Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation

jwoodward48 wrote:B. IB, science isn't about belief.

jwoodward48 wrote: If I had to GUESS, I'd say that the glaciers are decreasing in size.

jwoodward48 wrote:But I don't have enough information to say for sure.

jwoodward48 wrote:Admitting that's not a bad thing.

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

Surface Detail wrote:We can be virtually certain that the Greenland ice cap as a whole is diminishing in size over the years.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:B. IB, science isn't about belief.

Your religion is absolutely about your beliefs, even if you call it "The Science."

jwoodward48 wrote: If I had to GUESS, I'd say that the glaciers are decreasing in size.

Weaseling. All I want is for you to say what you believe about the Greenland ice mass balance, not what you guess is the official correct answer. Your belief. Only you know what you believe, and you do know what you believe.

Do you believe the Greenland ice mass balance is decreasing?

jwoodward48 wrote:But I don't have enough information to say for sure.

jwoodward48 wrote:Admitting that's not a bad thing.

It is a very bad thing to draw conclusions based on faith, to then dishonestly refer to your conclusions as being based on science, to label non-believers of your WACKY religion as "stupid" and to make up wild rationalizations for denying and ignoring science that is put right in front of you.

You operate on all of these principles.

It is also really stupid to gravitate to those who are most effective at denying and ignoring science and to seek their approval.

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:We can be virtually certain that the Greenland ice cap as a whole is diminishing in size over the years.

There is no reason you shouldn't let your faith make you "certain" of this. There's no reason Christains shouldn't let their faith convince them that God is real and active in their lives.

Good on you.


.

This is indicated by both gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry. The only belief required is a belief in the effectiveness of the scientific method.

jwoodward48 wrote:Hmm, gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry? Sounds like a bunch of religious practices.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Hmm, gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry? Sounds like a bunch of religious practices.

This is why you get sucked into religious scams and I don't.

All it takes to mesmerize you is to make the claim that "it's really scientific" and you get all googly-eyed.

Did Surface Detail provide anything more than an empty assertion?

Did it nonetheless suck you in?

My point exactly.
.

jwoodward48 wrote:Nah, it's because I trust Surface.

jwoodward48 wrote:You know why?

jwoodward48 wrote:Surface hasn't lied before.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Nah, it's because I trust Surface.

No, you are in solidarity with Surface Detail. You really aren't fooling anyone.

jwoodward48 wrote:You know why?

Absolutely. You gravitate towards those who you perceive are most proficient at denying, ignoring and EVADING science in defense of the Religion.

jwoodward48 wrote:Surface hasn't lied before.

Surface Detail hasn't ever been honest according to my recollection. As his dishonesty increases so does your participation.

jwoodward48 wrote:Apparently, we live in different worlds.

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

Surface Detail wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

We can be virtually certain that the Greenland ice cap as a whole is diminishing in size over the years. This is indicated by both gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry. The only belief required is a belief in the effectiveness of the scientific method.

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:We can be virtually certain that the Greenland ice cap as a whole is diminishing in size over the years.

There is no reason you shouldn't let your faith make you "certain" of this. There's no reason Christains shouldn't let their faith convince them that God is real and active in their lives.

Good on you.


.

Let's have some more of that quote:

This is indicated by both gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry. The only belief required is a belief in the effectiveness of the scientific method.

Hmm, gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry? Sounds like a bunch of religious practices.

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:We can be virtually certain that the Greenland ice cap as a whole is diminishing in size over the years.

There is no reason you shouldn't let your faith make you "certain" of this. There's no reason Christains shouldn't let their faith convince them that God is real and active in their lives.

Good on you.


.

Let's have some more of that quote:

This is indicated by both gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry. The only belief required is a belief in the effectiveness of the scientific method.

Hmm, gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry? Sounds like a bunch of religious practices.

If you can check them and show that they are not lying then fine. If you are unable to do so and are just taking this evidence on faith in the face of the other evidence that you can check then your decision is a religious one.

Just different set of priests.

Surface Detail wrote:Don't tell me you can't tell the difference between science and religion either!

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

We can be virtually certain that the Greenland ice cap as a whole is diminishing in size over the years. This is indicated by both gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry. The only belief required is a belief in the effectiveness of the scientific method.

But the evidence of actual measurements on the ground, or ice in this case, say the opposite. That it is growing by +2% per decade. That WWII aircraft are 80m under ice now. That it gets 1m of snowfall each year and that's water equivalent, that the snow would is equal to 1m of water when melted down. If that much ice was being melted each summer there would be 45 Mississippis coming out of Greenland each summer.

So which do you believe the satilites which you cannot check or the surface ones that can be?

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

They did measure the overall mass of the ice. That's the mass balance thing. The difference between the total mass this year and last. Easy!!!

+2% per decade is massive.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:We can be virtually certain that the Greenland ice cap as a whole is diminishing in size over the years.

There is no reason you shouldn't let your faith make you "certain" of this. There's no reason Christains shouldn't let their faith convince them that God is real and active in their lives.

Good on you.


.

Let's have some more of that quote:

This is indicated by both gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry. The only belief required is a belief in the effectiveness of the scientific method.

Hmm, gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry? Sounds like a bunch of religious practices.

If you can check them and show that they are not lying then fine. If you are unable to do so and are just taking this evidence on faith in the face of the other evidence that you can check then your decision is a religious one.

Just different set of priests.

Oh, don't be such a loon, Tim. As you well know, all of this research is published in peer-reviewed journals for anyone to check if they please. Don't tell me you can't tell the difference between science and religion either!

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

We can be virtually certain that the Greenland ice cap as a whole is diminishing in size over the years. This is indicated by both gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry. The only belief required is a belief in the effectiveness of the scientific method.

But the evidence of actual measurements on the ground, or ice in this case, say the opposite. That it is growing by +2% per decade. That WWII aircraft are 80m under ice now. That it gets 1m of snowfall each year and that's water equivalent, that the snow would is equal to 1m of water when melted down. If that much ice was being melted each summer there would be 45 Mississippis coming out of Greenland each summer.

There's definitely ice being laid down. I don't dispute that. Ice and snow is falling down and landing on the glacier and staying there. This covers planes and everything.

But it's also leaving even faster! Maybe there are 45 Mississippis worth of ice and snow and water leaving Greenland. If that sounds preposterous to you, remember - that's not a valid scientific approach.

So which do you believe the satilites which you cannot check or the surface ones that can be?

...what? Why wouldn't we be able to check satellites?

Seems like the satellites are measuring total volume, and the surface measurements are about the deposition rate. (Or accumulation rate.)

========

Okay, you know what? No.

The scientists who measured from the surface deposition rates had no way of measuring the outflow. You have to either argue that the outflow is minimal or nonexistent, or admit that I am right. Let me guess, it'll be the former.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

They did measure the overall mass of the ice. That's the mass balance thing. The difference between the total mass this year and last. Easy!!!

+2% per decade is massive.

No, not easy. They didn't measure the mass of the entire glacier! How long will it take to get you to understand this one simple thing?! THEY MEASURED DEPOSITION!

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

They did measure the overall mass of the ice. That's the mass balance thing. The difference between the total mass this year and last. Easy!!!

+2% per decade is massive.

No, not easy. They didn't measure the mass of the entire glacier! How long will it take to get you to understand this one simple thing?! THEY MEASURED DEPOSITION!

Mass of deposition is one thing.

Mass loss is another.

And Mass Balance is the difference between the two.

It extremely easy. If you cannot understand that you are deluding yourselves.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:We can be virtually certain that the Greenland ice cap as a whole is diminishing in size over the years.

There is no reason you shouldn't let your faith make you "certain" of this. There's no reason Christains shouldn't let their faith convince them that God is real and active in their lives.

Good on you.


.

Let's have some more of that quote:

This is indicated by both gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry. The only belief required is a belief in the effectiveness of the scientific method.

Hmm, gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry? Sounds like a bunch of religious practices.

If you can check them and show that they are not lying then fine. If you are unable to do so and are just taking this evidence on faith in the face of the other evidence that you can check then your decision is a religious one.

Just different set of priests.

Oh, don't be such a loon, Tim. As you well know, all of this research is published in peer-reviewed journals for anyone to check if they please. Don't tell me you can't tell the difference between science and religion either!

Tell me, how do you check the data from gravimetrical observations of the satilites path?

How do you check the data for the altitude of Greenland's ice vs it's land?

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

We can be virtually certain that the Greenland ice cap as a whole is diminishing in size over the years. This is indicated by both gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry. The only belief required is a belief in the effectiveness of the scientific method.

But the evidence of actual measurements on the ground, or ice in this case, say the opposite. That it is growing by +2% per decade. That WWII aircraft are 80m under ice now. That it gets 1m of snowfall each year and that's water equivalent, that the snow would is equal to 1m of water when melted down. If that much ice was being melted each summer there would be 45 Mississippis coming out of Greenland each summer.

There's definitely ice being laid down. I don't dispute that. Ice and snow is falling down and landing on the glacier and staying there. This covers planes and everything.

But it's also leaving even faster! Maybe there are 45 Mississippis worth of ice and snow and water leaving Greenland. If that sounds preposterous to you, remember - that's not a valid scientific approach.

So which do you believe the satilites which you cannot check or the surface ones that can be?

...what? Why wouldn't we be able to check satellites?

Seems like the satellites are measuring total volume, and the surface measurements are about the deposition rate. (Or accumulation rate.)

========

Okay, you know what? No.

The scientists who measured from the surface deposition rates had no way of measuring the outflow. You have to either argue that the outflow is minimal or nonexistent, or admit that I am right. Let me guess, it'll be the former.

Why is it that you cannot compare the rivers flowing out of Greenland on Google earth with the Mississippi? The photo of Greenland on Google earth is taken in high summer.

I don't say that you will be able to get a precise measurement but something within a couple of orders of magnitude. That'll do fine.

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

They did measure the overall mass of the ice. That's the mass balance thing. The difference between the total mass this year and last. Easy!!!

+2% per decade is massive.

No, not easy. They didn't measure the mass of the entire glacier! How long will it take to get you to understand this one simple thing?! THEY MEASURED DEPOSITION!

Mass of deposition is one thing.

Mass loss is another.

And Mass Balance is the difference between the two.

It extremely easy. If you cannot understand that you are deluding yourselves.

spot wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

They did measure the overall mass of the ice. That's the mass balance thing. The difference between the total mass this year and last. Easy!!!

+2% per decade is massive.

No, not easy. They didn't measure the mass of the entire glacier! How long will it take to get you to understand this one simple thing?! THEY MEASURED DEPOSITION!

Mass of deposition is one thing.

Mass loss is another.

And Mass Balance is the difference between the two.

It extremely easy. If you cannot understand that you are deluding yourselves.

I think he understands that.

They didn't measure the mass of the entire glacier

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

We can be virtually certain that the Greenland ice cap as a whole is diminishing in size over the years. This is indicated by both gravimetric analysis and radar altimetry. The only belief required is a belief in the effectiveness of the scientific method.

But the evidence of actual measurements on the ground, or ice in this case, say the opposite. That it is growing by +2% per decade. That WWII aircraft are 80m under ice now. That it gets 1m of snowfall each year and that's water equivalent, that the snow would is equal to 1m of water when melted down. If that much ice was being melted each summer there would be 45 Mississippis coming out of Greenland each summer.

There's definitely ice being laid down. I don't dispute that. Ice and snow is falling down and landing on the glacier and staying there. This covers planes and everything.

But it's also leaving even faster! Maybe there are 45 Mississippis worth of ice and snow and water leaving Greenland. If that sounds preposterous to you, remember - that's not a valid scientific approach.

So which do you believe the satilites which you cannot check or the surface ones that can be?

...what? Why wouldn't we be able to check satellites?

Seems like the satellites are measuring total volume, and the surface measurements are about the deposition rate. (Or accumulation rate.)

========

Okay, you know what? No.

The scientists who measured from the surface deposition rates had no way of measuring the outflow. You have to either argue that the outflow is minimal or nonexistent, or admit that I am right. Let me guess, it'll be the former.

Why is it that you cannot compare the rivers flowing out of Greenland on Google earth with the Mississippi? The photo of Greenland on Google earth is taken in high summer.

I don't say that you will be able to get a precise measurement but something within a couple of orders of magnitude. That'll do fine.

I'm guessing that there are actual studies on the outflow of Greenland's glaciers.

First of all, we don't know how deep those rivers are. Second, even if they were circular in cross-section, we wouldn't have a 1st-degree relationship - we'd have a 2nd-degree relationship, so it'd be a bit more complex. Third, rivers aren't the only way that ice leaves the glacier - the paper that IB likes to misinterpret gives many in its introduction, including calving and sublimation.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
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.

They did measure the overall mass of the ice. That's the mass balance thing. The difference between the total mass this year and last. Easy!!!

+2% per decade is massive.

No, not easy. They didn't measure the mass of the entire glacier! How long will it take to get you to understand this one simple thing?! THEY MEASURED DEPOSITION!

Mass of deposition is one thing.

Mass loss is another.

And Mass Balance is the difference between the two.

It extremely easy. If you cannot understand that you are deluding yourselves.

Tell me, Tim, how the hell did they measure the mass balance by measuring how much ice had been deposited in the last decade?

They are noting how deep the last decade's worth of ice is, and the one before, that, and so on. That's not the mass balance. In fact, the mass loss has no effect on what they measured.

Tim the plumber wrote:THINK FOR YOURSELF FOR ONCE!!!![/color]

Tim the plumber wrote:

Perhaps they measured the altitude of the surface?

Perhaps they understand that the flow rate of the exit glaciers is the same as ever and that the rate of melting at the bottom of the ice sheet is the same as ever and that these figures are tiny in comparison with the deposition because they are engineers and don't need stupid basic concepts explained to them.

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:THINK FOR YOURSELF FOR ONCE!!!![/color]

Good one! Who told you to say that?


.

Tim the plumber wrote:
For ****s sake!!!

If you have ever done any physical geography you will understand that you can get a fair idea of how much water is flowing along a river by looking at it.

GO AND LOOK at Greenland on Google earth. Look at the Mississippi.

Use the measuring tool thingy.

THINK FOR YOURSELF FOR ONCE!!!!

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
They didn't measure the mass of the entire glacier

Yes they did.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:Tell me, Tim, how the hell did they measure the mass balance by measuring how much ice had been deposited in the last decade?
They were measuring the ice mass balance and not the ice mass.

Let me know where you are confused.


.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Perhaps they measured the altitude of the surface?

No, they didn't. They measured the depths of recently-laid-down layers of ice. That would be the deposition rate.

Perhaps they understand that the flow rate of the exit glaciers is the same as ever and that the rate of melting at the bottom of the ice sheet is the same as ever and that these figures are tiny in comparison with the deposition because they are engineers and don't need stupid basic concepts explained to them.

Tim the plumber wrote:
When they quoted the mass balance they have just talked about the whole of the ice!!!! They have stated that the whole of the ice is getting bigger by 2% every decade.

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Perhaps they understand that the flow rate of the exit glaciers is the same as ever and that the rate of melting at the bottom of the ice sheet is the same as ever and that these figures are tiny in comparison with the deposition because they are engineers and don't need stupid basic concepts explained to them.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

1. "The flow rate is the same as ever" - where are you getting that? How do you know that?

2. "these figures are tiny in comparison with the deposition" - Tim, do you understand equilibrium? Deposition and exit rate are normally equal.

The flow rate of the ice going down the exit glaciers is the same as always becaues the gradient of the glaciers and their thickness has not altered. So the dynamics of that means that the same forces apply to the same mass. Thus it's ****ing obvious!!!!

When they quoted the mass balance they have just talked about the whole of the ice!!!! They have stated that the whole of the ice is getting bigger by 2% every decade.

You do not know that the mass balance of Greenland is normally in equlibrium. It could be that ice has been building up on it since the it first did not melt in the center of it. That this process is just keeping on going. That it will end when we finnaly get out of the present ice age or Greenland moves away from the pole.

Surface Detail wrote: It would be quite extraordinary if true.