Remember me
▼ Content

Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation



Page 1 of 8123>>>
Let's Revisit Earth's Ice Accumulation28-09-2016 15:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
One of my favorite warmizombie quotes is from Climate Scientist (which is why it is in my signature) by which he pouts about learning that the ice of the Greenland ice sheet is accumulating and not disappearing:

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

The report I showed him was from scientist surveyors who took specialized equipment to Greenland, measured the accumulation and concluded the following:

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.

Now I understand their need to frame the discussion in terms of a "currently warming climate" and "a warmer atmosphere" lest they not get their project funded in the first place. But the fact that they objectively measure and quantify ice accumulation in Greenland is a much-needed dose of truth in the regular stream of government funded misinformation.

It is already common knowledge that anything abandoned or otherwise left to sit on the Greenland ice sheet becomes buried under ice, and not because it somehow sinks into it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/us/world-war-ii-planes-found-in-greenland-in-ice-260-feet-deep.html

So the question I have trouble answering is why is there ice accumulating all around the globe, in both hemispheres, if Stefan-Boltzmann says that global average temperature remains constant if the sun's energy remains constant?

Is this the "evidence" right before us that the sun's output is decreasing and that we are currently experiencing Global Cooling *or* that "greenhouse gases" should actually be called "refrigerant gases" and are actually causing Global Cooling?

Solar output decreasing:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/new-data-backs-ice-age-prediction/

List of growing glaciers:
http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

Just asking.



.


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
Edited on 28-09-2016 15:27
28-09-2016 18:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Btw, if some places get colder and others warmer, the average temperature is preserved. Not that this will necessarily answer anything, and not to say that you haven't already considered and refuted this thought...
28-09-2016 18:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
jwoodward48 wrote: Btw, if some places get colder and others warmer, the average temperature is preserved.

I'm so glad you raised this point.

The internet is awash in warmizombie charts indicating changes in the average global temperature over time ... based on temperature changes in only one area or region WITHOUT addressing the point you raise above.

Well done.

At present, however, ice is accumulating at both poles and there are glaciers that are growing all over the planet.

QUESTION: How should a rational person respond to the claim that all the evidence indicates Global Warming?


.


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
28-09-2016 19:49
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Shock!!

Congratualtions IBdaMann. Good find this.

Edited on 28-09-2016 19:50
28-09-2016 20:07
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
the fact that there are some glaciers are expanding is known, this is due increased precipitation rather then cooler climates.
28-09-2016 20:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
spot wrote: the fact that there are some glaciers are expanding is known, this is due increased precipitation rather then cooler climates.

Wait! For over a decade warmizombies have been insisting that receding glaciers are due to warmer temperatures rather than decreased precipitation. Are you telling me that it has actually been known all this time that it is actually due to drier weather?


.


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
28-09-2016 20:28
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
no
28-09-2016 20:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
yes
28-09-2016 20:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
anyone can look up the information. or should they just rely on "pure logic".
28-09-2016 21:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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.


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2016 18:50
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
the fact that there are some glaciers are expanding is known, this is due increased precipitation rather then cooler climates.


Yes. That Greenland gets over 1m of snow fall each year(w.e.) means it is growing upwards at the same time as it's outer fringes of ice are melting back a bit.
29-09-2016 18:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
29-09-2016 19:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.
29-09-2016 21:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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.


You are quite right.

Here in Washington, we've been seeing the St Helens glaciers expanding (they were completely destroyed in 1980!). Also, the Nisqually glacier on Mt Rainier is expanding quite a lot.

All the glaciers on Mt Shasta are expanding.

These anecdotes do not describe every glacier. No one is measuring anything more than a few glaciers.


The Parrot Killer
29-09-2016 22:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's more inconclusive than useless. I mostly agree, though.
30-09-2016 00:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
jwoodward48 wrote: It's more inconclusive than useless. I mostly agree, though.

The report is conclusive. Those conclusions are in the "Conclusions" section and I quoted the main conclusion in my OP.

Yep. Conclusive.


.


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
30-09-2016 00:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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, somewhat facetiously; Into agreed, possibly not knowing that I was being facetious; I attempted to clarify and state that while I did not think the data useless, it did seem to be inconclusive in the same way that temperature measurements are inconclusive.
30-09-2016 01:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
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,

Aaaaah, gotcha... nevermind then.


.


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
30-09-2016 12:03
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
30-09-2016 14:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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!
30-09-2016 14:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
30-09-2016 15:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
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!

The correct word in Surface Detail's case is "denial."


.


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
30-09-2016 15:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Denial of what?
30-09-2016 17:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
jwoodward48 wrote: Denial of what?

Denial of the report I cited in the OP.

This is great. Now I get to trash his "amazing British education" over his inability to read English. Maybe I should ask him what language they speak over in his country.

The report is there for all to read. It is written in English. He is either in deep denial or his English reading comprehension is abysmal. Either way, I'm about to have some fun at his expense...

... and possibly yours as well. Are you going to question the authors' use of "accumulation" too? Just asking.


.


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
30-09-2016 17:16
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"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?
Edited on 30-09-2016 17:22
30-09-2016 17:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5216)
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?

I certainly read it. Apparently the game is on and your reading comprehension is now in question as well.

Question: The "accumulation" referenced in the "Conclusions" section of the report refers to:

A. the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet
B. something, anything other than answer A.

?

There's a reason Climate Scientist earned a line in my signature.


.


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
30-09-2016 17:51
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.
30-09-2016 18:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Well, the scientists that wrote this report OBVIOUSLY used "accumulation" to refer to how much solid water was added at the top. See the introduction. Your definition, used in that paragraph, would make a nonsensical statement.
30-09-2016 19:21
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
its clear what is meant if you actually take the time to read it, it explains it incase there is any confusion, to claim it means net change is being obtuse and probably indicates dishonesty.
30-09-2016 20:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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?


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 20:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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!


Linguistics IS actually a kind of democracy. The people themselves define words. The dictionaries only follow.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 20:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I was being sarcastic. Yes, language is made by the people, and if a word is used to mean X by a significant portion of the population, that is one of its meanings.
30-09-2016 20:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
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.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 20:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes! Yes yes yes. Now tell that to IB.
30-09-2016 21:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes! Yes yes yes. Now tell that to IB.


He already knows.


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 21:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Wait, no, I misread it. No no no no no. They're using accumulation to mean how much is added, NOT THE NET CHANGE!
Edited on 30-09-2016 21:49
30-09-2016 22:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
Edited on 30-09-2016 22:05
30-09-2016 22:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I think I could improve on that analogy a bit. Sorry to nitpick, Surface.

Scenario A: Your lawn has snow. 6 inches of snow fall. Your lawn-snow is 6 inches deeper.

Scenario B: Your lawn is warm, and what little snow is left is rapidly disappearing. 6 inches of snow fall, but 7 inches of snow melt. Your lawn-snow is 1 inch shallower.

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

TL;DR: It doesn't matter what you think "accumulation" should mean. It's how it's actually used by these scientists that matters.
30-09-2016 23:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Climate Scientist was, of course, correct. IBdaMann is indeed misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation". He thinks it means the net change in the amount of ice on Greenland. It doesn't.

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

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


No. You are taling about deposition. Or precipitation.

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


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

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

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


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


The Parrot Killer
30-09-2016 23:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10200)
jwoodward48 wrote:
You are imagining that the glaciers are like Scenario A, when in fact they are in Scenario B.


Not a fact. It is only a teaching from the Church of Global Warming. Among the Believers, and only among the Believers can it be a fact.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 8123>>>





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