Remember me
▼ Content

Arctic ice still rapidly decreasing



Page 2 of 3<123>
09-12-2016 14:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: I don't have time to dispute your figures ...

Of course you don't.

spot wrote: ... but I'm sure If I investigated them they would turn out to be wrong,

... and you being sure that he's wrong is completely sufficient.


.


He said the aircraft cost about 2 grand thats including paying someone to do the work and outfitting it.




Now I'm not an expert in pricing up aircraft, I'm not Donald Trump. but considering 2 grand will only get you a crap old car I think it's fair to say it's a bit more than that Also I'm betting the figure for the satellite program was also pulled out of his arse.


They already have the aircraft all fitted out.

It would take a day to do.

It takes lot longer than a day to cover all of Greenland with aircraft-based radar measurements! That's why it's so useful to make complementary use of the GRACE data, which is simply there for the downloading.
09-12-2016 14:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php
09-12-2016 16:02
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php


Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

Edited on 09-12-2016 16:03
09-12-2016 16:09
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php


Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.
09-12-2016 16:26
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php


Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.


1, Do you think that the ice in the glacier 20km from the bottom of the glacier where it is retreating will change it's speed of flow much due to whatever happens down at the bottom?

2, Do you think 40cm by 2100 is likely to drown many people? If so where?
09-12-2016 16:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php


Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.


1, Do you think that the ice in the glacier 20km from the bottom of the glacier where it is retreating will change it's speed of flow much due to whatever happens down at the bottom?

2, Do you think 40cm by 2100 is likely to drown many people? If so where?

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?
09-12-2016 17:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
Surface Detail wrote: Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?

Naturally, his belief / acceptance in this idea is of the utmost concern to you wrt your efforts to preach your religion.

You have no rational reason for believing that the Greenland ice sheet is somehow losing ice. All evidence shows it is continually accumulating ice. The only reasons one could have for BELIEVING that the Greenland ice is rapidly disappearing are completely irrational (religious) ones. If you had some rational reason you would have presented it, given the importance you place on others accepting your faith.

You have no rational reason for believing that the ocean level is rising. As far as you know, the ocean level could be lowering. Again, if you had some rational reason you would have presented 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
09-12-2016 17:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?

Naturally, his belief / acceptance in this idea is of the utmost concern to you wrt your efforts to preach your religion.

You have no rational reason for believing that the Greenland ice sheet is somehow losing ice. All evidence shows it is continually accumulating ice. The only reasons one could have for BELIEVING that the Greenland ice is rapidly disappearing are completely irrational (religious) ones. If you had some rational reason you would have presented it, given the importance you place on others accepting your faith.

You have no rational reason for believing that the ocean level is rising. As far as you know, the ocean level could be lowering. Again, if you had some rational reason you would have presented it.

I've just linked to a NASA article that presents the evidence (altimetry measurements, gravitational anomalies) indicating that Greenland is losing ice mass. Here it is again:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php

If you have any specific criticisms on the article, then say so and we'll discuss them. If you've nothing intelligent to contribute, I'll ignore you.
09-12-2016 17:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php


Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.


1, Do you think that the ice in the glacier 20km from the bottom of the glacier where it is retreating will change it's speed of flow much due to whatever happens down at the bottom?

2, Do you think 40cm by 2100 is likely to drown many people? If so where?

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?


No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?
09-12-2016 17:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php


Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.


1, Do you think that the ice in the glacier 20km from the bottom of the glacier where it is retreating will change it's speed of flow much due to whatever happens down at the bottom?

2, Do you think 40cm by 2100 is likely to drown many people? If so where?

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?


No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?
09-12-2016 17:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
Surface Detail wrote:If you have any specific criticisms on the article, then say so and we'll discuss them. If you've nothing intelligent to contribute, I'll ignore you.

I have criticisms.

1. You cited an alarmist article from a political organization. You will undoubtedly scream "but it is NASA" as though you expect everyone to assume that NASA is somehow not run by a political appointee who, among other things, ensures all public expressions conform to the administration's political agenda.

I happen to understand how the US government works and you need to provide extensive justification as to why I should accept anything from NASA on face value.

