Greenland melt

[Crick]

According to LeDerpster, it will happen when Greenland moves south. You know these continents - they wander the face of the planet in random directions like a bunch of milling cows waiting to be milked.

Greenland is melting. It is not going to all melt quickly. It would take centuries or more for it all to melt. But it is melting and its meltwater is raising sea level. Given that the earth under almost the entire Greenland ice sheet is below sea level, it's ripe for the sort of unstable, unstoppable destruction that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is currently undergoing. Both present the risk of catastrophic collapse and one going would very likely trip the other. Try to imagine the consequence of dumping enough ice into the oceans to raise sea level by, say, 3 meters, over a period of less than a year. You worry about your taxes going up - what's it going to cost to relocate half the fucking planet?

 

[LaDexter]

Greenland is melting

There is precisely no evidence of this.

is raising sea level.

LMFAO!!!


The warmers told us over and over that Antarctica was "melting" and "raising sea levels..."

We went to court in 2007, the court ruled the raw data, not the FUDGE, shows Antarctic ice GROWTH, that was the ruling, and Crick's side was TOO CHICKEN to appeal.

NASA data collectors published recently that Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of ice every year. The warmers have Antarctica as the primary "cause" of ocean "rise."

Oceans are not rising, because the ice isn't melting, only the credibility of those still parroting the type of BS Crick does...

 

[skookerasbil]

My God....the AGW alarmists are getting schooled again. And they know it too, but they try to blind you with science gobblygook.

Antarctica = the AGW k00ks have nothing with the ice hoax.

And anyway..........NOBODY is caring about the seal level rise except the 3 or 4 OCD's in this forum. Thousands of USMB board members and nobody comes in here except the 3 or 4 AGW OCD's. C'mon now........

 

[mamooth]

Good News - Greenland ice age still manufacturing annual ice core -

Despite our attempts to correct you, you still don't seem to understand what an "ice core" is.

Amusing, that you keep making up definitions so at odds with Standard English.

Just for our amusement, can you tell us what you think an "ice core" is?

I'll help you out. Normal people define an "ice core" as a cylindrical-shaped sample of ice drilled out of a glacier or ice sheet.

Needless to say, Greenland does not manufacture them. People manufacture them.

 

[jc456]

According to LeDerpster, it will happen when Greenland moves south. You know these continents - they wander the face of the planet in random directions like a bunch of milling cows waiting to be milked.

Greenland is melting. It is not going to all melt quickly. It would take centuries or more for it all to melt. But it is melting and its meltwater is raising sea level. Given that the earth under almost the entire Greenland ice sheet is below sea level, it's ripe for the sort of unstable, unstoppable destruction that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is currently undergoing. Both present the risk of catastrophic collapse and one going would very likely trip the other. Try to imagine the consequence of dumping enough ice into the oceans to raise sea level by, say, 3 meters, over a period of less than a year. You worry about your taxes going up - what's it going to cost to relocate half the fucking planet?

what are the rise totals for your melt event over centuries? What is the volume of melt per inches of rise numbers, you have them? you know that is science right? Calculations to show impact? why post mumbo jumbo crap, when you know you will be called out for figures. Let's see your figures, how many tons of ice melt will there be in the next ten years? You even have that?

 

[LaDexter]

Normal people define an "ice core" as a cylindrical-shaped sample of ice drilled out of a glacier or ice sheet.

LOL!!!

When you check out those cylindrical shaped samples, you see year after year of what froze on top of the existing glacier at the time. Know what that means? The ice is THICKENING by that amount EVERY YEAR. IT is NOT "melting." It is GROWING ICE. Perhaps that is why 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of new ice every year since Algore started lying about CO2.... and also explains why the Tippys are forced to show "sea level rise" by cherry picking island chains right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire. There is no sea level rise unless there is an ongoing net ice melt, and there is no net ice melt with 90% of Earth ice adding 80 billion tons of ice ever year...

So while you are technically right about symatics, everyone understands the dynamic to which I refer, that Antarctica and Greenland add a new level of ice every year while you "warmers" claim it is "melting." Your side lies...

 

[mamooth]

That incoherent rant didn't answer the simple question.

What do you define "ice core" to mean?

 

[GaryDog]

View attachment 83322

My God, how I envy your erudite answers.

Do you know what an answer is?
I was just having fun with your fear mongering

Sometimes fear is warranted.

 

[GaryDog]

Likely more ACTUAL ice lost to actual sublimation on those VERY LONG summer days --- than lost because of this definition of "melt".

Another unsourced, incorrect assertion fired off from the hip. All in a day's work, eh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Likely more ACTUAL ice lost to actual sublimation on those VERY LONG summer days --- than lost because of this definition of "melt".

Another unsourced, incorrect assertion fired off from the hip. All in a day's work, eh?

All we know for certain is that bad things will happen unless we give EnviroMarxists control of the US economy. Sure, much worse things happen after they get control, but that's not today's issue

 

[GaryDog]

Likely more ACTUAL ice lost to actual sublimation on those VERY LONG summer days --- than lost because of this definition of "melt".

Another unsourced, incorrect assertion fired off from the hip. All in a day's work, eh?

All we know for certain is that bad things will happen unless we give EnviroMarxists control of the US economy. Sure, much worse things happen after they get control, but that's not today's issue

Blah blah blah marxist/saul alinksy/Soros, blah blah blah.

Christ you're boring. Do you get ANY information outside of a Souza documentary?

 

[flacaltenn]

Likely more ACTUAL ice lost to actual sublimation on those VERY LONG summer days --- than lost because of this definition of "melt".

Another unsourced, incorrect assertion fired off from the hip. All in a day's work, eh?

Already supported by papers presented within the thread. You know.. .The material you can't or won't read.

 

[GaryDog]

Likely more ACTUAL ice lost to actual sublimation on those VERY LONG summer days --- than lost because of this definition of "melt".

Another unsourced, incorrect assertion fired off from the hip. All in a day's work, eh?

Already supported by papers presented within the thread. You know.. .The material you can't or won't read.

Your sources are predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of sea ice vs. land ice, and which one has more impact on the globe. You AND your sources really haven't surpassed 10th grade in your analysis here:

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

 

[jc456]

Likely more ACTUAL ice lost to actual sublimation on those VERY LONG summer days --- than lost because of this definition of "melt".

Another unsourced, incorrect assertion fired off from the hip. All in a day's work, eh?

Already supported by papers presented within the thread. You know.. .The material you can't or won't read.

Your sources are predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of sea ice vs. land ice, and which one has more impact on the globe. You AND your sources really haven't surpassed 10th grade in your analysis here:

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

so there's a new dog in the forum. Cool. So bubba, what adds to sea level rise, sea ice or land ice? What say you? Let's start with some basics here so we know where to benchmark followup responses.

 

[jc456]

That incoherent rant didn't answer the simple question.

What do you define "ice core" to mean?

sure it did. You choose to ignore what he wrote. Understandable. Basically, you knew what he was actually talking about from the beginning and you were only being a tool. Funny.

So, if the next ice core is longer than the previous, do you supposed more ice was there or less?

 

[LaDexter]

I never challenged the notion that an "ice core" is the cylinder shaped ice cut out of a glacier. That doesn't change the reality of what "manufacturing its annual ice core" means either. Perhaps I should use "annual ice accumulation layer" but if everyone understands it, why bother?

Regardless of what you call it, it proves it ain't melting...

 

[flacaltenn]

Likely more ACTUAL ice lost to actual sublimation on those VERY LONG summer days --- than lost because of this definition of "melt".

Another unsourced, incorrect assertion fired off from the hip. All in a day's work, eh?

Already supported by papers presented within the thread. You know.. .The material you can't or won't read.

Your sources are predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of sea ice vs. land ice, and which one has more impact on the globe. You AND your sources really haven't surpassed 10th grade in your analysis here:

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

The sources I'm referring to -- about ice loss from sublimation -- were posted by OldieRocks back on the 1st pages. And apply SPECIFICALLY to Greenland -- which is the topic of this thread.

Any "ice loss" in Antarctica is likely due to other causes. Such as sublimation (due largely to the fact that Antarctica is a precipitation desert) OR the massive volcanic crevices in the glacial coastal regions that feed warm pools under the massive amount of ice. Or the fact that the satellite methods cannot really separate ice mass from other materials like water OR MAGMA.

Active Volcano Found Under Antarctic Ice: Eruption Could Raise Sea Levels

No ATMOSPHERIC temperature change in Antarctica that is SIGNIFICANT to trigger ice loss.

 

[LaDexter]

Any "ice loss" in Antarctica is likely due to other causes.

like FUDGING the data....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Likely more ACTUAL ice lost to actual sublimation on those VERY LONG summer days --- than lost because of this definition of "melt".

Another unsourced, incorrect assertion fired off from the hip. All in a day's work, eh?

All we know for certain is that bad things will happen unless we give EnviroMarxists control of the US economy. Sure, much worse things happen after they get control, but that's not today's issue

Blah blah blah marxist/saul alinksy/Soros, blah blah blah.

Christ you're boring. Do you get ANY information outside of a Souza documentary?

can you post any lab working at all testing your "CO2 is gonna kill all life on Earth 'Theory'"?

 

[flacaltenn]

Likely more ACTUAL ice lost to actual sublimation on those VERY LONG summer days --- than lost because of this definition of "melt".

Another unsourced, incorrect assertion fired off from the hip. All in a day's work, eh?

I am loaded from my toes to my crown with ACTUAL GW knowledge. And it is not my job to bring you up to speed. I'd suggest looking thru this forum a bit more before YOUR hips need titanium replacements.

THESE guys --- VERIFY that sublimation is the primary ice loss process in areas where the ATMOS temp rarely gets above freezing. And what they FOUND -- (about "recycling of the water vapor") applies primarily ONLY in winter. NOT in the summer where "fog" does not form and stick around.

So you'd do better to read and study than attack folks who've invested more than you have in the topic.

Study finds ice isn’t being lost from Greenland’s interior | UIC News Center

“But in the center of the ice sheet, it’s 25 below zero Celsius (-13 F), so it’s always freezing, even if it warms. It’s a very rare occurrence to go above freezing,” he said. The authors note that “despite rapid melting in the coastal regions of the ice sheet, a significant area — approximately 40 percent — rarely experiences surface melting.”
Solid ice can be lost not only by melting into liquid water. Under certain conditions, it can vaporize by sublimation, a one-step transition from solid to gas. Such conditions exist at the high-altitude, dry, frigid surface of Greenland’s interior.
“Sublimation is common there, unlike other places,” Berkelhammer said. “We looked at the exchange of water between the ice sheet and the air above it through condensation, evaporation, and sublimation.”

“We expected sublimation to increase with temperature, but we find no net loss” of ice over time, Berkelhammer said, again referring just to the interior of the ice mass. “You could say, if this process changes, you’d lose ice significantly faster. Or, if (recycling) becomes even more efficient, you would conserve even more ice mass.

The next step, he said, is to run experiments to see how sublimation changes with temperature associated with past and future changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, to see how recycling fits into climate model