Remember me
▼ Content

It's like disputing gravity



Page 2 of 2<12
13-12-2016 10:46
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The real world is the final arbeter of science not the peer reviewed scriture you want it to be.


That goes for Hobbyists picking and choosing what data to ignore then making up numbers to make there errors even more profound as well. In fact I think that was the point of the piece that I originally linked. Policy is going to be decided on a fantasy, whatever Trump wants to hear, not what is actually going on and observed in the real world, this will of course will lead to non-optimum outcomes in the long term.


Other than the GRACE data what evidence, not just papers, do you cite that shows significant reduction of Greenland's ice mass?

I include many forms of evidence. You dismiss them because they are not from your chosen fellow cultists.
13-12-2016 10:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
litesong wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
litesong wrote:
"tim the leaky plumber" wrote: Surface detail can do the maths I set out. So can I.


Of course, "tim the leaky plumber" proves it is a leaky plumber. That's why "tim the leaky plumber" never answered the Grace & IOM determinations of total land ice losses on Greenland.

Grace satellites & I(nput)O(utput)Method determine continued & rapid acceleration of Greenland Ice Sheet losses.
//////////
From May 2016:
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.

Now, the new Greenland Landmass Rebound study indicates extra ice losses such that 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses are ~ 410 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'....".

It is not my fault[that you are thick]


It is your fault that you never took science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.


I have taken physics and maths to the age of 18.

You have not.

I have done rotational dynamics on this forum. You have no clue about any physics. Understand that you are completely out of your depth in this subject area.
13-12-2016 19:16
spot
★★★★☆
(1110)
Tim the plumber wrote:]

Other than the GRACE data what evidence, not just papers, do you cite that shows significant reduction of Greenland's ice mass?

I include many forms of evidence. You dismiss them because they are not from your chosen fellow cultists.


This is not a formal venue And I can't see what good covering the same ground over and over is doing. I suggest you watch the Chasing Ice documentry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4 and also temperatures in the region are increasing, Sea Ice is disappearing, in the nearby Tundra Permafrost is melting, Animals and plants are changing their range. I can't understand how you think all this is not affecting the Icesheat, I could go on but what's the point. You call me a cultist and any evidence that I can bring before you is from a so called 'cultist' so there is no point having a discussion with you.

I asked for a source about the fossil glaciers pushed above the weather because the more I look into it the more absurd that claim seems. Ever read into thin air? The very fact you made that claim reinforces my impression that you're not qualified to say what is acceptable in a scientific discussion and what is unacceptable.

By the way made up numbers that you do some simple arithmetic on are not evidence. Evidence is sourced, probably from a 'cultist' not unless your Bruce Wayne and have your own earth monitoring program.


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.
13-12-2016 19:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Nice dramatic videos of ice melting are not going to do any good.

The thing about some glaciers being above the weather is not important. They are but so what.

I would need to see evidence that showed that the glaciers which drain the central Greenland ice sheet ar doing so quicker than they were. That is in the middle of the valley along its' length. Not at the end point where it is having a little tumble. Dramatically but unimportantly.

I would like to understand how it is you think a glacier of the same thickness that it was and 30km in length is going to be flowing at a greatly increased speed because of........???

Edited on 13-12-2016 19:57
13-12-2016 20:07
spot
★★★★☆
(1110)
turn the sound on with the videos they have commentary,

The glaciers are not above the weather, they are in the troposphere, you would know that if you were awake in this high school geography class that you attended. I am using that fact to undermine your personal credibility with anyone who might be lurking.

I think the point is more ice is tumbling off then previously. again watch the film and listen to the commentary.

A glacier will flow quicker if it's warmer, it's a well known fact.
13-12-2016 20:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
spot wrote:
turn the sound on with the videos they have commentary,

The glaciers are not above the weather, they are in the troposphere, you would know that if you were awake in this high school geography class that you attended. I am using that fact to undermine your personal credibility with anyone who might be lurking.

I think the point is more ice is tumbling off then previously. again watch the film and listen to the commentary.

A glacier will flow quicker if it's warmer, it's a well known fact.


The glaciers in Greenland must be much colder than, since Glacier Girl moved such a short distance.


