Remember me
▼ Content

Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation



Page 8 of 8<<<678
16-10-2016 04:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote:But there isn't any ice filling in behind it, save the accumulation that we already accounted for.

This is a stupid statement. Take out the "...that we already accounted for" part. We are accounting for it, i.e. present progressive, i.e. we haven't already accounted for anything prior to the whole package deal we are accounting for now at present.



The point is that there is massive ice accrual in Greenland, much more than the mere ~2% net decadal increase, but the calving drops a bunch into the sea such that the net ice mass balance increase hovers at ~2% per decade.

Absolutely massive.

Anyone claiming the Greenland ice sheet is somehow disappearing is obviously being reamed by a trusted acquaintance.

Anyone panicking that the disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet is imminent needs to buy the bridge I'm selling.

-----------------

@ Surface Detail, you're right. All the scientists ev-ah have known that the Greenland ice mass balance is plummeting like a brick, causing the sea level to shoot up like a rocket. In fact, Cuba just went under yesterday.

...so when will Greenland be ice free? Five years? Six? It certainly can't hold on much longer, with all the Global Warming and all. How long?



I mean, just look at that picture. They made it red! That's really bad!

You eat this stuff up, don't you? Are you in the market for a bridge?


.


.


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 06:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm still a bit confused about the doorstop. So it increases in size by 1.02... and then increases in size again by one inch? What does that mean?
16-10-2016 11:00
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
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.


Yes.

So, looking at google earth how many of these Mississippis can we see?

I go for about 1/2 to 1 in total.

Also how long a time period did you allow for all this melting to happen in?
16-10-2016 17:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Same as yours. I didn't even check your numbers, I just calculated mine from yours.

So Tim, we'll do all of our research on Google Earth now? Or we could find actual studies. Hmmm, what a difficult choice. I mean, Google Earth doesn't show you the various streams and rivulets coming off of the glacier, and IIRC you can't easily tell what time of year it is... What should we choose?
16-10-2016 19:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Same as yours. I didn't even check your numbers, I just calculated mine from yours.

So Tim, we'll do all of our research on Google Earth now? Or we could find actual studies. Hmmm, what a difficult choice. I mean, Google Earth doesn't show you the various streams and rivulets coming off of the glacier, and IIRC you can't easily tell what time of year it is... What should we choose?


When you want a rough number which cannot be faked just to check then the one you can actually check.

The time of year on Google earth will be high summer as you can see by the state of the place.

But then, if you want to consider the maximum flow rate of the rivers coming out of Greenland you can see that easily enough as well, for a rough number.

Do it and see what you find. How many Mississippis?
16-10-2016 23:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Can't we use more sophisticated methods? I mean, we can do better than satellite pictures of rivers to estimate the level flowing out, and a "let's look at it and pull numbers out of nowhere" method tends not to work.
17-10-2016 14:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote: I'm still a bit confused about the doorstop. So it increases in size by 1.02...

You seem good up to this point.

jwoodward48 wrote: ... and then increases in size again by one inch? What does that mean?

If you push the wedge away from the wall one inch, you would then have a trapezoid shape, one-inch at the base, that would need to be filled in in order to complete the imaginary similar triangle all the way to the wall.

So grow the doorstop by x1.02 and then fill in the imaginary similar triangle with doorstop material all the way to the wall, and that is the true amount of doorstop accumulation (which takes into account all doorstop melting, sublimation, space-alien ice theft, etc... but not calving). It is the gross doorstop mass balance accumulation.

Then there's the doorstop calving. I have not covered it in this example. All I have discussed is the gross doorstop mass balance accumulation which is vastly more than just 2% per decade.

Now imagine that the floor extends out from the wall some fixed distance and then drops off. The doorstop keeps growing and growing, every decade it extends one more inch from wall while it grows taller up the wall. At some point it extends out over the drop-off point.

One day a piece that is hanging over the edge just snaps off under its own weight. It "calves". Now we have a trapezoid shape that continues to grow outward from the wall. Let's just imagine that as soon as any of it ends up hanging out over the edge it calves. This calving obviously represents a loss to the doorstop mass balance.

At first this loss is negligible because it's only the tip. Over time this loss becomes more substantial. At a certain point, the amount of calving loss, when factored into the gross doorstop mass balance increase results in a mere 2% per decade net doorstop mass balance increase, or a mere 2% per decade net doorstop accumulation.

