• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Day length and ice melt

Tim the plumber said:
I have just come across this;

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~eosterberg/images/Hawley et al, 2014 GrIT radar accumulation.pdf



It seems to show about 1m of ice accumulation over central Greenland per year. Whilst that would fit for the WWII fighters burried under the ice it does not fit at all with the idea that Greenland is losing ice mass.

I will need more time to digest this.
Click to expand...

Except we already know Greenland is losing a large amount of ice mass.

It's not really a debatable point outside of denier blogs and amateur cryoscientists with no university science training.
 
Threegoofs said:
Except we already know Greenland is losing a large amount of ice mass.

It's not really a debatable point outside of denier blogs and amateur cryoscientists with no university science training.
Click to expand...
The paper sure looks like it got published in the Journal of Glaciology,
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~eosterberg/images/Hawley et al, 2014 GrIT radar accumulation.pdf
And we do have a few data points, like 268 feet of ice accumulating over the WWII planes between 1942 and 1992.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Speaking of ice melts, I believe this is the second-lowest ever Arctic ice cover recorded.
Click to expand...

Still well above the green house ages of long ago. Ice melt has nothing to do with man-made global warming. In fact, if you look at the current warming trend, it is much slower than any of the previous warming periods following an ice age. Since man wasn't around then, can we assume that CO2 slows global warming?
 
Tim the plumber said:
Ah, the 3goofs tactic of dumping a vast amount of blur at somebody in the hope that they will go away.

Also used by the religious when they lose a point......

I challenge you to post in this thread some reason why the day length is changing in the way it is and has been other than the movement of mass due to a build up of ice at the poles.

The reason needs to have some sort of supporting evidence other than it must be that because I don't want to consider that the poles might be increasing in land based ice mass.
Click to expand...

What more evidence do you want? I just posted a link to a review article on the topic of variations in the Earth's rotation. If you bother to look at it, the article lists a number of factors that are thought to affect the Earth's rotation on various time scales. These include tidal dissipation, glacial isostatic adjustment, core-mantle coupling and, yes, movement of ice and water. The article gives loads of references to the work that has already been carried out in these areas. Page 19 of the article, for example, references a number of papers discussing the effect of melting ice. If you have any serious interest in the topic, I'd suggest you look at these.
 
Threegoofs said:
Except we already know Greenland is losing a large amount of ice mass.

It's not really a debatable point outside of denier blogs and amateur cryoscientists with no university science training.
Click to expand...

Department of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
E-mail: robert.l.hawley@dartmouth.edu
2
US Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, USA
Click to expand...

Then I suggest that you email your absolute certainty to the US Army Corps of Engineers at once and stop this clear fraud.
 
Surface Detail said:
What more evidence do you want? I just posted a link to a review article on the topic of variations in the Earth's rotation. If you bother to look at it, the article lists a number of factors that are thought to affect the Earth's rotation on various time scales. These include tidal dissipation, glacial isostatic adjustment, core-mantle coupling and, yes, movement of ice and water. The article gives loads of references to the work that has already been carried out in these areas. Page 19 of the article, for example, references a number of papers discussing the effect of melting ice. If you have any serious interest in the topic, I'd suggest you look at these.
Click to expand...

If you have any factors which could explain the day length data you should post them here so we can discuss them. Linking to which ever paper you wished to to back your point with relevant quote from it would be very good as well.

I will not expect you to do this. We both know that you can't.
 
longview said:
The paper sure looks like it got published in the Journal of Glaciology,
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~eosterberg/images/Hawley et al, 2014 GrIT radar accumulation.pdf
And we do have a few data points, like 268 feet of ice accumulating over the WWII planes between 1942 and 1992.
Click to expand...

Your paper, no doubt cribbed from a denier blog somewhere, states that in one part of Greenland, the interior, there has been accumulation of ice.

It also clearly states that THIS IS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING, since there is more moisture in the air.

It says nothing about total mass balance.

Nothing.
 
Threegoofs said:
Your paper, no doubt cribbed from a denier blog somewhere, states that in one part of Greenland, the interior, there has been accumulation of ice.

It also clearly states that THIS IS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING, since there is more moisture in the air.

It says nothing about total mass balance.

Nothing.
Click to expand...
So only papers that adhere to your religion are acceptable! got it!
 
Tim the plumber said:
If you have any factors which could explain the day length data you should post them here so we can discuss them. Linking to which ever paper you wished to to back your point with relevant quote from it would be very good as well.

I will not expect you to do this. We both know that you can't.
Click to expand...

I have already listed some factors (in the post you quoted!) which have a long term effect on the length of day: tidal dissipation, glacial isostatic adjustment, core-mantle coupling, and movement of ice and water. I have also already given a reference to a review paper that discusses these and other factors. Here it is again:

Earth Rotation Variations – Long Period

This paragraph, for example, from page 21, introduces the topic of core-mantle coupling:

The most important mechanism acting to cause decadal variations in the length of the day is core-mantle coupling. While it has been recognized for quite some time that the core is the only viable source of the large decadal LOD variations that are observed (e. g., Munk and MacDonald, 1960; Lambeck, 1980), it was not until 1988 that Jault et al. (1988) were able to model the core angular momentum (CAM) and show that it causes decadal length-of-day variations that agree reasonably well with those observed.
Click to expand...

There you go. I've kicked off your literature search for you. Now I suggest you read the paper I linked to and the papers that it references and bring yourself up to date with current understanding of the factors affecting length of day. Then perhaps, you may be able to make a useful contribution to the debate. I won't be holding my breath, though!
 
Threegoofs said:
Your paper, no doubt cribbed from a denier blog somewhere, states that in one part of Greenland, the interior, there has been accumulation of ice.

It also clearly states that THIS IS DUE TO GLOBAL WARMING, since there is more moisture in the air.

It says nothing about total mass balance.

Nothing.
Click to expand...

The paper looks perfectly valid to me. The problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the word "accumulation". This simply refers to the rate at which ice is added to the ice sheet; it doesn't include that which is lost. The total variation in the amount of ice is the accumulation minus the ice that melts or flows to the sea in the form of glaciers. The evidence suggests that both accumulation and loss have increased in recent years, but that the latter is outpacing the former.
 
Surface Detail said:
The paper looks perfectly valid to me. The problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the word "accumulation". This simply refers to the rate at which ice is added to the ice sheet; it doesn't include that which is lost. The total variation in the amount of ice is the accumulation minus the ice that melts or flows to the sea in the form of glaciers. The evidence suggests that both accumulation and loss have increased in recent years, but that the latter is outpacing the former.
Click to expand...

The paper is valid. I was referring to the 'finding' of the paper...I think we can establish that Tim hasn't been scouring the literature on this issue himself.

I'm sure he got it from some denier blog somewhere and reposted it here.

But the paper clearly states there is interior accumulation (at least to 2007- it's got no recent data) due to more snowfall because of warmer temps.

But we know the balance is in the negative in a large way....but Tim refuses to believe that. He's been desperate to get a reference on this since we shot down his initial, laughable one, which was an unreferenced sentence in an article about a different topic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Surface Detail said:
I have already listed some factors (in the post you quoted!) which have a long term effect on the length of day: tidal dissipation, glacial isostatic adjustment, core-mantle coupling, and movement of ice and water. I have also already given a reference to a review paper that discusses these and other factors. Here it is again:

Earth Rotation Variations – Long Period

This paragraph, for example, from page 21, introduces the topic of core-mantle coupling:



There you go. I've kicked off your literature search for you. Now I suggest you read the paper I linked to and the papers that it references and bring yourself up to date with current understanding of the factors affecting length of day. Then perhaps, you may be able to make a useful contribution to the debate. I won't be holding my breath, though!
Click to expand...

1, The factors other than the core spinning at a different rate to that it did 100 years ago have been dealt with in this thread.

They are all easy to work out as to what impact they will have and it's tiny or must cancel out over a few years. Generally both. Other than mass being moved to the poles of course.

2, The evidence for the core rotating at a different speed than it did 100 years ago is something other than it must be doing so because other wise the ice on Greenland and ANtarctica is growing not shrinking, is it? If so what evidence is there for this idea?

Please do tell us all what the evidence for this core slow down is that has not caused any change in the pattern of earth quakes.
 
Surface Detail said:
The paper looks perfectly valid to me. The problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the word "accumulation". This simply refers to the rate at which ice is added to the ice sheet; it doesn't include that which is lost. The total variation in the amount of ice is the accumulation minus the ice that melts or flows to the sea in the form of glaciers. The evidence suggests that both accumulation and loss have increased in recent years, but that the latter is outpacing the former.
Click to expand...

Do you think that Greenland loses 1m (w.e) over it's whole ice sheet surface each year when it has it's 4 weeks of summer? Do you have any clue how much water that would be?

Yes more snow has fallen with a warmer ocean around it. This would explain why the day length has shortened rather than lengthened.
 