The Parrot Killer
13-12-2016 20:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1110)
Into the Night wrote:


The glaciers in Greenland must be much colder than, since Glacier Girl moved such a short distance.


I can't argue with that because it does not make sense.


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.
13-12-2016 22:00
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Tim the plumber wrote:I have done rotational dynamics....


Well, you can spin at F=M*V*V/(2*R), all you want. But you still got too much ego that doesn't spin off, if you believe AGW scientists haven't figured all your stuff.
14-12-2016 00:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9872)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


The glaciers in Greenland must be much colder than, since Glacier Girl moved such a short distance.


I can't argue with that because it does not make sense.


Makes perfect sense. This is one very slow moving glacier.


The Parrot Killer
14-12-2016 01:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
spot wrote: The very fact you made that claim reinforces my impression that you're not qualified to say what is acceptable in a scientific discussion and what is unacceptable.

Nope. The very fact that he stated a differing opinion required you to declare him "not qualified" to challenge your WACKY religious dogma ... that you call "The Science."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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 01:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5025)
Into the Night wrote:Makes perfect sense. This is one very slow moving glacier.

Does spot think all glaciers flow at the same speed? The idea of a slowly flowing glacier seems to be giving him difficulty.


Hmmm, the idea of a slowly flowing glacier gives him difficulty.


Oh well, I guess I'm not surprised. The idea of adhering to the laws of thermodynamics causes him grief.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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 10:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
turn the sound on with the videos they have commentary,

The glaciers are not above the weather, they are in the troposphere, you would know that if you were awake in this high school geography class that you attended. I am using that fact to undermine your personal credibility with anyone who might be lurking.

I think the point is more ice is tumbling off then previously. again watch the film and listen to the commentary.

A glacier will flow quicker if it's warmer, it's a well known fact.


The glaciers in Greenland must be much colder than, since Glacier Girl moved such a short distance.

The fact that Glacier Girl moved a relatively short distance tells you nothing about the other glaciers in Greenland. The speed of glaciers varies widely, depending on factors such as thickness and terrain as well as temperature.
14-12-2016 12:10
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
litesong wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:I have done rotational dynamics....


Well, you can spin at F=M*V*V/(2*R), all you want. But you still got too much ego that doesn't spin off, if you believe AGW scientists haven't figured all your stuff.


Perhaps they have. But clearly you have not.
14-12-2016 12:13
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
turn the sound on with the videos they have commentary,

The glaciers are not above the weather, they are in the troposphere, you would know that if you were awake in this high school geography class that you attended. I am using that fact to undermine your personal credibility with anyone who might be lurking.

I think the point is more ice is tumbling off then previously. again watch the film and listen to the commentary.

A glacier will flow quicker if it's warmer, it's a well known fact.


The glaciers in Greenland must be much colder than, since Glacier Girl moved such a short distance.

The fact that Glacier Girl moved a relatively short distance tells you nothing about the other glaciers in Greenland. The speed of glaciers varies widely, depending on factors such as thickness and terrain as well as temperature.


Yes. I fully agree.

So when you consider a glacier which has not noticably increased in thickness and is still going down the same valley why is it that the message is that it has increased in flow rate? Increased a lot! Like x10.
14-12-2016 19:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
turn the sound on with the videos they have commentary,

The glaciers are not above the weather, they are in the troposphere, you would know that if you were awake in this high school geography class that you attended. I am using that fact to undermine your personal credibility with anyone who might be lurking.

I think the point is more ice is tumbling off then previously. again watch the film and listen to the commentary.

A glacier will flow quicker if it's warmer, it's a well known fact.


The glaciers in Greenland must be much colder than, since Glacier Girl moved such a short distance.

The fact that Glacier Girl moved a relatively short distance tells you nothing about the other glaciers in Greenland. The speed of glaciers varies widely, depending on factors such as thickness and terrain as well as temperature.


Yes. I fully agree.

So when you consider a glacier which has not noticably increased in thickness and is still going down the same valley why is it that the message is that it has increased in flow rate? Increased a lot! Like x10.

What are you talking about? What has increased x10?
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate It's like disputing gravity:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Gravity because it's a heavy subject022-10-2019 08:44
Gravity fed electrical generation system41613-05-2019 07:38
Define 'gravity'324-06-2018 18:48
▲ 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