Remember me
▼ Content

NASA/GRACE lies about Greenland's ice mass loss


NASA/GRACE lies about Greenland's ice mass loss02-04-2020 22:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
NASA says by way of it's GRACE survey of Greenland that Greenland is loosing ice mass.

It used to say that it lost 400Gt/yr https://www.pnas.org/content/116/19/9239

Then it accelerated to 360Gt for a bit. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48387030

Recently an unprecedented acceleration has brought the number to 245Gt/yr. Can't find that link but..

The latest acceleration towards doom has a number of 145Gt/yr.

Then there is the 600Gt lost in 2 months!!! https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&sxsrf=ALeKk01WKlJGWEP9IV9b5BlgrTyylMPnvA%3A1585856253678&ei=_T6GXuWHKcWChbIP-pCUsAw&q=600Gt+ice+melt+arctic+greenland&oq=600Gt+ice+melt+arctic+greenland&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoECAAQR1DWHFjTMWDlNWgBcAJ4AIABlwGIAe0DkgEDNi4xmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwil-qj1vsroAhVFQUEAHXoIBcYQ4dUDCAo&uact=5
Greenland's melting ice raised global sea level by 2.2mm in two months. Last year's summer was so warm that it helped trigger the loss of 600bn tons of ice from Greenland – enough to raise global sea levels by 2.2mm in just two months, new research has found.19 Mar 2020

Greenland's melting ice raised global sea level by 2.2mm in ...


600Gt is 1.7mm not 2.2.

Thing is that 100 to 1200 Gt of precipitation, snow, falls on Greenland each year.

It only leaves in the 2 month summer.

The outflow is, as high estimate, 200Gt/yr. This is from the biggest river there being the Watson which has a total flow rate of about 8Gt/yr. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15230430.2018.1433799 Fig4. The Watson represents about 5% of the total outflow. Add about 30% for solid ice.

Clearly no matter what NASA says Greenland is gaining ice mass not loosing it.



Edited on 02-04-2020 22:51
03-04-2020 10:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6666)
Tim the plumber wrote:Clearly no matter what NASA says Greenland is gaining ice mass not loosing it.


Absolutely correct. All anyone needs to know is that anything abandoned on the ice becomes buried under ice at the rate of meters/year.

If Greenland were losing ice mass then things abandoned on the ice would remain above the surface of the ice and Glacier Girl could never have happened, i.e. Greenland has been gaining ice mass since at least WWII.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
03-04-2020 11:33
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:Clearly no matter what NASA says Greenland is gaining ice mass not loosing it.


Absolutely correct. All anyone needs to know is that anything abandoned on the ice becomes buried under ice at the rate of meters/year.

If Greenland were losing ice mass then things abandoned on the ice would remain above the surface of the ice and Glacier Girl could never have happened, i.e. Greenland has been gaining ice mass since at least WWII.


It could possibly be the case that burrial could happen and the various outlets could manage to still have a net loss of ice mass.. but that would require a massive amount of very fast out flow out of all the possible routes.

It is the simple bleeding obvious that Greenland is gaining ice mass.

Edited on 03-04-2020 12:02
03-04-2020 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:Clearly no matter what NASA says Greenland is gaining ice mass not loosing it.


Absolutely correct. All anyone needs to know is that anything abandoned on the ice becomes buried under ice at the rate of meters/year.

If Greenland were losing ice mass then things abandoned on the ice would remain above the surface of the ice and Glacier Girl could never have happened, i.e. Greenland has been gaining ice mass since at least WWII.


It could possibly be the case that burrial could happen and the various outlets could manage to still have a net loss of ice mass.. but that would require a massive amount of very fast out flow out of all the possible routes.

It is the simple bleeding obvious that Greenland is gaining ice mass.


Nope. Glacier Girl was buried by accumulating snow (in other words, ice mass).


The Parrot Killer
04-04-2020 01:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6666)
Into the Night wrote: Nope. Glacier Girl was buried by accumulating snow (in other words, ice mass).

Correct. If you get a chance, look up "Camp Century" or "Project Ice Worm." During the Cold War, the US tried to pull a Cuba, i.e. plant nuclear missiles right on top of the USSR in Greenland (150 miles east of Thule AB). The idea was to carve the silos out of the ice and create a secret hidden nuke launch site under cover of the ice, right on the Soviet doorstep. Denmark owns that land and the Danes were all for the US plan, as long as the US pretended to be "doing it all "in secret" ... the Danes needed plausible deniability with the Soviets.

Anyway, what nobody realized was the sheer magnitude of ice mass gain that was going on with Greenland. Yes, they carved out the silos but they had to repeatedly unbury them and re-carve the silos as the walls warped and buckled. They quickly had to scrap the plan.

Oh, the "rest of the story." Later, at the appropriate time, Denmark acted "surprised" to learn that such activity had been going on (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). The "official" story is that Denmark was never aware.

Anyway, the ice mass accumulation in Greenland is severe. There is a reason Greenland is buried under kilometers of ice, with meters/year accumulation on top. Only the gullible believe that Greenland ice is somehow disappearing.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
04-04-2020 18:29
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:Clearly no matter what NASA says Greenland is gaining ice mass not loosing it.


Absolutely correct. All anyone needs to know is that anything abandoned on the ice becomes buried under ice at the rate of meters/year.

If Greenland were losing ice mass then things abandoned on the ice would remain above the surface of the ice and Glacier Girl could never have happened, i.e. Greenland has been gaining ice mass since at least WWII.


It could possibly be the case that burrial could happen and the various outlets could manage to still have a net loss of ice mass.. but that would require a massive amount of very fast out flow out of all the possible routes.

It is the simple bleeding obvious that Greenland is gaining ice mass.


Nope. Glacier Girl was buried by accumulating snow (in other words, ice mass).


Yes, but it could conceavably be the case that the ice was flowing out so fast and the ice was being stretched out as it flowed out. It isn't. But it could conceavably be so.

If ice moved much faster than it does and stuff...
04-04-2020 19:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:Clearly no matter what NASA says Greenland is gaining ice mass not loosing it.


Absolutely correct. All anyone needs to know is that anything abandoned on the ice becomes buried under ice at the rate of meters/year.

If Greenland were losing ice mass then things abandoned on the ice would remain above the surface of the ice and Glacier Girl could never have happened, i.e. Greenland has been gaining ice mass since at least WWII.


It could possibly be the case that burrial could happen and the various outlets could manage to still have a net loss of ice mass.. but that would require a massive amount of very fast out flow out of all the possible routes.

It is the simple bleeding obvious that Greenland is gaining ice mass.


Nope. Glacier Girl was buried by accumulating snow (in other words, ice mass).


Yes, but it could conceavably be the case that the ice was flowing out so fast and the ice was being stretched out as it flowed out. It isn't. But it could conceavably be so.

If ice moved much faster than it does and stuff...

Ice doesn't stretch. It has a low tensile strength. It cracks instead. Glacier Girl did not fall into a crack. That would've destroyed the aircraft.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-04-2020 19:13
04-04-2020 19:22
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:Clearly no matter what NASA says Greenland is gaining ice mass not loosing it.


Absolutely correct. All anyone needs to know is that anything abandoned on the ice becomes buried under ice at the rate of meters/year.

If Greenland were losing ice mass then things abandoned on the ice would remain above the surface of the ice and Glacier Girl could never have happened, i.e. Greenland has been gaining ice mass since at least WWII.


It could possibly be the case that burrial could happen and the various outlets could manage to still have a net loss of ice mass.. but that would require a massive amount of very fast out flow out of all the possible routes.

It is the simple bleeding obvious that Greenland is gaining ice mass.


Nope. Glacier Girl was buried by accumulating snow (in other words, ice mass).


Yes, but it could conceavably be the case that the ice was flowing out so fast and the ice was being stretched out as it flowed out. It isn't. But it could conceavably be so.

If ice moved much faster than it does and stuff...

Ice doesn't stretch. It has a low tensile strength. It cracks instead. Glacier Girl did not fall into a crack. That would've destroyed the aircraft.


Well, flow in its' super cooled liquid kind of way.

As it does but not to the extent that the rate of snowfall requires. It is the rate of input into Greenland's ice mass that makes it impossible for the rate of out flow to keep up.
04-04-2020 19:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:Clearly no matter what NASA says Greenland is gaining ice mass not loosing it.


Absolutely correct. All anyone needs to know is that anything abandoned on the ice becomes buried under ice at the rate of meters/year.

If Greenland were losing ice mass then things abandoned on the ice would remain above the surface of the ice and Glacier Girl could never have happened, i.e. Greenland has been gaining ice mass since at least WWII.


It could possibly be the case that burrial could happen and the various outlets could manage to still have a net loss of ice mass.. but that would require a massive amount of very fast out flow out of all the possible routes.

It is the simple bleeding obvious that Greenland is gaining ice mass.


Nope. Glacier Girl was buried by accumulating snow (in other words, ice mass).


Yes, but it could conceavably be the case that the ice was flowing out so fast and the ice was being stretched out as it flowed out. It isn't. But it could conceavably be so.

If ice moved much faster than it does and stuff...

Ice doesn't stretch. It has a low tensile strength. It cracks instead. Glacier Girl did not fall into a crack. That would've destroyed the aircraft.


Well, flow in its' super cooled liquid kind of way.

As it does but not to the extent that the rate of snowfall requires. It is the rate of input into Greenland's ice mass that makes it impossible for the rate of out flow to keep up.

Ice is a solid. It is not a super cooled liquid.


The Parrot Killer
04-04-2020 21:17
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:Clearly no matter what NASA says Greenland is gaining ice mass not loosing it.


Absolutely correct. All anyone needs to know is that anything abandoned on the ice becomes buried under ice at the rate of meters/year.

If Greenland were losing ice mass then things abandoned on the ice would remain above the surface of the ice and Glacier Girl could never have happened, i.e. Greenland has been gaining ice mass since at least WWII.


It could possibly be the case that burrial could happen and the various outlets could manage to still have a net loss of ice mass.. but that would require a massive amount of very fast out flow out of all the possible routes.

It is the simple bleeding obvious that Greenland is gaining ice mass.


Nope. Glacier Girl was buried by accumulating snow (in other words, ice mass).


Yes, but it could conceavably be the case that the ice was flowing out so fast and the ice was being stretched out as it flowed out. It isn't. But it could conceavably be so.

If ice moved much faster than it does and stuff...

Ice doesn't stretch. It has a low tensile strength. It cracks instead. Glacier Girl did not fall into a crack. That would've destroyed the aircraft.


Well, flow in its' super cooled liquid kind of way.

As it does but not to the extent that the rate of snowfall requires. It is the rate of input into Greenland's ice mass that makes it impossible for the rate of out flow to keep up.

Ice is a solid. It is not a super cooled liquid.


It is sort of. In that glaciers flow slowly down hill.
04-04-2020 23:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12393)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:Clearly no matter what NASA says Greenland is gaining ice mass not loosing it.


Absolutely correct. All anyone needs to know is that anything abandoned on the ice becomes buried under ice at the rate of meters/year.

If Greenland were losing ice mass then things abandoned on the ice would remain above the surface of the ice and Glacier Girl could never have happened, i.e. Greenland has been gaining ice mass since at least WWII.


It could possibly be the case that burrial could happen and the various outlets could manage to still have a net loss of ice mass.. but that would require a massive amount of very fast out flow out of all the possible routes.

It is the simple bleeding obvious that Greenland is gaining ice mass.


Nope. Glacier Girl was buried by accumulating snow (in other words, ice mass).


Yes, but it could conceavably be the case that the ice was flowing out so fast and the ice was being stretched out as it flowed out. It isn't. But it could conceavably be so.

If ice moved much faster than it does and stuff...

Ice doesn't stretch. It has a low tensile strength. It cracks instead. Glacier Girl did not fall into a crack. That would've destroyed the aircraft.


Well, flow in its' super cooled liquid kind of way.

As it does but not to the extent that the rate of snowfall requires. It is the rate of input into Greenland's ice mass that makes it impossible for the rate of out flow to keep up.

Ice is a solid. It is not a super cooled liquid.


It is sort of. In that glaciers flow slowly down hill.

Nope. Sand flows down hill also. So do rocks. Ice is not a super cooled liquid. It is a solid.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate NASA/GRACE lies about Greenland's ice mass loss:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Electric cars vs ICE cars2215-05-2020 23:22
the coming little ice age will wreck havoc on global economy613-05-2020 21:36
Covid-19 loss221-04-2020 09:59
sea ice717-04-2020 20:39
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1811-02-2020 18:00
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact