Remember me
▼ Content

Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation



Page 6 of 8<<<45678>
09-10-2016 20:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
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.

Hence you draw conclusions based on faith.

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.


.


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
09-10-2016 21:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
09-10-2016 21:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
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.


.


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
10-10-2016 01:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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."


Oh, quit it for once. We both know you're the religious one standing defiantly in the face of all logic and observation.

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?


On occasion, I will speak with Creationists, and they will speak of my "belief" in evolution. I correct them on this point: I don't believe in evolution. I believe in science. I believe that the universe will continue to be logical tomorrow, even though I have no way of proving or showing that this is the case. I believe that the application of the scientific method is the most useful and trustworthy way of producing and verifying knowledge.

But I don't "believe" in a specific part of science. No good scientist does. There are degrees of uncertainty, nothing more. The uncertainty level for "is the Earth currently warming up significantly" is very, very low, so low that it might be considered proven fact, but my belief lies not with the data, but with the process.

But you apparently won't rest until you get the answer you want, so fine. I believe that the ice mass balance is decreasing. This is believe in the sense of "fairly sure; what I think".

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

Hence you draw conclusions based on faith.[/quote]

Ah, never mind, you meant belief in the religious sense, in the absence of supporting data. No, I have no beliefs in that sense, save the belief that logic will continue to apply tomorrow.

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.


Admitting to uncertainty is not a bad thing.

I don't operate on those principles. I have faith that there is not this YUGE CONSPEERACY, or that I'm not a brain in a jar, or that there aren't THESE ALIENS CONTROLLING EVERYTHING. So? And about that "stupid" thing, all I've done is hand you the rope.

On a more emotional note, I tend to gravitate to people who aren't arseholes. If there was a very kind idiot, I wouldn't agree with him, but I'd respond in kind, and only teach him what he wanted to know. If there was a genius who was an arsehole, I still might not listen to him, since every time I admitted the slightest lack of knowledge he would jump on it and call me an illiterate moron who needs to go back to basic precalc. Surface is neither. You are either the latter, or you're an arsehole and a moron; either way, you're not convincing anybody.


"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!
10-10-2016 01:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


"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!
10-10-2016 02:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
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.


.


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
10-10-2016 02:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


Nah, it's because I trust Surface. You know why? Surface has always given good explanations. Surface hasn't lied before. I'm guessing that Surface is right again.

Did Surface Detail provide anything more than an empty assertion?


Have you ever provided anything more than empty assertions? No, wait, you have. Insults and links to idiot websites, as well as "it's domains you idiot". Hm.

Did it nonetheless suck you in?

My point exactly.
.


Didn't "suck me in". Surface has gained my trust. Why? Because he's been right, and he's been a decent person, and he's given adequate explanations. You haven't.


"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!
10-10-2016 03:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
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.


.


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
10-10-2016 04:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


Solidarity: "unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group." Hm. I'd say that yes, I am in solidarity with Surface.

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.


...no, I just described why.

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.


Apparently, we live in different worlds.


"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!
10-10-2016 05:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:Apparently, we live in different worlds.

You have a penchant for understatement.


.


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
10-10-2016 06:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Thank you!
10-10-2016 15:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
10-10-2016 15:31
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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?

Edited on 10-10-2016 15:35
10-10-2016 15:34
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
10-10-2016 18:06
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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!
10-10-2016 18:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote:Don't tell me you can't tell the difference between science and religion either!

So how do you account for the additional energy required for "greenhouse effect" to increase temperature?

...without violating physics, of course.

Can you discern between science and religion? I don't think you can.


.


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
10-10-2016 18:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


"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!
10-10-2016 18:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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!


"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 10-10-2016 18:32
10-10-2016 19:04
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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?
10-10-2016 19:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
10-10-2016 19:09
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
10-10-2016 19:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
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.
10-10-2016 21:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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?


I don't know how the data collection and analysis is done. I also don't know how the tests of action-over-a-distance were done, yet I don't suspect the researchers of lacking integrity. Nobody has the time to check every single study - that's what peer review is for, and it's fairly reliable (at least).


"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!
10-10-2016 21:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


"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!
10-10-2016 21:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


"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!
11-10-2016 21:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
[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.


.


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
11-10-2016 21:31
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


When the figure of a +2% growth in mass balance is used they measured the whole ice sheet.

They didn't measure the mass of the entire glacier


Yes they did.
11-10-2016 21:34
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


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!!!!
11-10-2016 21:37
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


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.
11-10-2016 21:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tim the plumber wrote:THINK FOR YOURSELF FOR ONCE!!!![/color]

Good one! Who told you to say that?


.


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
12-10-2016 00:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.[/quote]

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.


"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!
12-10-2016 00:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:THINK FOR YOURSELF FOR ONCE!!!![/color]

Good one! Who told you to say that?


.


Hah! Good one, I have to admit that.


"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!
12-10-2016 00:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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!!!!


You can get a rough sense of how much, but it's not perfect.

You're right, though, I was quibbling over river depths. That's meaningless. My points are thus:

1. The glaciers are normally stable; inflow = outflow
2. The researchers who went on top of the glacier did not measure outflow.
3. Said researchers measured inflow, and the rate of change of such.
4. Without understanding how the outflow changes, this tells us nothing about the ice mass balance.
5. There are other ways that ice can leave the glacier, such as sublimation, calving, etc.


"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!
12-10-2016 00:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
They didn't measure the mass of the entire glacier

Yes they did.


No, they didn't. They measured the inflow, and the rate of change of such.


"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 12-10-2016 00:22
12-10-2016 00:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


.


The ice mass balance consists of inflow and outflow.

Netflow = inflow - outflow

inflow = [whatever was measured]

Do we have enough data to calculate the net flow?


"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!
12-10-2016 21:29
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


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.[/quote]

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.
12-10-2016 22:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

They didn't say that, Tim. You misunderstood. It would be quite extraordinary if true. Given that the Greenland ice cap is, on average, about 2.5 km thick, this would require an accumulation rate of 50 m per decade even if there was no melting or iceberg calving at all!

Looking at the graph in the paper, the accumulation rates that they actually found were about 10 m per decade near the coasts and about 3 m per decade in the interior. Since we know (from altimetry and gravimetric measurements) that the total mass of ice is falling, at least that amount must be being lost from the ice cap through melting and glacier flow.
12-10-2016 22:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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!!!!

Sublimation, dude.
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.

No, they have stated that the deposition rate has increased by 2%.
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.


True, I can't necessarily deduce that the mass balance is falling from the report given, but then the mass balance of Greenland wouldn't necessarily mean anything for AGW - neither evidence for nor against.


"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 12-10-2016 22:40
12-10-2016 22:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote: It would be quite extraordinary if true.

Did you read about Glacier Girl? Did you run any numbers?


.


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
12-10-2016 22:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
We have the numbers. They're in the report. The deposition rate is far below 50m/decade.
Page 6 of 8<<<45678>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
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
Siberian ice melting!012-06-2019 21:32
▲ 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