Remember me
▼ Content

Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation



Page 7 of 8<<<5678>
12-10-2016 22:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
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.


The report or reports, I seem to have forgotten exactly which said what, talk of a deposition rate of +1m per year and an increase in mass balance of +2% per decade.

Mass balance is a measurment of all the Fing ice!!!
12-10-2016 22:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim, that's nonsense. You'd need 5m per year of deposition to have that sort of mass balance, even ignoring sublimation and calving and melting.
13-10-2016 18:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote: Tim, that's nonsense. You'd need 5m per year of deposition to have that sort of mass balance, even ignoring sublimation and calving and melting.

...based on your own personal observations?

Glacier Girl was buried in 268 feet of ice over 50 years. That's 1.634 meters per year. Hence 16.34 meters per decade. The landing site was at the southern end of Greenland where the thickness is between 10 meters and 1000 meters.

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, something closer to the upper end, e.g. 800 meters thickness. An accumulation of 16.34 meters per decade would represent about 2% per decade accumulation of the ice mass balance.

That's just one example. Do you have any personal observations that run counter to 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
13-10-2016 19:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Tim, that's nonsense. You'd need 5m per year of deposition to have that sort of mass balance, even ignoring sublimation and calving and melting.

...based on your own personal observations?

Glacier Girl was buried in 268 feet of ice over 50 years. That's 1.634 meters per year. Hence 16.34 meters per decade. The landing site was at the southern end of Greenland where the thickness is between 10 meters and 1000 meters.

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, something closer to the upper end, e.g. 800 meters thickness. An accumulation of 16.34 meters per decade would represent about 2% per decade accumulation of the ice mass balance.

That's just one example. Do you have any personal observations that run counter to that?

Bit of a logic glitch there. Your calculations make the erroneous assumption that accumulation is proportional to ice thickness when, if anything, the reverse is true. Accumulation is lowest towards the centre of the ice cap and highest towards the coasts.
13-10-2016 19:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote: Bit of a logic glitch there. Your calculations make the erroneous assumption that accumulation is proportional to ice thickness when, if anything, the reverse is true. Accumulation is lowest towards the centre of the ice cap and highest towards the coasts.

No error on my part. You simply don't know what "accumulation" means.

I correctly computed the amount of ice mass that was accumulating in that example, both in an absolute sense and relative to the amount of ice beneath. The relative rate was about 2%. It's not my problem that you can't do basic math.

2% per decade increase in the ice mass balance.

Yep.


.


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 13-10-2016 19:23
13-10-2016 19:39
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The Greenland glacier is about 2 km thick. 81 m of accumulation over 50 years is 1.62 m per year, or 16.2 m per decade. 5% of 2000 m is one hundred. We've only measured 16% of the increase that you've claimed, or about one-sixth - but wait! That's assuming that there is no outflow. If you include the outflow, the number would be far less.

If you look at the shorter edges, the same deposition rate exists, but on less snow. That doesn't adequately show the relationship between the overall deposition and outflow.
13-10-2016 19:41
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Bit of a logic glitch there. Your calculations make the erroneous assumption that accumulation is proportional to ice thickness when, if anything, the reverse is true. Accumulation is lowest towards the centre of the ice cap and highest towards the coasts.

No error on my part. You simply don't know what "accumulation" means.

I correctly computed the amount of ice mass that was accumulating in that example, both in an absolute sense and relative to the amount of ice beneath. The relative rate was about 2%. It's not my problem that you can't do basic math.

2% per decade increase in the ice mass balance.

Yep.


.


Two percent of what? Are you saying that the overall increase in ten years is 2% of the entire glacier, or 2% of the outflow?


"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!
13-10-2016 19:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Bit of a logic glitch there. Your calculations make the erroneous assumption that accumulation is proportional to ice thickness when, if anything, the reverse is true. Accumulation is lowest towards the centre of the ice cap and highest towards the coasts.

No error on my part. You simply don't know what "accumulation" means.

I correctly computed the amount of ice mass that was accumulating in that example, both in an absolute sense and relative to the amount of ice beneath. The relative rate was about 2%. It's not my problem that you can't do basic math.

2% per decade increase in the ice mass balance.

Yep.