This is the point at which Greenland is today.


.


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
17-10-2016 18:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: I'm still a bit confused about the doorstop. So it increases in size by 1.02...

You seem good up to this point.

jwoodward48 wrote: ... and then increases in size again by one inch? What does that mean?

If you push the wedge away from the wall one inch, you would then have a trapezoid shape, one-inch at the base, that would need to be filled in in order to complete the imaginary similar triangle all the way to the wall.

So grow the doorstop by x1.02 and then fill in the imaginary similar triangle with doorstop material all the way to the wall, and that is the true amount of doorstop accumulation (which takes into account all doorstop melting, sublimation, space-alien ice theft, etc... but not calving). It is the gross doorstop mass balance accumulation.

Then there's the doorstop calving. I have not covered it in this example. All I have discussed is the gross doorstop mass balance accumulation which is vastly more than just 2% per decade.

Now imagine that the floor extends out from the wall some fixed distance and then drops off. The doorstop keeps growing and growing, every decade it extends one more inch from wall while it grows taller up the wall. At some point it extends out over the drop-off point.

One day a piece that is hanging over the edge just snaps off under its own weight. It "calves". Now we have a trapezoid shape that continues to grow outward from the wall. Let's just imagine that as soon as any of it ends up hanging out over the edge it calves. This calving obviously represents a loss to the doorstop mass balance.

At first this loss is negligible because it's only the tip. Over time this loss becomes more substantial. At a certain point, the amount of calving loss, when factored into the gross doorstop mass balance increase results in a mere 2% per decade net doorstop mass balance increase, or a mere 2% per decade net doorstop accumulation.

This is the point at which Greenland is today.


.


I understand a little better, but there's still something I don't quite get.

Since Greenland isn't changing size (in terms of area), unless the snowfall rate changes, the gross accumulation rate should be constant, right? But with the doorstop model, the gross accumulation rate would be proportional to the size of the glacier.


"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!
17-10-2016 20:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote: Since Greenland isn't changing size (in terms of area), ...

Correct. The ocean is where the floor drops out.

jwoodward48 wrote: unless the snowfall rate changes, the gross accumulation rate should be constant, right?

It will become constant once Greenland reaches ice mass equilibrium. Apparently it isn't there yet. I read in various places that Greenland had previously been cultivated with grapes or olives or whatever, 1000 years ago by the Norse. If that was the case (I admittedly was not around back then) wherever that happened obviously wasn't under hundreds or thousands of meters of ice. Today we see hundreds or thousands of meters of accumulation. Ice started increasing there at some point.

Today, it has not yet reached equilibrium. The net ice mass balance is therefore not constant. The current rate of increase appears to be ~2% per decade. We don't have historical ice mass balance data for Greenland.


jwoodward48 wrote:But with the doorstop model, the gross accumulation rate would be proportional to the size of the glacier.

With the doorstop model, the gross accumulation will reach an equilibrium when the amount of calving equals the amount of gross accumulation, which will happen eventually given a constant gross accumulation.

With ice, over a land mass the size of Greenland, things like this occur very slowly to human timescales.


.


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
17-10-2016 22:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Since Greenland isn't changing size (in terms of area), ...

Correct. The ocean is where the floor drops out.

jwoodward48 wrote: unless the snowfall rate changes, the gross accumulation rate should be constant, right?

It will become constant once Greenland reaches ice mass equilibrium. Apparently it isn't there yet. I read in various places that Greenland had previously been cultivated with grapes or olives or whatever, 1000 years ago by the Norse. If that was the case (I admittedly was not around back then) wherever that happened obviously wasn't under hundreds or thousands of meters of ice. Today we see hundreds or thousands of meters of accumulation. Ice started increasing there at some point.

Today, it has not yet reached equilibrium. The net ice mass balance is therefore not constant. The current rate of increase appears to be ~2% per decade. We don't have historical ice mass balance data for Greenland.


jwoodward48 wrote:But with the doorstop model, the gross accumulation rate would be proportional to the size of the glacier.

With the doorstop model, the gross accumulation will reach an equilibrium when the amount of calving equals the amount of gross accumulation, which will happen eventually given a constant gross accumulation.

With ice, over a land mass the size of Greenland, things like this occur very slowly to human timescales.


.


No, not the net accumulation (which is gross minus outflow), the gross accumulation (which is the amount that falls onto the glacier).


"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!
17-10-2016 22:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote: No, not the net accumulation (which is gross minus outflow), the gross accumulation (which is the amount that falls onto the glacier).

Actually, since it's my analogy you have to go with my terms.

I define the "gross ice accumulation" as the overall total of ice accumulation without considering calving.

When you subtract the ice lost to calving you get the "net ice accumulation."

I am not a fan of convolution.


.


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
17-10-2016 22:36
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ah, okay. Let's call the rate of inflow the "deposition" rate.

A-ha! The ice above a marker doesn't tell you the deposition rate! It tells you the gross accumulation rate. Okay.
17-10-2016 22:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Ah, okay. Let's call the rate of inflow the "deposition" rate.

A-ha! The ice above a marker doesn't tell you the deposition rate! It tells you the gross accumulation rate. Okay.

I don't want you to feel like you are being brushed aside. I noticed your attempts to work "deposition rate" into the discussion.

What do you consider as comprising the deposition rate? I don't have any particular need for it, but maybe we can work it in for 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
17-10-2016 23:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The deposition rate is the rate at which ice enters the glacier system. It serves as a limit on how quickly the glacier can grow.

Hmm, I think I'll try to codify the variables and see if you agree.

D, or Deposition Rate: The rate at which ice enters the glacier system. Not dependent on any other variables; dependent on area of glacier (constant) and meteorological conditions.
M, or Melting Rate: The rate at which ice melts from the surface. Measured in unit distance of ice, not snow. Not dependent on any other variables; dependent on area of glacier (constant) and meteorological conditions.
GA, or Gross Accumulation Rate: The rate at which the ice above a marker increases in depth. Equal to D - M.
C, or Calving Rate: The rate at which ice leaves the glacier system by means that do not decrease depth, unlike melting. Presumably calving, but other means may exist. I am unsure how the calving rate depends on other variables, but it is affected by temperature (moulins) and perhaps height. For now it can be considered a constant, like M and D.
NA, or Net Accumulation Rate: The rate by which the height of the glacier increases. Equal to D - (M+C), or GA - C.

Sounds good?
18-10-2016 20:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote: The deposition rate is the rate at which ice enters the glacier system. It serves as a limit on how quickly the glacier can grow.

Could we replace "The glacier system" with "Greenland"?

jwoodward48 wrote: D, or Deposition Rate: The rate at which ice enters the glacier system.

By omitting the specific amount of time, e.g. Annual Deposition, and by making it dependent on location, i.e. it varies at every single point, you have made this a completely useless convolution.

Can we just go with "Annual Greenland Deposition"?

jwoodward48 wrote:M, or Melting Rate: The rate at which ice melts from the surface.

This is a stupid convolution. I notice you don't have any variable for "refreezes after melting." I also notice that you don't have a "redeposition after sublimating."

You can't keep track of every water molecule in Greenland any more than you can keep track of every photon that comes earth's way.

Your system is a valiant attempt to do too much but ultimately fails. We really don't care about any of those specifics. We only care about the Greenland ice mass (GIM) and how it is changing. We have ice accumulation, which takes into account melting and refreezing and new snowfall and everything else. The net additional ice (or net loss) is all that concerns us. But then there's calving which specifically represents a loss.

GIM(initial) + Accumulation - Calving = GIM(resulting)

Accumulation = Deposition - natural loss + misc additional

If I were to accurately measure the Greenland ice mass at some point and then again one year later, and assuming I accurately monitored the accumulation, I would be able to tell you how much calved that year.

How about them apples?

.


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
18-10-2016 20:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Hmm, that's funny, the equations you gave are nearly identical to mine.

Thanks for the feedback on my variable definitions. It seems some of them were indeed too vague, or ignored possible circular flows.

Your favorite report doesn't measure the IMB. It measures deposition minus melting, where deposition includes refreezing etc.
18-10-2016 21:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
jwoodward48 wrote: Hmm, that's funny, the equations you gave are nearly identical to mine.

Then pat yourself on the back! Good job.

jwoodward48 wrote:Your favorite report doesn't measure the IMB. It measures deposition minus melting, where deposition includes refreezing etc.

It's true that they should have consulted with me before writing the report and even better, consulted with me prior to conducting the study. Oh well. We're stuck with what we have.

"You go to war with the Greenland ice reports you have, not the Greenland ice reports you might want or wish to have" - Donald Rumsfeld


.


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
03-12-2016 18:15
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Into the Night wrote: the Nisqually glacier on Mt Rainier is expanding quite a lot.


Nah! Nisqually glacier continues decades long decreases in Volume.
http://media.thenewstribune.com/static/pages/rainier/

Not just Nisqually, but Mt. Rainier. Not just Rainier, but the Cascades. Not just the Cascades, but the west coast. Not just the west coast, but the world.
03-12-2016 20:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
litesong wrote:
Into the Night wrote: the Nisqually glacier on Mt Rainier is expanding quite a lot.

Nah! Nisqually glacier continues decades long decreases in Volume.

Actually, Olaf is one of the good Global Cooling berserkers. He's an ice delivery boy and Nisqually glacier is like his second home. This cool dude knows how to bring on the ice and he works for tips. Olaf in Nisqually is why the AGW-powered berserkers run and hide in the Arctic.




.


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
04-12-2016 21:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
litesong wrote:
Into the Night wrote: the Nisqually glacier on Mt Rainier is expanding quite a lot.


Nah! Nisqually glacier continues decades long decreases in Volume.
...deleted propaganda article...

Not just Nisqually, but Mt. Rainier. Not just Rainier, but the Cascades. Not just the Cascades, but the west coast. Not just the west coast, but the world.


No, it's expanding recently. The news article is propaganda. They are comparing winter vs summer and the maximum from a cherry picked winter (1966) to the minimum of a cherry picked summer (2014).


The Parrot Killer
23-12-2016 23:06
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Into the Night wrote:
litesong wrote:
Into the Night wrote: the Nisqually glacier on Mt Rainier is expanding quite a lot.


Nah! Nisqually glacier continues decades long decreases in Volume.
...deleted propaganda article...

Not just Nisqually, but Mt. Rainier. Not just Rainier, but the Cascades. Not just the Cascades, but the west coast. Not just the west coast, but the world.


No, it's expanding recently. The news article is propaganda.

Let Nisqually glacier expand to the old bridge supports, the glacier destroyed in the early 1900's, before you start bellyaching about propaganda.
http://cdn.loc.gov/service/pnp/habshaer/wa/wa0300/wa0371/photos/370063pv.jpg
If global cooling is charging along, you got no problem predicting the glacier will collapse the newest bridge, too.
24-12-2016 03:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
litesong wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
litesong wrote:
Into the Night wrote: the Nisqually glacier on Mt Rainier is expanding quite a lot.


Nah! Nisqually glacier continues decades long decreases in Volume.
...deleted propaganda article...

Not just Nisqually, but Mt. Rainier. Not just Rainier, but the Cascades. Not just the Cascades, but the west coast. Not just the west coast, but the world.


No, it's expanding recently. The news article is propaganda.

Let Nisqually glacier expand to the old bridge supports, the glacier destroyed in the early 1900's, before you start bellyaching about propaganda.
http://cdn.loc.gov/service/pnp/habshaer/wa/wa0300/wa0371/photos/370063pv.jpg
If global cooling is charging along, you got no problem predicting the glacier will collapse the newest bridge, too.


The bridge was built when the glacier wasn't there. No one puts a bridge support in the middle of a glacier!


The Parrot Killer
24-12-2016 05:17
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Into the Night wrote:The bridge was built when the glacier wasn't there. No one puts a bridge support in the middle of a glacier!


You're earning your sliminess. Never said the old bridge was built in the glacier. The glacier snout is now a mile plus from the old bridge supports & ebbs & flows (which you talk about) will never bring it near the supports again. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/wa0371/

Note from the website: The first bridge on the site was distinguished for its construction at the snout of the Nisqually Glacier; this made the Nisqually Road "the first road in America to reach a glacier." However, the siting just below the massive glacier led to the destruction or heavy damage to four subsequent bridges by glacier floods. The present high-level bridge, 600' below the old bridge site, was designed to survive the extreme conditions sometimes encountered at the crossing.
////////
litesong continues: Before bragging that Nisqually glacier is advancing, let it first get back to the original bridge supports. However, AGW means you can never brag about the Nisqually glacier advancing.
Page 8 of 8<<<678





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
"GREENLANDS melting ice may affect everyone"922-10-2019 23:17
Plant Growth and Ice Cores617-09-2019 22:45
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
ice melting223-06-2019 19:52
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact