- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
lol
The Sierra Nevada Field Campus is, in their own words, a "nature camp for adults."
This summer, Mr (not Dr) Steele is teaching a class on birdsongs. The Campus is also teaching classes on watercolor painting and "Copperplate Calligraphy Illuminated by the Sierra."
They don't do climate research. He does not do climate research. He basically maintained a small eco preserve. Running that center, to put it mildly, does not in any way establish his credentials in the field of climate science.
(Finding out what the Field Campus actually is took me about 2 minutes. Maybe you should have done the same, before proclaiming that running it makes him an expert in an unrelated field.)
The process by which he became a climate change denier also trashes his credibility (when it comes to climate science, not his work at the Nature Camp For Adults). He basically looked at the max daily temps for one station (Tahoe), saw it wasn't changing much, and decided that climate change was all a result of ENSOs. To put it mildly, that sounds rather delusional, since we can remove the impact of ENSOs and still see temperatures rising. And, of course, it is wholly unscientific to measure global temperatures by looking at the thermometer in your backyard.
As usual, deniers will cling to anyone who can claim to be a "scientist" to bolster their views -- even when their scientific training (e.g. degrees in biology, work experience in ornithology) have very little to do with climate science. Any port in a storm....
lol
The Sierra Nevada Field Campus is, in their own words, a "nature camp for adults."
This summer, Mr (not Dr) Steele is teaching a class on birdsongs. The Campus is also teaching classes on watercolor painting and "Copperplate Calligraphy Illuminated by the Sierra."
They don't do climate research. He does not do climate research. He basically maintained a small eco preserve. Running that center, to put it mildly, does not in any way establish his credentials in the field of climate science.
(Finding out what the Field Campus actually is took me about 2 minutes. Maybe you should have done the same, before proclaiming that running it makes him an expert in an unrelated field.)
The process by which he became a climate change denier also trashes his credibility (when it comes to climate science, not his work at the Nature Camp For Adults). He basically looked at the max daily temps for one station (Tahoe), saw it wasn't changing much, and decided that climate change was all a result of ENSOs. To put it mildly, that sounds rather delusional, since we can remove the impact of ENSOs and still see temperatures rising. And, of course, it is wholly unscientific to measure global temperatures by looking at the thermometer in your backyard.
As usual, deniers will cling to anyone who can claim to be a "scientist" to bolster their views -- even when their scientific training (e.g. degrees in biology, work experience in ornithology) have very little to do with climate science. Any port in a storm....
Still dodging. Cowardice.
Incorrect. It says that about half of the ice sheet melts at some point during the year.
The ice sheet is 660,000 square miles. So basically, the area that had some melt in 2018 is around the same size as Texas.
If you look at the FULL graphic, and read the FULL article, you'd know that what they're saying does not support your skepticism. E.g. they point out how there were multiple massive melt spikes during the summer, which were among the largest on record; how the glaciers are flowing faster now than in the past; and as a result, even with above-average snowfall in 2018, the ice sheet won't change much this year.
Oh, and the NSIDC are the ones that produced the data used for this chart....
I hate to disappoint you, but talk about Greenland losing ice mass is not going to stop any time soon, because Greenland's ice sheet will not stop losing ice mass any time soon.
lol.. failWhether Greenland or Antarctica for that matter, gains or loses ice, has nearly
nothing to do with temperature...
Yeah, it's not like we have decades of objective data showing that the ice mass losses of Greenland's ice sheet is accelerating. Unless, y'know, we do. E.g. Accelerating changes in ice mass within Greenland, and the ice sheet’s sensitivity to atmospheric forcing | PNASand everything to do with how much snow falls
and how much ice calves into the sea. All the palaver about melting is just so
much BS.
lol.. fail
Yeah, it's not like we have decades of objective data showing that the ice mass losses of Greenland's ice sheet is accelerating. Unless, y'know, we do. E.g. Accelerating changes in ice mass within Greenland, and the ice sheet’s sensitivity to atmospheric forcing | PNAS
And since you apparently accept NASA as a reliable source:
The mass of the Greenland ice sheet has rapidly declined in the last several years due to surface melting and iceberg calving. Research based on observations from the NASA/German Aerospace Center’s twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites indicates that between 2002 and 2016, Greenland shed approximately 280 gigatons of ice per year, causing global sea level to rise by 0.03 inches (0.8 millimeters) per year.
Greenland Ice Loss 2002-2016 : GRACE-FO
Incorrect. It says that about half of the ice sheet melts at some point during the year.
The ice sheet is 660,000 square miles. So basically, the area that had some melt in 2018 is around the same size as Texas.
If you look at the FULL graphic, and read the FULL article, you'd know that what they're saying does not support your skepticism. E.g. they point out how there were multiple massive melt spikes during the summer, which were among the largest on record; how the glaciers are flowing faster now than in the past; and as a result, even with above-average snowfall in 2018, the ice sheet won't change much this year.
Oh, and the NSIDC are the ones that produced the data used for this chart....
I hate to disappoint you, but talk about Greenland losing ice mass is not going to stop any time soon, because Greenland's ice sheet will not stop losing ice mass any time soon.
...The mass of the Greenland ice sheet has rapidly declined in the last several years due to surface melting and iceberg calving. ...
Yeah, you forgot the fjords. There's over 100 of those.Hmmm surface melting AND iceberg calving. I wonder which one is greater.
If it's melting then there should be huge rivers discharging into the sea.
Wikipedia List of Greenland's rivers
Looks like 19 rivers you never heard of before. The largest, the Børglum river
is someplace in Peary Land.
Yes, there is a massive amount of calving, and glaciers flowing into the ocean, and glaciers retreating, and meltwater flowing into the ocean. The ice also very likely flows faster when there is water running underneath the ice sheet. These processes are happening all around the entire perimeter of Greenland -- that's 44,087km, by the way. I.e. Greenland is huge.If it's iceberg calving, then there should be great glaciers calving ice into the sea.
And that proves... nothing.About 100 Ice sheeets, Ice caps and glaciers - mostly glaciers
Yeah, I do this crazy thing called paying attention to scientists.I'm going with the glaciers as having the greatest effect on Greenland's ice balance.
Melt water rivers? Not so much if hardly at all. How 'bout you?
Yeah, you forgot the fjords. There's over 100 of those.
List of fjords of Greenland - Wikipedia
There is also a lot of water in and running through the ice sheet -- moraines, lakes, aquifers, crevasses, rivers through and underneath the ice sheet.
Yes, there is a massive amount of calving, and glaciers flowing into the ocean, and glaciers retreating, and meltwater flowing into the ocean. The ice also very likely flows faster when there is water running underneath the ice sheet. These processes are happening all around the entire perimeter of Greenland -- that's 44,087km, by the way. I.e. Greenland is huge.
And that proves... nothing.
Yeah, I do this crazy thing called paying attention to scientists.
They are still trying to understand the glaciology and hydrology of Greenland's ice sheets -- as you might imagine, it is not easy, given that *cough* Greenland is HUGE and it is not easy to keep an eye on over hard-to-access 140 rivers and fjords. However, they are actively conducting research, have made a lot of headway in the past ~20 years, and are finding that most of the ice loss now is due to meltwater.
"We no longer see giant icebergs calving" from glaciers, releasing ice into the sea, said Lora Koenig, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, who led one of the new studies. "The majority of water is coming from surface melt."
Greenland's Ice Loss Now Comes from Surface
I assure you, I could find plenty of links to articles and scientific papers and even a TED talk on this.
And again... Ice melts faster when temperatures rise.
And again... We know, based on objective measurements, that Greenland's ice sheet is losing mass, and the rate of loss is accelerating, and it is accelerating because of higher temperatures. Determining ratio of ice to meltwater as the vehicle of loss informs us about the mechanisms by which it's happening, but doesn't change that fact that it is happening.
Yes, I'm sure that some ornithologist figured out all of the flaws of the GRACE and Operation Ice Bridge data. Oh, and that there aren't actually any fjords in Greenland. lolAlready refuted.
Yes, I'm sure that some ornithologist figured out all of the flaws of the GRACE and Operation Ice Bridge data. Oh, and that there aren't actually any fjords in Greenland. lol
"Cowardice?" Is that your new hook now? Weren't you decrying ad hominem attacks just a day ago? LolIt's all just a display of cowardice until you respond to #333 and #339.
"Cowardice?" Is that your new hook now? Weren't you decrying ad hominem attacks just a day ago? Lol
Anyway, WUWT has zero credibility, as typified by the way your ornithologist buddy gets basic facts wrong and cherry-picks and misrepresents actual scientific data. That kind of garbage deserves no response.
Yes, cowardice. Deflecting and dodging to avoid the substance.
Anyway, WUWT has zero credibility, as typified by the way your ornithologist buddy gets basic facts wrong and cherry-picks and misrepresents actual scientific data. That kind of garbage deserves no response.
...you forgot the fjords. There's over 100 There's over 100 of those.
List of fjords of Greenland - Wikipedia
If so,there always have been, it's not a new thing,There is also a lot of water in and running through the ice sheet -- moraines, lakes, aquifers, crevasses, rivers through and underneath the ice sheet.
Yes, but you're claiming there's more melt water right?Yes, there is a massive amount of calving, and glaciers flowing into the ocean and melt water flowing into the ocean.
If there's water flowing under the ice sheet,The ice also very likely flows faster when there is water running underneath the ice sheet.
If that's so, then they always have beenThese processes are happening all around the entire perimeter of Greenland...
Glaciers are the big players in Greenland's ice mass balance.And that proves... nothing.
I pay attention to facts and data. I don't listen to spin doctors.Yeah, I do this crazy thing called paying attention to scientists.
It's obviously necessary for climate science to make that finding.They are still trying to understand the glaciology and hydrology of Greenland's ice sheets -- as you might imagine, it is not easy, given that Greenland is HUGE and it is not easy to keep an eye on over hard-to-access 140 rivers and fjords. However, they are actively conducting research, have made a lot of headway in the past ~20 years, and are finding that most of the ice loss now is due to melt water.
The link:"We no longer see giant icebergs calving" from glaciers, releasing ice into the sea...The majority of water is coming from surface melt." Greenland's Ice Loss Now Comes from Surface
I've seen her on a TED talk interesting stuff. But again, discoveringI assure you, I could find plenty of links to articles and scientific papers and even a TED talk on this.
YouTube 8nbeD1mwCdo
If the temperature is still below freezing there won't be any melting.And again... Ice melts faster when temperatures rise.
You know what? Sea level is rising and the water has to be coming from somewhere,And again... We know, based on objective measurements, that Greenland's ice sheet is losing mass
That's most probably BSand the rate of loss is accelerating,
More BS. Ice loss or gain in Antarctica and Greenland is a function of snowfall and theand it is accelerating because of higher temperatures.
Claiming it's due to warming (A degree over the last 200 years) fits the narrative.Determining ratio of ice to melt water as the vehicle of loss informs us about the mechanisms by which it's happening, but doesn't change that fact that it is happening.
Claiming it's due to warming (A degree over the last 200 years) fits the narrative.
Temperatures require units - 1 deg C = 1.8 deg F. Run an experiment at your home - get two buckets of icy water - one at 30.2 deg F and the other at 32 deg F. Let them sit for two days at these temperatures. Turn them upside down. Did you need a mop for one?
Yeah, you forgot the fjords. There's over 100 of those.
List of fjords of Greenland - Wikipedia
There is also a lot of water in and running through the ice sheet -- moraines, lakes, aquifers, crevasses, rivers through and underneath the ice sheet.
Yes, there is a massive amount of calving, and glaciers flowing into the ocean, and glaciers retreating, and meltwater flowing into the ocean. The ice also very likely flows faster when there is water running underneath the ice sheet. These processes are happening all around the entire perimeter of Greenland -- that's 44,087km, by the way. I.e. Greenland is huge.
And that proves... nothing.
Yeah, I do this crazy thing called paying attention to scientists.
They are still trying to understand the glaciology and hydrology of Greenland's ice sheets -- as you might imagine, it is not easy, given that *cough* Greenland is HUGE and it is not easy to keep an eye on over hard-to-access 140 rivers and fjords. However, they are actively conducting research, have made a lot of headway in the past ~20 years, and are finding that most of the ice loss now is due to meltwater.
"We no longer see giant icebergs calving" from glaciers, releasing ice into the sea, said Lora Koenig, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, who led one of the new studies. "The majority of water is coming from surface melt."
I assure you, I could find plenty of links to articles and scientific papers and even a TED talk on this.
And again... Ice melts faster when temperatures rise.
And again... We know, based on objective measurements, that Greenland's ice sheet is losing mass, and the rate of loss is accelerating, and it is accelerating because of higher temperatures. Determining ratio of ice to meltwater as the vehicle of loss informs us about the mechanisms by which it's happening, but doesn't change that fact that it is happening.
From Wikipedia a fjord or fiord ... is a long, narrow inletKey words in that are "Created by a glacier."
with steep sides or cliffs, created by a glacier.
If so,there always have been, it's not a new thing,
not due to "Global Warming/Climate Change" of
one degree over the last 200 years.
Yes, but you're claiming there's more melt water right?
And the evidence for that is?
If there's water flowing under the ice sheet,
then there's always been water flowing under
the ice sheet. It wouldn't be new.
If that's so, then they always have been
Glaciers are the big players in Greenland's ice mass balance.
The rivers that you can't even find on a map barely make a
contribution.
I pay attention to facts and data. I don't listen to spin doctors.
It's obviously necessary for climate science to make that finding.
Calving ice bergs doesn't fit the narrative. Let's pretend that small
streams on the surface disappearing down moulins have more
impact than the entire coast line of 1,000 foot thick glaciers calving
into the sea.
The link:
Greenland's Ice Loss Now Comes from Surface
says:
It's difficult dealing with bald faced lies.
SAN FRANCISCO — Greenland's disappearing ice shifted gears in the past decade,
switching from shrinking glaciers to surface melting, researchers reported here
last week at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting.
I've seen her on a TED talk interesting stuff. But again, discovering
something today doesn't mean it hasn't been there all along.
If the temperature is still below freezing there won't be any melting.
You know what? Sea level is rising and the water has to be coming from somewhere,
and Antarctica and Greenland are good bets to be that somewhere.
That's most probably BS
More BS. Ice loss or gain in Antarctica and Greenland is a function of snowfall and the
calving of icebergs. The two events are separated in time by decades centuries or longer.
Claiming it's due to warming (A degree over the last 200 years) fits the narrative.
Glaciers are the big players in Greenland's ice mass balance.
The rivers that you can't even find on a map barely make a
contribution.
It is not happening. There needs to be 18 Mississippi months worth of flow out of Greenland to break even. This is very grey water full of sediment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?