2. You provided no raw, credible, unaltered dataset with the margins of error. You don't believe in data. If you were presented with a report of boots-on-the-ground measurements you would dive into a death-struggle over the word "accumulation." So, cough up the data that gives one a rational reason to believe your claims.

3. The article adds a dose of religious prophecies that were supposedly fulfilled. I'm going to need the original documents in which those prophets made those prophecies. I'm sure you understand the concerns when an author of a purportedly "current state of affairs" article feels the need to start preaching about how the prophecies have been fulfilled.


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 09-12-2016 17:55
09-12-2016 17:59
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php


Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.


1, Do you think that the ice in the glacier 20km from the bottom of the glacier where it is retreating will change it's speed of flow much due to whatever happens down at the bottom?

2, Do you think 40cm by 2100 is likely to drown many people? If so where?

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?


No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?


No I don't accept that the best way to measure the amount of ice on Greenland is by the deviation of the path of a satellite. Just like the guy in your link.

Do you acept the 4cm number in your link or the 40cm number for the total sea level rise by 2200?
09-12-2016 18:14
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:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php


Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.


1, Do you think that the ice in the glacier 20km from the bottom of the glacier where it is retreating will change it's speed of flow much due to whatever happens down at the bottom?

2, Do you think 40cm by 2100 is likely to drown many people? If so where?

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?


No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?


No I don't accept that the best way to measure the amount of ice on Greenland is by the deviation of the path of a satellite. Just like the guy in your link.

Do you acept the 4cm number in your link or the 40cm number for the total sea level rise by 2200?

If you refuse to accept evidence and refuse to indicate why you refuse to accept evidence, then it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.
09-12-2016 18:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
Surface Detail wrote:If you refuse to accept evidence and refuse to indicate why you refuse to accept evidence, then it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.

Exactly. If you feel compelled to insist that authors somehow deviated from standard English usage of words just because they are reporting observations that conflict with your religious faith then obviously there can be no rational discussion with you.

You hit that nail on the head.


.


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
09-12-2016 18:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
Surface Detail wrote: There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?

Do you accept 400MHz ground-penetrating radar to be a valid measurement tool of ice depth?


.


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
09-12-2016 20:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?

Do you accept 400MHz ground-penetrating radar to be a valid measurement tool of ice depth?

I'm not sure how well 400MHz radio in particular penetrates ice but, yes, radar seems to be a standard technique for measuring ice thickness and structure. I don't know whether it can be done remotely or not. Why do you ask?
09-12-2016 20:13
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
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:
This article is a bit dated (2007), but it gives an interesting and detailed description of the techniques used to measure changes in the Greenland ice mass balance over the preceding decades and the results obtained.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland.php


Beautiful.

In there there is a graph which shows a total contribution of 4cm to sea level rise by 2100 from Greenland's ice melting. Bottom of page 1.

OK. Although I think he is wrong I will very happily take that.

For the sake of completeness, the caption beside the graph reads:

The Greenland Ice Sheet could contribute around 4 centimeters to sea level rise by the year 2100, about 10 percent of the total predicted rise. This estimate could be too low, however, since it does not account for rapid, large-scale ice loss through processes such as the accelerated flow of glaciers into the sea.


1, Do you think that the ice in the glacier 20km from the bottom of the glacier where it is retreating will change it's speed of flow much due to whatever happens down at the bottom?

2, Do you think 40cm by 2100 is likely to drown many people? If so where?

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?


No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?


No I don't accept that the best way to measure the amount of ice on Greenland is by the deviation of the path of a satellite. Just like the guy in your link.

Do you acept the 4cm number in your link or the 40cm number for the total sea level rise by 2200?

If you refuse to accept evidence and refuse to indicate why you refuse to accept evidence, then it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.


Get your head out of the sand.

The guy in your link is not happy with the satellite because of isostatic rebound. Yeah, and the rest of all the factors that can cause a deviation in the satellites path.

Do you think the 4cm figure is OK?[3]

Do you think the 40cm figure is OK?[3]
09-12-2016 21:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?


No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?


No I don't accept that the best way to measure the amount of ice on Greenland is by the deviation of the path of a satellite. Just like the guy in your link.

Do you acept the 4cm number in your link or the 40cm number for the total sea level rise by 2200?

If you refuse to accept evidence and refuse to indicate why you refuse to accept evidence, then it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.


Get your head out of the sand.

The guy in your link is not happy with the satellite because of isostatic rebound. Yeah, and the rest of all the factors that can cause a deviation in the satellites path.

Do you think the 4cm figure is OK?[3]

Do you think the 40cm figure is OK?[3]

You're seeing stuff that isn't there. The "guy in my link" i.e. co-author of the paper, isn't criticising the GRACE data. His paper simply improves the rebound model used to calculate the ice mass from the GRACE data. In his own words:

"It's a fairly modest correction," said Bevis, the Ohio Eminent Scholar in Geodynamics, professor of earth sciences at Ohio State and leader of GNET, the Greenland GPS Network.

"It doesn't change our estimates of the total mass loss all over Greenland by that much, but it brings a more significant change to our understanding of where within the ice sheet that loss has happened, and where it is happening now."


Let's stick to determining whether the ice is melting now, shall we? There's no point discussing future projections until we've agreed what's going on now. Do you still claim that the Greenland ice sheet isn't melting?
09-12-2016 21:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
Surface Detail wrote: I'm not sure how well 400MHz radio in particular penetrates ice but, yes, radar seems to be a standard technique for measuring ice thickness and structure. I don't know whether it can be done remotely or not. Why do you ask?

The 400 MHz radar was the measuring device used in the Greenland ice mass balance report we were discussing and you didn't like the conclusion of the report so you started claiming the authors "meant" things other than what the common English usage of their words indicated.

Then Tim the Plumber began questioning the conclusions derived from some report you presented and you insisted that "there's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results." You then asked Tim "Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?"

I then decided to ask you if you accept the methods used in the report whose results you don't like.

That's all.


.


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
09-12-2016 21:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: I'm not sure how well 400MHz radio in particular penetrates ice but, yes, radar seems to be a standard technique for measuring ice thickness and structure. I don't know whether it can be done remotely or not. Why do you ask?

The 400 MHz radar was the measuring device used in the Greenland ice mass balance report we were discussing and you didn't like the conclusion of the report so you started claiming the authors "meant" things other than what the common English usage of their words indicated.

Then Tim the Plumber began questioning the conclusions derived from some report you presented and you insisted that "there's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results." You then asked Tim "Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?"

I then decided to ask you if you accept the methods used in the report whose results you don't like.

That's all.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Which report's results am I supposed not to like?
09-12-2016 23:37
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for December 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~20,200 cubic kilometers. Present estimated December 1, 2016 sea ice VOLUME is ~10,500 cubic kilometers, ~ 9700 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for December 1.


Final measure of PIOMAS December 1, 2016 Arctic sea ice Volume is 9500km3, which is 10,700 km3 LESS than average for the decade of the 1980's, December 1.


The High Arctic Berserker has been above the average High Arctic temperature for 90(+?) days, well on its way to 100 days, like I surmised & stated weeks ago, & that it could exist for 150 days. Tho the High Arctic Berserker has dramatically fallen, it remains 8+degC above the average. It is awesome that the High Arctic Berserker has helped drive the Arctic sea ice VOLUME to a December 1 record low of 9500 km3, first time for December 1 to be below 5 digits, & 10,700km3 below the average of the 1980's.
10-12-2016 02:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
litesong wrote: The High Arctic Berserker has been above the average High Arctic temperature for 90(+?) days, well on its way to 100 days, like I surmised & stated weeks ago, & that it could exist for 150 days.

Good news! Someone happened to catch it on a cell phone camera!





.


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
10-12-2016 12:39
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?


No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?


No I don't accept that the best way to measure the amount of ice on Greenland is by the deviation of the path of a satellite. Just like the guy in your link.

Do you acept the 4cm number in your link or the 40cm number for the total sea level rise by 2200?

If you refuse to accept evidence and refuse to indicate why you refuse to accept evidence, then it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.


Get your head out of the sand.

The guy in your link is not happy with the satellite because of isostatic rebound. Yeah, and the rest of all the factors that can cause a deviation in the satellites path.

Do you think the 4cm figure is OK?[3]

Do you think the 40cm figure is OK?[3]

You're seeing stuff that isn't there. The "guy in my link" i.e. co-author of the paper, isn't criticising the GRACE data. His paper simply improves the rebound model used to calculate the ice mass from the GRACE data. In his own words:

"It's a fairly modest correction," said Bevis, the Ohio Eminent Scholar in Geodynamics, professor of earth sciences at Ohio State and leader of GNET, the Greenland GPS Network.

"It doesn't change our estimates of the total mass loss all over Greenland by that much, but it brings a more significant change to our understanding of where within the ice sheet that loss has happened, and where it is happening now."


Let's stick to determining whether the ice is melting now, shall we? There's no point discussing future projections until we've agreed what's going on now. Do you still claim that the Greenland ice sheet isn't melting?


I think it is increasing the scientist says it is melting at a rate that will cause 4cm sea level rise by 2200.

Do you agree with this number (4cm)? [4]

Do you agree with the 40cm for the total?[4]
11-12-2016 00:20
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 the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

Let's just leave those goalposts alone for a moment. I take it from your response that you now accept that Greenland is, in fact, losing rather than gaining ice?


No. As I pointed out in 1, I disagree. But given the tiny impact the result is negligable.

So the more important question; do you accept the 4cm number from this link of yours? And how about the 40cm overall number?

There's no point in discussing the numbers unless you're prepared to accept the validity of the evidence. You can't simply decide whether or not to accept the evidence depending on how you like the results. Do you, or do you not, accept that the methods used (gravitational anomaly, radar altimetry) to measure ice loss are valid? If not, why not?


No I don't accept that the best way to measure the amount of ice on Greenland is by the deviation of the path of a satellite. Just like the guy in your link.

Do you acept the 4cm number in your link or the 40cm number for the total sea level rise by 2200?

If you refuse to accept evidence and refuse to indicate why you refuse to accept evidence, then it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.


Get your head out of the sand.

The guy in your link is not happy with the satellite because of isostatic rebound. Yeah, and the rest of all the factors that can cause a deviation in the satellites path.

Do you think the 4cm figure is OK?[3]

Do you think the 40cm figure is OK?[3]

You're seeing stuff that isn't there. The "guy in my link" i.e. co-author of the paper, isn't criticising the GRACE data. His paper simply improves the rebound model used to calculate the ice mass from the GRACE data. In his own words:

"It's a fairly modest correction," said Bevis, the Ohio Eminent Scholar in Geodynamics, professor of earth sciences at Ohio State and leader of GNET, the Greenland GPS Network.

"It doesn't change our estimates of the total mass loss all over Greenland by that much, but it brings a more significant change to our understanding of where within the ice sheet that loss has happened, and where it is happening now."


Let's stick to determining whether the ice is melting now, shall we? There's no point discussing future projections until we've agreed what's going on now. Do you still claim that the Greenland ice sheet isn't melting?


I think it is increasing the scientist says it is melting at a rate that will cause 4cm sea level rise by 2200.

Do you agree with this number (4cm)? [4]

Do you agree with the 40cm for the total?[4]

It'd be easier to reply to your posts if you'd write in sentences and get your numbers right, but I think I see what you mean:

1) You claim that the Greenland ice cap is increasing in mass based, apparently, purely on personal conviction, and despite gravimetric and altimetry data indicating the opposite. Very convincing.

2) Projections made in 2007 based on just surface melting indicate that Greenland will lose sufficient ice by this mechanism to raise sea levels by 4 cm by 2100 (not 2200). This includes the caveat that increased glacier flow rate is not taken into account, thus giving too conservative an estimate for the overall rise of 40 cm.

3) The latest (2014) IPCC report acknowledges recent data indicating that glaciers in both Greenland and Antarctica are indeed accelerating and are likely to contribute substantially to ice loss. The current expectation is that sea levels will rise by about 80 cm by 2100.
11-12-2016 03:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
Surface Detail wrote:1) You claim that the Greenland ice cap is increasing in mass based, apparently, purely on personal conviction, and despite gravimetric and altimetry data indicating the opposite. Very convincing.

That's certainly a gross mischacterization. You claim that the Greenland ice sheet is decreasing in mass based, apparently because your religious dogma controlls any cognitive functions you might have, despite boots-on-the-ground 400MHz radar measurements that say the opposite. Your reliance on egregiously inadequate measuring techniques to provide enormous fudging potential to enable the cross-country stretching of conclusions to finally fally into the same ballpark as your WACKY dogma is all the reason anyone needs to summarily dismiss your argument.


Surface Detail wrote:2) Projections made in 2007 based on just surface melting indicate that Greenland will lose sufficient ice by this mechanism to raise sea levels by 4 cm by 2100 (not 2200). This includes the caveat that increased glacier flow rate is not taken into account, thus giving too conservative an estimate for the overall rise of 40 cm.

Projections dont "indicate" anything worth considering when they are pulled directly from WACKY religious dogma.

Surface Detail wrote:3) The latest (2014) IPCC report acknowledges recent data.

IPCC. Dismissed. That's like the Pope citing a Vatican report.

.


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
11-12-2016 04:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:1) You claim that the Greenland ice cap is increasing in mass based, apparently, purely on personal conviction, and despite gravimetric and altimetry data indicating the opposite. Very convincing.

That's certainly a gross mischacterization. You claim that the Greenland ice sheet is decreasing in mass based, apparently because your religious dogma controlls any cognitive functions you might have, despite boots-on-the-ground 400MHz radar measurements that say the opposite. Your reliance on egregiously inadequate measuring techniques to provide enormous fudging potential to enable the cross-country stretching of conclusions to finally fally into the same ballpark as your WACKY dogma is all the reason anyone needs to summarily dismiss your argument.

You are, I presume, still failing to understand this report:

Recent accumulation variability in northwest Greenland from ground-penetrating radar and shallow cores along the Greenland Inland Traverse

The authors of this paper did not measure the thickness of the ice, nor did they measure the altitude of the surface. So how could they possibly have determined the ice mass balance? They don't claim to have done so, and it simply makes no sense to claim that they did.

What they actually measured was the depth of successive layers beneath the surface. This allowed them to determine that the rate of accumulation of ice on the surface of the ice sheet has increased by 2% per decade, which is entirely consistent with climatologists' predictions of increased precipitation.

This does not mean that the ice mass balance is increasing by 2% per decade! The ice mass balance depends on both the rate of accumulation and the rate of ice loss, and direct evidence of mass loss indicates that the latter is currently exceeding the former.
Edited on 11-12-2016 04:08
12-12-2016 17:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
Surface Detail wrote:You are, I presume, still failing to understand this report:

You are, I presume, still operating under cognitive dissonance.

You completely EVADED the concrete examples I provided of Glacier Girl and Camp Century. I invited you to discuss the numbers. You would have none of it.

You have absolutely nothing concrete that indicates anything other than ~2% per decade increase in ice mass balance.

So, we're apparently done.

Maybe someone else can explain why Glacier Girl happened if the Greenland ice sheet is disappearing.


.


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
12-12-2016 19:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:You are, I presume, still failing to understand this report:

You are, I presume, still operating under cognitive dissonance.

You completely EVADED the concrete examples I provided of Glacier Girl and Camp Century. I invited you to discuss the numbers. You would have none of it.

You have absolutely nothing concrete that indicates anything other than ~2% per decade increase in ice mass balance.

So, we're apparently done.

Maybe someone else can explain why Glacier Girl happened if the Greenland ice sheet is disappearing.

Your claim that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at about 2% per decade isn't just wrong; it's utterly absurd.

Let's do the math. The total volume of ice on Greenland is about 2.85 million cubic kilometres, that is, 2.85 x 10^15 m3. Given that the density of ice is about 920 kg/m3, this equates to about 2.6 x 10^18 kg. You are claiming that this is increasing by about 2% per decade, so about 0.2% per year. This would be 5.2 x 10^15 kg/year.

Now, the surface area of the Greenland ice sheet is 1.71 million square kilometres, that is, 1.71 x 10^12 m2. So you are saying that, on average, each square metre of Greenland is gaining mass at a rate of 5.2 x 10^15 / 1.71 x 10^12 = 3040 kg/year. This equates to annual precipitation of 304 cm of water.

Now look at this map:



There is nowhere on Greenland that receives anything like this amount of precipitation, let alone as an average for the whole island. There is simply nowhere near enough water (or snow) falling on the Greenland ice sheet to increase its mass by 2% per decade, and that's without even beginning to consider the ice lost through melting and glacier calving!

If you'd just done a basic plausibility check, you'd have seen just how ridiculous your claim is.
Edited on 12-12-2016 19:59
12-12-2016 20:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
Surface Detail wrote:Your claim that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at about 2% per decade isn't just wrong; it's utterly absurd.

You had your chance to make your case but you EVADED.

Let me know when you want to discuss Glacier Girl and those numbers.

Good day.


.


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
12-12-2016 22:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Your claim that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at about 2% per decade isn't just wrong; it's utterly absurd.

You had your chance to make your case but you EVADED.

Let me know when you want to discuss Glacier Girl and those numbers.

Good day.

I did not evade; I directly addressed your claim and proved it wrong on the basis of hard data and straightforward calculations. Try reading past the first line of my post.
12-12-2016 23:47
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
I think whenever he's not comfortable with the discussion he claims his opponent is evading, even when it does not make sense for him to claim that. I despair at having anything approaching a rational discussion with him, he even takes his snarky tone against people you would expect to be his 'allies'
14-12-2016 01:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
Surface Detail wrote:I did not evade;

You EVADED my concrete examples like a pick-pocket running from the police. You apparently won't go anywhere near them.


.


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
14-12-2016 01:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
spot wrote: I think whenever he's not comfortable with the discussion he claims his opponent is evading, ...

Such a statement erroneously implies that you think.

I refer to EVASION when people evade my points.

Have you had any luck finding a way to falsifiably express "greenhouse effect" without violating physics?


.


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
14-12-2016 10:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:I did not evade;

You EVADED my concrete examples like a pick-pocket running from the police. You apparently won't go anywhere near them.

You claimed that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at 2% per decade. I proved you wrong. Case closed.
14-12-2016 19:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
Surface Detail wrote: You claimed that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at 2% per decade. I proved you wrong. Case closed.

You proved nothing. You won't touch the concrete numbers because they destroy your argument.

On the other hand, yours is the absurd contention that the Greenland ice sheet is somehow disappearing. You can't even get out of the starting gate in defending that concept. All accounts have Greenland gaining ice mass balance.

Case closed ... and you're a dishonest moron.

Have you had ANY revelations whatsoever insofar as falsifiably expressing "greenhouse effect" without violating physics?


.


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
15-12-2016 00:05
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/unprecedented-arctic-warmth-in-2016-triggers-massive-decline-in-sea-ice-snow
Findings from the report:
Warmer air temperature: Average annual air temperature over land areas was the highest in the observational record, representing a 6.3 degree Fahrenheit (3.5 degree Celsius) increase since 1900.

Record low snow cover: Spring snow cover set a record low in the North American Arctic, where the May snow cover extent fell below 1.5 million square miles (4 million square kilometers) for the first time since satellite observations began in 1967.

Smaller Greenland ice sheet: The Greenland ice sheet continued to lose mass in 2016, as it has since 2002 when satellite-based measurement began. The start of melting on the Greenland ice sheet was the second earliest in the 37-year record of observations, close to the record set in 2012.

Record low sea ice: The Arctic sea ice minimum extent from mid-October 2016 to late November 2016 was the lowest since the satellite record began in 1979 and 28 percent less than the average for 1981-2010 in October. Arctic ice is thinning, with multi-year ice now comprising 22 percent of the ice cover as compared to 78 percent for the more fragile first-year ice. By comparison, multi-year ice made up 45 percent of ice cover in 1985.

Above-average Arctic Ocean temperature: Sea surface temperature in August 2016 was 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) above the average for 1982-2010 in the Barents and Chukchi seas and off the east and west coasts of Greenland.
15-12-2016 02:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: You claimed that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at 2% per decade. I proved you wrong. Case closed.

You proved nothing. You won't touch the concrete numbers because they destroy your argument.

Scroll up a little and look at my post containing the colourful precipitation map. The curvy symbols of Arabic origin represent numbers. We use them to count and do sums. There are many of them in my post.
15-12-2016 04:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3880)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: You claimed that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at 2% per decade. I proved you wrong. Case closed.

You proved nothing. You won't touch the concrete numbers because they destroy your argument.

Scroll up a little and look at my post containing the colourful precipitation map. The curvy symbols of Arabic origin represent numbers. We use them to count and do sums. There are many of them in my post.

Your numbers are guesstimates that are nothing more than attempts to change the subject away from the actual measurements I presented.

All you have are your assertions that the Glacier Girl numbers are "absurd." This is reality that you are calling "absurd." You"ll turn right around and claim that violations of physics are reality.

Pick a place in Greenland and show that it isn't accumulating ice ~2% per decade. I'm not interested in your numbers that are probably way off because you took them from some warmizombie website.


.


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
15-12-2016 12:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: You claimed that the ice mass balance of Greenland is increasing at 2% per decade. I proved you wrong. Case closed.

You proved nothing. You won't touch the concrete numbers because they destroy your argument.

Scroll up a little and look at my post containing the colourful precipitation map. The curvy symbols of Arabic origin represent numbers. We use them to count and do sums. There are many of them in my post.

Your numbers are guesstimates that are nothing more than attempts to change the subject away from the actual measurements I presented.

All you have are your assertions that the Glacier Girl numbers are "absurd." This is reality that you are calling "absurd." You"ll turn right around and claim that violations of physics are reality.

Pick a place in Greenland and show that it isn't accumulating ice ~2% per decade. I'm not interested in your numbers that are probably way off because you took them from some warmizombie website.

Perhaps you could be more specific.
Which numbers do you consider to be part of the warmizombie conspiracy?

The area of the Greenland ice sheet (1.71 million square kilometres)?
The volume of the ice sheet (2.85 million cubic kilometres, equivalent to an average thickness of 1670 metres)?
The density of ice (920 kg per cubic metre)?
The precipitation on the ice sheet (ranging from about 170 cm/year in the snowy south to about 20 cm/year in the desert-like north)?

Feel free to provide non-warmizombie alternatives.

Or is it the general principle of conservation of matter that offends your right-wing sensibilities? Does matter appear from nowhere in the conservative universe?

By the way, we have just two numbers from the Glacier Girl find: the thickness of the ice under which she was found (268 feet, or about 82 metres) and the time for which she was buried for (48 years). This gives an accumulation rate of 1.7 m/year, which is entirely consistent with the rate of precipitation in the southern coastal regions of Greenland.
15-12-2016 12:54
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Surface Detail wrote:

Your numbers are guesstimates that are nothing more than attempts to change the subject away from the actual measurements I presented.

All you have are your assertions that the Glacier Girl numbers are "absurd." This is reality that you are calling "absurd." You"ll turn right around and claim that violations of physics are reality.

Pick a place in Greenland and show that it isn't accumulating ice ~2% per decade. I'm not interested in your numbers that are probably way off because you took them from some warmizombie website.

Perhaps you could be more specific.
Which numbers do you consider to be part of the warmizombie conspiracy?

The area of the Greenland ice sheet (1.71 million square kilometres)?
The volume of the ice sheet (2.85 million cubic kilometres, equivalent to an average thickness of 1670 metres)?
The density of ice (920 kg per cubic metre)?
The precipitation on the ice sheet (ranging from about 170 cm/year in the snowy south to about 20 cm/year in the desert-like north)?

Feel free to provide non-warmizombie alternatives.

Or is it the general principle of conservation of matter that offends your right-wing sensibilities? Does matter appear from nowhere in the conservative universe?

By the way, we have just two numbers from the Glacier Girl find: the thickness of the ice under which she was found (268 feet, or about 82 metres) and the time for which she was buried for (48 years). This gives an accumulation rate of 1.7 m/year, which is entirely consistent with the rate of precipitation in the southern coastal regions of Greenland.[/quote]

So the fast glacier draining 6.5% of Greenland we looked at would be the one draining the area where it gets 1.7m w.e. of snowfall.

Clearly this glacier is not even keeping up with the snowfall there.

I do not consider the 2% increase per decade number to match other numbers. But I do think that clearly Greenland is increasing in ice mass.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Arctic ice still rapidly decreasing:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
ice melting223-06-2019 19:52
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Siberian ice melting!012-06-2019 21:32
Ice3409-06-2019 20:26
Mike Pompeo: Melting Arctic Ice Presents New Trade Opportunities028-05-2019 15:33
▲ 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