Surface Detail said:
The paper looks perfectly valid to me. The problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the word "accumulation". This simply refers to the rate at which ice is added to the ice sheet; it doesn't include that which is lost. The total variation in the amount of ice is the accumulation minus the ice that melts or flows to the sea in the form of glaciers. The evidence suggests that both accumulation and loss have increased in recent years, but that the latter is outpacing the former.
Click to expand...

Accumulated and deposited are different words.
 
Tim the plumber said:

The factors other than the core spinning at a different rate to that it did 100 years ago have been dealt with in this thread.
Click to expand...

No, you have simply dismissed the many papers that discuss the various factors that affect the Earth's rotation because you don't understand them. The fact that you don't understand phenomena such as glacial isostatic adjustment and core-mantle coupling does not mean they don't exist.

I don't understand Schrödinger's equation, but I wouldn't be arrogant enough to declare that quantum physics must therefore be nonsense.
 
Surface Detail said:
No, you have simply dismissed the many papers that discuss the various factors that affect the Earth's rotation because you don't understand them. The fact that you don't understand phenomena such as glacial isostatic adjustment and core-mantle coupling does not mean they don't exist.

I don't understand Schrödinger's equation, but I wouldn't be arrogant enough to declare that quantum physics must therefore be nonsense.
Click to expand...

I undrestand them well.

I can work out the impact they will have on the rotation of the earth.

Tell me the evidence that these things have happened which will tell me how much they have done it and I will work out what that would do to day length.

I can already tell you that the movement of continents up by 20mm will have almost no effect.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I undrestand them well.
Click to expand...

Good. Then perhaps you can explain why you consider core-mantle coupling, for example, to have an insignificant effect on the Earth's rotation. How do your calculations differ from those of the authors of the current literature? When will you be publishing your findings and turning the world of geology upside-down?
 
Surface Detail said:
Good. Then perhaps you can explain why you consider core-mantle coupling, for example, to have an insignificant effect on the Earth's rotation. How do your calculations differ from those of the authors of the current literature? When will you be publishing your findings and turning the world of geology upside-down?
Click to expand...

He'll probably publish his findings in a...new thread. It's just too important to publish as a reply.

The geological world awaits.
 
Surface Detail said:
Good. Then perhaps you can explain why you consider core-mantle coupling, for example, to have an insignificant effect on the Earth's rotation. How do your calculations differ from those of the authors of the current literature? When will you be publishing your findings and turning the world of geology upside-down?
Click to expand...

Core rotation speed changing from normal would make a big difference to day length. I don't disagree there at all.

Have you any evidence, ither than day length, that this has happened? There must be some sort of very powerful mechanism to do it, the energy involved is huge. I would also like to know what side effects this has had, such as vast earth quakes and new volcanoes.
 
Threegoofs said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...tons-of-ice-in-just-four-years/?client=safari
Click to expand...

No it didn't.

Camp Century was a nuclear powered research center built by the US Army Corps of Engineers under the icy surface of Greenland. It was occupied from 1959 to 1966 under the auspices of the Army Polar Research and Development Center. Its climatically hostile environment was located a mere 800 miles from the North Pole. The site was chosen May 17, 1959. At 6180 feet above sea level, this flat plateau features a mean temperature of minus ten degrees Fahrenheit, recorded temperatures of minus 70 degrees and winds exceeding 125 mph. The average annual snow accumulation is four feet.
Click to expand...

Camp Century

An Army team revisited Camp Century during the summer of 1969. Severe damage to the underground city was documented at this time. Observed were buckling metal arches, torn and twisted steel beams, snapped supporting timbers, and the still furnished buildings and other equipment being slowly crushed under the extreme pressure of the encroaching snow. Today, it is likely that most of Camp Century has been reclaimed by the ice. Its twisted wreckage is a permanently frozen memorial to Man's desire to explore even the most hostile places of Earth.
Click to expand...

I know you would like it if scientific papers very superior to the real world but unfortunately they are not.

The central Greenland ice sheet has more or less the same climate all over it. The snow and ice accumulation is about the same. That some of the thinner stuff around the edges has and is melting is not in dispute.
 
Tim the plumber said:
No it didn't.



Camp Century



I know you would like it if scientific papers very superior to the real world but unfortunately they are not.

The central Greenland ice sheet has more or less the same climate all over it. The snow and ice accumulation is about the same. That some of the thinner stuff around the edges has and is melting is not in dispute.
Click to expand...

So you again dispute data from all of Greenland with...an anecdote.

You must not know that the plural of anecdote is not data. That's OK. It's a science thing- you wouldn't understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom