change policy

Surface Detail wrote:

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.

Surface Detail wrote: Bullshit. What map would have a 10m - 1000m band?

Surface Detail wrote: It's quite obvious you're making this up as you go along.

Surface Detail wrote: And even if you weren't, this method makes no sense.

Surface Detail wrote: The rate of ice accumulation isn't proportional to the ice thickness, as you must assume for this method to be valid.

Surface Detail wrote: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.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: Bullshit. What map would have a 10m - 1000m band?

How about this one:

Surface Detail wrote: It's quite obvious you're making this up as you go along.

Let's reflect on this for a moment. It appears that you are quick to anger when faced with something that rubs your religion the wrong way. You didn't simply ask "Hey, IB DaMann, I'd be interested in checking out that topology map." You can't be bothered to learn or to perform even a quick Google search (let's forever remember this, shall we?) but instead declare that it is "quite obvious that I am making it up."

Once again, you are a rabid science denier who should be taking notes on whatever I tell you. Your religion and your warmizombie brethren are leading you astray. You aren't anywhere near as smart as your church promised that you would be if only you would simply BELIEVE without hesitation and OBEY without question.

You are a dupe.

Surface Detail wrote: And even if you weren't, this method makes no sense.

There was no "method" given. Just measurements. You still haven't owned up to exactly what it is you deny so we can focus on your cognitive shortcomings.

Do I need to run through the Glacier Girl numbers again?

Surface Detail wrote: The rate of ice accumulation isn't proportional to the ice thickness, as you must assume for this method to be valid.

You're the first to raise the issue of proportionality. I simply performed basic math which you apparently are having trouble grasping. Do you need a refresher on addition, subtraction, multiplication and division? The numbers are there before you. What parts do you feel the need to deny?

Surface Detail wrote: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.

Watch this: "Hey Surface Detail, I'd like to see that complete unmodified, unfabricated, raw dataset that affords you that knowledge."

That Greenland is accumulating ice, and not losing ice, is born out by numerous actual "boots on the ground" measurements. You don't have a leg to stand on.

Surface Detail wrote:

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?

Surface Detail wrote: My apologies for disbelieving the scale of your chart. I'm a little surprised, though, that your "reasonable authoritative ice depth chart of the Greenland ice sheet" turns out to be an image lifted from Wikipedia, given what you've said about this source before.

Surface Detail wrote: The rest of your argument is still complete bollocks though. Your calculation of the increase in ice mass based purely on the ratio of the ice above glacier girl and your guess at the depth of ice below Glacier Girl implies an assumption of the same ratio across the whole island.

Surface Detail wrote: Greenland is both accumulating and losing ice mass, with the loss outpacing the accumulation (even though the accumulation is increasing by 2% per decade).

Surface Detail wrote:This has been verified by satellite and altimetry measurements.

Surface Detail wrote:Edit: Where exactly did Glacier Girl land, by the way?

climate scientist wrote:
Hi Tim

Yes, I have been working on it.

These two papers have some nice data in them:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL059010/pdf

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/1933/2016/tc-10-1933-2016.pdf

If you cannot access them, then I can send them to you if you let me know your email address.

van den Broeke et al 2016 set total incoming precipitation at 712 Gt/yr, which is roughly lower, but essentially in-line with the IPCC value of 734 Gt/yr. I will stick with the higher value to be conservative. They state that runoff is 363 Gt/yr, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC value of 274 Gt/yr. Again, to be conservative, I will use the lower runoff value. So if runoff was the only output, we would have an ice sheet mass balance increase of +460 Gt/yr.

But Broeke et al 2016 have calculated the discharge across the grounding line (i.e. calving) using data from the Enderlin et al 2014 paper, and have come up with a calving flux of 477 Gt/yr. So now our mass balance is at -17Gt/yr, i.e. a slight loss. However, I have been pretty conservative here, if I used the lower number for precipitation, and the higher number for runoff, then we would have a mass balance of -128 Gt/yr.

If you read the actual papers, you will see that the mass balance numbers they report are actually slightly lower (i.e. more negative) than this. This is because there are some minor loss processes that I have not included in this calculation, such as sublimation and erosion.

The other thing that you have to remember is that, although the melt season is rather short, it is very dramatic because of the vast change in seasonal conditions (e.g. from almost 24 hours of darkness in winter to almost 24 hours of sunlight in summer), whereas the Mississippi has less variation between the seasons. So it is not actually that surprising to me to have such a vast amount of runoff/calving, etc. in such a short period of time (few months), seeing as there is so much water stored on the ice sheet in the form of snow and ice, and as soon as this warms up it starts to melt immediately. I.e. runoff/discharge is not dependent upon precipitation, whereas for the Mississippi, the discharge is largely dependent on recent precipitation in the catchment area.

climate scientist wrote:These two papers have some nice data in them:

climate scientist wrote: I will stick with the higher value to be conservative.

climate scientist wrote:
Hi Tim

Did you look at the Enderlin et al 2014 paper?

All the information is in there.

"For glaciers with across-flow thickness transects (i.e., gates), we selected the survey up glacier of, and closest to, the grounding line and extracted surface speed and thickness data along the transect. We observed surface speeds south of ~81°N latitude using repeat-image feature tracking as described in Howat et al. [2011], utilizing orthorectified imagery from the Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus and the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal and Reflectance Radiometer (ASTER). As in previous studies, we assumed that speed is constant with depth for these fast-flowing (>1 km/yr) glaciers, where nearly all motion is at the base.

Thickness was calculated by subtracting the bed elevation from the surface elevation for each year. Surface elevations were obtained from orthorectified ASTER digital elevation models (DEMs) produced by the Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center and SPOT5 DEMs produced by the SPOT 5 stereoscopic survey of Polar Ice: Reference Images and Topographies (SPIRIT) program [Korona et al., 2009] as well as NASA Airborne Topographic Mapper lidar measurements. We filtered the elevation and speed data using an adaptive median filter and calculated annual median speeds and elevations.

Using these observations, we calculated ice discharge as the summed product of ice density, ρi, surface speed, U, thickness, H, and distance between survey points dy across the flux gates of width W."

And so on.

Glacial flow in Greenland is speeding up - see here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058933/pdf

This study is not based on GRACE data. The glacier velocities were calculated using ground-based GPS measurements (no different from a sat nav).

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Edit: Where exactly did Glacier Girl land, by the way?

I'd like to reflect on the reason you are asking this question ... as opposed to just quickly finding out (it should take ~1-2 minutes to find the coordinates).

A few possibilities come to mind.

1. you hate learning and can't bring yourself to perform independent research
2. you don't know how to perform independent research
3. finding the coordinates would require that you venture to non-warmizombie websites that your religion forbids
4. your dogma forbids you from looking into concrete examples, e.g. Glacier Girl, that offend the religious sensibilities of other church members.
5. your church's cognitive control over you doesn't want you delving into matters that put the "disappearing Greenland" myth under scientific scrutiny and does a "shock dog collar" number on you.

Would it be one of the above reasons, or something else entirely?

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Edit: Where exactly did Glacier Girl land, by the way?

I'd like to reflect on the reason you are asking this question ... as opposed to just quickly finding out (it should take ~1-2 minutes to find the coordinates).

A few possibilities come to mind.

1. you hate learning and can't bring yourself to perform independent research
2. you don't know how to perform independent research
3. finding the coordinates would require that you venture to non-warmizombie websites that your religion forbids
4. your dogma forbids you from looking into concrete examples, e.g. Glacier Girl, that offend the religious sensibilities of other church members.
5. your church's cognitive control over you doesn't want you delving into matters that put the "disappearing Greenland" myth under scientific scrutiny and does a "shock dog collar" number on you.

Would it be one of the above reasons, or something else entirely?

The rational response to someone asking for information upon which you have based an argument is simply to tell them. Where did Glacier Girl land?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Edit: Where exactly did Glacier Girl land, by the way?

I'd like to reflect on the reason you are asking this question ... as opposed to just quickly finding out (it should take ~1-2 minutes to find the coordinates).

A few possibilities come to mind.

1. you hate learning and can't bring yourself to perform independent research
2. you don't know how to perform independent research
3. finding the coordinates would require that you venture to non-warmizombie websites that your religion forbids
4. your dogma forbids you from looking into concrete examples, e.g. Glacier Girl, that offend the religious sensibilities of other church members.
5. your church's cognitive control over you doesn't want you delving into matters that put the "disappearing Greenland" myth under scientific scrutiny and does a "shock dog collar" number on you.

Would it be one of the above reasons, or something else entirely?

The rational response to someone asking for information upon which you have based an argument is simply to tell them. Where did Glacier Girl land?

As I mentioned in my post, I also wanted to reflect on the reason you are asking. That was yesterday. Did you look it up? Did you venture onto any non-warmizombie websites?

I did have a brief glance at it but I did not see the above stuff. My bad.

Thing is that the Mississippi flows at 1.5km/day(ish).

Even with the fast flow of 1km a year at the grounding line where the effect of the retreating ice due to it being warmer and thus the thickness of ice out into the sea is greatest and you would expect a sudden rush of ice as this happens I don't see that there are enough glaciers doing this to account for the many many Mississippis you need. You might get up to 1 and a bit but that's surely it.

Admittedly that's more of an out flow than I was expecting but not enough surely?

Surface Detail wrote: You are clearly not a rational person.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: You are clearly not a rational person.

You are clearly in EVASION mode (as you are want to do when you back yourself into a corner ... which is OFTEN).

Visiting websites that are devoid of warmizombie propaganda would do you good. You look it up.

Actually performing independent research would do you good. You look it up.

Facing differing viewpoints would do you good. Look it up.

Surface Detail wrote: I'm being evasive?

Surface Detail wrote: You're the one who's refusing to give information that is critical to your argument!

Surface Detail wrote: I've had a quick google and not found it,...

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: I'm being evasive?

Absolutely. You are being evasive. I asked a bunch of probing questions about why you asked me to provide you information that you could EASILY glean from non-warmizombie websites. I am relishing your EVASION on this topic.

Let me compare my fascination with your squirming against any obligation I might feel to let you off the hook.

Hmmmm ...

Nope, I am enjoying what I'm witnessing. Go ahead and make me your excuse for why you can't access the information that answers your question.

Surface Detail wrote: You're the one who's refusing to give information that is critical to your argument!

Nope, but that was another nice attempt to shift your burden of proof. At the root of all this is your absurd claim that the Greenland ice sheet is disappearing. The entirety of the burden of proof rests with you. All of it.

You of course have nothing to support your ridiculous claim, and as such you are reduced to attempting to require others to somehow prove that your WACKY, unfalsifiable claims are false, e.g. "I can't prove my goddess exists but you can't prove she doesn't so nanny-nanny-boo-boo!" Meanwhile, you have been given ample hard measurements and concrete examples to bury your "melting Arctic" fear-mongering. The fact that the Greenland ice sheet is increasing in net ice mass makes your absurd insistence moronic and reveals the extent to which others have seized control of your mental functions. Every time you become compelled to redefine English words you put on quite a show.

Surface Detail wrote: I've had a quick google and not found it,...

... then look further, and specifically on those non-warmizombie websites that your WACKY religion bans.

It'll be good for you.

Surface Detail wrote: Why should I care if you can't support your loony assertions?

Surface Detail wrote: You claimed that Glacier Girl was found lying on top of 800 m of ice, estimated from its location.

Surface Detail wrote: But you refuse to say what its location is. Why so evasive?

Surface Detail wrote:You'd make a crap scientist:

Surface Detail wrote: The game of "I know the answer, but I'm not telling you" stopped being funny at about age 5.

Surface Detail wrote: If you want your claims to be given any consideration at all, give the landing site coordinates that they are based on.

[b]IBdaMann wrote: we can agree that I'd make a crappy "Climate Scientist." I clearly don't accept "The Science."

Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, you're gibbering.

You claimed that Glacier Girl was found lying on top of 800 m of ice, estimated from its location. But you refuse to say what its location is. Why so evasive?

You'd make a crap scientist:

IBdaMann: Hey, I've discovered a cure for cancer!
World: Really? What is it?
IBdaMann: I'm not telling you. Google it yourself.
World: WTF?

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, you're gibbering.

You claimed that Glacier Girl was found lying on top of 800 m of ice, estimated from its location. But you refuse to say what its location is. Why so evasive?

You'd make a crap scientist:

IBdaMann: Hey, I've discovered a cure for cancer!
World: Really? What is it?
IBdaMann: I'm not telling you. Google it yourself.
World: WTF?

Considering the purpose of the flight and the method for its execution, Glacier Girl wound up pretty close to on course. Landing wheels up, using the 3000 ft thick ice as a runway, the plane was brought to a smooth (and final) landing with the pilot able to walk away and join his downed buddies nearby.

Surface Detail wrote: Link?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, you're gibbering.

You claimed that Glacier Girl was found lying on top of 800 m of ice, estimated from its location. But you refuse to say what its location is. Why so evasive?

You'd make a crap scientist:

IBdaMann: Hey, I've discovered a cure for cancer!
World: Really? What is it?
IBdaMann: I'm not telling you. Google it yourself.
World: WTF?

Considering the purpose of the flight and the method for its execution, Glacier Girl wound up pretty close to on course. Landing wheels up, using the 3000 ft thick ice as a runway, the plane was brought to a smooth (and final) landing with the pilot able to walk away and join his downed buddies nearby.

Link?

climate scientist wrote:

I did have a brief glance at it but I did not see the above stuff. My bad.

Thing is that the Mississippi flows at 1.5km/day(ish).

Even with the fast flow of 1km a year at the grounding line where the effect of the retreating ice due to it being warmer and thus the thickness of ice out into the sea is greatest and you would expect a sudden rush of ice as this happens I don't see that there are enough glaciers doing this to account for the many many Mississippis you need. You might get up to 1 and a bit but that's surely it.

Admittedly that's more of an out flow than I was expecting but not enough surely?

Hi Tim

With further thought about this, I am not sure that the loss of ice across the grounding line will only occur during the melt season. Glaciers tend to flow all year, and are primarily driven by gravity and their own weight. Therefore, I would actually expect the ice loss across the grounding line to occur all year round, and only the melt runoff to be restricted to the melt season. I think then you will find that the number of glaciers, their speed and their combined mass will equate to the loss of ice in Gt/yr that the papers I cited previously found.

So, based on the previous numbers we discussed, in Greenland there is ~ 1.4 Mississippi's worth of precipitation, which will most likely occur fairly evenly throughout the year (there is probably some seasonality in this, but it shouldn't affect our calculation too much).

Then we have ~0.5 Mississippi's worth of runoff. If we assume that this only occurs during the melt season (~3 months) then this is equivalent to 4 times the discharge of the Mississippi, but only during this 3 month period.

And we have ~0.9 Mississippi's worth of calving, which I think will occur throughout the whole year, although there is probably a faster rate of calving in the summer than in the winter.