Climate crsis is always with us.

[Tim the plumber]

“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

If it all melts there will be about a 1/100th of a mm sea level increase. I don't care if the glaciers have got a foot thinner. I just don't care.

 

[vegas giants]

If it all melts there will be about a 1/100th of a mm sea level increase. I don't care if the glaciers have got a foot thinner. I just don't care.

These are made up numbers

 

[watsup]

If it all melts there will be about a 1/100th of a mm sea level increase. I don't care if the glaciers have got a foot thinner. I just don't care.

Fortunately you are just a forum chatter and it is Joe Biden, a serious-minded person, who will be in charge and bring us back into the fold of the world of nations.

 

[watsup]

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.

You’re feeling the leg of the elephant again.

 

[watsup]

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.

You are the one who has not provided any sourcing whatsoever. Until you can confirm your numbers (800gt/yr) , I have no need to try to refute them.

 

[Tim the plumber]

You are the one who has not provided any sourcing whatsoever. Until you can confirm your numbers (800gt/yr) , I have no need to try to refute them.

[W:202]Greenland is gaining ice mass no matter what NASA says.

Greenland, that big island off Canada, is supposed to be the principal place where ice will melt and result in catastrophic sea level rise. The IPCC has a number of 59cm, er, no 1m, er no.. some other number without any change in the science... make up something quick untill people are scared...

debatepolitics.com

All the papers you need there.

 

[istodolez]

[W:202]Greenland is gaining ice mass no matter what NASA says.

Greenland, that big island off Canada, is supposed to be the principal place where ice will melt and result in catastrophic sea level rise. The IPCC has a number of 59cm, er, no 1m, er no.. some other number without any change in the science... make up something quick untill people are scared...

debatepolitics.com

All the papers you need there.

"In all, Greenland lost 3,902 ± 342 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2018, causing the mean sea level to rise by 10.8 ± 0.9 millimetres. "

SOURCE: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1855-2

 

[Tim the plumber]

"In all, Greenland lost 3,902 ± 342 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2018, causing the mean sea level to rise by 10.8 ± 0.9 millimetres. "

SOURCE: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1855-2

Yes that would be the lie again.

Although it is at least showing a slow reduction in the claimed figires of ice mass loss as it equates to 150Gt/yr. The 600Gt/yr or 400Gt/yr or 250Gt/yr numbers that used to be banded about have been forgotten now.

 

[istodolez]

Yes that would be the lie again.

Scientists lie but only YOU know the truth?

OK. I'm done here. Sorry to bother you.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Scientists lie but only YOU know the truth?

OK. I'm done here. Sorry to bother you.

You can check the numbers yourself.

The surface area of Greenland is 2.2 million km2.

It has a snowfall of more than 500mm/yr on average. Making the total mass falling on it well over 1,000Gt/yr.

The out flow of the biggest river there is 5Gt/yr. The total outflow is around 100Gt/yr.

To get to a break-even point you would need 12 Mississippi's worth of outflow during the 2 month summer.

Have a look at the map and try to find them.

I do not ask you to believe me I ask you to work it out for yourself. It is easy.

 

[istodolez]

You can check the numbers yourself.

I did. Where did you get YOUR numbers?

I do not ask you to believe me I ask you to work it out for yourself. It is easy.

And if the calculus were that simple I'd agree. But then I'd have to give up actually understanding the technical details. Sorry, not going there with you. I prefer to go with the actual measurements, not your oversimplified version.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I did. Where did you get YOUR numbers?



And if the calculus were that simple I'd agree. But then I'd have to give up actually understanding the technical details. Sorry, not going there with you. I prefer to go with the actual measurements, not your oversimplified version.

Do you agree with google that the surface area of Greenland is 2.2 million km2? Is that OK?

Do you agree that Greenland gets a lot of snowfall on it? Is 500mm/yr as an average figure OK? That is less than Cheshire in the UK gets. These figures show loads more for the average of the UK; https://www.google.com/search?safe=...hUKEwjz64ONoqPuAhURExQKHeOcCDMQ4dUDCAg&uact=5

Do you agree that there are no massive rivers anywhere near the size of teh Mississippi flowing out of Greenalnd?

Do you agree that the glacial flow rates are glacial? That is although they are often very wide and thick they don't move at more than a couple of hundred meters a year, on average over decades?

If you can spot any trouble with these facts then you can show how Greenland is losing ice mass. If not then you have to accept your own conclusions of simple sums.

 

[istodolez]

Do you agree with google that the surface area of Greenland is 2.2 million km2? Is that OK?

I don't think you are following. I'm pointing out that your oversimplification doesn't correspond to the reality of ice sheet loss.

Do you agree that there are no massive rivers anywhere near the size of teh Mississippi flowing out of Greenalnd?

Why does this matter? Do you not think there are glaciers on Greenland that reach out to the shoreline? Why do you need giant rivers like the Mississippi?

Do you agree that the glacial flow rates are glacial?

I have a PhD in geology. I can identify a tautology even without it.

If you can spot any trouble with these facts then you can show how Greenland is losing ice mass. If not then you have to accept your own conclusions of simple sums.

I pointed to scientific measurements (as have others on here). You call them "lies" and then prefer your own back-of-the-envelope oversimplification (and who knows what you even know about glaciers in general, let alone large ice sheets).

Sorry you won't convince people with it.

 

[cabse5]

“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

Is Greenland losing ice an indication of climate change? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I don't think you are following. I'm pointing out that your oversimplification doesn't correspond to the reality of ice sheet loss.

How do you know that there has been a net ice mass loss? Do you have any checkable evidence? Some sort of picture of mountains in teh middle of Greenland which used to be covered in ice now exposed?

Why does this matter? Do you not think there are glaciers on Greenland that reach out to the shoreline? Why do you need giant rivers like the Mississippi?

Yes there are glaciers on Greenland that outflow into the ocean. They do so slowly. They are sometimes very massive and may well be able to transport tens of Gt/yr. You need rivers bigger than the Mississippi because otherwise the simple balance sheet of ice mass shows a massive gain in mass.

I have a PhD in geology. I can identify a tautology even without it.

I have had many people tell me such things on the internet. It is shocking how well qualified most internet warriors are. How much grounded ice would have to melt to get a single mm of sea level rise do you think?

I pointed to scientific measurements (as have others on here). You call them "lies" and then prefer your own back-of-the-envelope oversimplification (and who knows what you even know about glaciers in general, let alone large ice sheets).

Sorry you won't convince people with it.

And I point out that the official figures are abviously false. They tell us that up is down. You can choose to try to tell yourself that it is not so but that is up to you.

 

[istodolez]

How do you know that there has been a net ice mass loss? Do you have any checkable evidence?

I just go with the science.

Some sort of picture of mountains in teh middle of Greenland which used to be covered in ice now exposed?

Nope.

I have had many people tell me such things on the internet. It is shocking how well qualified most internet warriors are.

And there actually ARE people with doctorates in fields you don't have one in!

And I point out that the official figures are abviously false.

Here's a great resource for you: http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

They tell us that up is down. You can choose to try to tell yourself that it is not so but that is up to you.

Well, again, 25 years of professional experience as a research scientist puts me more in contact with how science operates. But, again, I will point you to the MIT article to help you out.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

 

[Tim the plumber]

I just go with the science.



Nope.



And there actually ARE people with doctorates in fields you don't have one in!



Here's a great resource for you: http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/



Well, again, 25 years of professional experience as a research scientist puts me more in contact with how science operates. But, again, I will point you to the MIT article to help you out.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

Once upon a time there was science that said that the shape of your head determined your intelligence. There would have been supporting official figures for that.

Did not make it right.

The obvious that it was wrong made it drivel.

 

[istodolez]

Once upon a time there was science that said that the shape of your head determined your intelligence. There would have been supporting official figures for that.

I am highly doubtful that they actually DID have supporting evidence. It is not like they were above anecdotal and non-statistical analyses.

In fact statistical analyses based on modern technology show no such evidence exists. (SOURCE)

As per usual folks like you that want to make some deeper point about the failures of science fail to have all the facts or details in hand.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I am highly doubtful that they actually DID have supporting evidence. It is not like they were above anecdotal and non-statistical analyses.

In fact statistical analyses based on modern technology show no such evidence exists. (SOURCE)

As per usual folks like you that want to make some deeper point about the failures of science fail to have all the facts or details in hand.

YOU can look at the map. YOU can look at how much outflow there is to a factor of 3.

YOU can asses if the claim of ice mass loss is true.

 

[istodolez]

YOU can look at the map. YOU can look at how much outflow there is to a factor of 3.

YOU can asses if the claim of ice mass loss is true.

It isn't that simple.

 

[Tim the plumber]

It isn't that simple.

Yes it is.

If not explain how the water/ice teleports out without a big river showing up?

 

[C MAN]

View attachment 67313398

1871.

Now we have louder calls for action and doom. No other changes.

It’s hard to think of a draught when I am standing in eleven plus inches of rain in January.

 

[istodolez]

Yes it is.

If not explain how the water/ice teleports out without a big river showing up?

LOL! Have you ever SEEN a picture of Greenland? There are portions of the ice sheet that go right up to the water's edge. Do you know how glaciers melt? There's a flux of water from the BOTTOM OF THE ICE SHEETS as well.

Sheesh, dude....get a clue!

Yikes!

This is why it is important to actually UNDERSTAND science before you try to DO science.

 

[watsup]

Is Greenland losing ice an indication of climate change? Maybe. Maybe not.

Climate scientists says that is is. Who says that it’s not?

 

[cabse5]

Climate scientists says that is is. Who says that it’s not?

Science, er, a lack of science says it isn't. Climate change catastrophe theory isn't even based on an environmental science construct. Climate change catastrophe theory is based on linear regression which is a statistical construct which presupposes that very few or one (CO2) variables affect climate change.