Climate crsis is always with us.

[watsup]

Enough to spot some obvious lies that are peddled at me.

There presumably are far more that I am missing but I get some of them.

Are you smart enough to spot some of the obvious lies that are peddled in the denier community?
Answer: obviously not.

 

[vegas giants]

The climate scientists already do that for me. It would be ridiculous for me to try to do independent research because I am not trained in that discipline. Are you?

No he is not

 

[istodolez]

Nope. The vertical circulation to the deep ocean is driven by the fact that water has a mximum density at 4c. This will continue to drive the cirrculation where ever the point of mixing between cold and warm waters happens.

The word is "thermohaline". The "haline" should clue you into the role of salt in the density.

The North Atlantic convayor moves hundreds of giga tonnes a second and is wind driven. So the slight change in the ammount of fesh water entering this will have no impact on the wind driven circulation.

And we have history of it reorganizing. You should read more in the field. Start with Wallace Broecker

 

[Tim the plumber]

Name a lie or two.

In I think the 3rd IPCC report, may of been the 4th, they had a figure of 18mm sea level rise due to the melting of Himilyan ice. There is about 1/100th of a mm of sea level rise up there if you melted all of it.

That Greenland is losing ice mass annually. Clearly it is not.

 

[Tim the plumber]

The word is "thermohaline". The "haline" should clue you into the role of salt in the density.

[quot]e
The North Atlantic convayor moves hundreds of giga tonnes a second and is wind driven. So the slight change in the ammount of fesh water entering this will have no impact on the wind driven circulation.

And we have history of it reorganizing. You should read more in the field. Start with Wallace Broecker
[/QUOTE]
Given the vastness of the vertical flow, although tiny compared to the horizontal North Atlantic convayor. the comparative tiny change in volume of the ice melt will never be a significant factor.

That the NAC has a habit of changing course and stuff is a separate thing. Neither you nor I know why it happens.

 

[istodolez]

Given the vastness of the vertical flow, although tiny compared to the horizontal North Atlantic convayor. the comparative tiny change in volume of the ice melt will never be a significant factor.

That the NAC has a habit of changing course and stuff is a separate thing. Neither you nor I know why it happens.

LIke I said you should read more in the field.

W. S. Broecker, "What If the Conveyor Were to Shut Down?" GSA Today 9(1):1-7 (January 1999)

 

[watsup]

In I think the 3rd IPCC report, may of been the 4th, they had a figure of 18mm sea level rise due to the melting of Himilyan ice. There is about 1/100th of a mm of sea level rise up there if you melted all of it.

That Greenland is losing ice mass annually. Clearly it is not.

Between September 2018 and August 2019, the Greenland Ice Sheet set a record for ice loss (532 ± 58 billion metric tons). Between September 2019 and August 2020, the rate of ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet was much lower (293 ± 66 billion metric tons), but still above the 2002–2020 average measured by GRACE."

Greenland ice loss in 2020 was below the record but above average

Between September 2019 and August 2020, the rate of ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet was much lower that the record set the previous 12-month period, but but still above the 2002–2020 average. Overall, Greenland continues to lose ice.

www.climate.gov

 

[watsup]

In I think the 3rd IPCC report, may of been the 4th, they had a figure of 18mm sea level rise due to the melting of Himilyan ice. There is about 1/100th of a mm of sea level rise up there if you melted all of it.

That Greenland is losing ice mass annually. Clearly it is not.

Where did you get your 1/1000th figure. You will need to source this for me before I can reply. Sorry, but we have learned over time that we simply cannot accept denier information at face value.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Between September 2018 and August 2019, the Greenland Ice Sheet set a record for ice loss (532 ± 58 billion metric tons). Between September 2019 and August 2020, the rate of ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet was much lower (293 ± 66 billion metric tons), but still above the 2002–2020 average measured by GRACE."

Greenland ice loss in 2020 was below the record but above average

Between September 2019 and August 2020, the rate of ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet was much lower that the record set the previous 12-month period, but but still above the 2002–2020 average. Overall, Greenland continues to lose ice.

www.climate.gov

Yep that is the lie stuff.

Given the outflow from Greenland is 100Gt/yr or maybe 250Gt/yr and the snowfall is 800Gt/yr++++ how does it lose ice mass? (2.2 million km2 and a high precipitation, well over 350mm average, probably well over 1000Gt/yr)

We have magnificent maps of the land beneath the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica due to the use of planes equiped with 2 radars, one that sees through the ice the other is refected by ice, which were done in the 1950s/60s.

How come we don't just do that again rather than use the GRACE, Gravity; The way the orbit of a passing satelite is divered due to change in mass below it, no way to check that for anybody. Radar; Passive radar using the radar on the ground and working out where it is via this. No 2 way checking of that telemetry. Altitude and whatever.

The plain facts that you and I can check say that Greenland is gaining ice mass.

 

[vegas giants]

Yep that is the lie stuff.

Given the outflow from Greenland is 100Gt/yr or maybe 250Gt/yr and the snowfall is 800Gt/yr++++ how does it lose ice mass? (2.2 million km2 and a high precipitation, well over 350mm average, probably well over 1000Gt/yr)

We have magnificent maps of the land beneath the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica due to the use of planes equiped with 2 radars, one that sees through the ice the other is refected by ice, which were done in the 1950s/60s.

How come we don't just do that again rather than use the GRACE, Gravity; The way the orbit of a passing satelite is divered due to change in mass below it, no way to check that for anybody. Radar; Passive radar using the radar on the ground and working out where it is via this. No 2 way checking of that telemetry. Altitude and whatever.

The plain facts that you and I can check say that Greenland is gaining ice mass.

So you think there is a conspiracy to say greenland is losing ice mass.

Got it

 

[Tim the plumber]

Where did you get your 1/1000th figure. You will need to source this for me before I can reply. Sorry, but we have learned over time that we simply cannot accept denier information at face value.

Well you go to google maps and work out how much surface area of glacier there is and mutiply by a max depth of 100m. Although my mountaineer friend says that 50m is max.

And it is 1/100th of a mm.

That is less than 40km3 of glacial ice.

For 180 mm you need 6,500km3 of ice to melt. At 100m thick that is 65,000 km2.

The subsequent reports have dropped the Himalyan contribution.

 

[Tim the plumber]

So you think there is a conspiracy to say greenland is losing ice mass.

Got it

A lie.

A small group of people doing the lying.

 

[vegas giants]

Well you go to google maps and work out how much surface area of glacier there is and mutiply by a max depth of 100m. Although my mountaineer friend says that 50m is max.

And it is 1/100th of a mm.

That is less than 40km3 of glacial ice.

For 180 mm you need 6,500km3 of ice to melt. At 100m thick that is 65,000 km2.

The subsequent reports have dropped the Himalyan contribution.

So you made it up

 

[vegas giants]

A lie.

A small group of people doing the lying.

Like nasa?

 

[cabse5]

Has nothing at all to do with the solid science that has shown that CO2 produced by human activities is causing global warming and that its highly negative effects are already showing up and will only get worse.

Climate change catastrophe theory isn't even science or fact. Climate change catastrophe theory is based on a construct of statistics (and not environmentalism) called linear regression.

Linear regression ASSUMES that very few or one variable (CO2) changes the outcome. No one has proven this.

 

[vegas giants]

Climate change catastrophe theory isn't even science or fact. Climate change catastrophe theory is based on a construct of statistics (and not environmentalism) called linear regression.

Linear regression ASSUMES that very few or one variable (CO2) changes the outcome. No one has proven this.

Every science agency on earth disagrees with you

 

[cabse5]

Every science agency on earth disagrees with you

Not every environmentalist disagrees with me.

I don't approve of the authoritarian approach to science like you do...That certain science (and not others) must be obeyed or be considered gospel.
Facts are more the way science is to be evaluated.

 

[vegas giants]

Not every environmentalist disagrees with me. I don't approve of the authoritarian approach to science like you do...That certain science (and not others) must be obeyed or be considered gospel.
That is not how science is to evaluated.

But every science agency on earth does. As do long lists of nobel scientists, the DOD, the vatican. NASA....etc

 

[cabse5]

But every science agency on earth does. As do long lists of nobel scientists, the DOD, the vatican. NASA....etc

Yes, sir. Mr. Authoritarian, sir!

 

[vegas giants]

Yes, sir. Mr. Authoritarian, sir!

Yes, sir. Mr. Authoritarian, sir!

 

[cabse5]

Yes, sir. Mr. Authoritarian, sir!

You're the one advocating for authoritarianism in climate change catastrophe theory.

You realize that authoritarianism doesn't mean thinking differently than you?

 

[vegas giants]

You're the one advocating for authoritarianism in climate change catastrophe theory.

You realize that authoritarianism doesn't mean thinking differently than you?

Why are you promoting a dictatorship?

 

[watsup]

Yep that is the lie stuff.

Given the outflow from Greenland is 100Gt/yr or maybe 250Gt/yr and the snowfall is 800Gt/yr++++ how does it lose ice mass? (2.2 million km2 and a high precipitation, well over 350mm average, probably well over 1000Gt/yr)

We have magnificent maps of the land beneath the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica due to the use of planes equiped with 2 radars, one that sees through the ice the other is refected by ice, which were done in the 1950s/60s.

How come we don't just do that again rather than use the GRACE, Gravity; The way the orbit of a passing satelite is divered due to change in mass below it, no way to check that for anybody. Radar; Passive radar using the radar on the ground and working out where it is via this. No 2 way checking of that telemetry. Altitude and whatever.

The plain facts that you and I can check say that Greenland is gaining ice mass.

“Although there have been some gains at high altitudes, significant ice losses are occurring at low altitudes (Wouters 2008) along the coastline where glaciers are calving ice into the oceans far quicker than ice is being accumulated at the top of the ice sheet (Rignot and Kanagaratnam 2006).

In conclusion Greenland is losing ice extensively along its margins where fast flowing ice streams are pushing miore ice into the ocean than is gained in the center of the ice sheet.”

Is Greenland gaining or losing ice?

<p>While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice. Overall Greenland is losing ice mass at an accelerating rate. From 2002 to 2009, the rate of ice mass loss doubled.</p>

skepticalscience.com

 

[watsup]

Well you go to google maps and work out how much surface area of glacier there is and mutiply by a max depth of 100m. Although my mountaineer friend says that 50m is max.

And it is 1/100th of a mm.

That is less than 40km3 of glacial ice.

For 180 mm you need 6,500km3 of ice to melt. At 100m thick that is 65,000 km2.

The subsequent reports have dropped the Himalyan contribution.

“A newly comprehensive study shows that melting of Himalayan glaciers caused by rising temperatures has accelerated dramatically since the start of the 21st century. The analysis, spanning 40 years of satellite observations across India, China, Nepal and Bhutan, indicates that glaciers have been losing the equivalent of more than a vertical foot and half of ice each year since 2000 -- double the amount of melting that took place from 1975 to 2000. The study is the latest and perhaps most convincing indication that climate change is eating the Himalayas' glaciers, potentially threatening water supplies for hundreds of millions of people downstream across much of Asia.”

Melting of Himalayan glaciers has doubled in recent years

A newly comprehensive study shows that melting of Himalayan glaciers caused by rising temperatures has accelerated dramatically since the start of the 21st century.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Tim the plumber]

“Although there have been some gains at high altitudes, significant ice losses are occurring at low altitudes (Wouters 2008) along the coastline where glaciers are calving ice into the oceans far quicker than ice is being accumulated at the top of the ice sheet (Rignot and Kanagaratnam 2006).

In conclusion Greenland is losing ice extensively along its margins where fast flowing ice streams are pushing miore ice into the ocean than is gained in the center of the ice sheet.”

Is Greenland gaining or losing ice?

<p>While the Greenland interior is in mass balance, the coastlines are losing ice. Overall Greenland is losing ice mass at an accelerating rate. From 2002 to 2009, the rate of ice mass loss doubled.</p>

skepticalscience.com

800+++Gt/yr lands on it. That has to melt in the 2 months of summer. That is 9 times the flow rate of the Mississippi.

I can show you a paper which has a flow rate figure of 25Gt/yr.

There are references to 100Gt/yr as a figure in other papers.

This 800++ figure is to break even.

Then you have to find the loss. Good luck.