Remember me
▼ Content

Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation



Page 2 of 8<1234>>>
30-09-2016 23:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
When in fact, the results of the study support the statement that they are in Scenario B.
30-09-2016 23:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


"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!
30-09-2016 23:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
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.


There is no first or second definition. Accumulation is accumulation., whether you are talking about 'new' accumulation or 'old' accumulation or 'total' accumulation.

I suggest you also look at a terrain map of Greenland.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 23:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

Which is why the paper specifies that they are using it in the first sense. It wouldn't make sense otherwise!
01-10-2016 00:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The amount that fell in a year


That's the first definition I'm talking about, Into. Another word for the same concept might be "meaning."
01-10-2016 00:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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"?


.


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
01-10-2016 00:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
There is a balance between accumulation and melting.

I think this is what they meant. Is that false?
Edited on 01-10-2016 01:19
01-10-2016 01:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
The report authors wrote of the accumulation of the ice mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

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!
01-10-2016 01:18
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
They wrote of the of to data when off through of next conclusion! TAKE THAT, WARMISTS!!
01-10-2016 02:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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!

You're not fooling anyone. You would fail outright any reading comprehension test on this report material.

It sucks to be 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
01-10-2016 02:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, you would.

There is a balance between accumulation and melting.

I think this is what they meant. Is that false?
01-10-2016 03:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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.


.


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
01-10-2016 03:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?
01-10-2016 03:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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.


.


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
01-10-2016 03:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

Yes, the accumulation of ice mass is increasing. Not the ice mass balance.
01-10-2016 12:56
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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?


Because if a tiny glacier expands or disappears it will have no impact on sea level.

If Greenland melts it will add 7m to sea level. It can't do that but hey...
01-10-2016 12:58
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


An accumulation of drivel is one thing.

Drivel accumulating is another.

The paper is talking about the amount of extra ice, in water equivalent terms, adding to the top of the Greenland ice sheet.
01-10-2016 13:01
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


The snow in your back yard accunulated during winter and then melted.

Given that the paper is talking about anual accumulations of 1m of ice it means that there is 1m more ice there than last year. Growing all the time. Anually.

It is impossible for 1m of ice to melt due to sunshine in 4 weeks of summer.
01-10-2016 13:04
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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"?


The wording is extremely clear to me.

Precipitation or snow fall is the amount that falls in a year.

Mass balance is the total mass changes over the period looked at. And it's growing, accumulating by 1m each year.

You have to be very religious in your thinking to not get this.
01-10-2016 13:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
01-10-2016 13:07
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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?


****ing hell!!!

Yes the rate of accumulation is +2% per decade due to the present climate!!!

It's hard work here!
01-10-2016 16:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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).



"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!
01-10-2016 16:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
01-10-2016 16:58
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
More evidence;

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.


http://gombessa.tripod.com/scienceleadstheway/id9.html

That's 4 feet of snow building up every year.

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.


That's fallen and not melted.
Edited on 01-10-2016 17:01
01-10-2016 17:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


"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!
01-10-2016 17:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.
01-10-2016 18:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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.

Either it's heavy denial on your part or chitty English reading comprehension.

Take your pick.

Naturally I presume the former.


.


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
01-10-2016 18:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


Yes. The accumulation at the top and the melting etc at the margins, around the edges.

The ice is getting thicker by 1m every year.
01-10-2016 18:50
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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!
01-10-2016 19:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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.


.


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
01-10-2016 19:24
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


Well, yes, but with the graph it's utterly impossible to argue that there is no build up over the years.
01-10-2016 19:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
There's some desperate denial going on here. Here, again, for the benefit of any lurkers is the first sentence from the paper in question:

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.

I think it is obvious to almost anyone with reasonable comprehension skills that the authors are saying that the amount of ice in Greenland increases with accumulation and decreases with melting, runoff, evaporation, sublimation and iceberg calving.

This paper concerns only accumulation, and its conclusion is that rate of accumulation has increased in recent years. The paper says nothing about the rate of ice loss through melting, runoff, evaporation, sublimation and iceberg calving and therefore says nothing about the total amount of ice in Greenland. It does not claim that the total amount of ice is increasing; it is purely about the accumulation rate.

Other investigations have, however, shown that the amount of ice in Greenland is, indeed decreasing. The conclusion is therefore that while the rate of accumulation may have increased, the rate of ice loss through melting, runoff, evaporation, sublimation and iceberg calving has increased by more. There is no mystery here.
01-10-2016 19:44
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
01-10-2016 19:51
spot
★★★★☆
(1088)
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.


Edited on 01-10-2016 19:52
01-10-2016 21:17
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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?


"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!
01-10-2016 21:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
Edited on 01-10-2016 21:54
01-10-2016 22:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.
02-10-2016 04:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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.

QUESTION: What is the difference between "height" and "depth"?
ANSWER: With one the reference point is on the bottom and with the other the reference point is on top.

Since the measurers were standing on the top, we should expect "depth" measurements, yes?

Oh, btw, I gave the quote in question in the OP and you are still busy denying it.


.


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
02-10-2016 11:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


Yes. That's it!!

The accumulation of ice keeps gettingthicker each year.

So given that they went from the edge of the ice sheet to the center of it and found that other than the very edge it was growing 1m each year either they arelying or the mass balance graph is lying.
02-10-2016 11:34
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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).


I get told often that if the whole of Greenland's ice melt there will be a 7m sea level rise.

The reason they know this is because they know what the total amount of ice is on Greenland. And it is easy to divide that by the surface area of the world's oceans. They know what the volume of ice is because in the 1950's and 1960's they flew planes across the place with 2 sets of radar on them. One set bounced it's radar off the top of the ice and the other saw through the ice and bounced it's radar of a different frequencey off the rocks underneath. It gave us a superb model of how much ice there is and where it is.

Why not do that again? Well it might give the wrong answer!!! So let's use satalite deviation from expected orbit!! Anybody can fudge that!!
Page 2 of 8<1234>>>





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