Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation

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

Robert L. HAWLEY Zoe R COURVILLE Laura M KEHRL Eric R LUTZ
Erich C OSTERBERG Thomas B OVERLY Gifford J WONG1 from the Department of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College in Hanover NH USA: Comparison of our measured accumulation rates with those measured in the 1950s by Benson (1962) indicates a 2% per decade increase in accumulation between the periods 1945–55 and 1997–2007. Thus, due to a warmer atmosphere driving an increased capacity for moisture, and in common with the findings of Davis and others (2005) in East Antarctica, accumulation in the interior of the Greenland ice sheet has increased slightly in the currently warming climate.

jwoodward48 wrote: Btw, if some places get colder and others warmer, the average temperature is preserved.

spot wrote: the fact that there are some glaciers are expanding is known, this is due increased precipitation rather then cooler climates.

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

spot wrote:
the fact that there are some glaciers are expanding is known, this is due increased precipitation rather then cooler climates.

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
But since you aren't looking at them all, maybe every single small glacier tripled in size! Unless you are looking at every square foot of ice, your data is useless.

jwoodward48 wrote: It's more inconclusive than useless. I mostly agree, though.

jwoodward48 wrote: Sorry, should have quoted Into. I'm talking about the glacier data itself - I said that we don't have enough data and so it's useless,

jwoodward48 wrote:
No! I have the one true definition of "accumulation"! Anything else is just your WACKY Marxist warped version YOU made up to twist the truth. What do you mean, "that's how they used the word"? Nonsense! Linguistics is not a democracy!

jwoodward48 wrote: Denial of what?

jwoodward48 wrote:
"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."

I am stunned. It's in the Armokdamn introduction! You didn't even read the introduction, IB?

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.

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
No! I have the one true definition of "accumulation"! Anything else is just your WACKY Marxist warped version YOU made up to twist the truth. What do you mean, "that's how they used the word"? Nonsense! Linguistics is not a democracy!

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes! Yes yes yes. Now tell that to IB.

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.

jwoodward48 wrote:
You are imagining that the glaciers are like Scenario A, when in fact they are in Scenario B.