It's like disputing gravity

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.

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.

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.

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.

Into the Night wrote:


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

Tim the plumber wrote:I have done rotational dynamics....

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.

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.

Into the Night wrote:Makes perfect sense. This is one very slow moving glacier.

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.

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.

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.

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.