• 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!

Greenland's ice cap

Threegoofs said:
Look.

He’s never been to Greenland.

Therefore, he’s never seen the melting, so it doesn’t exist!

Meanwhile, the people who actually study Greenland say:


c6095100c34decdd4afc124552370771.jpg
Click to expand...

Too funny this graph was made by WAPO [I.E. Complete Bull****]

 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
The surface mass balance is not, as you seem to think, the total mass balance. It doesn't take into account glacier flow, which has accelerated dramatically over the past few decades. Your reference is fine; it's just that you are misunderstanding what it means.
Click to expand...

When ice gets thicker in the middle its going to increase the rate at which it flows isn't it.

How much more did the total mass of ice sitting on Greenland's surface increase in 2016-2017?

if you sit on a lake lake you care about the water level, not the stream rate of the water flowing from it, what are you trying to prove ?

Finally

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl

"On 15 July 1942, due to poor weather and limited visibility, six P-38 fighters of 94th Fighter Squadron/1st FG and two B-17 bombers of a bombardment squadron were forced to return to Greenland en route to the British Isles during Operation Bolero. The aircraft were forced to make emergency landings on the ice field. All the crew members were subsequently rescued . However, Glacier Girl, along with the unit's five other fighters and the two B-17s, were eventually buried under 268 feet (82 m) of snow and ice that had built up over the ensuing [5] decades."

Whats all this BS about all that ice melting over the past century once again?
 
Jack Hays said:
Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
Look.

He’s never been to Greenland.

Therefore, he’s never seen the melting, so it doesn’t exist!

Meanwhile, the people who actually study Greenland say:
Click to expand...
Inconsequential compared to Greenland's massive ice volume.
Click to expand...

3G quotes the Climate bloggers supported by NASA, without understanding the implications. He is too damn lazy to find the actual study used by the bloggers, and they may have lied to us.

286 gigatons of ice is how much of the 2,850,000 cubic kilometers of sheet ice Greenland has?

Someone please check my math, but Greenland has about 2,850,000 gigatons of ice (1 cubic km = 1 gigaton) This means the annual trend is currently at 0.01% of that ice, and at this rate, would take 10,000 years to melt.

0.01% is insignificant when dealing with nature.
 
SirGareth said:
each of these cubic kilometers of ice weight app 1.1 billion tonnes. if 400 cubic km were to melt the seas would rise about 1 mm (about 1/25th of one inch)
Click to expand...

A minor correction for accuracy...

One cubic meter of water at 1 gm/cm is one metric ton. In science we use the metric ton. Ice has a little less density than water, so a cubic kilometer is actually a little lighter, not heavier. Maybe the divisor was done wrong in your math, or who you quoted? It should be 0.9 billion tons with one significant digit.

I didn't think to adjust for this in my recent post, but the density of ice is ~0.917 at 0C and increased to ~0.918 at -10C, making a cubic kilometer closer to 0.92 gigations with two significant digits.

I'm not going to bother correcting my post, since the end result is still minuscule.
 
SirGareth said:
When ice gets thicker in the middle its going to increase the rate at which it flows isn't it.

How much more did the total mass of ice sitting on Greenland's surface increase in 2016-2017?

if you sit on a lake lake you care about the water level, not the stream rate of the water flowing from it, what are you trying to prove ?

Finally

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl

"On 15 July 1942, due to poor weather and limited visibility, six P-38 fighters of 94th Fighter Squadron/1st FG and two B-17 bombers of a bombardment squadron were forced to return to Greenland en route to the British Isles during Operation Bolero. The aircraft were forced to make emergency landings on the ice field. All the crew members were subsequently rescued . However, Glacier Girl, along with the unit's five other fighters and the two B-17s, were eventually buried under 268 feet (82 m) of snow and ice that had built up over the ensuing [5] decades."

Whats all this BS about all that ice melting over the past century once again?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to prove anything, just trying to explain to you how an increasing surface ice mass balance is compatible with a decreasing total ice balance. The surface ice mass balance is the amount of precipitation minus run-off and a bit of sublimation. The total ice mass balance is the surface ice mass balance minus glacier flow into the sea.

In recent years, as the temperature has warmed, both the surface ice mass balance and the glacier flow have increased, the former due to increased snowfall (to be expected in a warmer, wetter world) and the latter due to increased lubrication from meltwater. But the glacier flow has increased by more than the surface ice mass balance, so the total ice balance is decreasing.

Glacier Girl was buried deeply by precipitation, but she was also drifting sideways due to glacier flow. If she hadn't been recovered, she'd have ultimately ended up in an iceberg melting in the sea.
 
Lord of Planar said:
3G quotes the Climate bloggers supported by NASA, without understanding the implications. He is too damn lazy to find the actual study used by the bloggers, and they may have lied to us.

286 gigatons of ice is how much of the 2,850,000 cubic kilometers of sheet ice Greenland has?

Someone please check my math, but Greenland has about 2,850,000 gigatons of ice (1 cubic km = 1 gigaton) This means the annual trend is currently at 0.01% of that ice, and at this rate, would take 10,000 years to melt.

0.01% is insignificant when dealing with nature.
Click to expand...

Then you won’t mind if we release 0.01% of the US supply of methylene chloride in your backyard.
 
Lord of Planar said:
3G quotes the Climate bloggers supported by NASA, without understanding the implications. He is too damn lazy to find the actual study used by the bloggers, and they may have lied to us.

286 gigatons of ice is how much of the 2,850,000 cubic kilometers of sheet ice Greenland has?

Someone please check my math, but Greenland has about 2,850,000 gigatons of ice (1 cubic km = 1 gigaton) This means the annual trend is currently at 0.01% of that ice, and at this rate, would take 10,000 years to melt.

0.01% is insignificant when dealing with nature.
Click to expand...


Moreover such insignificant variances lie well well within the inaccuracy of such measurements, furthermore no one really knows whether any warming would increase or decrease glacial ice in either Antarctica or Greenland.

These socialist warming activists never got much beyond 8th grade arithmetic and like Nancy Pelosi treat millions billions and trillions as completely synonymous, math hurts their heads.
 
Threegoofs said:
Then you won’t mind if we release 0.01% of the US supply of methylene chloride in your backyard.
Click to expand...

What gibberish we are taking about water, not nerve gas or other hazardous chemicals. How would you react to a change of 0.01% annual moisture variances in your backyard?

Panic and sell your shares and then move to Cuba?

Why don't you drop this silly and childish narrative?

Your desperation is obvious, socialism is on the decline all over the world, fear not you can always migrate to Venezuela and save yourself.
 
SirGareth said:
What gibberish we are taking about water, not nerve gas or other hazardous chemicals. How would you react to a change of 0.01% annual moisture variances in your backyard?

Panic and sell your shares and then move to Cuba?

Why don't you drop this silly and childish narrative?

Your desperation is obvious, socialism is on the decline all over the world, fear not you can always migrate to Venezuela and save yourself.
Click to expand...

That's his normal way of responding. That's why I have him on IGNORE.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's his normal way of responding. That's why I have him on IGNORE.
Click to expand...

Is that why you science deniers keep responding to 3G and lying about him, by openly stating he's on your IGNORE list ?
 
NIMBY said:
Is that why you science deniers keep responding to 3G and lying about him, by openly stating he's on your IGNORE list ?
Click to expand...

I have responded to quotes of his I see in other peoples posts. On a rare occasion I do select the "view post" option, but have only directly responded to his post once or twice this year.

deleteme.jpg
 
Lord of Planar said:
I have responded to quotes of his I see in other peoples posts. On a rare occasion I do select the "view post" option, but have only directly responded to his post once or twice this year.

View attachment 67226361
Click to expand...

Are you allowed, by upstairs rules, to openly discuss who is on your ignore list, Lord of Planar ?
 
SirGareth said:
Moreover such insignificant variances lie well well within the inaccuracy of such measurements, furthermore no one really knows whether any warming would increase or decrease glacial ice in either Antarctica or Greenland.
Click to expand...

Well you certainly appear to be pretty ignorant on the topic, but the people who actually study it are a lot more knowledgeable. We know from altimetry and gravitometry that the total amount of ice in Greenland is decreasing and we know that the glaciers that drain the ice from Greenland are accelerating. See, for example:

Brief Communication: Further summer speedup of Jakobshavn Isbræ

"We have extended the record of flow speed on Jakobshavn Isbræ through the summer of 2013. These new data reveal large seasonal speedups, 30 to 50% greater than previous summers. At a point a few kilometres inland from the terminus, the mean annual speed for 2012 is nearly three times as great as that in the mid-1990s, while the peak summer speeds are more than a factor of four greater. These speeds were achieved as the glacier terminus appears to have retreated to the bottom of an over-deepened basin with a depth of ~ 1300 m below sea level. The terminus is likely to reach the deepest section of the trough within a few decades, after which it could rapidly retreat to the shallower regions ~ 50 km farther upstream, potentially by the end of this century."
 
NIMBY said:
Are you allowed, by upstairs rules, to openly discuss who is on your ignore list, Lord of Planar ?
Click to expand...

Probably not. What was I suppose to do when asked? Did you purposely put me in that position? What would you have said if I avoided the issue about the way I respond to him?
 
Last edited:
Surface Detail said:
Well you certainly appear to be pretty ignorant on the topic, but the people who actually study it are a lot more knowledgeable. We know from altimetry and gravitometry that the total amount of ice in Greenland is decreasing and we know that the glaciers that drain the ice from Greenland are accelerating. See, for example:

Brief Communication: Further summer speedup of Jakobshavn Isbræ

"We have extended the record of flow speed on Jakobshavn Isbræ through the summer of 2013. These new data reveal large seasonal speedups, 30 to 50% greater than previous summers. At a point a few kilometres inland from the terminus, the mean annual speed for 2012 is nearly three times as great as that in the mid-1990s, while the peak summer speeds are more than a factor of four greater. These speeds were achieved as the glacier terminus appears to have retreated to the bottom of an over-deepened basin with a depth of ~ 1300 m below sea level. The terminus is likely to reach the deepest section of the trough within a few decades, after which it could rapidly retreat to the shallower regions ~ 50 km farther upstream, potentially by the end of this century."
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes.

With greater precipitation,comes greater forces making the glacier flow faster, just like any river.

Note that that was just one glacier. Not much to go by for a claim in general.

As for altimeter and gravity studies, there is no way to accurately assess mass with altimeters, and the density changes and the depth is uncertain. GRACE only had a 15 year run which is too short for such studies, and the drift of instrumentation in never accurately known either.
 
Threegoofs said:
Look.

He’s never been to Greenland.

Therefore, he’s never seen the melting, so it doesn’t exist!

Meanwhile, the people who actually study Greenland say:

c6095100c34decdd4afc124552370771.jpg
Click to expand...

Which they measure by the way the path of apssing satelites is effected by tiny gravity changes.

Not by using the same 2 types of radar on a plane which gave us maps accurate to the inch in the 1960's.

I wonder why?
 
Threegoofs said:
So you ignore the original points made about Antarctica and Arctic sea ice, and pivot to Greenland with some unreferenced graph and a link that is pretty much unrelated to everything, although it is about glaciers, so I guess the topic of ‘ice’ is covered.
Click to expand...

The thread is about Greenland's ice cap.

Not sea ice.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Which they measure by the way the path of apssing satelites is effected by tiny gravity changes.

Not by using the same 2 types of radar on a plane which gave us maps accurate to the inch in the 1960's.

I wonder why?
Click to expand...

Well, the gravity measurements don't care about the level of snow pack density. Thing is, there is no way to send an electronic technician to these satellites to check their calibration. The electronics do drift in the hash environment of space, and there is no way of accurately correcting for the drift.
 
Surface Detail said:
I'm not trying to prove anything, just trying to explain to you how an increasing surface ice mass balance is compatible with a decreasing total ice balance. The surface ice mass balance is the amount of precipitation minus run-off and a bit of sublimation. The total ice mass balance is the surface ice mass balance minus glacier flow into the sea.

In recent years, as the temperature has warmed, both the surface ice mass balance and the glacier flow have increased, the former due to increased snowfall (to be expected in a warmer, wetter world) and the latter due to increased lubrication from meltwater. But the glacier flow has increased by more than the surface ice mass balance, so the total ice balance is decreasing.

Glacier Girl was buried deeply by precipitation, but she was also drifting sideways due to glacier flow. If she hadn't been recovered, she'd have ultimately ended up in an iceberg melting in the sea.
Click to expand...

So you think that rather than a 550 cubic kilometer gain in ice that year there was a 300km3 loss. This due to 850km3 flowing down the glaciers of Greenland.

That would surely make some very dramatic video. Odd we didn't see it on TV.

What mechanism makes a 300m thick glacier move at 100m/year one year and 15km/yr the next if it is the same thickness going down the same valley?
 
Surface Detail said:
Well you certainly appear to be pretty ignorant on the topic, but the people who actually study it are a lot more knowledgeable. We know from altimetry and gravitometry that the total amount of ice in Greenland is decreasing and we know that the glaciers that drain the ice from Greenland are accelerating. See, for example:

Brief Communication: Further summer speedup of Jakobshavn Isbræ

"We have extended the record of flow speed on Jakobshavn Isbræ through the summer of 2013. These new data reveal large seasonal speedups, 30 to 50% greater than previous summers. At a point a few kilometres inland from the terminus, the mean annual speed for 2012 is nearly three times as great as that in the mid-1990s, while the peak summer speeds are more than a factor of four greater. These speeds were achieved as the glacier terminus appears to have retreated to the bottom of an over-deepened basin with a depth of ~ 1300 m below sea level. The terminus is likely to reach the deepest section of the trough within a few decades, after which it could rapidly retreat to the shallower regions ~ 50 km farther upstream, potentially by the end of this century."
Click to expand...

Still not quick enough.

Also, that the glacier is having a bit of a toumble as it reaches the sea and is in retreat is nothing unexpected. It's jus the end of it the flow rate 10km upstream will be the same as always.
 
Tim the plumber said:

What mechanism makes a 300m thick glacier move at 100m/year one year and 15km/yr the next if it is the same thickness going down the same valley?
Click to expand...

Speed increases I think would be likely as the glaciers scrape and make the bottom surface smoother and smoother year after year.

1.71 meters per hour...

I think someone misplaced a decimal or something. Else, I'm sure we would see a video!
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, the gravity measurements don't care about the level of snow pack density. Thing is, there is no way to send an electronic technician to these satellites to check their calibration. The electronics do drift in the hash environment of space, and there is no way of accurately correcting for the drift.
Click to expand...

If you want to measure the height of your 10 year old son compared to last year you stand him against the door way where the anual pen maks are showing his growth.

You don't use data from the camera of a passing police car looking through your window.

There are vastly better ways of looking at the amount of ice on Greenland and where it is. Odd these are not used.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Speed increases I think would be likely as the glaciers scrape and make the bottom surface smoother and smoother year after year.

1.71 meters per hour...

I think someone misplaced a decimal or something. Else, I'm sure we would see a video!
Click to expand...

Given that the glacier has been at it for many many thousands of years the degree of scraping can be ignored. Same as last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom