Remember me
▼ Content

Arctic ice still rapidly decreasing



Page 1 of 3123>
Arctic ice still rapidly decreasing15-02-2011 04:41
DesertphileProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)


Peer-reviewed science papers showing unprecedented ice loss in the Arctic and Antarctic:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5768/1754

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo694.html

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5643/273

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5569/895

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037524.shtml

http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/AirT/RigorEtal-SAT.pdf

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/DaveLegates03-d/Comiso03jclimateArctic.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025624.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031480.shtml

http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/Papers/NghiemEtal2007_MYreduction.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008EOSTr..89...13S

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029703.shtml

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008EOSTr..89...21G

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/jenkay/papers/Kayetal_accepted_March102008.pdf

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo845.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042460.shtml

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5763/986

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034816.shtml

http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035417.shtml

http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55553

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035710.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JC005312.shtml

http://soa.arcus.org/abstracts/trends-and-patterns-sea-ice-age-distributions-within-arctic-basin-and-their-implications-c

http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/1-1-advances-understanding-arctic-system-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf
18-09-2012 15:14
Gray-Wolf
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
I think we need to update the list D.P.!!!
03-12-2016 07:43
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5768/1754
Gray-Wolf wrote:
I think we need to update the list D.P.!!!

OK....
///////
Improved GRACE regional mass balance estimates of the Greenland ice sheet is
208 plus/minus 18Gt/year mass loss rate for the period 2003 to 2008
from the GRACE solution, while the I(nput)O(utput)M solution shows a mass loss rate
of 195 plus/minus 25 Gt/yr.

The mass loss rates increase by ~ 67% and 85% in the 2009-2014 period in the GRACE and IOM solutions, respectively.

The 10 year acceleration in the GRACE data is -25 plus/minus 8 Gt/yr/yr, consistent with the IOM solution,-26 plus/minus 12 Gt/yr/yr.

According to GRACE & IOM data, present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses range from ~ 393 Gtons/yr to 456 Gtons/yr.

A new study about Greenland Landmass Rebound affects, indicate that present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses increase to ~ 410 Gtons/yr to 475 Gtons/yr.
///////
Suspect Greenland ice sheet loss will escalate past 1000 billion tons per year & the lack of science chemistry astronomy physics algebra in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas for toxic topix AGW denier liar whiners(& winers), will allow them to say, "what, da ain't no Greenlund iace ameltin'....".
03-12-2016 16:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
litesong wrote:Suspect Greenland ice sheet loss will escalate past 1000 billion tons per year & the lack of science chemistry astronomy physics algebra in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas for toxic topix AGW denier liar whiners(& winers), will allow them to say, "what, da ain't no Greenlund iace ameltin'....".


Do you like my new hat? I got it in "pukey" color. It's a pukey proud pig hat, just for me.



I got it when I learned that conclusive evidence shows the Greenland ice sheet is gaining ice overall, not losing it ... at about ~2% per decade. Wow!

You rock litesong!


.


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
03-12-2016 17:20
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
IBdaMann wrote
o you like my new hat? I got it in "pukey" color. It's a pukey proud pig hat, just for me. I got it when I learned that conclusive evidence shows the Greenland ice sheet is gaining ice overall, not losing it ... at about ~2% per decade.


The hat is redundant, like your redundant non-science. Everyone knows you are a pukey proud pig. Can't find my nice warm hat with earflaps. Haven't needed it so far, this late fall. It is good that you prove you have bad science, since you took no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
Meanwhile:
Improved GRACE regional mass balance estimates of the Greenland ice sheet is
208 plus/minus 18Gt/year mass loss rate for the period 2003 to 2008
from the GRACE solution, while the I(nput)O(utput)M solution shows a mass loss rate
of 195 plus/minus 25 Gt/yr.

The mass loss rates increase by ~ 67% and 85% in the 2009-2014 period in the GRACE and IOM solutions, respectively.

The 10 year acceleration in the GRACE data is -25 plus/minus 8 Gt/yr/yr, consistent with the IOM solution,-26 plus/minus 12 Gt/yr/yr.

According to GRACE & IOM data, present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses range from ~ 393 Gtons/yr to 456 Gtons/yr.

A new study about Greenland Landmass Rebound affects, indicate that present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses increase to ~ 410 Gtons/yr to 475 Gtons/yr.
///////
Suspect Greenland ice sheet loss will escalate past 1000 billion tons per year & the lack of science chemistry astronomy physics algebra in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas for toxic topix AGW denier liar whiners(& winers), will allow them to say, "what, da ain't no Greenlund iace ameltin'....".
04-12-2016 17:54
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Can you post any actual evidence other than the GRACE data.

I am sure all these papers will cite this data as their evidence.

The real world is more true than the scripture of a scientific paper. i know you don't want it to be so but it is.

Edited on 04-12-2016 17:55
04-12-2016 18:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
litesong wrote:Meanwhile:
Improved GRACE regional mass balance estimates of the Greenland ice sheet is 208 plus/minus 18Gt/year mass loss rate for the period 2003 to 2008 from the GRACE solution, while the I(nput)O(utput)M solution shows a mass loss rate of 195 plus/minus 25 Gt/yr.

When did you start using their data?



I had no idea anyone was applying their data to "climate" analysis but I'll try to be open-minded.


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
05-12-2016 01:20
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
IBdaMann wrote:I had no idea...


Also, you had no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
05-12-2016 01:34
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
litesong wrote:
Improved GRACE regional mass balance estimates of the Greenland ice sheet is
208 plus/minus 18Gt/year mass loss rate for the period 2003 to 2008
from the GRACE solution, while the I(nput)O(utput)M solution shows a mass loss rate of 195 plus/minus 25 Gt/yr.

The mass loss rates increase by ~ 67% and 85% in the 2009-2014 period in the GRACE and IOM solutions, respectively.

The 10 year acceleration in the GRACE data is -25 plus/minus 8 Gt/yr/yr, consistent with the IOM solution,-26 plus/minus 12 Gt/yr/yr.

According to GRACE & IOM data, present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses range from ~ 393 Gtons/yr to 456 Gtons/yr.

A new study about Greenland Landmass Rebound affects, indicate that present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses increase to ~ 410 Gtons/yr to 475 Gtons/yr.
///////
Suspect Greenland ice sheet loss will escalate past 1000 billion tons per year & the lack of science chemistry astronomy physics algebra in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas for toxic topix AGW denier liar whiners(& winers), will allow them to say, "what, da ain't no Greenlund iace ameltin'....".
///////
"Tim the leaky plumber" puffed:
Can you post any actual evidence other than the GRACE data.(sic)
//////
litesong wrote:
It is good that "Tim the leaky plumber" doesn't read well. I suspected & it is now confirmed that "Tim the leaky plumber" had no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
05-12-2016 01:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
litesong wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I had no idea...


Also, you had no science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.

Pukey proud pig.



.


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
05-12-2016 01:54
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
IBdaMann wrote:...Pukey proud pig.


If you market it to old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigs, you'll owe me royalities. Thank you, very much.
05-12-2016 05:14
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Present Arctic sea ice extent is 10 million square kilometers. 2017 has an inside track for its Arctic sea ice extent MAXIMUM to remain below 14 million square kilometers, as did the years 2015 & 2016. No other years have been below 14 million square kilometers. Interesting is that the 1980's decade of average NEW YEAR'S DAY Arctic sea ice extent is very close to 14 million square kilometers. If 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum does remain below 14 million, three years in a row will emphasize that every year is MISSING 3 months of Arctic sea ice freezing.
Edited on 05-12-2016 05:18
05-12-2016 05:29
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
litesong wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...Pukey proud pig.


If you market it to old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigs, you'll owe me royalties. Thank you, very much.


Also, you know where & can find lots of old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) AGW denier liar whiner racist pukey proud pigs, so your marketing prospects increase greatly. Pukey proud pig!!!! My royalties are going to be huge!!!
Edited on 05-12-2016 05:32
05-12-2016 05:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
litesong wrote:Present Arctic sea ice extent is 10 million square kilometers. 2017 has an inside track for its Arctic sea ice extent MAXIMUM to remain below 14 million square kilometers, as did the years 2015 & 2016. No other years have been below 14 million square kilometers. Interesting is that the 1980's decade of average NEW YEAR'S DAY Arctic sea ice extent is very close to 14 million square kilometers. If 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum does remain below 14 million, three years in a row will emphasize that every year is MISSING 3 months of Arctic sea ice freezing.

Once it was revealed that Arctic sea ice extent fluctuates every year because it is based on weather ... which is random and is thus independent year-to-year, and that there are no trends in random events, e.g. weather, polar sea ice, etc... then everyone stopped caring.


.


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
05-12-2016 05:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
litesong wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...Pukey proud pig.


If you market it to old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigs, you'll owe me royalities. Thank you, very much.


I'd rather owe it to you than cheat you out of 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
05-12-2016 05:38
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
IBdaMann wrote:everyone stopped caring.


Everyone who could, like "i b da no sigh-ants mann", who didn't take science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, didn't care about education.
Edited on 05-12-2016 05:40
05-12-2016 05:57
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
IBdaMann wrote:...Once it was revealed that Arctic sea ice extent fluctuates every year because it is based on weather.....


Ah.... its good that you predict future Arctic sea ice extent maximums will soon be 15.5+ million square kilometers. With present solar TSI below average for 10 years(including a 3+ year solar TSI setting a 100year record low), you must believe it'll be very very soon.
Edited on 05-12-2016 06:02
06-12-2016 03:47
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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.
Considerations of Arctic sea ice VOLUME show the uncontrolled plummet of sea ice, desired by unscientific toxic topix AGW denier liars, who mostly have no or little mathematical or science background.
06-12-2016 13:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
litesong wrote: ~ 9700 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for December 1.

Why would anyone care about an average of random numbers?

litesong wrote: ... show the uncontrolled plummet of sea ice, ...

Plummet?

Arctic sea ice is increasing. Next week there will be even more.




.


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
06-12-2016 19:16
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"i b da no sigh-ants mann" muffed: Arctic sea ice is increasing. Next week there will be even more.


Compared to the same date of the 1980's, there is far less. It is good, you continue your lack of education & desire for such. I would you be no other way.
06-12-2016 19:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
litesong wrote: Compared to the same date of the 1980's, there is far less.

litesong, buddy, you are confusing tenses. Arctic sea ice *is* (present tense) increasing right now. Next week (the future) there *will be* more. A date in the 1980s is in the past but we only care about what is happening right now.


.


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
06-12-2016 21:15
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
IBdaMann wrote:
litesong wrote: Compared to the same date of the 1980's, there is far less.
...you are confusing tenses.


I know what you meant. I know you attempt to confuse. You need to wait till present sea ice extent returns to the sea ice levels of the 80's (to date), before you "attempt" to say that Arctic sea ice is increasing.
If you did that, you would have nothing to say for the rest of your life. But that would be OK, since you never had science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
06-12-2016 21:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
litesong wrote: I know what you meant.

I would hope so. You read what I wrote.

litesong wrote: I know you attempt to confuse.

I'm not very good at confusing but I can attempt. Here we go.

"Black is white"
"Night is day."
"Thomas Jefferson was a communist (always small letters)"

How did I do?


.


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
07-12-2016 05:41
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
IBdaMann wrote:I'm not very good at confusing but I can attempt. Here we go.

"Black is white"
"Night is day."
"Thomas Jefferson was a communist (always small letters)"

How did I do?


"i b da no sigh-ants mann" delivers an untruthful self-analysis of itself. And, it is its least confusing post.
07-12-2016 11:43
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Did we ever get anyactual evidence other than the GRACE satellite stuff showing a loss of Greenland ice mass?

Measuring the ice mass on Greenland by satellite is like measuring the heigh of your kids using the data from pictures taken off a passing police car's camera.

Edited on 07-12-2016 11:43
07-12-2016 19:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Did we ever get anyactual evidence other than the GRACE satellite stuff showing a loss of Greenland ice mass?

Measuring the ice mass on Greenland by satellite is like measuring the heigh of your kids using the data from pictures taken off a passing police car's camera.


No it isn't its measuring something with something designed to measure it.

It can also detect subduction zones.



http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/solid_earth.html

It can also detect deap sea currents



Its your opposition because you have the expertise to say that's its unreliable even though its used in other fields or is it because you don't want to be told whatever it is it's telling us?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
07-12-2016 19:32
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Sorry for bumping my own thread but I seem to remember that the icesheats weren't mesured by aircraft anymore, 10 more seconds googling took me to a site about Icebridge which seems to be doing what you claimed was not being done.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/icebridge/index.html#.VDQh8UvLxd0

About IceBridge
Using a fleet of research aircraft, NASA's Operation IceBridge images Earth's polar ice to better understand connections between polar regions and the global climate system. IceBridge studies annual changes in thickness of sea ice, glaciers and ice sheets.
07-12-2016 21:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
spot wrote: Its your opposition because you have the expertise to say that's its unreliable even though its used in other fields or is it because you don't want to be told whatever it is it's telling us?

...or, said another way ...

Is your opposition from being too stupid to comprehend the "Climate" goddess or is your opposition due to the narrow path to "Climate" salvation being too inconvenient?


.


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
08-12-2016 21:21
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Did we ever get anyactual evidence other than the GRACE satellite stuff showing a loss of Greenland ice mass?

Measuring the ice mass on Greenland by satellite is like measuring the heigh of your kids using the data from pictures taken off a passing police car's camera.


No it isn't its measuring something with something designed to measure it.

It can also detect subduction zones.



http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/solid_earth.html

It can also detect deap sea currents



Its your opposition because you have the expertise to say that's its unreliable even though its used in other fields or is it because you don't want to be told whatever it is it's telling us?


Given that it comes out with numbers that disagree with the observations done on the ground, with measurements of the earth's rotation, with observations of the flow rate of the glaciers and rivers coming out of Greenland, with the basic mechanics of the glaciers in what forces are driving them down hill, with WWII aircraft being under 80+m of ice and with the impossibility to actually getting that much heat energy into the ice sheet from sunshine over a breif summer, then I have to put it down to my expertise in spotting the bleeding obvious.
08-12-2016 21:23
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Sorry for bumping my own thread but I seem to remember that the icesheats weren't mesured by aircraft anymore, 10 more seconds googling took me to a site about Icebridge which seems to be doing what you claimed was not being done.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/icebridge/index.html#.VDQh8UvLxd0

About IceBridge
Using a fleet of research aircraft, NASA's Operation IceBridge images Earth's polar ice to better understand connections between polar regions and the global climate system. IceBridge studies annual changes in thickness of sea ice, glaciers and ice sheets.


Yeah, why use an aircraft at a cost of a couple of thousand dollars when you can have a satellite and a billion dollar budget with salary to match?
08-12-2016 21:39
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Sorry for bumping my own thread but I seem to remember that the icesheats weren't mesured by aircraft anymore, 10 more seconds googling took me to a site about Icebridge which seems to be doing what you claimed was not being done.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/icebridge/index.html#.VDQh8UvLxd0

About IceBridge
Using a fleet of research aircraft, NASA's Operation IceBridge images Earth's polar ice to better understand connections between polar regions and the global climate system. IceBridge studies annual changes in thickness of sea ice, glaciers and ice sheets.


Yeah, why use an aircraft at a cost of a couple of thousand dollars when you can have a satellite and a billion dollar budget with salary to match?


I don't have time to dispute your figures but I'm sure If I investigated them they would turn out to be wrong, as other figures you have quoted have invariably turned out to be.

The point is you are implying your an expert on the subject but you diden't even know about the aircraft.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
08-12-2016 21:53
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
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.


.


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
08-12-2016 21:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Did we ever get anyactual evidence other than the GRACE satellite stuff showing a loss of Greenland ice mass?

Measuring the ice mass on Greenland by satellite is like measuring the heigh of your kids using the data from pictures taken off a passing police car's camera.


No it isn't its measuring something with something designed to measure it.

It can also detect subduction zones.



http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/solid_earth.html

It can also detect deap sea currents



Its your opposition because you have the expertise to say that's its unreliable even though its used in other fields or is it because you don't want to be told whatever it is it's telling us?

Here's an interesting article referring to recent paper on the topic:

Greenland ice is melting seven percent faster than previously thought

Apparently, ground GPS measurements have shown that the rock under Greenland is rebounding (following the end of the ice age) faster than had previously been thought, thus leading the GRACE scientists to underestimate the rate of ice loss. The authors of the paper conclude that the amount of ice lost between 2003 and 2013 is actually about 2,700 billion tons, rather than the 2,500 billion tons previously determined.
08-12-2016 22:07
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
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.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
08-12-2016 22:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
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.

Sure. $2K won't get you a wing. Stating such is much more credible than "I'm sure that if I were to research this that you'd be wrong." Give a figure. It's too easy.


.


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
08-12-2016 22:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
IBdaMann 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.

Sure. $2K won't get you a wing. Stating such is much more credible than "I'm sure that if I were to research this that you'd be wrong." Give a figure. It's too easy.


.


If it got you a propeller blade I would be surprised, considering the whole earth science budget is less then 2 billion his figure of 1 billion to run one program is almost defiantly wrong.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
09-12-2016 01:49
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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.
Edited on 09-12-2016 01:50
09-12-2016 12:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Did we ever get anyactual evidence other than the GRACE satellite stuff showing a loss of Greenland ice mass?

Measuring the ice mass on Greenland by satellite is like measuring the heigh of your kids using the data from pictures taken off a passing police car's camera.


No it isn't its measuring something with something designed to measure it.

It can also detect subduction zones.



http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/solid_earth.html

It can also detect deap sea currents



Its your opposition because you have the expertise to say that's its unreliable even though its used in other fields or is it because you don't want to be told whatever it is it's telling us?

Here's an interesting article referring to recent paper on the topic:

Greenland ice is melting seven percent faster than previously thought

Apparently, ground GPS measurements have shown that the rock under Greenland is rebounding (following the end of the ice age) faster than had previously been thought, thus leading the GRACE scientists to underestimate the rate of ice loss. The authors of the paper conclude that the amount of ice lost between 2003 and 2013 is actually about 2,700 billion tons, rather than the 2,500 billion tons previously determined.


So it has come as a surprise to these people that when you wish to measure the ice on Greenland you should measure the ice on Greenland rather than the path of a satellite. And you wonder why I think they are bogus.
09-12-2016 12:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
09-12-2016 14:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Did we ever get anyactual evidence other than the GRACE satellite stuff showing a loss of Greenland ice mass?

Measuring the ice mass on Greenland by satellite is like measuring the heigh of your kids using the data from pictures taken off a passing police car's camera.


No it isn't its measuring something with something designed to measure it.

It can also detect subduction zones.



http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/solid_earth.html

It can also detect deap sea currents



Its your opposition because you have the expertise to say that's its unreliable even though its used in other fields or is it because you don't want to be told whatever it is it's telling us?

Here's an interesting article referring to recent paper on the topic:

Greenland ice is melting seven percent faster than previously thought

Apparently, ground GPS measurements have shown that the rock under Greenland is rebounding (following the end of the ice age) faster than had previously been thought, thus leading the GRACE scientists to underestimate the rate of ice loss. The authors of the paper conclude that the amount of ice lost between 2003 and 2013 is actually about 2,700 billion tons, rather than the 2,500 billion tons previously determined.


So it has come as a surprise to these people that when you wish to measure the ice on Greenland you should measure the ice on Greenland rather than the path of a satellite. And you wonder why I think they are bogus.

What do you think is bogus, and why?

The GRACE satellite simply measures changes in surface mass balance, and cannot differentiate between rock and ice mass. This is why scientists using its data to study Greenland ice loss must and do compensate for rebound in order to get a good estimate of ice loss. These latest measurements just indicate that the rebound is somewhat greater than previously thought, which means that more ice must be being lost. There's no "surprise" here, just an improved estimate of rebound.

Of course, scientists also use both satellite and aircraft-based radar altimetry to measure ice thickness. The GRACE data simply complement these data.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Arctic ice still rapidly decreasing:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Plant Growth and Ice Cores617-09-2019 22:45
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
▲ 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