Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Melting Surprisingly Slows Greenland Ice Flow (New study: IPCC wrong again)
ouramazingplanet ^ | Jan 26, 2011 | Charles Q. Choi,

Posted on 01/27/2011 8:39:10 AM PST by Names Ash Housewares

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last
To: ModelBreaker

Thanks for sharing! I’ll have to work on it some more. Just trying to picture it in me head, I still can’t convince myself that a block of ice sitting on a land mass of relatively insignificant size (compared to the Earth’s surface) can possibly contain enough water to raise the oceans around the world by such a large amount. Something with that claim strikes me as being fishy, so I was trying to use some math to figure-out what was happening.


21 posted on 01/28/2011 10:22:00 AM PST by GizmosAndGadgets (That given freely is charity; Taken by force, theft; Stolen by the government, tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

No.

You’re assuming an “average” depth of the Greenland ice cap.

It is a very wide bowl: about the same distance as from New York City to Chicago, from Miami to just north of the St Lawrence River. Big?

Yes. But it is NOT an “average depth times an average area. The entire rim is zero depth - the mountains that go around Grrnland - to a distance of some 50-100 miles - protrude through the ice and are visible even from space. So the ice depth at the edges is “zero”. The ice area is NOT the area of Greenland, but only that area in the middle of the island.

The maximum depth at the center is just that: it is the deepest, but the area-weighted average depth is NOT the average of the maximum + the minimum. That is, you can’t get the average by adding the max + the min then dividing by 2. Further, they have only drilled some 5x holes in the Greenland icecap all the way to bedrock, so they don’t know the real contour of the under ice surface. These are simply guesses, by people who have their budgets to earn bu being pessimistic. (By over-estimating ice mass.)

In the 60 years since WWII airplanes landed on the Greenland icecap, those aircraft have been promptly buried by over 275 feet if NEW ice and snow, The aircraft cannot “sink” into the ice - their wings and fuselage would keep them them “floating” if the the airplane was to try to “sink” down. So, in the center of Greenland, almost 300 feet of new ice have been added .... at the same time that the catastrophic global warmers are trying to tell us the icecap is melting.

And, for the last 52 years since 1958, the summer (hottest) temperatures at 80 degrees north latitude - as actually measured by the Denmark Meteorology Institute - have seen a decrease in summer temperatures. And, since summer at 80 degrees north latitude is the ONLY time of year when temperatures are ABOVE freezing, melting cannot have taken place.

Despite what Hansen at GISS wants you to believe.


22 posted on 01/29/2011 10:36:51 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GizmosAndGadgets; neverdem; SunkenCiv; steelyourfaith

See also my reply above.

Now, consider ALSO that a very large portion of the Greenland ice cap is in a “bowl” whose bottom is already “under sea level” at some -1200 meters.

If that ice melted completely - estimated at requiring some 1300 years of continuous temperature increase from today’s winter time average temperature of -25 degrees Celsius! - only 10% of that volume of ice in the “bowl” would contribute to sea level rise.

Therefore, to calculate sea level “rise” you can ONLY include the mass of Greenland’s ice cap that is above sea level AND above rock level!


23 posted on 01/29/2011 10:43:32 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

“Despite what Hansen at GISS wants you to believe.”

I don’t believe it. I was just trying to replicate someone else’s computation. I came within 20%, which, given my loose assumptions means I probably got pretty close to how they did it.


24 posted on 01/30/2011 6:39:14 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; 75thOVI; Alice in Wonderland; AndrewC; Army Air Corps; aimhigh; aragorn; ...

related:
25 posted on 01/30/2011 7:55:08 AM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

So, we’re not all gonna die? Hansen must be very disappointed.


26 posted on 02/02/2011 12:30:21 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

I hope he is, and it’s fatal.


27 posted on 02/02/2011 8:35:38 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-27 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson