Remember me
▼ Content

Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation



Page 3 of 8<12345>>>
02-10-2016 13:30
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
Tim.

In my experience modern methods and equipment supersede older methods and equipment because they are found to be more accurate. The impression you give is they used the aircraft then never compared he results of the satellites against the results of the old method



Lets not beat about the bush here you are saying the results are an artifact deliberate massaged to give a totally misleading impression. essentially you are accusing the professionals behind that of fraud.

You were happy with a study that mentioned accumulation and were willing to blindly accept what IBdamann told you it meant without even reading it.

I bet you think the Jews blew up the twin towers with space lasers as well.
02-10-2016 19:35
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim.

In my experience modern methods and equipment supersede older methods and equipment because they are found to be more accurate. The impression you give is they used the aircraft then never compared he results of the satellites against the results of the old method



Lets not beat about the bush here you are saying the results are an artifact deliberate massaged to give a totally misleading impression. essentially you are accusing the professionals behind that of fraud.

You were happy with a study that mentioned accumulation and were willing to blindly accept what IBdamann told you it meant without even reading it.

I bet you think the Jews blew up the twin towers with space lasers as well.


I have read the report.

The data from the weird measuring of the orbit of a satilite does not fit at all the data from the US Army Corps of Engineers going there and measuring the ice. Nor does it fit with the WWII planes under 80m of ice. Nor does it fit with the day length data. Nor does it fit with the known properties of how ice absorbs heat energy from sunshine.

So either the data from the weird maths that nobody can do is wrong or all the rest is wrong.
02-10-2016 19:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim the plumber wrote:
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.


Yes! The accumulation is growing! You're halfway there! Now realize that if the rate of melting/calving/other forms of removal exceeds the rate of accumulation/deposition, the glacier is shrinking.


"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!
02-10-2016 20:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
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.


.


Oh, for ****'s sake. You don't even get the difference between depth and height?


"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!
02-10-2016 21:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
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.


.


Oh, for ****'s sake. You don't even get the difference between depth and height?


Other than the zero reference, is there one?


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2016 22:36
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If both deposition and melting increase, the depth of year-layers will increase, but the overall height may decrease.
02-10-2016 23:30
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim.

In my experience modern methods and equipment supersede older methods and equipment because they are found to be more accurate. The impression you give is they used the aircraft then never compared he results of the satellites against the results of the old method



Lets not beat about the bush here you are saying the results are an artifact deliberate massaged to give a totally misleading impression. essentially you are accusing the professionals behind that of fraud.

You were happy with a study that mentioned accumulation and were willing to blindly accept what IBdamann told you it meant without even reading it.

I bet you think the Jews blew up the twin towers with space lasers as well.


I have read the report.

The data from the weird measuring of the orbit of a satilite does not fit at all the data from the US Army Corps of Engineers going there and measuring the ice. Nor does it fit with the WWII planes under 80m of ice. Nor does it fit with the day length data. Nor does it fit with the known properties of how ice absorbs heat energy from sunshine.

So either the data from the weird maths that nobody can do is wrong or all the rest is wrong.
. ****ing hell if NASA can't find someone to do the math it must be hard math.
03-10-2016 13:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
spot wrote:****ing hell if NASA can't find someone to do the math it must be hard math.

...or it's all just a distraction.


.


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
03-10-2016 14:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, for ****'s sake. You don't even get the difference between depth and height?


Other than the zero reference, is there one?

Depth is the distance down from the surface of the ice.
Height is the distance up from the rock surface on which the ice lies.
Since the distance between the rock surface and the ice surface is not necessarily constant, there is not a direct correlation between the two quantities.
03-10-2016 14:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Thanks. That's what I was trying to say.
03-10-2016 21:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, for ****'s sake. You don't even get the difference between depth and height?


Other than the zero reference, is there one?

Depth is the distance down from the surface of the ice.
Height is the distance up from the rock surface on which the ice lies.
Since the distance between the rock surface and the ice surface is not necessarily constant, there is not a direct correlation between the two quantities.


So...other than the zero reference, there is no difference.

You're still talking about the same ice, with all the water, voids, and rocks that are within it.

Are you seriously going to start arguing that just because there is a void you stop measuring there? What about all the voids in ice and snow in general?

The same thing occurs in liquid portions. There are liquid portions through any glacier, from the surface down through the bottom of it.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2016 21:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, for ****'s sake. You don't even get the difference between depth and height?


Other than the zero reference, is there one?

Depth is the distance down from the surface of the ice.
Height is the distance up from the rock surface on which the ice lies.
Since the distance between the rock surface and the ice surface is not necessarily constant, there is not a direct correlation between the two quantities.


So...other than the zero reference, there is no difference.

You're still talking about the same ice, with all the water, voids, and rocks that are within it.

Are you seriously going to start arguing that just because there is a void you stop measuring there? What about all the voids in ice and snow in general?

The same thing occurs in liquid portions. There are liquid portions through any glacier, from the surface down through the bottom of it.

Let me try to express this in very simple terms.

Every now and again, snow falls on Greenland. It is so cold that the snow doesn't usually melt. Each time it snows, more snow piles up on top of the snow that was already there, squashing it into ice. By using radar, the folk who wrote this paper have discovered how much new ice is formed each year. This ice doesn't stay where it is though; it gradually flows downhill towards the sea. Eventually it reaches the sea, where it melts or breaks off as icebergs.

When the temperature is stable, the amount of snow falling on Greenland is the same as the amount of ice lost to the sea. But, according to this paper, warmer temperatures mean that there is now more snow falling on Greenland per year. However, other papers show that even more ice is being lost to the sea because of the warmth. Therefore the total amount of ice on Greenland is falling.
03-10-2016 22:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
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.


Yes! The accumulation is growing! You're halfway there! Now realize that if the rate of melting/calving/other forms of removal exceeds the rate of accumulation/deposition, the glacier is shrinking.


The accumulation is growing means that there is more ice there. It is growing!!

How do you think it is at all possible for the ice at the center of Greenland, many hundreds of km away from the draining glaciers, to dissappear?

The bottom of the ice is exposed to just the same geothermal energy as always, the top is exposed to a day or two extra when the temperature is warm enough to melt any ice at all and the gradient of the ice which drives the glacier's movement is the same as always because 80m more ice vs 200km is zero difference.

Edited on 03-10-2016 22:18
03-10-2016 22:16
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If both deposition and melting increase, the depth of year-layers will increase, but the overall height may decrease.


Only if it is melting from the bottom.

Since that is impossible to happen at any different rate than ever unless a volcanoe pops up that is out.

Do you have any imagination at all?
03-10-2016 22:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
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.


Yes! The accumulation is growing! You're halfway there! Now realize that if the rate of melting/calving/other forms of removal exceeds the rate of accumulation/deposition, the glacier is shrinking.


The accumulation is growing means that there is more ice there. It is growing!!

How do you think it is at all possible for the ice at the center of Greenland, many hundreds of km away from the draining glaciers, to dissappear?

The bottom of the ice is exposed to just the same geothermal energy as always, the top is exposed to a day or two extra when the temperature is warm enough to melt any ice at all and the gradient of the ice which drives the glacier's movement is the same as always because 80m more ice vs 200km is zero difference.

Actual measurement trumps your personal incredulity:

Greenland Ice Flow

The rate of accumulation has increased. The rate of loss has increased more.
03-10-2016 22:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's sinking down as ice comes off the sides.

Also, THAT MUST BE EVIL LIBERAL COMMIE PROPAGANDA. ALSO I NEVER READ THE PAPER BUT I DON'T NEED TO.
04-10-2016 00:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, for ****'s sake. You don't even get the difference between depth and height?


Other than the zero reference, is there one?

Depth is the distance down from the surface of the ice.
Height is the distance up from the rock surface on which the ice lies.
Since the distance between the rock surface and the ice surface is not necessarily constant, there is not a direct correlation between the two quantities.


So...other than the zero reference, there is no difference.

You're still talking about the same ice, with all the water, voids, and rocks that are within it.

Are you seriously going to start arguing that just because there is a void you stop measuring there? What about all the voids in ice and snow in general?

The same thing occurs in liquid portions. There are liquid portions through any glacier, from the surface down through the bottom of it.

Let me try to express this in very simple terms.

Every now and again, snow falls on Greenland.

So far, simple.
Surface Detail wrote:
It is so cold that the snow doesn't usually melt.

Wrong. Ice and liquid water have an equilibrium dependent on pressure, other chemicals acting as catalysts (like salt), and even shearing and tension forces placed upon the ice.
Surface Detail wrote:
Each time it snows, more snow piles up on top of the snow that was already there, squashing it into ice.

I don't think you know how ice forms from snow. You don't need pressure at all. It can help, but it isn't necessary. By itself, pressure does not produce ice. Try making a snowball out of really cold snow and you'll see what I mean. The stuff doesn't pack.
Surface Detail wrote:
By using radar, the folk who wrote this paper have discovered how much new ice is formed each year.

I would tend to doubt such general measurements, no matter how they are gained. Radar systems can see a spot, but they can't see the whole thing. In any case, they don't see what's underneath that spot. Drilling glaciers is the tried and true way to do it.
Surface Detail wrote:
This ice doesn't stay where it is though;

Why? Is it trying to escape just by being ice?
Surface Detail wrote:
it gradually flows downhill towards the sea.

If and only if there is a path leading to the sea that is downhill.
Surface Detail wrote:
Eventually it reaches the sea,

If it does, not all of it does. Some is lost to sublimation. Some is lost to the soil. Quite a bit is lost to both.
Surface Detail wrote:
where it melts or breaks off as icebergs.

Fine.
Surface Detail wrote:
When the temperature is stable, the amount of snow falling on Greenland is the same as the amount of ice lost to the sea.

I don't think you know what stability means. Are you saying the temperature remains the same? It doesn't. We have day and night, you know.
Surface Detail wrote:
But, according to this paper, warmer temperatures mean that there is now more snow falling on Greenland per year.

This argument is based on the circular argument that there is Global Warming.
Surface Detail wrote:
However, other papers show that even more ice is being lost to the sea because of the warmth.

Also an argument that based on the circular argument of Global Warming.

We don't know what the global temperature is doing. We can't measure or calculate it.

Surface Detail wrote:
Therefore the total amount of ice on Greenland is falling.

You've made a LOT of assumptions to get to this conclusion. I'm not convinced you know whether Greenland ice is decreasing, increasing, or just staying the same.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 00:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]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.



The bottom of the ice is exposed to just the same geothermal energy as always,



How do you know? Isn't that a rash assumption? Do you KNOW there are no volcanoes or other activity taking place under there?


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 00:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, for ****'s sake. You don't even get the difference between depth and height?


Other than the zero reference, is there one?

Depth is the distance down from the surface of the ice.
Height is the distance up from the rock surface on which the ice lies.
Since the distance between the rock surface and the ice surface is not necessarily constant, there is not a direct correlation between the two quantities.


So...other than the zero reference, there is no difference.

You're still talking about the same ice, with all the water, voids, and rocks that are within it.

Are you seriously going to start arguing that just because there is a void you stop measuring there? What about all the voids in ice and snow in general?

The same thing occurs in liquid portions. There are liquid portions through any glacier, from the surface down through the bottom of it.

Let me try to express this in very simple terms.

Every now and again, snow falls on Greenland.

So far, simple.
Surface Detail wrote:
It is so cold that the snow doesn't usually melt.

Wrong. Ice and liquid water have an equilibrium dependent on pressure, other chemicals acting as catalysts (like salt), and even shearing and tension forces placed upon the ice.
Surface Detail wrote:
Each time it snows, more snow piles up on top of the snow that was already there, squashing it into ice.

I don't think you know how ice forms from snow. You don't need pressure at all. It can help, but it isn't necessary. By itself, pressure does not produce ice. Try making a snowball out of really cold snow and you'll see what I mean. The stuff doesn't pack.
Surface Detail wrote:
By using radar, the folk who wrote this paper have discovered how much new ice is formed each year.

