Science & Technology News

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Really bunch of bs there . Just look at the funding entity.
If that is so then explain this .

Apparently you do not understand what you post. The chart I posted showed total mass loss, while the chart you posted was for surface mass balance.


Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance

Mass balance is the sum of all processes of accumulation and ablation, including those at the ice surface and at the bed, but does not include mass changes due to ice flow. See this page (Introduction to Glacier Mass Balance) for more information.

Surface mass balance is the net balance between the processes of accumulation and ablation on a glacier’s surface (it does not include dynamic mass loss and basal melting).

Climatic mass balance includes surface mass balance and internal accumulation.

Ice dynamical changes may include changes to ice discharge and acceleration or deceleration of flow, which can lead to dynamic thinning or thickening, ice-shelf collapse, marine ice sheet instability, and other factors resulting in changes in the glacier beyond surface mass balance.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Apparently you do not understand what you post. The chart I posted showed total mass loss, while the chart you posted was for surface mass balance.


Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance

Mass balance is the sum of all processes of accumulation and ablation, including those at the ice surface and at the bed, but does not include mass changes due to ice flow. See this page (Introduction to Glacier Mass Balance) for more information.

Surface mass balance is the net balance between the processes of accumulation and ablation on a glacier’s surface (it does not include dynamic mass loss and basal melting).

Climatic mass balance includes surface mass balance and internal accumulation.

Ice dynamical changes may include changes to ice discharge and acceleration or deceleration of flow, which can lead to dynamic thinning or thickening, ice-shelf collapse, marine ice sheet instability, and other factors resulting in changes in the glacier beyond surface mass balance.

Buy a boat and I may actually consider the narrative you post that is if you are not actually an AI program . The only stuff you post is considering the agw narrative .
You really need to do your homework. Not just mmgwc bullet points

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Buy a boat and I may actually consider the narrative you post that is if you are not actually an AI program . The only stuff you post is considering the agw narrative .
You really need to do your homework. Not just mmgwc bullet points

Why should I buy a boat when I own two. And what does owning a boat have to do with the price of butter in China?

[GordMay]

Greenland’s 2021 spring: More snow, Less melt ~ NSIDC June 26,
As of June 20, total mass gain for the ice sheet since September 2020 was slightly above the 1981 to 2010 average.
➥ Greenland’s 2021 spring: more snow, less melt | Greenland Ice Sheet Today

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Why should I buy a boat when I own two. And what does owning a boat have to do with the price of butter in China?

According to your page you only post about mmgwc .
Not to disparage but why no mention of other interests here ?

I stand corrected just checked and you have posted about the nwp recently to hawk a book about it. Even if it was a zombie thread

[StuM]

Time to change the thread title from:
"Science & Technology News"
to
"Yet Another Thread Ruined by the Climate Change Alarmists"

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

Time to change the thread title from:
"Science & Technology News"
to
"Yet Another Thread Ruined by the Climate Change Alarmists"

So despite the steady drip-drip-drip of AGW denial from a regular or two, that this and other threads recieve... it's the "alarmists" that ruined it?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I look forward to your rewrite.

In the tug-of-war between coastal melting and inland ice buildup, the meltdown is winning in both Greenland and Antarctica.

Ice in eastern Antarctica, and central Greenland, thickened, slightly, from 2003 to 2019. Researchers suspect this is the result of increased snowfall, because in a warmer climate, more ocean water evaporates, and the air holds more moisture.

But a minor thickening of inland ice was no match for the massive ice losses along Greenland and Antarctica’s coastlines, researchers report online in ‘Science’ [A].
Greenland and Antarctica lost an average 200 billion and 118 billion metric tons of land ice per year, respectively, over this 16-year period.

....

Expressing ice loss in billions of tonnes is equivalent to expressing distances between cities in inches. It's just using big numbers to sound impressive. But when your research is agenda driven, this probably makes a lot of sense.



Here's the reality.
1 billion tonnes of ice is a little over a cubic kilometre in volume. The combined volume of ice between Greenland and Antarctica is conservatively estimated to be about 33 million cubic kilometres. Based on an average figure of, say, 300 billion tonnes annually (300 km3) the ice sheets have lost around 0.015% of total volume within the 16 year period.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Expressing ice loss in billions of tonnes is equivalent to expressing distances between cities in inches. It's just using big numbers to sound impressive. But when your research is agenda driven, this probably makes a lot of sense.



Here's the reality.
1 billion tonnes of ice is a little over a cubic kilometre in volume. The combined volume of ice between Greenland and Antarctica is conservatively estimated to be about 33 million cubic kilometres. Based on an average figure of, say, 300 billion tonnes annually (300 km3) the ice sheets have lost around 0.015% of total volume within the 16 year period.

Yes, the melting has just begun. As was shown in a graph in an earlier post the amount that the sea level has risen in the last few decades as a result of Greenland's and Antarctica's melting is a paltry 19 milimeters. However, during the last interglacial period, when temperatures were 2 degrees warmer than present -- which is less than what they could be if we do not stop injecting CO2 into the atmosphere -- sea levels were somewhere between 4 and 10 meters above present sea level.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo.2007.28
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Expressing ice loss in billions of tonnes is equivalent to expressing distances between cities in inches. It's just using big numbers to sound impressive. But when your research is agenda driven, this probably makes a lot of sense.

Here's the reality.
1 billion tonnes of ice is a little over a cubic kilometre in volume. The combined volume of ice between Greenland and Antarctica is conservatively estimated to be about 33 million cubic kilometres. Based on an average figure of, say, 300 billion tonnes annually (300 km3) the ice sheets have lost around 0.015% of total volume within the 16 year period.

You're just playing the same game from the other end of the telescope. Oooh it's such a teeny percentage of the total ice volume. (over a geologically teeny time, but let's not quibble). The thing to keep in mind though is that the rate of ice loss is increasing... from 0.8 trillion tons per year in the 1990s to 1.3 trillion tons per year by 2017. So the rate of ice loss has increased by roughly 60% in less than 30 years. And is expected to keep increasing. Is that trivial?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're just playing the same game from the other end of the telescope. Oooh it's such a teeny percentage of the total ice volume. (over a geologically teeny time, but let's not quibble). The thing to keep in mind though is that the rate of ice loss is increasing... from 0.8 trillion tons per year in the 1990s to 1.3 trillion tons per year by 2017. So the rate of ice loss has increased by roughly 60% in less than 30 years. And is expected to keep increasing. Is that trivial?

It, umm, sounds like a teen eeny percentage because.....


It is!


And my calcs were based on the data at hand and have nothing to do with fortune telling the future. Be that as it may, I will foretell that the ice caps will still be there as we exit the present inter glacial period and plunge back into the current ice age. Ice caps are the products of ice ages, after all.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Yes, the melting has just begun. As was shown in a graph in an earlier post the amount that the sea level has risen in the last few decades as a result of Greenland's and Antarctica's melting is a paltry 19 milimeters. However, during the last interglacial period, when temperatures were 2 degrees warmer than present -- which is less than what they could be if we do not stop injecting CO2 into the atmosphere -- sea levels were somewhere between 4 and 10 meters above present sea level.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo.2007.28
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Oh wow. 10 m higher and 2 deg C warmer during the last inter glacial then the present inter glacial? Who or what was screwing up the planet back then?



And 19 mm on top of a 3 650 000 mm average depth ocean is quite the literal drop in the bucket.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Oh wow. 10 m higher and 2 deg C warmer during the last inter glacial then the present inter glacial? Who or what was screwing up the planet back then?



And 19 mm on top of a 3 650 000 mm average depth ocean is quite the literal drop in the bucket.

That 19 mm is not really accurate heck that is well within. The error range of the satellites. Aside from it is not rising . No idea where they get the idea but you look at the stations around the planet there is no appricable change some appear to have risen some have fallen . 90% is explainable due to isotastic adjustment. Here we have a daily difference of approximately 13 feet between low low and high high. What are a few mm if it were even there .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

That 19 mm is not really accurate heck that is well within. The error range of the satellites. Aside from it is not rising . No idea where they get the idea but you look at the stations around the planet there is no appricable change some appear to have risen some have fallen . 90% is explainable due to isotastic adjustment. Here we have a daily difference of approximately 13 feet between low low and high high. What are a few mm if it were even there .

Especially considering the sea level has never actually stopped rising for quite a few thousands of years. To expect it to stop on command is just fanciful.

[Mike OReilly]

Guess I'll sign off this thread for now since it's been taken over by the denier brigade. Too bad...

As I keep saying, if you want to quibble with the actual science, then go become a climate scientist. I'll continue to take my cues from actual climate researchers, not google-slingers with an agenda.