On 8/22/2010 11:54 PM, wrote:
On Aug 22, 4:18 pm, wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:01 pm, wrote:



On 8/22/2010 6:22 PM, JohnM wrote:

On Aug 22, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On 8/21/2010 3:04 PM, Last Post wrote:

Greenland Glacial Calving and Sea Level
by Nils-Axel Mörner, Sea level specialist,
Paleogeophysics& Geodynamics

Nevertheless, a simple contemplation of the amount of heat needed to
melt the ice-cap, and the rate at which this heat can be transferred
to the ice at a gradient of say 15 K, does lead one to suspect that
even a thousand years might not do it. Only unprecedented rates of
calving by glaciers, with rapid transport south once the bergs are in
the ocean, could bring us close to a 100 year time-scale.

ø In one paragraph Morgan and BDR lay
themselves open to criticism from Junior High
school students. They have no data to start with
just guestimates and lots of ifs.

2- The summer melting season is only 4 months
long — much of the rest of the year the snow
piles up. Satellites have proved ineffective
measuring snow and ice, even to describing a
"lake the size of California" that was just ice.

3- The iceberg that broke off dates back
perhaps 1,500 years and had been floating
for hundreds of years and thus has no effect
on sea levels.
What made it break? It extended too far into
the ocean and the rising and falling tides
broke it

I presume you meant +25 km^3 yr^-2

ø Stupid data.

Axel Morner denies these facts,

ø They are not 'facts'

he denies that the sea level accelerated
to presently 3.3 mm/yr which is

ø He is the guy who measures sea levels so
he should know.

more than twice the value up to the
start of the industrial revolution.

ø Before 1850 was the little ice age
At that turn of events one might expect
some rising but it has not continued.

Real scientists don't deny facts and raise confusion all the time with
crappy hard to verify and sometimes even misleading statements.

ø You two do not have "facts" to deny and
are perpetually confused?


The lying lennard is still here.

Q

On Aug 23, 4:56 am, BDR529 wrote:
On 8/22/2010 10:26 PM, JohnM wrote:



On Aug 22, 10:18 pm, wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:01 pm, wrote:

On 8/22/2010 6:22 PM, JohnM wrote:

On Aug 22, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On 8/21/2010 3:04 PM, Last Post wrote:

Greenland Glacial Calving and Sea Level
by Nils-Axel Mörner, Sea level specialist,
Paleogeophysics& Geodynamics

Nils-Axel Morner is a pathetic liar and an AGW denier. So I skipped the
rest of this trash.

Nevertheless, a simple contemplation of the amount of heat needed to
melt the ice-cap, and the rate at which this heat can be transferred
to the ice at a gradient of say 15 K, does lead one to suspect that
even a thousand years might not do it. Only unprecedented rates of
calving by glaciers, with rapid transport south once the bergs are in
the ocean, could bring us close to a 100 year time-scale.

What about the present day negative mass balance of nearly 240 km^3/yr
and an acceleration of -25 km^3/yr^2 observed by satellites?

I presume you meant +25 km^3 yr^-2

Just try to
estimate yourself how long it will take before we really lose Greenland?

Not too difficult. Greenland has an estimated 2,850,000 km^3 of ice.

Loss in yr 1 = 240
...
Loss in yr 500 =240 + 25*499
...
Loss in year 1000 = 240 +25*999

Summing gives the 1,000 year loss = ca.2,500,000 in round figures.

Sorry. Too late in the day to think quickly. That should be 1,250,000
in round figures, leaving ca. 1,600,000 to melt, about another 3 to
400 years worth if the acceleration keeps going.

So not a millennium then, but 3 to 4 centuries from now. OUCH!

snip

Clearly I made this re-posting too obscure. If you had checked my
arithmetic you would have seen the correction was for the additional
time after the first thousand. i.e. using your current rates and
acceleration it will take 1,300 to 1,400 years to melt. Should the
acceleration become larger, the time will come rattling down. But I'm
not going to start on speculative scenarios unless there is a lot more
data about current rates.

On 8/23/2010 8:11 PM, JohnM wrote:
On Aug 23, 4:56 am, wrote:
On 8/22/2010 10:26 PM, JohnM wrote:



On Aug 22, 10:18 pm, wrote:
On Aug 22, 7:01 pm, wrote:

On 8/22/2010 6:22 PM, JohnM wrote:

On Aug 22, 3:21 pm, wrote:
On 8/21/2010 3:04 PM, Last Post wrote:

Greenland Glacial Calving and Sea Level
by Nils-Axel Mörner, Sea level specialist,
Paleogeophysics& Geodynamics

Nils-Axel Morner is a pathetic liar and an AGW denier. So I skipped the
rest of this trash.

Nevertheless, a simple contemplation of the amount of heat needed to
melt the ice-cap, and the rate at which this heat can be transferred
to the ice at a gradient of say 15 K, does lead one to suspect that
even a thousand years might not do it. Only unprecedented rates of
calving by glaciers, with rapid transport south once the bergs are in
the ocean, could bring us close to a 100 year time-scale.

What about the present day negative mass balance of nearly 240 km^3/yr
and an acceleration of -25 km^3/yr^2 observed by satellites?

I presume you meant +25 km^3 yr^-2

Just try to
estimate yourself how long it will take before we really lose Greenland?

Not too difficult. Greenland has an estimated 2,850,000 km^3 of ice.

Loss in yr 1 = 240
...
Loss in yr 500 =240 + 25*499
...
Loss in year 1000 = 240 +25*999

Summing gives the 1,000 year loss = ca.2,500,000 in round figures.

Sorry. Too late in the day to think quickly. That should be 1,250,000
in round figures, leaving ca. 1,600,000 to melt, about another 3 to
400 years worth if the acceleration keeps going.

So not a millennium then, but 3 to 4 centuries from now. OUCH!

snip

Clearly I made this re-posting too obscure. If you had checked my
arithmetic you would have seen the correction was for the additional
time after the first thousand. i.e. using your current rates and
acceleration it will take 1,300 to 1,400 years to melt. Should the
acceleration become larger, the time will come rattling down. But I'm
not going to start on speculative scenarios unless there is a lot more
data about current rates.

Don't worry about the data, there is plenty from ICEsat, GRACE and SAR
missions.

Q