Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Climate Scientist was, of course, correct. IBdaMann is indeed misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation". He thinks it means the net change in the amount of ice on Greenland. It doesn't.

Accumulation refers to the rate at which ice is added to the surface of Greenland's ice sheet through precipitation. Ice is also lost from Greenland's ice sheet through melting and the flow of glaciers to the sea. The net change in the amount of ice on Greenland is the accumulation minus the loss through melting and glacier flow.

Evidence indicates that both accumulation and loss of ice have increased in recent years, with the latter outpacing the former.

No. You are taling about deposition. Or precipitation.

Accumulation is the ammount that it gets bigger by each year.

Wrong. Accumulation means the mass that is there, whether it is growing, shrinking, or staying the same. At one time that mass accumulated. It is still called an accumulation no matter what it happens to be doing now.

If you read the paper, it's quite obvious what they mean by accumulation. They mean the mass that is added by falling snow, not the total amount.

In the same way, about six inches of snow accumulated in my backyard last winter, but there's no snow there now.

It can be used for either meaning. The amount that fell in a year, or the amount total.

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

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Climate Scientist was, of course, correct. IBdaMann is indeed misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation". He thinks it means the net change in the amount of ice on Greenland. It doesn't.

Accumulation refers to the rate at which ice is added to the surface of Greenland's ice sheet through precipitation. Ice is also lost from Greenland's ice sheet through melting and the flow of glaciers to the sea. The net change in the amount of ice on Greenland is the accumulation minus the loss through melting and glacier flow.

Evidence indicates that both accumulation and loss of ice have increased in recent years, with the latter outpacing the former.

No. You are taling about deposition. Or precipitation.

Accumulation is the ammount that it gets bigger by each year.

Wrong. Accumulation means the mass that is there, whether it is growing, shrinking, or staying the same. At one time that mass accumulated. It is still called an accumulation no matter what it happens to be doing now.

If you read the paper, it's quite obvious what they mean by accumulation. They mean the mass that is added by falling snow, not the total amount.

In the same way, about six inches of snow accumulated in my backyard last winter, but there's no snow there now.

It can be used for either meaning. The amount that fell in a year, or the amount total.

YES! YOU ARE CORRECT!

Now, which definition are they using?

Keep in mind that the study uses "accumulation" thus:

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

"Accumulation on the surface" seems to imply the first definition, as does the description of accumulation vs melting.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Climate Scientist was, of course, correct. IBdaMann is indeed misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation". He thinks it means the net change in the amount of ice on Greenland. It doesn't.

Accumulation refers to the rate at which ice is added to the surface of Greenland's ice sheet through precipitation. Ice is also lost from Greenland's ice sheet through melting and the flow of glaciers to the sea. The net change in the amount of ice on Greenland is the accumulation minus the loss through melting and glacier flow.

Evidence indicates that both accumulation and loss of ice have increased in recent years, with the latter outpacing the former.

No. You are taling about deposition. Or precipitation.

Accumulation is the ammount that it gets bigger by each year.

Wrong. Accumulation means the mass that is there, whether it is growing, shrinking, or staying the same. At one time that mass accumulated. It is still called an accumulation no matter what it happens to be doing now.

If you read the paper, it's quite obvious what they mean by accumulation. They mean the mass that is added by falling snow, not the total amount.

In the same way, about six inches of snow accumulated in my backyard last winter, but there's no snow there now.

It can be used for either meaning. The amount that fell in a year, or the amount total.

The amount that fell in a year

jwoodward48 wrote:TL;DR: It doesn't matter what you think "accumulation" should mean. It's how it's actually used by these scientists that matters.

IBdaMann wrote:
The report authors wrote of the accumulation of the ice mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Surface Detail wrote:Yes, and they also wrote of the melting and evaporation of scientists and policymakers. At least, they did if you pick arbitrary expressions from successive sentences and stick them together. This is a funny game you've invented, IBdaMann!

jwoodward48 wrote:
No, you would.

There is a balance between accumulation and melting.

I think this is what they meant. Is that false?

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
No, you would.

There is a balance between accumulation and melting.

I think this is what they meant. Is that false?

I'm not sure how you can miss it: the ice mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet increased 2% per decade.

It's hilarious to see just how crucial it is to the Global Warming congregation that this reality be denied. The cognitive dissonance is amazingly delicious.

Keep it up.

Surface Detail wrote:Actually, it says the accumulation rate increased by about 2% per decade due to a warming climate. Not the ice mass balance. The accumulation rate. Or are you still playing games?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:Actually, it says the accumulation rate increased by about 2% per decade due to a warming climate. Not the ice mass balance. The accumulation rate. Or are you still playing games?

2% per decade accumulation of ice mass. The "due to" is irrelevant. Your English reading comprehension sucks donkey ducks.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
anyone can look up the information. or should they just rely on "pure logic".

There is no comprehensive list of glaciers and their history.

You already flunked the logic part.

Why does anybody care at all about any glaciers other than the big ones? I mean the really big few. Those with more than 100 million cubic km of ice in them.

Why does the size of the glacier make any difference?

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Climate Scientist was, of course, correct. IBdaMann is indeed misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation". He thinks it means the net change in the amount of ice on Greenland. It doesn't.

Accumulation refers to the rate at which ice is added to the surface of Greenland's ice sheet through precipitation. Ice is also lost from Greenland's ice sheet through melting and the flow of glaciers to the sea. The net change in the amount of ice on Greenland is the accumulation minus the loss through melting and glacier flow.

Evidence indicates that both accumulation and loss of ice have increased in recent years, with the latter outpacing the former.

No. You are taling about deposition. Or precipitation.

Accumulation is the ammount that it gets bigger by each year.

Wrong. Accumulation means the mass that is there, whether it is growing, shrinking, or staying the same. At one time that mass accumulated. It is still called an accumulation no matter what it happens to be doing now.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Climate Scientist was, of course, correct. IBdaMann is indeed misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation". He thinks it means the net change in the amount of ice on Greenland. It doesn't.

Accumulation refers to the rate at which ice is added to the surface of Greenland's ice sheet through precipitation. Ice is also lost from Greenland's ice sheet through melting and the flow of glaciers to the sea. The net change in the amount of ice on Greenland is the accumulation minus the loss through melting and glacier flow.

Evidence indicates that both accumulation and loss of ice have increased in recent years, with the latter outpacing the former.

No. You are taling about deposition. Or precipitation.

Accumulation is the ammount that it gets bigger by each year.

Wrong. Accumulation means the mass that is there, whether it is growing, shrinking, or staying the same. At one time that mass accumulated. It is still called an accumulation no matter what it happens to be doing now.

If you read the paper, it's quite obvious what they mean by accumulation. They mean the mass that is added by falling snow, not the total amount.

In the same way, about six inches of snow accumulated in my backyard last winter, but there's no snow there now.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:TL;DR: It doesn't matter what you think "accumulation" should mean. It's how it's actually used by these scientists that matters.

The report authors wrote of the accumulation of the ice mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

Surface Detail claims that the entirety of his British education tells every fiber of his being that what the authors meant by their words was the seasonal snowfall rate.

Tim the Plumber, is that what you got out of the words "ice mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet"?

jwoodward48 wrote:
No, you would.

There is a balance between accumulation and melting.

I think this is what they meant. Is that false?

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
No, you would.

There is a balance between accumulation and melting.

I think this is what they meant. Is that false?

I'm not sure how you can miss it: the ice mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet increased 2% per decade.

It's hilarious to see just how crucial it is to the Global Warming congregation that this reality be denied. The cognitive dissonance is amazingly delicious.

Keep it up.

Actually, it says the accumulation rate increased by about 2% per decade due to a warming climate. Not the ice mass balance. The accumulation rate. Or are you still playing games?

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
No, you would.

There is a balance between accumulation and melting.

I think this is what they meant. Is that false?

Precipitation or snow/rainfall is different to accumulation.

The growth and decay of ice sheets is driven by a balance
between accumulation of snow on the surface, primarily in
the high-elevation interiors, and the melting, runoff, evapor-
ation, sublimation and iceberg calving that takes place
primarily along the lower-elevation margins. The mass
balance of the Greenland ice sheet, in particular, is of
increasing importance to scientists and policymakers, as
rising air and ocean temperatures have increased the rate of
melting and the velocity of calving outlet glaciers, con-
tributing to a rising sea level (Lemke and others, 2007).

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
No, you would.

There is a balance between accumulation and melting.

I think this is what they meant. Is that false?

Precipitation or snow/rainfall is different to accumulation.

Ha! You're wrong!

The growth and decay of ice sheets is driven by a balance
between accumulation of snow on the surface, primarily in
the high-elevation interiors, and the melting, runoff, evapor-
ation, sublimation and iceberg calving that takes place
primarily along the lower-elevation margins. The mass
balance of the Greenland ice sheet, in particular, is of
increasing importance to scientists and policymakers, as
rising air and ocean temperatures have increased the rate of
melting and the velocity of calving outlet glaciers, con-
tributing to a rising sea level (Lemke and others, 2007).

Camp Century was a nuclear powered research center built by the US Army Corps of Engineers under the icy surface of Greenland. It was occupied from 1959 to 1966 under the auspices of the Army Polar Research and Development Center. Its climatically hostile environment was located a mere 800 miles from the North Pole. The site was chosen May 17, 1959. At 6180 feet above sea level, this flat plateau features a mean temperature of minus ten degrees Fahrenheit, recorded temperatures of minus 70 degrees and winds exceeding 125 mph. The average annual snow accumulation is four feet.

The water supply was produced by pumping steam deep down into an ice well. This "Rodriguez Well" produced over 10,000 gallons of fresh water daily. This fresh water supply had fallen on Greenland as snow nearly two thousand years before.

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
No, you would.

There is a balance between accumulation and melting.

I think this is what they meant. Is that false?

Precipitation or snow/rainfall is different to accumulation.

Ha! You're wrong!

The growth and decay of ice sheets is driven by a balance
between accumulation of snow on the surface, primarily in
the high-elevation interiors, and the melting, runoff, evapor-
ation, sublimation and iceberg calving that takes place
primarily along the lower-elevation margins. The mass
balance of the Greenland ice sheet, in particular, is of
increasing importance to scientists and policymakers, as
rising air and ocean temperatures have increased the rate of
melting and the velocity of calving outlet glaciers, con-
tributing to a rising sea level (Lemke and others, 2007).

Wow..... in the above quote where does it say accumulation?

Mass balance is the net change in the amount of ice/snow there is as measured by the mass of the ice.

Snowfall or precipitation is the amount that lands on the ice.

Melting etc is the amount that leaves and goes away.

Accumulation is the net gain over the year of ice mass.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm not denying that accumulation can be used to mean net increase. But that's not how the writers of the report used the word.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
No, you would.

There is a balance between accumulation and melting.

I think this is what they meant. Is that false?

Precipitation or snow/rainfall is different to accumulation.

Ha! You're wrong!

The growth and decay of ice sheets is driven by a balance
between accumulation of snow on the surface, primarily in
the high-elevation interiors, and the melting, runoff, evapor-
ation, sublimation and iceberg calving that takes place
primarily along the lower-elevation margins. The mass
balance of the Greenland ice sheet, in particular, is of
increasing importance to scientists and policymakers, as
rising air and ocean temperatures have increased the rate of
melting and the velocity of calving outlet glaciers, con-
tributing to a rising sea level (Lemke and others, 2007).

Wow..... in the above quote where does it say accumulation?

Mass balance is the net change in the amount of ice/snow there is as measured by the mass of the ice.

Snowfall or precipitation is the amount that lands on the ice.

Melting etc is the amount that leaves and goes away.

Accumulation is the net gain over the year of ice mass.

It says it right at the beginning, you idiot.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm not denying that accumulation can be used to mean net increase. But that's not how the writers of the report used the word.

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm not denying that accumulation can be used to mean net increase. But that's not how the writers of the report used the word.

Yes it is.

If you look at the graph on page 378, the third one down I think, you will see that they even plot the way the ice is thickening. It's bleeding obvious!

IBdaMann wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm not denying that accumulation can be used to mean net increase. But that's not how the writers of the report used the word.

Yes it is.

If you look at the graph on page 378, the third one down I think, you will see that they even plot the way the ice is thickening. It's bleeding obvious!

Tim, you are absolutely correct but that isn't even necessary. I had a teenager read a few passages, both at the beginning and at end, and there is no confusion whatsoever. The report is not written in some cryptic code.

Anyone quibbling like Surface Detail, Climate Scientist and jwoodward48 are clearly doing so for some desperate reason.

I think you and I both know what that reason is.

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

Tim the plumber wrote:
Well, yes, but with the graph it's utterly impossible to argue that there is no build up over the years.

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Well, yes, but with the graph it's utterly impossible to argue that there is no build up over the years.

It's perfectly possible when you understand what the graph is actually referring to.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Well, yes, but with the graph it's utterly impossible to argue that there is no build up over the years.

It's perfectly possible when you understand what the graph is actually referring to.

I think it's referring to how far down you have to look to find ice that accumulated in a particular year. Is that right?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Makes sense. Reading it more carefully turns up dozens of references to depth, and not height.

Hear that, people? Depth. Not height. Unless you'd like to insult my reading skills, but then again, I've given actual quotes to support my statements. You have not.

Surface Detail wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Well, yes, but with the graph it's utterly impossible to argue that there is no build up over the years.

It's perfectly possible when you understand what the graph is actually referring to.

I think it's referring to how far down you have to look to find ice that accumulated in a particular year. Is that right?

Exactly. These are measurements of depth (edit: of a particular layer from the surface) not, as Tim seems to think, altitude. They used ground-penetrating radar to measure the depth of reflecting layers along the traverse path. They then dated these layers using chemical methods and were thus able to determine how much ice had accumulated in the intervening years.

spot wrote:
And if anyone is interested in the whole picture here is a paper that tells us about ice sheet balance

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0034-4885/78/4/046801/pdf

And here is a graph showing what is happening for anyone actually interested and not entertaining themselves playing semantic games like a crap lawyer.

2. Methods
Geodetic methods used to determine ice sheet volume or
mass changes include airborne and satellite radar and laser
altimetry (surface elevation change method), observations
of ice flow of outlet glaciers using satellite interferometric
synthetic-aperture radar (InSAR) (which, when combined
with SMB model output, is referred to as the Input–Output
method), and measurements by the Gravity Recovery and
Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite mission of changes in
the gravity field caused by changes in ice sheet mass (gravim-
etry method).