Remember me
▼ Content

Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation



Page 5 of 8<<<34567>>>
05-10-2016 21:41
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
He has shown that he cannot understand "accumulation of 2% per decade of Greenland's ice mass balance."


Okay, IB, I'm bringing the discussion here.

Let's look at the actual paper!

The growth and decay of ice sheets is driven by a balance
between accumulation of snow on the surface, primarily in
the high-elevation interiors, and the melting, runoff, evapor-
ation, sublimation and iceberg calving that takes place
primarily along the lower-elevation margins. The mass
balance of the Greenland ice sheet, in particular, is of
increasing importance to scientists and policymakers, as
rising air and ocean temperatures have increased the rate of
melting and the velocity of calving outlet glaciers, con-
tributing to a rising sea level (Lemke and others, 2007). The
net mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet has been the
subject of much recent work (e.g. Alley and others, 2007;
Rignot and others, 2008; Wouters and others, 2008; Zwally
and others, 2011). Additionally, investigators have studied
the surface mass balance, primarily accumulation, using
point measurements (Benson, 1962; Ohmura and Reeh,
1991; Dibb and Fahnestock, 2004; Bales and others, 2009),
automated weather stations (e.g. GC-Net: http://cires.
colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/gcnet/), remote sensing
(Drinkwater and others, 2001; Kanagaratnam and others,
2001; Hawley and others, 2006), and more recently, using
climate models constrained by observations (Box and others,
2004, 2013; Bales and others, 2009; Burgess and others,
2010; Hanna and others, 2011). Spatially extensive ground-
based profiles of accumulation rates, however, are rare
(Benson, 1962). The spatial variability of accumulation on
varying length scales is difficult to determine with point
measurements or climate models, especially when local
topography is considered.
Here we derive spatially extensive measurements of
accumulation along a 1009 km traverse from

1700m a.s.l.
in northwest Greenland to the

3200m a.s.l. center of the
ice sheet. We trace internal reflecting horizons (IRHs) in
400MHz ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data. We use
density profiles collected along the traverse to calculate
electromagnetic wave speed through the snow and firn in
order to determine the depth of the IRHs, and date the IRHs
using snow/firn chemistry data from cores collected at each
end of the traverse.


The 0.022 m w.e.a-1 increase we find implies a ~10%
change in average accumulation in the dry-snow area of the
ice sheet in the past 52 years. The significance of this result
is that increased accumulation, as seen on the East Antarctic
ice sheet by Davis and others (2005), driven by the increased
ability of warmer air to hold moisture, is also evident inland
on the Greenland ice sheet. Box and others (2013) found a
~1.2% decade-1 increase over the 20th century, and our
result is consistent with this, if slightly higher. The signifi-
cance of this for the mass balance of the Greenland ice
sheet, is that at least some of the increased mass loss from
melting at the lower-elevation margins of the ice sheet is
balanced by the small increases in mass gain from increased
accumulation in the higher-elevation interior.


Let's be quite clear - the scientists who wrote this are using "accumulation" to mean how much snow and ice is added to the glacier at the top.
05-10-2016 22:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 wrote:Let's be quite clear

We don't need to be. We can let the report be clear. After all, it's written in simple, clear and straightforward English. BYOC (Bring You Own Comprehension)

jwoodward48 wrote: Let's look at the actual paper!

Yes, let's...


the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads:The growth and decay of ice sheets is driven by ...


the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads:
The mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, in particular, is of
increasing importance to scientists and policymakers ...


the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads: The net mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet has been the subject of much recent work (e.g. Alley and others, 2007;
Rignot and others, 2008; Wouters and others, 2008; Zwally
and others, 2011).


the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads: Additionally, investigators have studied
the surface mass balance, primarily accumulation, using
point measurements (Benson, 1962; Ohmura and Reeh,
1991;



the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads: Spatially extensive ground-based profiles of accumulation rates, however, are rare (Benson, 1962).


the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads: Here we derive spatially extensive measurements of
accumulation along a 1009 km traverse from 1700m a.s.l. in northwest Greenland to the 3200m a.s.l. center of the ice sheet.


the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads: The significance of this for the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, is that at least some of the increased mass loss from
melting at the lower-elevation margins of the ice sheet is
balanced by the small increases in mass gain from increased
accumulation in the higher-elevation interior.


Let me know if you need any of the above words explained to you.


.


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
05-10-2016 22:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
The significance of this for the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, is that at least some of the increased mass loss from melting at the lower-elevation margins of the ice sheet is balanced by the small increases in mass gain from increased accumulation in the higher-elevation interior.

IBdaMann, I've highlighted the important words to make it easier for you. The essence of the sentence is:

At least some of the increased mass loss is balanced by the small increases in mass gain.

Now, put on your thinking cap and read carefully. Is this sentence saying that the mass gain is greater than the mass loss?
05-10-2016 23:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Let's be quite clear

We don't need to be. We can let the report be clear. After all, it's written in simple, clear and straightforward English. BYOC (Bring You Own Comprehension)

jwoodward48 wrote: Let's look at the actual paper!

Yes, let's...


the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads:The growth and decay of ice sheets is driven by ...


a balance between accumulation of snow... and... melting, runoff, evaporation, sublimation, and iceberg calving...


the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads:
The mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, in particular, is of
increasing importance to scientists and policymakers ...


The mass balance is important, yes. How does this prove your point?

the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads: The net mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet has been the subject of much recent work (e.g. Alley and others, 2007;
Rignot and others, 2008; Wouters and others, 2008; Zwally
and others, 2011).


Ditto.

the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads: Additionally, investigators have studied
the surface mass balance, primarily accumulation, using
point measurements (Benson, 1962; Ohmura and Reeh,
1991;


Ditto. Note that they did not list themselves.

the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads: Spatially extensive ground-based profiles of accumulation rates, however, are rare (Benson, 1962).


Accumulation rates. Yes. That is what they are measuring.

the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads: Here we derive spatially extensive measurements of
accumulation along a 1009 km traverse from 1700m a.s.l. in northwest Greenland to the 3200m a.s.l. center of the ice sheet.


Accumulation. Yes. That is what they are measuring.

the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads: The significance of this for the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, is that at least some of the increased mass loss from
melting at the lower-elevation margins of the ice sheet is
balanced by the small increases in mass gain from increased
accumulation in the higher-elevation interior.


This one paragraph proves my point.

Let me know if you need any of the above words explained to you.


IB, let me know when you start developing the ability to read.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
06-10-2016 14:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
the two percent growth per decade of the Greenland ice mass balance report reads: The significance of this for the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, is that at least some of the increased mass loss from
melting at the lower-elevation margins of the ice sheet is
balanced by the small increases in mass gain from increased
accumulation in the higher-elevation interior.


jwoodward48 wrote: This one paragraph proves my point.


You are absolutely correct! I went back and reread the entire document again and I found the key part of the report that I had apparently not read properly previously and you are right. I don't know how I could have missed it but I thank you for directing my attention to it.

The key part of the report is: "loss."

Once I strip away all the other confusing words, it all becomes clear.

It looks like we need to revisit English reading comprehension a little sooner than I had hoped.

Regarding the words you quote, you strip away absolutely crucial context which reduces your post to mere weaseling. The authors are explaining accumulation and loss differences between their findings and that of Benson's (1962), not ice mass balance differences that they themselves measured.

Look, I'm here for you, ... English, science, whatever ... anything I can do to help you shake the mental cobwebs ... I'm on it. Remember, don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.


.


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
06-10-2016 15:11
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That's the point - they didn't measure the ice mass balance. They measured an increase in how much is added each year.
06-10-2016 16:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 wrote: That's the point - they didn't measure the ice mass balance. They measured an increase in how much is added each year.

Thank you for coming around.


.


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
06-10-2016 16:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But! If the amount that is taken away each year is more than the amount that is added each year...
06-10-2016 16:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
LOL at IBdaMann's inability to comprehend the simplest of relationships!

Think of the ice balance as your bank balance. You've had a 2% rise in income, so money is accumulating in your bank account 2% faster than previously. But you are still spending more than you are earning, so your bank balance is still falling.
06-10-2016 16:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 wrote: But! If the amount that is taken away each year is more than the amount that is added each year...

Translation: If FALSE then ...


.


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
06-10-2016 17:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
How do you know that that is false?
06-10-2016 17:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
I read the report.
06-10-2016 18:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, the report does not observe the subtraction. Only the gross addition.
06-10-2016 19:36
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Here's an analogy.

I have a snowbank outside on my lawn. I put a marker on its top - let's say a laminated, coloured piece of paper. I come back the next day, and two inches are on top of the marker.

I repeat this procedure for the next few days, and I get mostly consistent results. About two inches of snow fall onto the bank every day. The height of the bank also seems steady, so I infer that about two inches of snow melt from the bottom and sides every day.

Then it gets warmer, but the snow falls faster. On the fifth day, I don't measure two inches - I measure six inches of snow that fell onto the bank.

Now - does this mean that the bank is four inches taller than it was yesterday?
06-10-2016 20:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
Here's an analogy.

I measure a certain depth of ice. Because of regular seasonal changes, the ice has discernible layers, one for each year (cycle of seasons). I can measure both the amount of ice that accumulated each year as well as the total ice accumulation over the particular period covered by the depth in question.

I notice that each individual year had a definitively measurable positive amount of ice accumulation that year. I also notice that the overall accumulation rate was 2% per decade.

Now - does this mean that the net accumulation was a loss?


.
06-10-2016 20:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
Here's an analogy.

I measure a certain depth of ice. Because of regular seasonal changes, the ice has discernible layers, one for each year (cycle of seasons). I can measure both the amount of ice that accumulated each year as well as the total ice accumulation over the particular period covered by the depth in question.

I notice that each individual year had a definitively measurable positive amount of ice accumulation that year. I also notice that the overall accumulation rate was 2% per decade.

Now - does this mean that the net accumulation was a loss?


.


You neglected to say whether the ice at the bottom is melting or not. that's why we use the phrase net.
06-10-2016 20:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
spot wrote: You neglected to say whether the ice at the bottom is melting or not. that's why we use the phrase net.


I don't know how they teach English in the UK (I'm presuming they do teach it but let me know if I'm mistaken) but in the US when we use the word "ice" we are talking about the water in solid form. When ice melts, it loses it's solid form and becomes a liquid and cannot be referred to as "ice."

Again, that's just here in the US. How were you taught differently?



Anyway, you are correct that the word "net" applies in my example.


.


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
06-10-2016 20:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You're ignoring melting. If nothing melted, sublimated, calved, etc., you'd be entirely correct.
06-10-2016 21:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
Surface Detail wrote: LOL at IBdaMann's inability to comprehend the simplest of relationships!

Look at the petty, desperate moron.

Surface Detail wrote: Think of the ice balance as your bank balance. You've had a 2% rise in income, ...

Now think of the ice balance as your bank balance. Then you have a 2% increase in your bank balance after, say, a decade.

It doesn't matter how you were earning and spending, the result was a 2% increase in the bank account balance over that ten year period.

Let me know where you need further explanation.


.


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
06-10-2016 21:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But that's not it. You are wrong. You are correct in that the common use of "accumulation" is "the gradual gathering of something, or a quantity of something that has gradually been gathered", but that's not how they're using it. For someone who complained a lot about Surface and I not using scientific terms correctly, you sure are misusing that word.

Let me quote the introduction.

The growth and decay of ice sheets is driven by a balance between accumulation of snow on the surface, primarily in the high-elevation interiors, and the melting, runoff, evaporation, sublimation, and iceberg calving that takes place primarily along the lower-elevation margins.


This makes it clear that they are using "accumulation" to refer to one part of the balance, not the entire net change.

The mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, in particular, is of increasing importance to scientists and policymakers...


Which isn't to say that this report measures the mass balance; just that it is important, and that this report is relevant to the issue.

...as rising air and ocean temperatures have increased the rate of melting and the velocity of calving outlet glaciers, contributing to a rising sea level (Lemke and others, 2007).


AAAUGH! I guess the Evul Gubberment forced them to put that in there.

The net mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet has been the subject of much recent work (e.g., Alley and others, 2007; Rignot and others, 2008; Wouters and others, 2008; Zwally and others, 2011).


"People have studied this" =/= "We are about to measure this".

Additionally, investigators have studied the surface mass balance, primarily accumulation, using point measurements (Benson, 1962; Ohmura and Reeh, 1991; Dibb and Fahnestock, 2004; Bales and others, 2009), automated weather stations (e.g., GC-Net: http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/gcnet/), remote sensing (Drinkwater and others, 2001; Kanagaratnam and others, 2001; Hawley and others, 2006), and more recently, using climate models constrained by observations (Box and others, 2004, 2013; Bales and others, 2009; Burgess and others, 2010, Hanna and others, 2011).


"Also, here's a bunch of people who looked at the ice mass balance." Why would they do the exact same thing?

Spatially extensive ground-based profiles of accumulation rates, however, are rare (Benson, 1962).


Aha! Maybe this is what they'll do.

The spatial variability of accumulation on varying length scales is difficult to determine with point measurements or climate models, especially when local topography is considered.


And this is why it's useful, and expands on the previous work.

Here we derive spatially extensive measurements of accumulation along a 1009 km traverse from ~1700 m a.s.l. in northwest Greenland to the ~3200 m a.s.l. center of the ice sheet.


I'm assuming those are locations.

We trace internal reflecting horizons (IRHs) in 400 MHz ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data. We use density profiles collected along the traverse to calculate electromagnetic wave speed through the snow and firn in order to determine the depth of the IRHs, and date the IRHs using snow/firn chemistry data from cores collected at each end of the traverse.


And this is how they will collect the data. (Firn is granular snow, especially on the upper part of a glacier, where it has not yet been compressed into ice.)

So they're basically going to bounce radar off something, I think layers of ice, and use the speed of light and ice cores to figure out what the data all means. Okay.

Now, let's look at a graph:


As you can see, they are measuring the thickness of each layer that was laid down in a particular time frame. So from 1991 to 1995 was this much, and from 2005 to 2007 was a similar amount. To me, this paints a clear picture: more snow is being piled on now than before.

But does that mean that the net balance has increased? This paper doesn't say. Unless we have either a. a direct measurement of height/volume, or b. this paper and measurements of escaping snow/ice, we can't know that.
06-10-2016 22:12
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Like Into said (I think), ice moves around. Especially when it's...

Under pressure.



What would the increase in gradient be from the center of Greenland to the coast for a 80m rise in ice altitude over 400km to the outlet?

What would you expect the resultant percentage gain to the flow rate to be?
06-10-2016 22:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
But! If the amount that is taken away each year is more than the amount that is added each year...


Growth in mass balance!!

Mass balance is the amount of ice there is with the amount there was taken away.

If that number is negative then there was a loss. If it grows then there is more ice.
06-10-2016 22:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Like Into said (I think), ice moves around. Especially when it's...

Under pressure.



What would the increase in gradient be from the center of Greenland to the coast for a 80m rise in ice altitude over 400km to the outlet?

What would you expect the resultant percentage gain to the flow rate to be?


Hmm? What gradient? Pressure? Height? Temperature?

I have no clue what the outflow of mass is.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 06-10-2016 22:36
06-10-2016 22:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But! If the amount that is taken away each year is more than the amount that is added each year...


Growth in mass balance!!

Mass balance is the amount of ice there is with the amount there was taken away.

If that number is negative then there was a loss. If it grows then there is more ice.


You're right! That is the mass balance.

Now, if we are observing the amount of ice added to the top every year, is that...

a. Different from the mass balance
b. The same as the mass balance
c. Equivalent to the square root of hippos minus homeopathy
d. Your mom

(Hint: It's not b.)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
07-10-2016 17:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 quoted in his signature:
IBdaMann wrote: No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

Thanks. I noticed and I appreciate it.


jwoodward48 wrote: You're ignoring melting. If nothing melted, sublimated, calved, etc., you'd be entirely correct.

Your position is entirely fair.

Have you ever made any observations personally in Greenland? The reports of those who actually go there and make observations report increased ice mass balance.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/30/the-ice-in-greenland-is-growing/
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3315greenland_ice.html

You are perfectly within your right to maintain beliefs about Greenland that are based entirely on blind faith. I am not going to try to take that away from you.

http://p38assn.org/glaciergirl/index.htm

I discovered a couple of reports specifically about precipitation accumulation. If that is your preferred semantic then we can discuss y

http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/rbales/pdf/accum0214rev.pdf
http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/qguo/publications/JGR_Greenland.pdf



If I may touch upon a previous discussion, the following reports were funded. Rarely have so many words said so little (or nothing):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228878247_Greenland_snow_accumulation_estimates_from_satellite_radar_scatterometer_data
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010066068.pdf


.


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
07-10-2016 17:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"Were you there?" Yeah, no. Please don't use Creationist arguments.
07-10-2016 18:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 wrote: "Were you there?" Yeah, no. Please don't use Creationist arguments.

Please don't EVADE the topic of your blind faith.


.


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
07-10-2016 18:37
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Like Into said (I think), ice moves around. Especially when it's...

Under pressure.



What would the increase in gradient be from the center of Greenland to the coast for a 80m rise in ice altitude over 400km to the outlet?

What would you expect the resultant percentage gain to the flow rate to be?


Hmm? What gradient? Pressure? Height? Temperature?

I have no clue what the outflow of mass is.


The gradient of the ice. The slope of the surface. The pressure differential across the section of the ice sheet.

Hell's teeth it's hard work on the willfully ignorant.

Out flow of ice would, obviously, be the rate at which the glaciers are taking the ice out of the central ice sheet.
07-10-2016 18:40
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
But! If the amount that is taken away each year is more than the amount that is added each year...


Growth in mass balance!!

Mass balance is the amount of ice there is with the amount there was taken away.

If that number is negative then there was a loss. If it grows then there is more ice.


You're right! That is the mass balance.

Now, if we are observing the amount of ice added to the top every year, is that...

a. Different from the mass balance
b. The same as the mass balance
c. Equivalent to the square root of hippos minus homeopathy
d. Your mom

(Hint: It's not b.)


The mass balance would be the amount accumulated on the ice sheet minus the amount melted at the edges due to the warmer climate causing the glaciers to retreat a bit.

So now we both understand that we both understand mass balance the idea that it's increasing by 2% a decade can be discussed.
07-10-2016 18:44
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: "Were you there?" Yeah, no. Please don't use Creationist arguments.

Please don't EVADE the topic of your blind faith.


Doesn't change the fact that you used a stupid argument. I've been known to do that too. Just stop, please. I'll even forget that you made it.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
07-10-2016 19:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: "Were you there?" Yeah, no. Please don't use Creationist arguments.

Please don't EVADE the topic of your blind faith.


Doesn't change the fact that you used a stupid argument. I've been known to do that too. Just stop, please. I'll even forget that you made it.


Not at all. Please don't forget it. Oh wait, you might have already forgotten so I'll ask it again.

Have you made any personal observations about the Greenland ice mass balance or are all your assertions and arguments based on blind faith in what warmizombies (who also have not made any such personal observations) tell you to believe?

Where did you find the word "gross" in the report cited in the OP?

It's OK to admit to your faith. It doesn't make you stupid. It makes you someone who "speaks his conscience." I'm sure those people who direct your belief system are good people.


.


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
07-10-2016 19:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Have you ever personally verified either Special or General Relativity?
07-10-2016 20:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 wrote: Have you ever personally verified either Special or General Relativity?

You'll have plenty of time to change the topic once we nail down the truth of this matter, i.e. your blind faith in AGW and AGW's effect on the Greenland ice mass balance, and the EVASION this topic requires of you.

A. Have you made any personal observations about changes in the Greenland ice mass balance?

B. Do you believe the net Greenland ice sheet ice mass balance is decreasing year-to-year (present tense) due to AGW?


.


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
Edited on 07-10-2016 20:55
07-10-2016 21:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Have you ever personally verified either Special or General Relativity?

You'll have plenty of time to change the topic once we nail down the truth of this matter, i.e. your blind faith in AGW and AGW's effect on the Greenland ice mass balance, and the EVASION this topic requires of you.

A. Have you made any personal observations about changes in the Greenland ice mass balance?

B. Do you believe the net Greenland ice sheet ice mass balance is decreasing year-to-year (present tense) due to AGW?


.


Stop evading. Have you made any personal observations about changes in the Greenland ice mass balance?

As for B, I honestly don't know. I'd have to look into it some more. I'm inclined to say yes, but I'd need more information to be sure.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
08-10-2016 12:46
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:As for B, I honestly don't know. I'd have to look into it some more. I'm inclined to say yes, but I'd need more information to be sure.


May I congratulate you on your journey. This open mindedness will lead you to understanding the subject very well. Probably better than me.

What information would you need to be of the opinion that Greenland is gaining ice mass rather than losing it given the observations re 2% gain per decade (that's utterly massive) and the 1m gain in accumulation over most of it as shown by the WWII planes under 80m of ice?

How much more evidence do you need to come to the conclusion that the idea that it's losing ice mass is false?
08-10-2016 16:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
There is a 2% rise in the accumulation rates at the surface. So if it used to be 100 meters a century, now it's 102.

If there was a greater rise in the opposing "force", that is, the rate of ice leaving the glacier, then the glacier is shrinking. Otherwise, it's growing. (Or staying the same, if the rates are equal, but that's rather unlikely.)
08-10-2016 16:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
jwoodward48 wrote: Stop evading. Have you made any personal observations about changes in the Greenland ice mass balance?

You'll have plenty of time to change the topic once we nail down the truth of this matter, i.e. your blind faith in AGW and AGW's effect on the Greenland ice mass balance, and the EVASION this topic requires of you. I'll then get right to your question.

A. Have you made any personal observations about changes in the Greenland ice mass balance? This question is asked to illustrate your obligatory EVASION; to show that you won't even admit to the obvious.

B. You have to know what you believe. I didn't ask you what you know or how strongly you believe something. I will assume from your response that you believe the Greenland ice mass balance is decreasing but that you don't want to go on record as believing something false when you have too much invested emotionally in the idea that your beliefs are FACT and are "settled science." The one thing a religious worshiper cannot allow is for his/her faith to be put in jeopardy.

I'd like you to go back to questions A. and B., summon the courage to just answer the questions so I can get to yours.

jwoodward48 wrote: I'd have to look into it some more.

...AND the one thing that is absolutely certain is that you will not be looking into it any more beyond revisiting "comfort zone" warmizombie websites ... or asking Surface Detail what your official response should be.


.


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
08-10-2016 16:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
A. No, I have not. I also haven't personally verified QM, nor have I personally verified either Relativity. Any point to this?

B. IB, science isn't about belief. If I had to GUESS, I'd say that the glaciers are decreasing in size. But I don't have enough information to say for sure. Admitting that's not a bad thing. And "you're only saying you're uncertain because you have to be certain"? Come back when you're sober.
08-10-2016 17:33
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
There is a 2% rise in the accumulation rates at the surface. So if it used to be 100 meters a century, now it's 102.

If there was a greater rise in the opposing "force", that is, the rate of ice leaving the glacier, then the glacier is shrinking. Otherwise, it's growing. (Or staying the same, if the rates are equal, but that's rather unlikely.)


Well, the ice is up to 3km thick.

I presume that 60m a decade is not happening and that the +2% is over all and there are lots of thinner bits.

What we could do with is a map of the land beneath the ice and a contour map of the surface say in 1960 and now. We only have the 1960 one which was created by flying planes over with 2 sorts of radar, one that sees the ice and one which dose not. Odd that.
08-10-2016 19:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, they didn't measure the overall volume of ice. They noted that each year, more ice is being laid down at the top. If more is being taken away at the bottom or sides, then the glacier will shrink.
Page 5 of 8<<<34567>>>





Join the debate Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
"GREENLANDS melting ice may affect everyone"316-10-2019 17:43
Plant Growth and Ice Cores617-09-2019 22:45
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
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
▲ 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