Your math is fine; it's your logic that faulty. You're dividing the accumulation where the plane is by your estimate of the total ice thickness at that point, and then assuming that the resulting figure is true for the whole ice cap. There is no basis for this assumption.

You are, of course, also neglecting ice loss over this time.
13-10-2016 20:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote:Your math is fine; it's your logic that faulty.

We're going to find that the error is yours.

Surface Detail wrote: You're dividing the accumulation where the plane is by your estimate of the total ice thickness at that point, and then assuming that the resulting figure is true for the whole ice cap.

No, I did not make that assumption. I was doing the math for the net ice mass balance just in that area because we have actual accurate measurements and an accurate time frame. It turns out that that the ~2% per decade increase in the net ice mass balance that we can validate corroborates the report's finding of ~2% per decade increase in the net ice mass balance.

It's just one example, but it happens to align with the report's findings.

That's all.

Surface Detail wrote: You are, of course, also neglecting ice loss over this time.

It's pure net gain. Glacier Girl was buried under 268 feet (81.7 meters). That is taking all the loss into account over the entire 50 years. That's a net 1.634 meters/year average. Almost two meters of ice per year! That's amazing.


.


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
13-10-2016 20:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IB, that's gross. Ice doesn't melt or calf from its top.
13-10-2016 21:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote: IB, that's gross. Ice doesn't melt or calf from its top.

It's net. Reread my post.


.


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
13-10-2016 21:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: You're dividing the accumulation where the plane is by your estimate of the total ice thickness at that point, and then assuming that the resulting figure is true for the whole ice cap.

No, I did not make that assumption. I was doing the math for the net ice mass balance just in that area because we have actual accurate measurements and an accurate time frame.

Yes, you did make that assumption. You calculated an accumulation of 16 m per decade and divided that by a guessed ice thickness of 800 m to get 2% per decade, and then extrapolated that across the whole ice cap. Problems:

1) 800 m was a complete guess. You have no idea what the actual ice thickness is where the plane landed.

2) You then assume by claiming 2% accumulation across the whole surface that this same ratio of accumulation and ice thickness extends right across the ice cap. This is wrong. We know that accumulation is greater near the coast than it is in the interior, and that the ice cap is thicker in the interior than it is near the coast. This is the opposite to your assumption.

3) You have neglected ice loss. Glacier girl and the other planes in the squadron has been carried about 3 miles towards the sea when they were found. The other planes and the ice in which they are held will be lost to the sea if they are not recovered in the next few decades.
Edited on 13-10-2016 22:02
13-10-2016 22:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Tim, that's nonsense. You'd need 5m per year of deposition to have that sort of mass balance, even ignoring sublimation and calving and melting.

...based on your own personal observations?

Glacier Girl was buried in 268 feet of ice over 50 years. That's 1.634 meters per year. Hence 16.34 meters per decade. The landing site was at the southern end of Greenland where the thickness is between 10 meters and 1000 meters.

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, something closer to the upper end, e.g. 800 meters thickness. An accumulation of 16.34 meters per decade would represent about 2% per decade accumulation of the ice mass balance.

That's just one example. Do you have any personal observations that run counter to that?

Bit of a logic glitch there. Your calculations make the erroneous assumption that accumulation is proportional to ice thickness when, if anything, the reverse is true. Accumulation is lowest towards the centre of the ice cap and highest towards the coasts.


How does that make hos maths at all wrong?

The average thickness of ice is less than 3km.

The rate of increase in mass balance is +2% per decade which I have always pointed out is huge. So big that I also have trouble imagining it.
13-10-2016 22:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Greenland glacier is about 2 km thick. 81 m of accumulation over 50 years is 1.62 m per year, or 16.2 m per decade. 5% of 2000 m is one hundred. We've only measured 16% of the increase that you've claimed, or about one-sixth - but wait! That's assuming that there is no outflow. If you include the outflow, the number would be far less.

If you look at the shorter edges, the same deposition rate exists, but on less snow. That doesn't adequately show the relationship between the overall deposition and outflow.


2% of 2000km is 40m.

That's averaging 4m of snowfall per year. Which, given snow is fluffy, is about 2m water equivalent per year. Which is twice what I would have expected.

Are you sure of your 2km average figure?
13-10-2016 22:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Tim, that's nonsense. You'd need 5m per year of deposition to have that sort of mass balance, even ignoring sublimation and calving and melting.

...based on your own personal observations?

Glacier Girl was buried in 268 feet of ice over 50 years. That's 1.634 meters per year. Hence 16.34 meters per decade. The landing site was at the southern end of Greenland where the thickness is between 10 meters and 1000 meters.

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, something closer to the upper end, e.g. 800 meters thickness. An accumulation of 16.34 meters per decade would represent about 2% per decade accumulation of the ice mass balance.

That's just one example. Do you have any personal observations that run counter to that?

Bit of a logic glitch there. Your calculations make the erroneous assumption that accumulation is proportional to ice thickness when, if anything, the reverse is true. Accumulation is lowest towards the centre of the ice cap and highest towards the coasts.


How does that make hos maths at all wrong?

The average thickness of ice is less than 3km.

The rate of increase in mass balance is +2% per decade which I have always pointed out is huge. So big that I also have trouble imagining it.

Tim, that is one tight hold you have on the wrong end of the stick.

The paper doesn't claim that the mass balance is increasing by +2% per decade; it claims that the rate of accumulation is increasing by 2% per decade, i.e. a bit more snow is falling on Greenland than previously. The mass balance is actually falling, as evidenced by altimetry and gravimetric analysis.
13-10-2016 23:11
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: IB, that's gross. Ice doesn't melt or calf from its top.

It's net. Reread my post.


.


You've described how the plane was buried under a certain amount of ice, right? Loss occurs mostly from the sides, not the top.


"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!
14-10-2016 14:24
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: IB, that's gross. Ice doesn't melt or calf from its top.

It's net. Reread my post.


.


You've described how the plane was buried under a certain amount of ice, right? Loss occurs mostly from the sides, not the top.


You are actually getting there. Well done so far.

Given that the losses are as you say from the sides of the ice mass and these are where the ice slides down to the sea and is thus either exposed to warm sea water (well, warmish) or to warm air at low altitude you can see why that would be small in comparison with the whole change in ice mass.

The volume of ice lost when the edge moves back 200m is a lot less than the volume/mass gained when the top grows 0.5m
14-10-2016 15:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Surface Detail wrote:The mass balance is actually falling, as evidenced by altimetry and gravimetric analysis.

Neither of which can accurately measure Greenland's ice mass to any useful degree. Especially when you have observations like Glacier Girl which point to a net ice mass balance increase of about 2% per decade.

Then there's Camp Century which ceased operations in 1966 and was abandoned in 1967. A bunch of the camp was simply left in place. It is now buried under ~36 meters of ice, ~7 meters per decade. Unlike Glacier Girl, this site was in northern Greenland, but was also somewhat close to the coast. The ice of this area of Greenland was/is estimated to be between 300-600m depth. If the ice depth was 350 meters then we have a 2% per decade increase in the net ice mass balance in that area as well. If the ice was more shallow then of course the net decadal increase is greater. If the ice is deeper then the net decadal increase is less than 2%.

Nonetheless, the camp is buried under 36 meters of net accumulated ice.

Aren't those empirical observations excellent? You can't argue with surveyor "boots on the ground" taking physical volumetric measurements, right? You can't argue with actual measurements of net ice accumulation, can you? Sure, you can argue that you want "accumulation" to mean something else, but that doesn't change the amount the Greenland net ice mass balance is increasing.



Have you, by any chance, stumbled upon any examples of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's? Just wondering.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2016 18:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The Greenland glacier is about 2 km thick. 81 m of accumulation over 50 years is 1.62 m per year, or 16.2 m per decade. 5% of 2000 m is one hundred. We've only measured 16% of the increase that you've claimed, or about one-sixth - but wait! That's assuming that there is no outflow. If you include the outflow, the number would be far less.

If you look at the shorter edges, the same deposition rate exists, but on less snow. That doesn't adequately show the relationship between the overall deposition and outflow.


2% of 2000km is 40m.

That's averaging 4m of snowfall per year. Which, given snow is fluffy, is about 2m water equivalent per year. Which is twice what I would have expected.

Are you sure of your 2km average figure?


Oops, sorry about that. 2% of 2000 km is 40 m, and we've measured 16.2 or... 40.5% percent. Still not there.

If you'd like to show that the average depth of the Greenland glacier is 810 meters, by all means. That would make you correct - if there was no outflow.

As for your "4m of snowfall" - wait, what? No! We're dealing solely with ice. The report details the depth of ice. Glacier Girl was under X meters of ice.


"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!
14-10-2016 18:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The mass balance is actually falling, as evidenced by altimetry and gravimetric analysis.

Neither of which can accurately measure Greenland's ice mass to any useful degree. Especially when you have observations like Glacier Girl which point to a net ice mass balance increase of about 2% per decade.

Then there's Camp Century which ceased operations in 1966 and was abandoned in 1967. A bunch of the camp was simply left in place. It is now buried under ~36 meters of ice, ~7 meters per decade. Unlike Glacier Girl, this site was in northern Greenland, but was also somewhat close to the coast. The ice of this area of Greenland was/is estimated to be between 300-600m depth. If the ice depth was 350 meters then we have a 2% per decade increase in the net ice mass balance in that area as well. If the ice was more shallow then of course the net decadal increase is greater. If the ice is deeper then the net decadal increase is less than 2%.

Nonetheless, the camp is buried under 36 meters of net accumulated ice.

Aren't those empirical observations excellent? You can't argue with surveyor "boots on the ground" taking physical volumetric measurements, right? You can't argue with actual measurements of net ice accumulation, can you? Sure, you can argue that you want "accumulation" to mean something else, but that doesn't change the amount the Greenland net ice mass balance is increasing.



Have you, by any chance, stumbled upon any examples of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's? Just wondering.


.


Suppose that we are studying a glacier. Let's call it the Verdean glacier, or V for short. V is currently in equilibrium - every year, about 0.7 meters of ice are added to the top (via 1.4 meters of snowfall), and an equivalent amount of ice is lost through calving and melting.

Let us suppose that in the year 1960, a camp called Millennium was established on V. It was abandoned in the year 1967. How much ice would we expect to find on top of it?

The answer is 34.3 meters, and that is in fact how much ice there is.

=============================================

Now, suppose that there is another glacier nearby. Let's call it the Wuskya glacier, or W for short. W is not in equilibrium. Every year, 0.7 meters of ice are added to the top, and twice the equivalent amount of ice is lost through calving and melting.

As it so happens, a camp called Decade was abandoned in the year 1967 on W. How much ice would we expect to find on top of it?

The answer is 34.3 meters, and that is in fact how much ice there is.

=============================================

Now suppose that there is another glacier nearby. Let's call it the Xyzzy glacier, or X for short. X is not in equilibrium. Every year, 0.7 meters of ice are added to the top, and none is lost.

As it so happens, a camp called Eon was abandoned in the year 1967 on X. How much ice would we expect to find on top of it?

The answer is 34.3 meters, and that is in fact how much ice there is.

=============================================

Questions:
1. Is there a difference between the three glaciers?
2. Is there a difference between the ice layers on top of the three camps?
3. Therefore, can we measure the ice mass balance from the ice on top of any object (save the ground)?

=============================================

As we can see, the independent variable (the ice lost every year) has no effect on the dependent variable (the depth of ice on top of a camp). Therefore, the null hypothesis has been upheld - no correlation.


"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!
14-10-2016 18:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The mass balance is actually falling, as evidenced by altimetry and gravimetric analysis.

Neither of which can accurately measure Greenland's ice mass to any useful degree. Especially when you have observations like Glacier Girl which point to a net ice mass balance increase of about 2% per decade.

Then there's Camp Century which ceased operations in 1966 and was abandoned in 1967. A bunch of the camp was simply left in place. It is now buried under ~36 meters of ice, ~7 meters per decade. Unlike Glacier Girl, this site was in northern Greenland, but was also somewhat close to the coast. The ice of this area of Greenland was/is estimated to be between 300-600m depth. If the ice depth was 350 meters then we have a 2% per decade increase in the net ice mass balance in that area as well. If the ice was more shallow then of course the net decadal increase is greater. If the ice is deeper then the net decadal increase is less than 2%.

Nonetheless, the camp is buried under 36 meters of net accumulated ice.

Aren't those empirical observations excellent? You can't argue with surveyor "boots on the ground" taking physical volumetric measurements, right? You can't argue with actual measurements of net ice accumulation, can you? Sure, you can argue that you want "accumulation" to mean something else, but that doesn't change the amount the Greenland net ice mass balance is increasing.



Have you, by any chance, stumbled upon any examples of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's? Just wondering.


.


Suppose that we are studying a glacier. Let's call it the Verdean glacier, or V for short. V is currently in equilibrium - every year, about 0.7 meters of ice are added to the top (via 1.4 meters of snowfall), and an equivalent amount of ice is lost through calving and melting.

Let us suppose that in the year 1960, a camp called Millennium was established on V. It was abandoned in the year 1967. How much ice would we expect to find on top of it?

The answer is 34.3 meters, and that is in fact how much ice there is.

=============================================

Now, suppose that there is another glacier nearby. Let's call it the Wuskya glacier, or W for short. W is not in equilibrium. Every year, 0.7 meters of ice are added to the top, and twice the equivalent amount of ice is lost through calving and melting.

As it so happens, a camp called Decade was abandoned in the year 1967 on W. How much ice would we expect to find on top of it?

The answer is 34.3 meters, and that is in fact how much ice there is.

=============================================

Now suppose that there is another glacier nearby. Let's call it the Xyzzy glacier, or X for short. X is not in equilibrium. Every year, 0.7 meters of ice are added to the top, and none is lost.

As it so happens, a camp called Eon was abandoned in the year 1967 on X. How much ice would we expect to find on top of it?

The answer is 34.3 meters, and that is in fact how much ice there is.

=============================================

Questions:
1. Is there a difference between the three glaciers?
2. Is there a difference between the ice layers on top of the three camps?
3. Therefore, can we measure the ice mass balance from the ice on top of any object (save the ground)?

=============================================

As we can see, the independent variable (the ice lost every year) has no effect on the dependent variable (the depth of ice on top of a camp). Therefore, the null hypothesis has been upheld - no correlation.

Ummm, no.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2016 18:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
What's wrong with it?

Why don't you calculate the depth of ice above each camp and see what you get?
14-10-2016 19:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:
What's wrong with it?

Why don't you calculate the depth of ice above each camp and see what you get?

I don't get the same numbers you get.

Do you have any real world examples? I afforded two. Any example involving the real Greenland ice sheet would be more helpful in analyzing the Greenland ice sheet than your imaginary examples that necessarily work according to your Global Warming ideology which doesn't exactly line up with science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2016 19:49
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:The mass balance is actually falling, as evidenced by altimetry and gravimetric analysis.

Neither of which can accurately measure Greenland's ice mass to any useful degree. Especially when you have observations like Glacier Girl which point to a net ice mass balance increase of about 2% per decade.

Then there's Camp Century which ceased operations in 1966 and was abandoned in 1967. A bunch of the camp was simply left in place. It is now buried under ~36 meters of ice, ~7 meters per decade. Unlike Glacier Girl, this site was in northern Greenland, but was also somewhat close to the coast. The ice of this area of Greenland was/is estimated to be between 300-600m depth. If the ice depth was 350 meters then we have a 2% per decade increase in the net ice mass balance in that area as well. If the ice was more shallow then of course the net decadal increase is greater. If the ice is deeper then the net decadal increase is less than 2%.

Nonetheless, the camp is buried under 36 meters of net accumulated ice.

Aren't those empirical observations excellent? You can't argue with surveyor "boots on the ground" taking physical volumetric measurements, right? You can't argue with actual measurements of net ice accumulation, can you? Sure, you can argue that you want "accumulation" to mean something else, but that doesn't change the amount the Greenland net ice mass balance is increasing.



Have you, by any chance, stumbled upon any examples of any gas that radiates in violation of Planck's? Just wondering.


.


Suppose that we are studying a glacier. Let's call it the Verdean glacier, or V for short. V is currently in equilibrium - every year, about 0.7 meters of ice are added to the top (via 1.4 meters of snowfall), and an equivalent amount of ice is lost through calving and melting.

Let us suppose that in the year 1960, a camp called Millennium was established on V. It was abandoned in the year 1967. How much ice would we expect to find on top of it?

The answer is 34.3 meters, and that is in fact how much ice there is.

=============================================

Now, suppose that there is another glacier nearby. Let's call it the Wuskya glacier, or W for short. W is not in equilibrium. Every year, 0.7 meters of ice are added to the top, and twice the equivalent amount of ice is lost through calving and melting.

As it so happens, a camp called Decade was abandoned in the year 1967 on W. How much ice would we expect to find on top of it?

The answer is 34.3 meters, and that is in fact how much ice there is.

=============================================

Now suppose that there is another glacier nearby. Let's call it the Xyzzy glacier, or X for short. X is not in equilibrium. Every year, 0.7 meters of ice are added to the top, and none is lost.

As it so happens, a camp called Eon was abandoned in the year 1967 on X. How much ice would we expect to find on top of it?

The answer is 34.3 meters, and that is in fact how much ice there is.

=============================================

Questions:
1. Is there a difference between the three glaciers?
2. Is there a difference between the ice layers on top of the three camps?
3. Therefore, can we measure the ice mass balance from the ice on top of any object (save the ground)?

=============================================

As we can see, the independent variable (the ice lost every year) has no effect on the dependent variable (the depth of ice on top of a camp). Therefore, the null hypothesis has been upheld - no correlation.


If the camp is in the same place then the ice is not moving and we thus know that the only way for ice to leave is melting from the top (no effect on the accumulation) or melting at the base, which is tiny as we understand due to the amount of thermal energy coming out of the ground being very low.

So easy to check. Has the camp moved 20km?
14-10-2016 20:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
In this hypothetical scenario its irrelevant, in real life things on the glaciers do move and are monitored, acceleration in this movement is one way of knowing things are changing.
14-10-2016 20:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Tim the plumber wrote: So easy to check. Has the camp moved 20km?

Both Glacier Girl and Camp Century moved, but not 20km. Glacier Girl moved about 3km I think over those 50 years. Camp Century didn't "flow" as much but the camp was abandoned because it was moving (the camp's purpose was for nuclear missile silos and underground tunnels; every year they became unsafe or otherwise required maintenance due to shifting).

I don't have those 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
14-10-2016 21:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
What's wrong with it?

Why don't you calculate the depth of ice above each camp and see what you get?

I don't get the same numbers you get.

Could you show your calculations?
Do you have any real world examples? I afforded two. Any example involving the real Greenland ice sheet would be more helpful in analyzing the Greenland ice sheet than your imaginary examples that necessarily work according to your Global Warming ideology which doesn't exactly line up with science.


.


My imaginary examples that... must work because I can't accept them not working? That's an ad hominem. Fight the argument, not your opponent.


"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!
14-10-2016 21:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:My imaginary examples that... must work because I can't accept them not working? That's an ad hominem. Fight the argument, not your opponent.

You're pretending to be insulted again just to avoid answering a straightforward question. I'll ask again:

Do you have any real-world Greenland ice sheet examples as opposed to only hypothetical conceptualizations that work in your mind according to your understanding of The Science?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2016 22:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:My imaginary examples that... must work because I can't accept them not working? That's an ad hominem. Fight the argument, not your opponent.

You're pretending to be insulted again just to avoid answering a straightforward question.

I'm not insulted. I'm saying that your argument is fallacious.

I'll ask again:

Do you have any real-world Greenland ice sheet examples as opposed to only hypothetical conceptualizations that work in your mind

Ah, here's a decent argument I can understand.
according to your understanding of The Science?

Just leave that last bit off, and everything will be quite fine.

If there is an error in my scenario, please point it out.

The experimental stuff at the end was bad, I shouldn't have put it there. You're right. That proves nothing.

But! It does serve as a useful tool. For instance: Do V, W, and X have the same accumulation rate?

So I will ask: is the amount of measured ice on top of a reference point dependent on:

1. The rate of deposition (minus the rate of sublimation).
2. The rate of overall accumulation.

My glaciers are not necessary to prove this point, but they can help by giving an imaginary, specific example of particular things.


"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!
14-10-2016 22:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote: But! It does serve as a useful tool. For instance: Do V, W, and X have the same accumulation rate?

Sure, and I enjoy theoreticals. I really do.

You just usually commit a foul when you do. If you are going to create a hypothetical thought experiment, you need to isolate the principle in question. You tend to mix various variables and seek an answer under fallacious circumstances. If extensive clarification is required then it's probably time to simplify the thought experiment.

jwoodward48 wrote: So I will ask: is the amount of measured ice on top of a reference point dependent on:

1. The rate of deposition (minus the rate of sublimation).
2. The rate of overall accumulation.


Fixed reference point or relative to the flow of the ice?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2016 23:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: But! It does serve as a useful tool. For instance: Do V, W, and X have the same accumulation rate?

Sure, and I enjoy theoreticals. I really do.

You just usually commit a foul when you do. If you are going to create a hypothetical thought experiment, you need to isolate the principle in question. You tend to mix various variables and seek an answer under fallacious circumstances. If extensive clarification is required then it's probably time to simplify the thought experiment.

Agreed. I tend to make things more complex than necessary.
jwoodward48 wrote: So I will ask: is the amount of measured ice on top of a reference point dependent on:

1. The rate of deposition (minus the rate of sublimation).
2. The rate of overall accumulation.


Fixed reference point or relative to the flow of the ice?

.


A reference object that was laid down on the ice at a particular time, and remained fixed relative to the surrounding ice.


"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!
15-10-2016 18:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:A reference object that was laid down on the ice at a particular time, and remained fixed relative to the surrounding ice.

Excellent. A relative point that moves with the flow of the ice.

First, let me give the bad news that's going to give Surface Detail a real headache. You obviously picked a practical, real scenario of ice accumulating atop ice that moves/flows, with ice breaking off of glaciers into the sea. The bottom line is that this scenario does a good job of concealing the fact that there is much more ice building up than warmizombies want to acknowledge.

For this explanation I need you to refresh your memory on "similar triangles."

Imagine a triangle wedge, e.g. a doorstop, with the small side pushed up against the wall, pointing away from the wall. We'll label this object "glacier" of volume "v."

Next, one decade later, you notice the doorstop is a similar triangle of a bit larger volume 1.02*v, and you push the doorstop one inch away from the wall. You now need to fill in that gap between the doorstop and the wall to complete the new similar triangle all the way up to the wall.

That gives you a new similar triangle that is much more than 2% more voluminous than the mere doorstop of a decade ago.

This is what is happening in Greenland, except that a bunch also breaks off into the ocean. How much? Greenland is not in ice equilibrium. Insufficient ice breaks off and the net ice mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet continues to grow.

So...your question appears to pertain to the growing-sliding doorstop model. Did I answer your question or shall we probe further?


.


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
15-10-2016 19:14
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:A reference object that was laid down on the ice at a particular time, and remained fixed relative to the surrounding ice.

Excellent. A relative point that moves with the flow of the ice.

First, let me give the bad news that's going to give Surface Detail a real headache. You obviously picked a practical, real scenario of ice accumulating atop ice that moves/flows, with ice breaking off of glaciers into the sea. The bottom line is that this scenario does a good job of concealing the fact that there is much more ice building up than warmizombies want to acknowledge.

For this explanation I need you to refresh your memory on "similar triangles."

Imagine a triangle wedge, e.g. a doorstop, with the small side pushed up against the wall, pointing away from the wall. We'll label this object "glacier" of volume "v."

Next, one decade later, you notice the doorstop is a similar triangle of a bit larger volume 1.02*v, and you push the doorstop one inch away from the wall. You now need to fill in that gap between the doorstop and the wall to complete the new similar triangle all the way up to the wall.

That gives you a new similar triangle that is much more than 2% more voluminous than the mere doorstop of a decade ago.

This is what is happening in Greenland, except that a bunch also breaks off into the ocean. How much? Greenland is not in ice equilibrium. Insufficient ice breaks off and the net ice mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet continues to grow.

So...your question appears to pertain to the growing-sliding doorstop model. Did I answer your question or shall we probe further?


.


I sort of get this, but not quite. The 1.02 increase in volume is the deposition, right? Then what's the "sliding" part?


"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!
16-10-2016 00:02
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:My imaginary examples that... must work because I can't accept them not working? That's an ad hominem. Fight the argument, not your opponent.

You're pretending to be insulted again just to avoid answering a straightforward question.

I'm not insulted. I'm saying that your argument is fallacious.

I'll ask again:

Do you have any real-world Greenland ice sheet examples as opposed to only hypothetical conceptualizations that work in your mind

Ah, here's a decent argument I can understand.
according to your understanding of The Science?

Just leave that last bit off, and everything will be quite fine.

If there is an error in my scenario, please point it out.

The experimental stuff at the end was bad, I shouldn't have put it there. You're right. That proves nothing.

But! It does serve as a useful tool. For instance: Do V, W, and X have the same accumulation rate?

So I will ask: is the amount of measured ice on top of a reference point dependent on:

1. The rate of deposition (minus the rate of sublimation).
2. The rate of overall accumulation.

My glaciers are not necessary to prove this point, but they can help by giving an imaginary, specific example of particular things.


When they measure the level of ice on top of last year's ice, then that is last year's ice after a summer, after all the melting that it is ever going to get untill it is exposed again.

So given that they say that each year there is a 1m accumulation of ice, water equivalent, that means that they are allowing for the melting already. The layers of ice being 1m w.e. appart.

That there is a tiny amount of ice flowing down the glaciers will not change this substantially. To reach an equilibrium there would have to be 45 Mississippis flowing out of Greenland during the brief summer when all the ice melting and ice calving happens.
16-10-2016 01:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim the plumber wrote:

When they measure the level of ice on top of last year's ice, then that is last year's ice after a summer, after all the melting that it is ever going to get untill it is exposed again.

So given that they say that each year there is a 1m accumulation of ice, water equivalent, that means that they are allowing for the melting already. The layers of ice being 1m w.e. appart.

That there is a tiny amount of ice flowing down the glaciers will not change this substantially. To reach an equilibrium there would have to be 45 Mississippis flowing out of Greenland during the brief summer when all the ice melting and ice calving happens.


A-ha! I understand you! This is why I was asking all these questions!

How about we go and find some numbers for the outflow, okay? We can discuss whether the scientists who did the numbers were actually demons in disguise later.

The IPCC estimates the accumulation rate to be 520±26 Gt/yr, runoff to be 297±32 Gt/yr, bottom melting to be 32±3 Gt/yr, and iceberg production to be 235±33 Gt/yr, with a mass balance of -44±53 Gt/yr. This was in 2001, mind you, so things might have changed.

You can argue that the IPCC are fudging the numbers to align with their Evil Agenda, but as it is, the numbers mean "we can't precisely tell whether it's growing or not, but it looks like it probably is, with a 89% chance or so." (Assuming they're using a 95% confidence level for their numbers; it's an 87% chance if they used a 90% confidence level, and a 92% chance if they're using a 99% confidence level. I could be wrong on these numbers, but they're just back-of-the-envelope calculations.)

So apparently, the calving contributes between 47% and 35% of the mass loss. The runoff and bottom melting together contribute between 53% and 65%, probably about 58%. That would make only 26.1 Mississippis, or even as low as 23.85! And that is distributed over the entire perimeter, mind you, of ~24430 miles. So only 0.098% of a Mississippi per mile.


"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!
16-10-2016 03:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:Then what's the "sliding" part?

The ice is moving. The ice is flowing.

jwoodward48 wrote: The 1.02 increase in volume is the deposition, right?

It is the net ice accumulation over the relative point that moves with the flowing ice, per your question. The doorstop wedge is the answer to your question. That's what is going on...once you fill in the gap behind the wedge.


.


.


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
16-10-2016 03:16
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Then what's the "sliding" part?

The ice is moving. The ice is flowing.

jwoodward48 wrote: The 1.02 increase in volume is the deposition, right?

It is the net ice accumulation over the relative point that moves with the flowing ice, per your question. The doorstop wedge is the answer to your question. That's what is going on...once you fill in the gap behind the wedge.

.


But when the ice flows, ice doesn't magically appear behind 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!
16-10-2016 03:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
jwoodward48 wrote:But when the ice flows, ice doesn't magically appear behind it.

Exactly. There is certainly ice filling in behind it and it isn't by magic.

That is some serious continuous ice accumulation going on in Greenland.


.


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
16-10-2016 03:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:But when the ice flows, ice doesn't magically appear behind it.

Exactly. There is certainly ice filling in behind it and it isn't by magic.

That is some serious continuous ice accumulation going on in Greenland.

Yes, and increasing by 2% per decade apparently. Given that we know that the mass balance is falling, this means that the losses must be even greater than we thought.
16-10-2016 03:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But there isn't any ice filling in behind it, save the accumulation that we already accounted for.
Page 7 of 8<<<5678>





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