Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
Thanks Tree36Thanks

Thread: NASA watching Greenland melt

  1. #11
    Franken-Stein DemoKKKrats excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    7,184
    Thanks
    2603

    From
    The Milky Way

  2. #12
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,234
    Thanks
    38355

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    From your link:

    If climate changes, the surface mass balance may change such that it no longer matches the calving and the ice sheet can start to gain or lose mass. This is important to keep track of, since such a mass loss will lead to global sea level rise. As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade.
    Thanks from April15, BigLeRoy and Babba

  3. #13
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    11,977
    Thanks
    8018

    From
    The greatest place on Earth California
    If climate changes, the surface mass balance may change such that it no longer matches the calving and the ice sheet can start to gain or lose mass. This is important to keep track of, since such a mass loss will lead to global sea level rise. As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade.

    Doncha just love it when they miss the important stuff?trump lips.jpg
    Thanks from EnigmaO01 and Friday13

  4. #14
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8,172
    Thanks
    4722

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    What I love, is that with a little digging the English version of that site can be found.

    The results are from, get this, A FUCKING COMPUTER MODEL.

    You gotta love it.

    https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maal...e-mass-budget/

    That's the joke part. The serious part is that again, a poster doesn't read their sources. Land mass balance does not mean total ice, it is the proportion of ice on land vs floating ice. From the same paper:

    The figure below shows the total daily contribution from all points on the ice sheet (top) and the same accumulated from September 1st to now (bottom). The blue curves show this season’s surface mass balance in gigatons (Gt; 1 Gt is one billion tons and corresponds to 1 cubic kilometer of water), and for comparison the mean curves from the historical model run are shown with two standard deviations on either side. Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.
    Thanks from April15, BigLeRoy and Friday13

  5. #15
    New Member
    Joined
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    23
    Thanks
    38

    From
    Bowie, Md
    According to the USBLS, the average income for a climate scientist is less than $90,000 per year. Not much to "squirrel away". The top science professors of the most prestigious universities get about $320,000 per year

    Compare that to fossil fuel executives (Tillerson for example) $28,138,329 (and he was in 6th place!). So you could employ nearly 100 university climate department chairs for the salary of one fossil fuel company exec.

    Yes, it is about the money but it has nothing to do with grants.
    Thanks from tnbskts, BigLeRoy and Babba

  6. #16
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8,172
    Thanks
    4722

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    You don't read your own links, do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by ex's link
    Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.
    Thanks from Friday13

  7. #17
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21598

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
    You do know Greenland has been Melting for ~130,000 years.

    The Polar Ice caps 130,000 years ago were as far south as the Ohio River in the US, Northern Italy in Europe and Southern Mongolia in Asia, you did know this didn't you?
    You are SOOOOOO confused about the whole CHRONOLOGY of the Pleistocene. And you've been CORRECTED on this at LEAST half a dozen times by this point.

    Once again, Greenland DID warm up, from 130,000 years ago to about 110,000 years ago. That was the Eemian Interglacial period, the last time the Earth was warmer than it is today.

    When the Eemian Interglacial period ended, the world went back into a SEVERE ice age, a MAJOR glacial advance that led to ice sheets covering most of North America and a good chunk of Europe. It is called the Wurm glaciation in Europe. It was only FIFTEEN thousand years ago (NOT 130,000 years ago) that ice sheets were as far south as the Ohio River valley.

    How many times do you have to be CLOBBERED over the head with 'new' information before it penetrates into your cerebrum?!?
    Thanks from Friday13

  8. #18
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21,261
    Thanks
    11623

    What the idiot anti-science people never do is provide the reasoning to support their position. See, in science, you come up with a hypothesis based on facts, test that hypothesis, then use the data to provide an argument as to your reasoning why the data supported or does not support the hypothesis, or you alter the hypothesis based on what you learned.

    The idiot anti-science people just say stupid shit like "CO2 does not lead to increased warming." Well, science provides the reasons why CO2 does in fact contribute, supported with data and how warming coincides with increase emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. THe idiot anti-science people can't provide any rationale as to how CO2 doesn't contribute to warming. They just throw out one liners, copy and paste to stuff that doesn't even support their case. If CO2 truly doesn't contribute, what is your reasoning? You don't have one because its bullshit. You simply throw out stupid comments and embarrass yourself
    Thanks from OldGaffer

  9. #19
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21,261
    Thanks
    11623

    Quote Originally Posted by drkstrong View Post
    According to the USBLS, the average income for a climate scientist is less than $90,000 per year. Not much to "squirrel away". The top science professors of the most prestigious universities get about $320,000 per year

    Compare that to fossil fuel executives (Tillerson for example) $28,138,329 (and he was in 6th place!). So you could employ nearly 100 university climate department chairs for the salary of one fossil fuel company exec.

    Yes, it is about the money but it has nothing to do with grants.
    Yup, just more stupidity from these people. Not sure why we even bother anymore, I guess the hope is there are other people ignorant and are not close minded idiots and they can actually learn and not be influenced by the idiocy peddlers.

    Plus, scientist that fudge data in academia will never get any grants and will lose their job and be discredited. Those that don't produce good, sound science will also not get grant to fund their research, likely not get tender, and probably will be out of a job.

    Not so for the so called "scientists" from oil companies spreading bullshit. THey are paid to do such things. But please, lets talk about how the climate scientists do it for money LOL There is only money in academia if you take administrative positions

  10. #20
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    26,140
    Thanks
    21598

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson View Post
    What the idiot anti-science people never do is provide the reasoning to support their position. See, in science, you come up with a hypothesis based on facts, test that hypothesis, then use the data to provide an argument as to your reasoning why the data supported or does not support the hypothesis, or you alter the hypothesis based on what you learned.

    The idiot anti-science people just say stupid shit like "CO2 does not lead to increased warming." Well, science provides the reasons why CO2 does in fact contribute, supported with data and how warming coincides with increase emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. THe idiot anti-science people can't provide any rationale as to how CO2 doesn't contribute to warming. They just throw out one liners, copy and paste to stuff that doesn't even support their case. If CO2 truly doesn't contribute, what is your reasoning? You don't have one because its bullshit. You simply throw out stupid comments and embarrass yourself
    They often contradict themselves on these points, as well. One moment they'll claim (as you say) that CO2 doesn't contribute to warming, and then, two minutes later, you'll hear them saying that the Earth NEEDS CO2 in the atmosphere, or the Earth would be a frozen iceball (which is true enough!). These are folks suffering from massive cases of cognitive dissonance.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Greenland Sharks May Live 400 Years
    By CEngelbrecht in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 24th August 2016, 02:14 PM
  2. Greenland Ice Sheet Meltwater
    By Friday13 in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18th January 2016, 07:15 AM
  3. 1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today
    By ptif219 in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 473
    Last Post: 6th August 2012, 04:14 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26th July 2012, 10:25 AM
  5. America has an eye for Greenland
    By Polarwhale in forum World Politics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 14th November 2010, 06:56 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed