Remember me
▼ Content

President Trump and climate change policy



Page 3 of 3<123
28-11-2016 21:01
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:If we're picking a random depth between 10 metres and 1000 metres, why assume 800 meters? Why not 200 m? Or 20 m?

The reason for selecting 800m is that I used a reasonable authoritative ice depth chart of the Greenland ice sheet, noted where the landing site was (in a region in the 10m - 1000m band) and estimated its proximity to the next band (1000 - x meters). Yes, I gauged it. You are welcome to provide your own estimates based on location.

Bullshit. What map would have a 10m - 1000m band? It's quite obvious you're making this up as you go along. And even if you weren't, this method makes no sense. The rate of ice accumulation isn't proportional to the ice thickness, as you must assume for this method to be valid. Rather the reverse: accumulation tends to be least at the centre of the continent, where the ice sheet is thickest.

It is quite obvious from easily obtained meteorological data that the precipitation on Greenland is nowhere near sufficient to add 2% ice mass per decade, and no-one with an ounce of common sense would make this claim.


What he said.
28-11-2016 22:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote: Bullshit. What map would have a 10m - 1000m band?


How about this one:



Surface Detail wrote: It's quite obvious you're making this up as you go along.

Let's reflect on this for a moment. It appears that you are quick to anger when faced with something that rubs your religion the wrong way. You didn't simply ask "Hey, IB DaMann, I'd be interested in checking out that topology map." You can't be bothered to learn or to perform even a quick Google search (let's forever remember this, shall we?) but instead declare that it is "quite obvious that I am making it up."

Once again, you are a rabid science denier who should be taking notes on whatever I tell you. Your religion and your warmizombie brethren are leading you astray. You aren't anywhere near as smart as your church promised that you would be if only you would simply BELIEVE without hesitation and OBEY without question.

You are a dupe.

Surface Detail wrote: And even if you weren't, this method makes no sense.

There was no "method" given. Just measurements. You still haven't owned up to exactly what it is you deny so we can focus on your cognitive shortcomings.

Do I need to run through the Glacier Girl numbers again?

Surface Detail wrote: The rate of ice accumulation isn't proportional to the ice thickness, as you must assume for this method to be valid.

You're the first to raise the issue of proportionality. I simply performed basic math which you apparently are having trouble grasping. Do you need a refresher on addition, subtraction, multiplication and division? The numbers are there before you. What parts do you feel the need to deny?

Surface Detail wrote:It is quite obvious from easily obtained meteorological data that the precipitation on Greenland is nowhere near sufficient to add 2% ice mass per decade, and no-one with an ounce of common sense would make this claim.

Watch this: "Hey Surface Detail, I'd like to see that complete unmodified, unfabricated, raw dataset that affords you that knowledge."

That Greenland is accumulating ice, and not losing ice, is born out by numerous actual "boots on the ground" measurements. You don't have a leg to stand on.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
28-11-2016 22:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Bullshit. What map would have a 10m - 1000m band?


How about this one:



Surface Detail wrote: It's quite obvious you're making this up as you go along.

Let's reflect on this for a moment. It appears that you are quick to anger when faced with something that rubs your religion the wrong way. You didn't simply ask "Hey, IB DaMann, I'd be interested in checking out that topology map." You can't be bothered to learn or to perform even a quick Google search (let's forever remember this, shall we?) but instead declare that it is "quite obvious that I am making it up."

Once again, you are a rabid science denier who should be taking notes on whatever I tell you. Your religion and your warmizombie brethren are leading you astray. You aren't anywhere near as smart as your church promised that you would be if only you would simply BELIEVE without hesitation and OBEY without question.

You are a dupe.

Surface Detail wrote: And even if you weren't, this method makes no sense.

There was no "method" given. Just measurements. You still haven't owned up to exactly what it is you deny so we can focus on your cognitive shortcomings.

Do I need to run through the Glacier Girl numbers again?

Surface Detail wrote: The rate of ice accumulation isn't proportional to the ice thickness, as you must assume for this method to be valid.

You're the first to raise the issue of proportionality. I simply performed basic math which you apparently are having trouble grasping. Do you need a refresher on addition, subtraction, multiplication and division? The numbers are there before you. What parts do you feel the need to deny?

Surface Detail wrote:It is quite obvious from easily obtained meteorological data that the precipitation on Greenland is nowhere near sufficient to add 2% ice mass per decade, and no-one with an ounce of common sense would make this claim.

Watch this: "Hey Surface Detail, I'd like to see that complete unmodified, unfabricated, raw dataset that affords you that knowledge."

That Greenland is accumulating ice, and not losing ice, is born out by numerous actual "boots on the ground" measurements. You don't have a leg to stand on.

My apologies for disbelieving the scale of your chart. I'm a little surprised, though, that your "reasonable authoritative ice depth chart of the Greenland ice sheet" turns out to be an image lifted from Wikipedia, given what you've said about this source before.

The rest of your argument is still complete bollocks though. Your calculation of the increase in ice mass based purely on the ratio of the ice above glacier girl and your guess at the depth of ice below Glacier Girl implies an assumption of the same ratio across the whole island. This is obviously wrong.

Greenland is both accumulating and losing ice mass, with the loss outpacing the accumulation (even though the accumulation is increasing by 2% per decade). This has been verified by satellite and altimetry measurements. There are no scientific papers claiming that the mass balance of Greenland is increasing.

Edit: Where exactly did Glacier Girl land, by the way?
Edited on 28-11-2016 23:03
29-11-2016 13:03
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: Why would they? There are dozens on glaciers flowing into the sea around the coast of Greenland, some of which are miles across! OK, they don't move very fast, but they are very wide and very deep, there are lots of them, and they flow all year round.

Their flow rate is appallingly slow. You could watch one for days before you get to see a chunk fall into the ocean. Then you would realize, that chunk doesn't represent very much water at all...a trivial amount in fact. Multiply that by the dozens that break off into the sea and it still amounts to a trickle.

This explains why the Greenland ice sheet is growing in net ice mass balance by about 2% per decade.
.

Why do you keep making this ludicrous claim?

You can't claim to have conveniently forgotten the thoroughness with which we have treated this topic while nonetheless remembering the times I elaborated on this topic.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/lets-revisit-earths-ice-accumulation-d6-e1199.php

Surface Detail wrote:The average thickness of the Greenland ice sheet is about 2,500 m, so an increase in mass balance of 2% per decade would imply that the thickness is increasing by 50 m per decade or 5 m per year.

I don't think that's the average thickness. Anyway, we have our report based on actual measurements that aren't under dispute, so, yes, we have to go with 2% per decade increase in the Greenland ice sheet net ice balance. I'd love to help you out of a jam if I could but in this case it appears Greenland is putting its foot down.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/lets-revisit-earths-ice-accumulation-d6-e1199-s240.php#post_13568

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/lets-revisit-earths-ice-accumulation-d6-e1199-s240.php#post_13717

The report you cited does not state that the Greenland ice sheet net ice balance is increasing by 2% per decade. You misunderstood the report. It states that the accumulation has increased by 2% per decade. The accumulation is not the same thing as the mass balance.

Doesn't the implication of your interpretation of the report that Greenland receives twice the precipitation of the Amazon Basin make you think that, just maybe, you might have got this wrong?


IBDaman is right on this one. It says mass balance +2% per decade.

Nope, IBdaMann is wrong on this, as he is wrong on most things. Unless, of course, you or he can explain how precipitation of 0.6 m per year could result in the addition of 5 m of ice per year?


I did not say that I agreed with the statement that Greenland is increasing in ice mass by 2% per decade but that is obviously what the report says.

The number I have for the total ice mass on Greenland is the equivalent of 7m of sea level rise. So no, neither a .5m or a 1.1m(the number in the report) anual accumulation would result in this, however, I often find that there is a high degree of exageration/lying/innumeracy in statements of how big glaciers are and I would not be shocked if the amount of ice on Greenland was indeed half to a quarter of the figure that is generally banded about.
29-11-2016 13:07
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Climate scientist;

Any progress with the flow rate of glaciers going down to the ocean from the ice cap yet?

Edited on 29-11-2016 13:08
29-11-2016 13:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote: My apologies for disbelieving the scale of your chart. I'm a little surprised, though, that your "reasonable authoritative ice depth chart of the Greenland ice sheet" turns out to be an image lifted from Wikipedia, given what you've said about this source before.

Apology accepted, and this wasn't the chart I used. The Wikipedia chart was just the first chart I found that used a 10m - 1000m band, which you would have discovered if you would have taken a quick look first.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
29-11-2016 14:05
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi Tim

Yes, I have been working on it.

These two papers have some nice data in them:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL059010/pdf

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/1933/2016/tc-10-1933-2016.pdf

If you cannot access them, then I can send them to you if you let me know your email address.

van den Broeke et al 2016 set total incoming precipitation at 712 Gt/yr, which is roughly lower, but essentially in-line with the IPCC value of 734 Gt/yr. I will stick with the higher value to be conservative. They state that runoff is 363 Gt/yr, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC value of 274 Gt/yr. Again, to be conservative, I will use the lower runoff value. So if runoff was the only output, we would have an ice sheet mass balance increase of +460 Gt/yr.

But Broeke et al 2016 have calculated the discharge across the grounding line (i.e. calving) using data from the Enderlin et al 2014 paper, and have come up with a calving flux of 477 Gt/yr. So now our mass balance is at -17Gt/yr, i.e. a slight loss. However, I have been pretty conservative here, if I used the lower number for precipitation, and the higher number for runoff, then we would have a mass balance of -128 Gt/yr.

If you read the actual papers, you will see that the mass balance numbers they report are actually slightly lower (i.e. more negative) than this. This is because there are some minor loss processes that I have not included in this calculation, such as sublimation and erosion.

The other thing that you have to remember is that, although the melt season is rather short, it is very dramatic because of the vast change in seasonal conditions (e.g. from almost 24 hours of darkness in winter to almost 24 hours of sunlight in summer), whereas the Mississippi has less variation between the seasons. So it is not actually that surprising to me to have such a vast amount of runoff/calving, etc. in such a short period of time (few months), seeing as there is so much water stored on the ice sheet in the form of snow and ice, and as soon as this warms up it starts to melt immediately. I.e. runoff/discharge is not dependent upon precipitation, whereas for the Mississippi, the discharge is largely dependent on recent precipitation in the catchment area.
29-11-2016 14:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote: The rest of your argument is still complete bollocks though. Your calculation of the increase in ice mass based purely on the ratio of the ice above glacier girl and your guess at the depth of ice below Glacier Girl implies an assumption of the same ratio across the whole island.


Once again we return to your poor logic acumen. It is the report that treats the domain of the Greenland ice sheet and provides a summary model of the net ice mass balance. Glacier Girl is just one test case we can use in the scientific method to see if it fits the model in the report. Well, it does ... or do you deny the numbers?

Surface Detail wrote: Greenland is both accumulating and losing ice mass, with the loss outpacing the accumulation (even though the accumulation is increasing by 2% per decade).

You have zero evidence for your completely unsupported assertion. In fact, your baseless claims stem only from your WACKY religious beliefs. You deny any and all science to the contrary as well as all concrete examples to the contrary.

You are a puppet for your church ... and you are egregiously mistaken.


Surface Detail wrote:This has been verified by satellite and altimetry measurements.

Nope. The truly sad aspect of all this is that you know it's not true but your WACKY religion has total control over your cognitive functions and forces you into denial of reality and of what you observe directly. You can't even be forthcoming enough to admit to what you are denying.

It must truly suck to be you. I feel for you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
29-11-2016 14:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote:Edit: Where exactly did Glacier Girl land, by the way?

I'd like to reflect on the reason you are asking this question ... as opposed to just quickly finding out (it should take ~1-2 minutes to find the coordinates).

A few possibilities come to mind.

1. you hate learning and can't bring yourself to perform independent research
2. you don't know how to perform independent research
3. finding the coordinates would require that you venture to non-warmizombie websites that your religion forbids
4. your dogma forbids you from looking into concrete examples, e.g. Glacier Girl, that offend the religious sensibilities of other church members.
5. your church's cognitive control over you doesn't want you delving into matters that put the "disappearing Greenland" myth under scientific scrutiny and does a "shock dog collar" number on you.

Would it be one of the above reasons, or something else entirely?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
29-11-2016 14:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
climate scientist wrote:
Hi Tim

Yes, I have been working on it.

These two papers have some nice data in them:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL059010/pdf

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/10/1933/2016/tc-10-1933-2016.pdf

If you cannot access them, then I can send them to you if you let me know your email address.

van den Broeke et al 2016 set total incoming precipitation at 712 Gt/yr, which is roughly lower, but essentially in-line with the IPCC value of 734 Gt/yr. I will stick with the higher value to be conservative. They state that runoff is 363 Gt/yr, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC value of 274 Gt/yr. Again, to be conservative, I will use the lower runoff value. So if runoff was the only output, we would have an ice sheet mass balance increase of +460 Gt/yr.

But Broeke et al 2016 have calculated the discharge across the grounding line (i.e. calving) using data from the Enderlin et al 2014 paper, and have come up with a calving flux of 477 Gt/yr. So now our mass balance is at -17Gt/yr, i.e. a slight loss. However, I have been pretty conservative here, if I used the lower number for precipitation, and the higher number for runoff, then we would have a mass balance of -128 Gt/yr.

If you read the actual papers, you will see that the mass balance numbers they report are actually slightly lower (i.e. more negative) than this. This is because there are some minor loss processes that I have not included in this calculation, such as sublimation and erosion.

The other thing that you have to remember is that, although the melt season is rather short, it is very dramatic because of the vast change in seasonal conditions (e.g. from almost 24 hours of darkness in winter to almost 24 hours of sunlight in summer), whereas the Mississippi has less variation between the seasons. So it is not actually that surprising to me to have such a vast amount of runoff/calving, etc. in such a short period of time (few months), seeing as there is so much water stored on the ice sheet in the form of snow and ice, and as soon as this warms up it starts to melt immediately. I.e. runoff/discharge is not dependent upon precipitation, whereas for the Mississippi, the discharge is largely dependent on recent precipitation in the catchment area.


You see the thing is that you can quote papers till you are blue in the face and i will put them in the same place as the GRACE numbers.

I will need to see stuff that explains how almost static glaciers, at least they look that way, can have many many cubic kilometers of flow rate per year when the dynamics of them, in terms of an engineering analysis, is no different from 100 years ago. Still the same slope they are going down. Still the same thickness at the top of the glacier and at the mid point. The bottom may well have changed by that's 10km away from the mid point.

You will also have to produce the basic maths of how the hell patches of snow and ice in the Alps can survive a long summer with people sunbathing on top of them because they are so good at reflecting sunshine and not absorbing warmth from the air and suddenly the slight increase in temperatures on the top of the very high altitude ice sheet has caused a more than 0.7m melting per year.

Then there will come the challenge of looking at the surface of the ice sheet, a generally smooth thing, and looking at the end of any glacier which is melting and seeing all those deep cuts into it where meltwater forms deep clefts in it. Because ice that is net melting will look like a sliced up mess not a smooth sheet.

But first something about the flow rate of ice down a glacier. Thickness and slope in an equation would be good.

Edited on 29-11-2016 14:48
29-11-2016 14:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
climate scientist wrote:These two papers have some nice data in them:

There is no raw data. All that are presented are fabricated conclusions that the gullible intended audience is to BELIEVE without question.

What comes readily to mind is that "boots on the ground" measurements, along with many empirical observations, clearly show the net Greenland ice sheet mass balance is accumulating ice mass. Yet the IPCC starts with its desired predetermined conclusion of a particular amount of sea level rise and then assumes the needed net ice mass balance loss required to get that result. Again, dishonesty to scam the gullible, i.e. taking candy from a baby.

Again, there is no data. The entire premise of your post is absurd and we get a better understanding of the extent of your gullibility.

You must be one of those people who are amazed at those "I know what number you're thinking of" tricks.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
29-11-2016 14:54
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
climate scientist wrote: I will stick with the higher value to be conservative.

Just an FYI: Sticking with the higher value makes you "liberal" in your approach, not "conservative".


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
29-11-2016 15:04
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi Tim

Did you look at the Enderlin et al 2014 paper?

All the information is in there.

"For glaciers with across-flow thickness transects (i.e., gates), we selected the survey up glacier of, and closest to, the grounding line and extracted surface speed and thickness data along the transect. We observed surface speeds south of ~81°N latitude using repeat-image feature tracking as described in Howat et al. [2011], utilizing orthorectified imagery from the Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus and the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal and Reflectance Radiometer (ASTER). As in previous studies, we assumed that speed is constant with depth for these fast-flowing (>1 km/yr) glaciers, where nearly all motion is at the base.

Thickness was calculated by subtracting the bed elevation from the surface elevation for each year. Surface elevations were obtained from orthorectified ASTER digital elevation models (DEMs) produced by the Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center and SPOT5 DEMs produced by the SPOT 5 stereoscopic survey of Polar Ice: Reference Images and Topographies (SPIRIT) program [Korona et al., 2009] as well as NASA Airborne Topographic Mapper lidar measurements. We filtered the elevation and speed data using an adaptive median filter and calculated annual median speeds and elevations.

Using these observations, we calculated ice discharge as the summed product of ice density, ρi, surface speed, U, thickness, H, and distance between survey points dy across the flux gates of width W."

And so on.

Glacial flow in Greenland is speeding up - see here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058933/pdf

This study is not based on GRACE data. The glacier velocities were calculated using ground-based GPS measurements (no different from a sat nav).
29-11-2016 18:02
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
climate scientist wrote:
Hi Tim

Did you look at the Enderlin et al 2014 paper?

All the information is in there.

"For glaciers with across-flow thickness transects (i.e., gates), we selected the survey up glacier of, and closest to, the grounding line and extracted surface speed and thickness data along the transect. We observed surface speeds south of ~81°N latitude using repeat-image feature tracking as described in Howat et al. [2011], utilizing orthorectified imagery from the Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus and the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal and Reflectance Radiometer (ASTER). As in previous studies, we assumed that speed is constant with depth for these fast-flowing (>1 km/yr) glaciers, where nearly all motion is at the base.

Thickness was calculated by subtracting the bed elevation from the surface elevation for each year. Surface elevations were obtained from orthorectified ASTER digital elevation models (DEMs) produced by the Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center and SPOT5 DEMs produced by the SPOT 5 stereoscopic survey of Polar Ice: Reference Images and Topographies (SPIRIT) program [Korona et al., 2009] as well as NASA Airborne Topographic Mapper lidar measurements. We filtered the elevation and speed data using an adaptive median filter and calculated annual median speeds and elevations.

Using these observations, we calculated ice discharge as the summed product of ice density, ρi, surface speed, U, thickness, H, and distance between survey points dy across the flux gates of width W."

And so on.

Glacial flow in Greenland is speeding up - see here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058933/pdf

This study is not based on GRACE data. The glacier velocities were calculated using ground-based GPS measurements (no different from a sat nav).


I did have a brief glance at it but I did not see the above stuff. My bad.

Thing is that the Mississippi flows at 1.5km/day(ish).

Even with the fast flow of 1km a year at the grounding line where the effect of the retreating ice due to it being warmer and thus the thickness of ice out into the sea is greatest and you would expect a sudden rush of ice as this happens I don't see that there are enough glaciers doing this to account for the many many Mississippis you need. You might get up to 1 and a bit but that's surely it.

Admittedly that's more of an out flow than I was expecting but not enough surely?
30-11-2016 12:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Edit: Where exactly did Glacier Girl land, by the way?

I'd like to reflect on the reason you are asking this question ... as opposed to just quickly finding out (it should take ~1-2 minutes to find the coordinates).

A few possibilities come to mind.

1. you hate learning and can't bring yourself to perform independent research
2. you don't know how to perform independent research
3. finding the coordinates would require that you venture to non-warmizombie websites that your religion forbids
4. your dogma forbids you from looking into concrete examples, e.g. Glacier Girl, that offend the religious sensibilities of other church members.
5. your church's cognitive control over you doesn't want you delving into matters that put the "disappearing Greenland" myth under scientific scrutiny and does a "shock dog collar" number on you.

Would it be one of the above reasons, or something else entirely?

The rational response to someone asking for information upon which you have based an argument is simply to tell them. Where did Glacier Girl land?
30-11-2016 13:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Edit: Where exactly did Glacier Girl land, by the way?

I'd like to reflect on the reason you are asking this question ... as opposed to just quickly finding out (it should take ~1-2 minutes to find the coordinates).

A few possibilities come to mind.

1. you hate learning and can't bring yourself to perform independent research
2. you don't know how to perform independent research
3. finding the coordinates would require that you venture to non-warmizombie websites that your religion forbids
4. your dogma forbids you from looking into concrete examples, e.g. Glacier Girl, that offend the religious sensibilities of other church members.
5. your church's cognitive control over you doesn't want you delving into matters that put the "disappearing Greenland" myth under scientific scrutiny and does a "shock dog collar" number on you.

Would it be one of the above reasons, or something else entirely?

The rational response to someone asking for information upon which you have based an argument is simply to tell them. Where did Glacier Girl land?

As I mentioned in my post, I also wanted to reflect on the reason you are asking. That was yesterday. Did you look it up? Did you venture onto any non-warmizombie websites?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-11-2016 13:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Edit: Where exactly did Glacier Girl land, by the way?

I'd like to reflect on the reason you are asking this question ... as opposed to just quickly finding out (it should take ~1-2 minutes to find the coordinates).

A few possibilities come to mind.

1. you hate learning and can't bring yourself to perform independent research
2. you don't know how to perform independent research
3. finding the coordinates would require that you venture to non-warmizombie websites that your religion forbids
4. your dogma forbids you from looking into concrete examples, e.g. Glacier Girl, that offend the religious sensibilities of other church members.
5. your church's cognitive control over you doesn't want you delving into matters that put the "disappearing Greenland" myth under scientific scrutiny and does a "shock dog collar" number on you.

Would it be one of the above reasons, or something else entirely?

The rational response to someone asking for information upon which you have based an argument is simply to tell them. Where did Glacier Girl land?

As I mentioned in my post, I also wanted to reflect on the reason you are asking. That was yesterday. Did you look it up? Did you venture onto any non-warmizombie websites?

You are clearly not a rational person.
30-11-2016 15:00
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I did have a brief glance at it but I did not see the above stuff. My bad.

Thing is that the Mississippi flows at 1.5km/day(ish).

Even with the fast flow of 1km a year at the grounding line where the effect of the retreating ice due to it being warmer and thus the thickness of ice out into the sea is greatest and you would expect a sudden rush of ice as this happens I don't see that there are enough glaciers doing this to account for the many many Mississippis you need. You might get up to 1 and a bit but that's surely it.

Admittedly that's more of an out flow than I was expecting but not enough surely?


Hi Tim

With further thought about this, I am not sure that the loss of ice across the grounding line will only occur during the melt season. Glaciers tend to flow all year, and are primarily driven by gravity and their own weight. Therefore, I would actually expect the ice loss across the grounding line to occur all year round, and only the melt runoff to be restricted to the melt season. I think then you will find that the number of glaciers, their speed and their combined mass will equate to the loss of ice in Gt/yr that the papers I cited previously found.

So, based on the previous numbers we discussed, in Greenland there is ~ 1.4 Mississippi's worth of precipitation, which will most likely occur fairly evenly throughout the year (there is probably some seasonality in this, but it shouldn't affect our calculation too much).

Then we have ~0.5 Mississippi's worth of runoff. If we assume that this only occurs during the melt season (~3 months) then this is equivalent to 4 times the discharge of the Mississippi, but only during this 3 month period.

And we have ~0.9 Mississippi's worth of calving, which I think will occur throughout the whole year, although there is probably a faster rate of calving in the summer than in the winter.
30-11-2016 15:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote: You are clearly not a rational person.

You are clearly in EVASION mode (as you are want to do when you back yourself into a corner ... which is OFTEN).

Visiting websites that are devoid of warmizombie propaganda would do you good. You look it up.

Actually performing independent research would do you good. You look it up.

Facing differing viewpoints would do you good. Look it up.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-11-2016 17:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: You are clearly not a rational person.

You are clearly in EVASION mode (as you are want to do when you back yourself into a corner ... which is OFTEN).

Visiting websites that are devoid of warmizombie propaganda would do you good. You look it up.

Actually performing independent research would do you good. You look it up.

Facing differing viewpoints would do you good. Look it up.

I'm being evasive? You're the one who's refusing to give information that is critical to your argument! I've had a quick google and not found it, but it's really your job to support your own arguments. Why won't you tell me where Glacier Girl landed?
30-11-2016 18:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote: I'm being evasive?

Absolutely. You are being evasive. I asked a bunch of probing questions about why you asked me to provide you information that you could EASILY glean from non-warmizombie websites. I am relishing your EVASION on this topic.

Let me compare my fascination with your squirming against any obligation I might feel to let you off the hook.

Hmmmm ...

Nope, I am enjoying what I'm witnessing. Go ahead and make me your excuse for why you can't access the information that answers your question.

Surface Detail wrote: You're the one who's refusing to give information that is critical to your argument!

Nope, but that was another nice attempt to shift your burden of proof. At the root of all this is your absurd claim that the Greenland ice sheet is disappearing. The entirety of the burden of proof rests with you. All of it.

You of course have nothing to support your ridiculous claim, and as such you are reduced to attempting to require others to somehow prove that your WACKY, unfalsifiable claims are false, e.g. "I can't prove my goddess exists but you can't prove she doesn't so nanny-nanny-boo-boo!" Meanwhile, you have been given ample hard measurements and concrete examples to bury your "melting Arctic" fear-mongering. The fact that the Greenland ice sheet is increasing in net ice mass makes your absurd insistence moronic and reveals the extent to which others have seized control of your mental functions. Every time you become compelled to redefine English words you put on quite a show.

Surface Detail wrote: I've had a quick google and not found it,...

... then look further, and specifically on those non-warmizombie websites that your WACKY religion bans.

It'll be good for you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-11-2016 18:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: I'm being evasive?

Absolutely. You are being evasive. I asked a bunch of probing questions about why you asked me to provide you information that you could EASILY glean from non-warmizombie websites. I am relishing your EVASION on this topic.

Let me compare my fascination with your squirming against any obligation I might feel to let you off the hook.

Hmmmm ...

Nope, I am enjoying what I'm witnessing. Go ahead and make me your excuse for why you can't access the information that answers your question.

Surface Detail wrote: You're the one who's refusing to give information that is critical to your argument!

Nope, but that was another nice attempt to shift your burden of proof. At the root of all this is your absurd claim that the Greenland ice sheet is disappearing. The entirety of the burden of proof rests with you. All of it.

You of course have nothing to support your ridiculous claim, and as such you are reduced to attempting to require others to somehow prove that your WACKY, unfalsifiable claims are false, e.g. "I can't prove my goddess exists but you can't prove she doesn't so nanny-nanny-boo-boo!" Meanwhile, you have been given ample hard measurements and concrete examples to bury your "melting Arctic" fear-mongering. The fact that the Greenland ice sheet is increasing in net ice mass makes your absurd insistence moronic and reveals the extent to which others have seized control of your mental functions. Every time you become compelled to redefine English words you put on quite a show.

Surface Detail wrote: I've had a quick google and not found it,...

... then look further, and specifically on those non-warmizombie websites that your WACKY religion bans.

It'll be good for you.

Oh do grow up, IBdaMann.

Your inability or unwillingness to give information critical to your argument that Glacier Girl's location indicates growing ice mass is your problem, not mine. Why should I care if you can't support your loony assertions?
30-11-2016 19:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote: Why should I care if you can't support your loony assertions?

Not only should you not care, you aren't even allowed to care. Your church requires you to dismiss any and all empirical evidence that exposes your WACKY religious dogma for the crap that it is.

You attempts to couch this whole thing in terms of me trying to convince you is hysterical. First of all, that's not even possible. You are a rabid, science-denying warmizombie who has long-since ceased to think for himself.

Second, it is I who is merely extending to you the courtesy of explaining why your WACKY dogma is summarily dismissed. It runs counter to science. It runs counter to observations. You need to preach elsewhere.

You can't gaze upon those non-warmizombie websites, can you? You can't bring yourself to look up the coordinates, can you? How do you imagine that that is somehow my problem? I'm quite capable of pulling off the coordinates from the internet because I have no religious prohibition to alcohol, pork, certain websites, etc.. Good luck working though yours.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-11-2016 19:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann, you're gibbering.

You claimed that Glacier Girl was found lying on top of 800 m of ice, estimated from its location. But you refuse to say what its location is. Why so evasive?

You'd make a crap scientist:

IBdaMann: Hey, I've discovered a cure for cancer!
World: Really? What is it?
IBdaMann: I'm not telling you. Google it yourself.
World: WTF?
30-11-2016 20:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote: You claimed that Glacier Girl was found lying on top of 800 m of ice, estimated from its location.

Actually, given the location of the landing (they're not somehow my coordinates), given the distance Glacier Girl had flowed in those fifty years and given that Glacier Girl started out on the ice's surface but was recovered from a buried depth closer to 270 ft down, the math is trivial.

What about this do you deny, exactly? Why haven't you taken a moment out to get the landing coordinates and answer your own question? Is it that you don't know how to perform independent research or is it that those coordinates are not on any of the websites "approved" by your church?

Surface Detail wrote: But you refuse to say what its location is. Why so evasive?

I refuse to tell you because I am enjoying watching you flounder so. My enjoyment at your religion-imposed paralysis is worth far more to me than any subsequent lame denial that I fully anticipate.

Surface Detail wrote:You'd make a crap scientist:

Well, we can agree that I'd make a crappy "Climate Scientist." I clearly don't accept "The Science."


IBdaMann: Hey, today's weather in your area calls for fog and temperatures in the 20sC.

Surface Detail: Oh really? You expect me to believe that? Where exactly did you get this "information."

IBdaMann: Have you tried looking on the Internet?

Surface Detail: Yeah, I tried, briefly, and I didn't find anything. Why are you being so evasive? I don't think there is any such weather data.

Surface Detail: Oh, but I know the average global temperature.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-11-2016 20:12
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Heh, I think we can all see who's floundering.


Stop being so childish. The game of "I know the answer, but I'm not telling you" stopped being funny at about age 5. If you want your claims to be given any consideration at all, give the landing site coordinates that they are based on.
30-11-2016 20:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote: The game of "I know the answer, but I'm not telling you" stopped being funny at about age 5.

The game "watch Surface Detail not be able to perform independent research and not be able to face non-warmizombie websites is hysterical. Of course, it's not funny from your perspective, I get it. Too bad.

No one would otherwise believe me that you could have a literally endless stream of lame excuses.

Surface Detail wrote: If you want your claims to be given any consideration at all, give the landing site coordinates that they are based on.

False. There is nothing I can do to get you to consider empirical evidence that blows your crap religion out of the water. There is no way to get you to accept science.

Just do a quick search and don't be afraid to venture onto those "banned" websites. Take your laptop into a closet and lock the door or something so none of your brethren catch you. It'll be good for you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-11-2016 21:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Ha, ha. You don't actually know where Glacier Girl landed, do you?

You looked at the map on Wikipedia, decided it must have been not far from the coast, and made up some bullshit about it being near to the 1000 m contour. How pathetic you are.
30-11-2016 21:18
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]IBdaMann wrote: we can agree that I'd make a crappy "Climate Scientist." I clearly don't accept "The Science."


You'd make a crappy scientist since you never took science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
30-11-2016 21:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, you're gibbering.

You claimed that Glacier Girl was found lying on top of 800 m of ice, estimated from its location. But you refuse to say what its location is. Why so evasive?

You'd make a crap scientist:

IBdaMann: Hey, I've discovered a cure for cancer!
World: Really? What is it?
IBdaMann: I'm not telling you. Google it yourself.
World: WTF?





Considering the purpose of the flight and the method for its execution, Glacier Girl wound up pretty close to on course. Landing wheels up, using the 3000 ft thick ice as a runway, the plane was brought to a smooth (and final) landing with the pilot able to walk away and join his downed buddies nearby.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2016 21:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, you're gibbering.

You claimed that Glacier Girl was found lying on top of 800 m of ice, estimated from its location. But you refuse to say what its location is. Why so evasive?

You'd make a crap scientist:

IBdaMann: Hey, I've discovered a cure for cancer!
World: Really? What is it?
IBdaMann: I'm not telling you. Google it yourself.
World: WTF?





Considering the purpose of the flight and the method for its execution, Glacier Girl wound up pretty close to on course. Landing wheels up, using the 3000 ft thick ice as a runway, the plane was brought to a smooth (and final) landing with the pilot able to walk away and join his downed buddies nearby.

Link?
30-11-2016 21:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4211)
Surface Detail wrote: Link?

You have enough information to find it yourself ... but you can't bring yourself to do so.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-11-2016 22:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann, you're gibbering.

You claimed that Glacier Girl was found lying on top of 800 m of ice, estimated from its location. But you refuse to say what its location is. Why so evasive?

You'd make a crap scientist:

IBdaMann: Hey, I've discovered a cure for cancer!
World: Really? What is it?
IBdaMann: I'm not telling you. Google it yourself.
World: WTF?





Considering the purpose of the flight and the method for its execution, Glacier Girl wound up pretty close to on course. Landing wheels up, using the 3000 ft thick ice as a runway, the plane was brought to a smooth (and final) landing with the pilot able to walk away and join his downed buddies nearby.

Link?


Zelda.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2016 15:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
climate scientist wrote:
I did have a brief glance at it but I did not see the above stuff. My bad.

Thing is that the Mississippi flows at 1.5km/day(ish).

Even with the fast flow of 1km a year at the grounding line where the effect of the retreating ice due to it being warmer and thus the thickness of ice out into the sea is greatest and you would expect a sudden rush of ice as this happens I don't see that there are enough glaciers doing this to account for the many many Mississippis you need. You might get up to 1 and a bit but that's surely it.

Admittedly that's more of an out flow than I was expecting but not enough surely?


Hi Tim

With further thought about this, I am not sure that the loss of ice across the grounding line will only occur during the melt season. Glaciers tend to flow all year, and are primarily driven by gravity and their own weight. Therefore, I would actually expect the ice loss across the grounding line to occur all year round, and only the melt runoff to be restricted to the melt season. I think then you will find that the number of glaciers, their speed and their combined mass will equate to the loss of ice in Gt/yr that the papers I cited previously found.

So, based on the previous numbers we discussed, in Greenland there is ~ 1.4 Mississippi's worth of precipitation, which will most likely occur fairly evenly throughout the year (there is probably some seasonality in this, but it shouldn't affect our calculation too much).

Then we have ~0.5 Mississippi's worth of runoff. If we assume that this only occurs during the melt season (~3 months) then this is equivalent to 4 times the discharge of the Mississippi, but only during this 3 month period.

And we have ~0.9 Mississippi's worth of calving, which I think will occur throughout the whole year, although there is probably a faster rate of calving in the summer than in the winter.


You have stretched the numbers to get to something close to parity. But them the over all area of Greenland is much bigger.

The other big issue with it is the idea of measuring the flow rate of a glacier that is in retreat on its' grounding line. Obviously the flow at the point where it is tumbling down and colapsing into the waves will not be the same as where it is flowing down the valley just like it did 100 years ago. The same dynamics happen there as always. The flow rate will be the same as ever. Why do you think they chose this place to measure the flow rate?
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate President Trump and climate change policy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Trump Sued Over New Coal Rules014-08-2019 02:37
Trump Friend Jeffrey Epstein316-07-2019 20:39
President Trump makes a personal sacrifice, for the country...211-07-2019 17:29
Third Term for Trump?226-06-2019 00:22
Trump, Climate Change investigation?5023-06-2019 03:57
Articles
Appendix A - Tracing China's Climate Policy
Analysis - Explaining China's Climate Policy
The Dependent Variable - How Ambitious Is China's Climate Policy
John McCain: Remarks on Climate Change Policy
▲ 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