I would tend to doubt such general measurements, no matter how they are gained. Radar systems can see a spot, but they can't see the whole thing. In any case, they don't see what's underneath that spot. Drilling glaciers is the tried and true way to do it.
Surface Detail wrote:
This ice doesn't stay where it is though;

Why? Is it trying to escape just by being ice?
Surface Detail wrote:
it gradually flows downhill towards the sea.

If and only if there is a path leading to the sea that is downhill.
Surface Detail wrote:
Eventually it reaches the sea,

If it does, not all of it does. Some is lost to sublimation. Some is lost to the soil. Quite a bit is lost to both.
Surface Detail wrote:
where it melts or breaks off as icebergs.

Fine.
Surface Detail wrote:
When the temperature is stable, the amount of snow falling on Greenland is the same as the amount of ice lost to the sea.

I don't think you know what stability means. Are you saying the temperature remains the same? It doesn't. We have day and night, you know.
Surface Detail wrote:
But, according to this paper, warmer temperatures mean that there is now more snow falling on Greenland per year.

This argument is based on the circular argument that there is Global Warming.
Surface Detail wrote:
However, other papers show that even more ice is being lost to the sea because of the warmth.

Also an argument that based on the circular argument of Global Warming.

We don't know what the global temperature is doing. We can't measure or calculate it.

Surface Detail wrote:
Therefore the total amount of ice on Greenland is falling.

You've made a LOT of assumptions to get to this conclusion. I'm not convinced you know whether Greenland ice is decreasing, increasing, or just staying the same.

No. Actual measurements (this paper) show that accumulation has increased, that ice loss has increased by more (altitude measurements), and the total amount of ice has fallen (gravitometry). The flow of ice from the interior to the coast has also been measured by radar interferometry. I've made no assumptions.
04-10-2016 01:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That won't convince him. Into thinks that mainstream science is just "sit around, think, HMM! I know! Since AGW is happening, you know, *eyebrow waggle*, the glaciers must be melting! Now let's fabricate some data and send it off to the woefully inadequate peer review process to be given as propaganda to the ignorant masses!"
04-10-2016 02:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
jwoodward48 wrote:THAT MUST BE EVIL LIBERAL COMMIE PROPAGANDA..

The word "LIBERAL" is redundant.


.


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
04-10-2016 02:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
jwoodward48 wrote:That won't convince him. Into thinks that mainstream science is just ...



Thank you.

The word "mainstream" applies to religions, not to science.

So you've known it all along apparently. Global Warming is a WACKY religion that its confused worshipers call "The Science."

So whose Global Warming denomination gets to claim ownership of the title "mainstream" Global Warming?

Too funny.


.


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
04-10-2016 02:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:That won't convince him. Into thinks that mainstream science is just ...



Thank you.

The word "mainstream" applies to religions, not to science.

So you've known it all along apparently. Global Warming is a WACKY religion that its confused worshipers call "The Science."

So whose Global Warming denomination gets to claim ownership of the title "mainstream" Global Warming?

Too funny.

Buy a dictionary, you half-wit.
04-10-2016 02:42
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:THAT MUST BE EVIL LIBERAL COMMIE PROPAGANDA..

The word "LIBERAL" is redundant.


.


Thanks, that gave me a laugh.

Wait, misread that as Surface. Hmph. I may be communist, but I'm not evil. And most scientists are neither.


"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!
04-10-2016 02:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Surface Detail wrote:Buy a dictionary, you half-wit.

I'm waiting for Amazon to feature "Surface Detail's Dictionary of Popular Redefinitions and Hijackings" so I can rip into it and learn what "accumulation" means to warmizombies.

I want to be one of the first to order so I can get the free bonus edition "Lower Your Verbal Score on StandardizedTests by 30% in Just Three Weeks!"


.


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
04-10-2016 02:44
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Mainstream means what it is used to mean, you prescriptivist grammAryan.
04-10-2016 03:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, for ****'s sake. You don't even get the difference between depth and height?


Other than the zero reference, is there one?

Depth is the distance down from the surface of the ice.
Height is the distance up from the rock surface on which the ice lies.
Since the distance between the rock surface and the ice surface is not necessarily constant, there is not a direct correlation between the two quantities.


So...other than the zero reference, there is no difference.

You're still talking about the same ice, with all the water, voids, and rocks that are within it.

Are you seriously going to start arguing that just because there is a void you stop measuring there? What about all the voids in ice and snow in general?

The same thing occurs in liquid portions. There are liquid portions through any glacier, from the surface down through the bottom of it.

Let me try to express this in very simple terms.

Every now and again, snow falls on Greenland.

So far, simple.
Surface Detail wrote:
It is so cold that the snow doesn't usually melt.

Wrong. Ice and liquid water have an equilibrium dependent on pressure, other chemicals acting as catalysts (like salt), and even shearing and tension forces placed upon the ice.
Surface Detail wrote:
Each time it snows, more snow piles up on top of the snow that was already there, squashing it into ice.

I don't think you know how ice forms from snow. You don't need pressure at all. It can help, but it isn't necessary. By itself, pressure does not produce ice. Try making a snowball out of really cold snow and you'll see what I mean. The stuff doesn't pack.
Surface Detail wrote:
By using radar, the folk who wrote this paper have discovered how much new ice is formed each year.

I would tend to doubt such general measurements, no matter how they are gained. Radar systems can see a spot, but they can't see the whole thing. In any case, they don't see what's underneath that spot. Drilling glaciers is the tried and true way to do it.
Surface Detail wrote:
This ice doesn't stay where it is though;

Why? Is it trying to escape just by being ice?
Surface Detail wrote:
it gradually flows downhill towards the sea.

If and only if there is a path leading to the sea that is downhill.
Surface Detail wrote:
Eventually it reaches the sea,

If it does, not all of it does. Some is lost to sublimation. Some is lost to the soil. Quite a bit is lost to both.
Surface Detail wrote:
where it melts or breaks off as icebergs.

Fine.
Surface Detail wrote:
When the temperature is stable, the amount of snow falling on Greenland is the same as the amount of ice lost to the sea.

I don't think you know what stability means. Are you saying the temperature remains the same? It doesn't. We have day and night, you know.
Surface Detail wrote:
But, according to this paper, warmer temperatures mean that there is now more snow falling on Greenland per year.

This argument is based on the circular argument that there is Global Warming.
Surface Detail wrote:
However, other papers show that even more ice is being lost to the sea because of the warmth.

Also an argument that based on the circular argument of Global Warming.

We don't know what the global temperature is doing. We can't measure or calculate it.

Surface Detail wrote:
Therefore the total amount of ice on Greenland is falling.

You've made a LOT of assumptions to get to this conclusion. I'm not convinced you know whether Greenland ice is decreasing, increasing, or just staying the same.

No. Actual measurements (this paper) show that accumulation has increased, that ice loss has increased by more (altitude measurements), and the total amount of ice has fallen (gravitometry). The flow of ice from the interior to the coast has also been measured by radar interferometry. I've made no assumptions.


Yup. You're making a LOT of assumptions all right. Who is to say what they are measuring is taking place accurately across the entirety of Greenland? How can you say any of it is due to warming or cooling?

Not convinced.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 03:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
jwoodward48 wrote:
That won't convince him. Into thinks that mainstream science is just "sit around, think, HMM! I know! Since AGW is happening, you know, *eyebrow waggle*, the glaciers must be melting! Now let's fabricate some data and send it off to the woefully inadequate peer review process to be given as propaganda to the ignorant masses!"


2nd warning.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 03:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:That won't convince him. Into thinks that mainstream science is just ...



Thank you.

The word "mainstream" applies to religions, not to science.

So you've known it all along apparently. Global Warming is a WACKY religion that its confused worshipers call "The Science."

So whose Global Warming denomination gets to claim ownership of the title "mainstream" Global Warming?

Too funny.

Buy a dictionary, you half-wit.


Don't try to use a dictionary as an authoritative source of the meaning of a word, half-wit. No dictionary owns a word.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 03:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Buy a dictionary, you half-wit.

I'm waiting for Amazon to feature "Surface Detail's Dictionary of Popular Redefinitions and Hijackings" so I can rip into it and learn what "accumulation" means to warmizombies.

I want to be one of the first to order so I can get the free bonus edition "Lower Your Verbal Score on StandardizedTests by 30% in Just Three Weeks!"


.


Ouch. Did you really have to use the baseball bat on him? I realize he probably ticked you off enough to do it, but...there wasn't much left afterwords...


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 03:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, for ****'s sake. You don't even get the difference between depth and height?


Other than the zero reference, is there one?

Depth is the distance down from the surface of the ice.
Height is the distance up from the rock surface on which the ice lies.
Since the distance between the rock surface and the ice surface is not necessarily constant, there is not a direct correlation between the two quantities.


So...other than the zero reference, there is no difference.

You're still talking about the same ice, with all the water, voids, and rocks that are within it.

Are you seriously going to start arguing that just because there is a void you stop measuring there? What about all the voids in ice and snow in general?

The same thing occurs in liquid portions. There are liquid portions through any glacier, from the surface down through the bottom of it.

Let me try to express this in very simple terms.

Every now and again, snow falls on Greenland.

So far, simple.
Surface Detail wrote:
It is so cold that the snow doesn't usually melt.

Wrong. Ice and liquid water have an equilibrium dependent on pressure, other chemicals acting as catalysts (like salt), and even shearing and tension forces placed upon the ice.
Surface Detail wrote:
Each time it snows, more snow piles up on top of the snow that was already there, squashing it into ice.

I don't think you know how ice forms from snow. You don't need pressure at all. It can help, but it isn't necessary. By itself, pressure does not produce ice. Try making a snowball out of really cold snow and you'll see what I mean. The stuff doesn't pack.
Surface Detail wrote:
By using radar, the folk who wrote this paper have discovered how much new ice is formed each year.

I would tend to doubt such general measurements, no matter how they are gained. Radar systems can see a spot, but they can't see the whole thing. In any case, they don't see what's underneath that spot. Drilling glaciers is the tried and true way to do it.
Surface Detail wrote:
This ice doesn't stay where it is though;

Why? Is it trying to escape just by being ice?
Surface Detail wrote:
it gradually flows downhill towards the sea.

If and only if there is a path leading to the sea that is downhill.
Surface Detail wrote:
Eventually it reaches the sea,

If it does, not all of it does. Some is lost to sublimation. Some is lost to the soil. Quite a bit is lost to both.
Surface Detail wrote:
where it melts or breaks off as icebergs.

Fine.
Surface Detail wrote:
When the temperature is stable, the amount of snow falling on Greenland is the same as the amount of ice lost to the sea.

I don't think you know what stability means. Are you saying the temperature remains the same? It doesn't. We have day and night, you know.
Surface Detail wrote:
But, according to this paper, warmer temperatures mean that there is now more snow falling on Greenland per year.

This argument is based on the circular argument that there is Global Warming.
Surface Detail wrote:
However, other papers show that even more ice is being lost to the sea because of the warmth.

Also an argument that based on the circular argument of Global Warming.

We don't know what the global temperature is doing. We can't measure or calculate it.

Surface Detail wrote:
Therefore the total amount of ice on Greenland is falling.

You've made a LOT of assumptions to get to this conclusion. I'm not convinced you know whether Greenland ice is decreasing, increasing, or just staying the same.

No. Actual measurements (this paper) show that accumulation has increased, that ice loss has increased by more (altitude measurements), and the total amount of ice has fallen (gravitometry). The flow of ice from the interior to the coast has also been measured by radar interferometry. I've made no assumptions.


Yup. You're making a LOT of assumptions all right. Who is to say what they are measuring is taking place accurately across the entirety of Greenland? How can you say any of it is due to warming or cooling?

Not convinced.

Why would cooling cause increased melting?

If you want your criticisms to look like scepticism rather than denial, give some reasons why you think the data may be wrong.
04-10-2016 03:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Mainstream means what it is used to mean, you prescriptivist grammAryan.


And just what exactly is that?


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 03:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, for ****'s sake. You don't even get the difference between depth and height?


Other than the zero reference, is there one?

Depth is the distance down from the surface of the ice.
Height is the distance up from the rock surface on which the ice lies.
Since the distance between the rock surface and the ice surface is not necessarily constant, there is not a direct correlation between the two quantities.


So...other than the zero reference, there is no difference.

You're still talking about the same ice, with all the water, voids, and rocks that are within it.

Are you seriously going to start arguing that just because there is a void you stop measuring there? What about all the voids in ice and snow in general?

The same thing occurs in liquid portions. There are liquid portions through any glacier, from the surface down through the bottom of it.

Let me try to express this in very simple terms.

Every now and again, snow falls on Greenland.

So far, simple.
Surface Detail wrote:
It is so cold that the snow doesn't usually melt.

Wrong. Ice and liquid water have an equilibrium dependent on pressure, other chemicals acting as catalysts (like salt), and even shearing and tension forces placed upon the ice.
Surface Detail wrote:
Each time it snows, more snow piles up on top of the snow that was already there, squashing it into ice.

I don't think you know how ice forms from snow. You don't need pressure at all. It can help, but it isn't necessary. By itself, pressure does not produce ice. Try making a snowball out of really cold snow and you'll see what I mean. The stuff doesn't pack.
Surface Detail wrote:
By using radar, the folk who wrote this paper have discovered how much new ice is formed each year.

I would tend to doubt such general measurements, no matter how they are gained. Radar systems can see a spot, but they can't see the whole thing. In any case, they don't see what's underneath that spot. Drilling glaciers is the tried and true way to do it.
Surface Detail wrote:
This ice doesn't stay where it is though;

Why? Is it trying to escape just by being ice?
Surface Detail wrote:
it gradually flows downhill towards the sea.

If and only if there is a path leading to the sea that is downhill.
Surface Detail wrote:
Eventually it reaches the sea,

If it does, not all of it does. Some is lost to sublimation. Some is lost to the soil. Quite a bit is lost to both.
Surface Detail wrote:
where it melts or breaks off as icebergs.

Fine.
Surface Detail wrote:
When the temperature is stable, the amount of snow falling on Greenland is the same as the amount of ice lost to the sea.

I don't think you know what stability means. Are you saying the temperature remains the same? It doesn't. We have day and night, you know.
Surface Detail wrote:
But, according to this paper, warmer temperatures mean that there is now more snow falling on Greenland per year.

This argument is based on the circular argument that there is Global Warming.
Surface Detail wrote:
However, other papers show that even more ice is being lost to the sea because of the warmth.

Also an argument that based on the circular argument of Global Warming.

We don't know what the global temperature is doing. We can't measure or calculate it.

Surface Detail wrote:
Therefore the total amount of ice on Greenland is falling.

You've made a LOT of assumptions to get to this conclusion. I'm not convinced you know whether Greenland ice is decreasing, increasing, or just staying the same.

No. Actual measurements (this paper) show that accumulation has increased, that ice loss has increased by more (altitude measurements), and the total amount of ice has fallen (gravitometry). The flow of ice from the interior to the coast has also been measured by radar interferometry. I've made no assumptions.


Yup. You're making a LOT of assumptions all right. Who is to say what they are measuring is taking place accurately across the entirety of Greenland? How can you say any of it is due to warming or cooling?

Not convinced.

Why would cooling cause increased melting?

If you want your criticisms to look like scepticism rather than denial, give some reasons why you think the data may be wrong.


I haven't seen any data convincing me of increased melting. All I see in this report is a few data points.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 03:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Let me try to express this in very simple terms.

Every now and again, snow falls on Greenland.

So far, simple.
Surface Detail wrote:
It is so cold that the snow doesn't usually melt.

Wrong. Ice and liquid water have an equilibrium dependent on pressure, other chemicals acting as catalysts (like salt), and even shearing and tension forces placed upon the ice.
Surface Detail wrote:
Each time it snows, more snow piles up on top of the snow that was already there, squashing it into ice.

I don't think you know how ice forms from snow. You don't need pressure at all. It can help, but it isn't necessary. By itself, pressure does not produce ice. Try making a snowball out of really cold snow and you'll see what I mean. The stuff doesn't pack.
Surface Detail wrote:
By using radar, the folk who wrote this paper have discovered how much new ice is formed each year.

I would tend to doubt such general measurements, no matter how they are gained. Radar systems can see a spot, but they can't see the whole thing. In any case, they don't see what's underneath that spot. Drilling glaciers is the tried and true way to do it.
Surface Detail wrote:
This ice doesn't stay where it is though;

Why? Is it trying to escape just by being ice?
Surface Detail wrote:
it gradually flows downhill towards the sea.

If and only if there is a path leading to the sea that is downhill.
Surface Detail wrote:
Eventually it reaches the sea,

If it does, not all of it does. Some is lost to sublimation. Some is lost to the soil. Quite a bit is lost to both.
Surface Detail wrote:
where it melts or breaks off as icebergs.

Fine.
Surface Detail wrote:
When the temperature is stable, the amount of snow falling on Greenland is the same as the amount of ice lost to the sea.

I don't think you know what stability means. Are you saying the temperature remains the same? It doesn't. We have day and night, you know.
Surface Detail wrote:
But, according to this paper, warmer temperatures mean that there is now more snow falling on Greenland per year.

This argument is based on the circular argument that there is Global Warming.
Surface Detail wrote:
However, other papers show that even more ice is being lost to the sea because of the warmth.

Also an argument that based on the circular argument of Global Warming.

We don't know what the global temperature is doing. We can't measure or calculate it.

Surface Detail wrote:
Therefore the total amount of ice on Greenland is falling.

You've made a LOT of assumptions to get to this conclusion. I'm not convinced you know whether Greenland ice is decreasing, increasing, or just staying the same.

No. Actual measurements (this paper) show that accumulation has increased, that ice loss has increased by more (altitude measurements), and the total amount of ice has fallen (gravitometry). The flow of ice from the interior to the coast has also been measured by radar interferometry. I've made no assumptions.


Yup. You're making a LOT of assumptions all right. Who is to say what they are measuring is taking place accurately across the entirety of Greenland? How can you say any of it is due to warming or cooling?

Not convinced.

Why would cooling cause increased melting?

If you want your criticisms to look like scepticism rather than denial, give some reasons why you think the data may be wrong.


I haven't seen any data convincing me of increased melting. All I see in this report is a few data points.

This report isn't about melting, you idiot! It's about accumulation of ice. There are any number of other papers about melting, e.g:

A high-resolution record of Greenland mass balance
04-10-2016 03:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I haven't seen any data convincing me of increased melting. All I see in this report is a few data points.

This report isn't about melting, you idiot! It's about accumulation of ice. There are any number of other papers about melting, e.g:

A high-resolution record of Greenland mass balance


This paper does not convince me they are accurately measuring anything. There are lot of assumptions made about the data they've gathered, including failing to account for time interval of measurement.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 03:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I haven't seen any data convincing me of increased melting. All I see in this report is a few data points.

This report isn't about melting, you idiot! It's about accumulation of ice. There are any number of other papers about melting, e.g:

A high-resolution record of Greenland mass balance


This paper does not convince me they are accurately measuring anything. There are lot of assumptions made about the data they've gathered, including failing to account for time interval of measurement.

What do you mean? In what way have they "failed to account for time interval of measurement."?
04-10-2016 03:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I thought that nothing changed over time, as the Ideal Gas Law demands! What do you mean, the IGL doesn't apply here?! SCIENTIFIC LAWS APPLY EVERYWHERE!!!1!
04-10-2016 04:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I haven't seen any data convincing me of increased melting. All I see in this report is a few data points.

This report isn't about melting, you idiot! It's about accumulation of ice. There are any number of other papers about melting, e.g:

A high-resolution record of Greenland mass balance


This paper does not convince me they are accurately measuring anything. There are lot of assumptions made about the data they've gathered, including failing to account for time interval of measurement.

What do you mean? In what way have they "failed to account for time interval of measurement."?

That's pretty clear.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 04:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I thought that nothing changed over time, as the Ideal Gas Law demands! What do you mean, the IGL doesn't apply here?! SCIENTIFIC LAWS APPLY EVERYWHERE!!!1!


?


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 04:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Some laws don't apply to any real-world bodies. They are good approximations for some, but not all, such bodies. Planck's is one of those laws.
Page 3 of 8<12345>>>





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