Greenland 2013

[LithiaWx]

So no validation papers for another day?

 

So is the new way on the forum?  No need to show if a product has any value?  It's just based on what you want ?

 

You may debunk (good luck) the DMI model anytime you feel like it.  The DMI name speaks for itself unless you can prove otherwise.

[LithiaWx]

Greenland Melt has been WAY BELOW average for days now.  What a fantastic way to end melt season.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

So the DMI name speaks for it self?

 

But not the NOAA name?

 

Funny that you demanded to know where the grace data came from over and over and over and over.  You were told.  Pretended like you didn't see it.  And continued to scrutinize it until you saw some evidence of it's validity.

 

Now you won't provide that? 

[LithiaWx]

So the DMI name speaks for it self?

 

But not the NOAA name?

 

Funny that you demanded to know where the grace data came from over and over and over and over.  You were told.  Pretended like you didn't see it.  And continued to scrutinize it until you saw some evidence of it's validity.

 

Now you won't provide that?

Provide the grace data when it is released.. I'm not stopping you.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Provide the grace data when it is released.. I'm not stopping you.

 

 

You are playing a game of misdirection.  You demanded the grace data that came from the NOAA 2012 climate report card be supplied with it's source for validation or its bunk.

 

 

 

Now you won't provide any validation for a product  you call good by the so called good name of DMI.  Why not just post the validation PDFs and show us the error margins for the data you claim is legit.

[LithiaWx]

You are playing a game of misdirection. You demanded the grace data that came from the NOAA 2012 climate report card be supplied with it's source for validation or its bunk.

Now you won't provide any validation for a product you call good by the so called good name of DMI. Why not just post the validation PDFs and show us the error margins for the data you claim is legit.

I asked you to provide a link to a grace graph that You kept posting without sourcing it. Like I said if you want to debunk the DMI model give it a shot. If you want to post other models be my guest. I will continue to post the DMI model over the course of the winter with near daily updates. If you don't like it then debunk it.

DMI isn't a fringe group. They are about as well respected and impartial an organization you will get in the climate world. I trust the products they stand behind.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I asked you to provide a link to a grace graph that You kept posting without sourcing it. Like I said if you want to debunk the DMI model give it a shot. If you want to post other models be my guest. I will continue to post the DMI model over the course of the winter with near daily updates. If you don't like it then debunk it.

DMI isn't a fringe group. They are about as well respected and impartial an organization you will get in the climate world. I trust the products they stand behind.

 

 

So you can't back up them being well respected.  You claim they are but have nothing to back this.  No papers about here sst's, no papers on their temp and slp modeling, no papers on their sea ice algorithms, and obviously no papers on their GIS modeling.

 

you can't find the PDFs.

 

You haven't read the the papers but you claim it's validity.

 

You ask me to do the work for you because you can't find it, haven't read it or you are unwilling to disclose it.

 

 

 

Can you back up the bolded or is it another thing you believe but are passing off as fact?

[TerryM]

What do you find unusual about it?

As an Arctic desert any precipitation is "unusual".

When one recalls that Flade Isblink melted out completely ~4k yrs ago it's an area deserving of attention.

Terry

[LithiaWx]

So you can't back up them being well respected. You claim they are but have nothing to back this. No papers about here sst's, no papers on their temp and slp modeling, no papers on their sea ice algorithms, and obviously no papers on their GIS modeling.

you can't find the PDFs.

You haven't read the the papers but you claim it's validity.

You ask me to do the work for you because you can't find it, haven't read it or you are unwilling to disclose it.

Can you back up the bolded or is it another thing you believe but are passing off as fact?

You're funny. You have my answer.

I will be posting the DMI graph nearly daily over the winter. If it isn't accurate prove it. You're the one who has a problem with it. Either deal with it or prove it false. DMI is a well respected source. I believe the models they stand behind.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You're answer is that for you science is whatever you want it to be.  You have double standards when what the data reveals doesn't support you're agenda. 

 

 

You have not read a paper about this model. You don't know how it's ran, it's validation history, how many versions of it there have been, what is it's error margins? Do you know who the Scientists who wrote the algorithms are?  Do you know the first year it was ran?  Do you know if it's based off a different global model?  or a local GIS model?  What kind of input data goes into it?  Do you know what time of day that it's ran? 

 

 

 

Basically it tells you what you want to believe so you blindly accept it and push it off as fact.

 

 

You are to irrelevant for anyone to care. 

I care about science, you think science is a joke. 

Whatever keeps the snow flakes clouding you're judgement all nice and pretty I suppose.

[LithiaWx]

Frivolous,

How did your 550 - 600 GT loss prediction work out this year. You seem to be batting about .000 this year in all threads.

[PhillipS]

Frivolous,

How did your 550 - 600 GT loss prediction work out this year. You seem to be batting about .000 this year in all threads.

 

TGW's prediction did about as well as your claims that in 2013 GIS would have a net gain of mass.  Let's look at the data:

 

 

As anybody can see, through August 12th the GIS has had a net loss of around 320 Gtons.  So the 2013 year to date mass balance is closer to TGW's prediction than to yours (TGW off by 180 Gton, MW off by 320 Gtons).  

 

But, of course, there is still about a third of 2013 left to go and as the chart's long-term average line shows precipitation through the end of the year will probably offset some of this summer's melt.  So keep your fingers crossed - just a net gain of 70 Gtons and you'll be tied with TGW - both equally wrong.  (For your prediction to actually be correct the GIS will have to gain back the 320,000,000,000 tons of ice it's already lost in 2013 plus enough extra to be a net gain for the year.)

 

In my opinion, a bit of humility is warranted by everyone.  Nobody that I'm aware of correctly nailed the GIS net ice balance.

[LithiaWx]

TGW's prediction did about as well as your claims that in 2013 GIS would have a net gain of mass. Let's look at the data:

As anybody can see, through August 12th the GIS has had a net loss of around 320 Gtons. So the 2013 year to date mass balance is closer to TGW's prediction than to yours (TGW off by 180 Gton, MW off by 320 Gtons).

But, of course, there is still about a third of 2013 left to go and as the chart's long-term average line shows precipitation through the end of the year will probably offset some of this summer's melt. So keep your fingers crossed - just a net gain of 70 Gtons and you'll be tied with TGW - both equally wrong. (For your prediction to actually be correct the GIS will have to gain back the 320,000,000,000 tons of ice it's already lost in 2013 plus enough extra to be a net gain for the year.)

In my opinion, a bit of humility is warranted by everyone. Nobody that I'm aware of correctly nailed the GIS net ice balance.

Nice try but my prediction was based off DMI data and I nailed it. Frivs guess was from Grace which we haven't seen yet but there is a 0% chance it will show a 550GT loss,

[LithiaWx]

Like all good things the impressive early season string of gains came to an end yesterday with a loss of about 1/8th to 1/4 of a GT.

[LithiaWx]

Surface melt percentage remains at nearly 0 and well below climo levels.

[LithiaWx]

TGW's prediction did about as well as your claims that in 2013 GIS would have a net gain of mass. Let's look at the data:

As anybody can see, through August 12th the GIS has had a net loss of around 320 Gtons. So the 2013 year to date mass balance is closer to TGW's prediction than to yours (TGW off by 180 Gton, MW off by 320 Gtons).

But, of course, there is still about a third of 2013 left to go and as the chart's long-term average line shows precipitation through the end of the year will probably offset some of this summer's melt. So keep your fingers crossed - just a net gain of 70 Gtons and you'll be tied with TGW - both equally wrong. (For your prediction to actually be correct the GIS will have to gain back the 320,000,000,000 tons of ice it's already lost in 2013 plus enough extra to be a net gain for the year.)

In my opinion, a bit of humility is warranted by everyone. Nobody that I'm aware of correctly nailed the GIS net ice balance.

Why does this graph start in March and end on Nov. 1st? Seems pretty cherry picked with not a complete data set.

Again, my prediction of 275 - 375 GT was based of the DMI data set. It is discussed in the thread and made clear which set the prediction was for. Friv did the same and made his 500 GT prediction was for GRace. I'm not sure what the 550 - 600 GT prediction was for. Saying my prediction should apply to this graph is equal to someone predicting a JAXA min extent and the judging the prediction on DMI or Bremen data.

[LithiaWx]

[LithiaWx]

The EURO says a snowstorm is coming to southern Greenland. We will see if it verifies or not.

[PhillipS]

Why does this graph start in March and end on Nov. 1st? Seems pretty cherry picked with not a complete data set.

Again, my prediction of 275 - 375 GT was based of the DMI data set. It is discussed in the thread and made clear which set the prediction was for. Friv did the same and made his 500 GT prediction was for GRace. I'm not sure what the 550 - 600 GT prediction was for. Saying my prediction should apply to this graph is equal to someone predicting a JAXA min extent and the judging the prediction on DMI or Bremen data.

 

If you had actually read the DMI and PolarPortal.webpages you would understand that there is no cherrypicking involved - their GIS melt model is based on MODIS sensing of ice albedo calibrated by the monthly GRACE measurements.  GRACE is year-round but the MODIS algorithm only works during periods of adequate insolation.  The long-term averages are calculated from GRACE only.  The chart I posted is from polarportal.dk, another DMI site, and uses the same data sources as your plots - with the important distinction that it also includes glacial calving so it is the true measure of the GIS mass balance.

 

And your prediction wasn't for 275 - 375 Gtons - on Aug 5th (post #70 on this thread) you wrote "Well below 2012 and should be coming to a screeching halt shortly. Also a net gain of ice for the season so far."  [emphasis mine]. Even when it was pointed out that there wasn't a grain of truth to your claim you did not correct it of retract it.  Are you seriously claiming that there have been hundreds of gigatons of GIS mass lost since 5 Aug?  Or are you trying to fabricate a late season 'prediction' and then claim to have nailed it?

 

I expect that you'll try weasel wording, or shifting the goalposts, to try to avoid simply admitting that you're flat busted on your claim of "a net gain of ice for the season".   Still, it's always entertaining to watch a pseudo-skeptic trying to rationalize illogic.

[LithiaWx]

If you had actually read the DMI and PolarPortal.webpages you would understand that there is no cherrypicking involved - their GIS melt model is based on MODIS sensing of ice albedo calibrated by the monthly GRACE measurements. GRACE is year-round but the MODIS algorithm only works during periods of adequate insolation. The long-term averages are calculated from GRACE only. The chart I posted is from polarportal.dk, another DMI site, and uses the same data sources as your plots - with the important distinction that it also includes glacial calving so it is the true measure of the GIS mass balance.

And your prediction wasn't for 275 - 375 Gtons - on Aug 5th (post #70 on this thread) you wrote "Well below 2012 and should be coming to a screeching halt shortly. Also a net gain of ice for the season so far." [emphasis mine]. Even when it was pointed out that there wasn't a grain of truth to your claim you did not correct it of retract it. Are you seriously claiming that there have been hundreds of gigatons of GIS mass lost since 5 Aug? Or are you trying to fabricate a late season 'prediction' and then claim to have nailed it?

I expect that you'll try weasel wording, or shifting the goalposts, to try to avoid simply admitting that you're flat busted on your claim of "a net gain of ice for the season". Still, it's always entertaining to watch a pseudo-skeptic trying to rationalize illogic.

I did predict 275 to 375 GT loss for melt season on the DMI model. Also on the DMI model it is currently showing a gain for the season which I also said based on the DMI model. I can go and pull up all of my old posts but you know what I wrote and what model I was referencing. Nice try again though. If you read back in this thread you will see me clearly acknowledge that the DMI model doesn't include glacial calving. I even stated it again a day or two ago. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove or say here but you're barking up the wrong tree. I've stated things very clearly multiple times.

[LithiaWx]

Like all good things the impressive early season string of gains came to an end yesterday with a loss of about 1/8th to 1/4 of a GT.

image.jpg

image.jpg

DMI showing a net gain.

[LithiaWx]

If you had actually read the DMI and PolarPortal.webpages you would understand that there is no cherrypicking involved - their GIS melt model is based on MODIS sensing of ice albedo calibrated by the monthly GRACE measurements.  GRACE is year-round but the MODIS algorithm only works during periods of adequate insolation.  The long-term averages are calculated from GRACE only.  The chart I posted is from polarportal.dk, another DMI site, and uses the same data sources as your plots - with the important distinction that it also includes glacial calving so it is the true measure of the GIS mass balance.

 

And your prediction wasn't for 275 - 375 Gtons - on Aug 5th (post #70 on this thread) you wrote "Well below 2012 and should be coming to a screeching halt shortly. Also a net gain of ice for the season so far."  [emphasis mine]. Even when it was pointed out that there wasn't a grain of truth to your claim you did not correct it of retract it.  Are you seriously claiming that there have been hundreds of gigatons of GIS mass lost since 5 Aug?  Or are you trying to fabricate a late season 'prediction' and then claim to have nailed it?

 

I expect that you'll try weasel wording, or shifting the goalposts, to try to avoid simply admitting that you're flat busted on your claim of "a net gain of ice for the season".   Still, it's always entertaining to watch a pseudo-skeptic trying to rationalize illogic.

Ok so why should we use a model that doesn't include the months November, December, January, February? Seems pretty cherry picked to not include the coldest months.

[TerryM]

Ok so why should we use a model that doesn't include the months November, December, January, February? Seems pretty cherry picked to not include the coldest months.

Do you really not understand? PhillipS had explained quite clearly just up thread.

[PhillipS]

Do you really not understand? PhillipS had explained quite clearly just up thread.

 

Terry, he is a pseudo-skeptic so I don't know if he is just clueless or is being deliberately obtuse.  In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter - he can keep posting crap and misinformation and I'll keep posting the facts.  Readers will decide for themselves what seems more credible.

[rygar]

Are you guys just disagreeing on the timeline?  I don't truly follow.  I think that he's just saying that from Sep 1 2012 to Sep 2013 there has been a net gain of ice, i,e., just In the past 12 consecutive months we have improved.

 

Do you disagree with this point because a) you don't trust the source, or are you are interpreting his graph differently.

[LithiaWx]

Are you guys just disagreeing on the timeline? I don't truly follow. I think that he's just saying that from Sep 1 2012 to Sep 2013 there has been a net gain of ice, i,e., just In the past 12 consecutive months we have improved.

Do you disagree with this point because a) you don't trust the source, or are you are interpreting his graph differently.

The chart I'm posting does show a net gain of ice but it doesn't include glacial calving which is not a quantifiable number at the moment. The graph I post only shows the balance between precipitation, evaporation, melting, refereezing.

Grace should give us a better idea of what the balance was with calving this year. Even DMI on the chart states that Greenland is not currently in balance and is losing about 200GT on average per year.

The most comical or sad thing about the issue is Friv posted it all of melt season and not once did Phillip or terry suggest a different source. Seems like a classic example of using a source when it shows what you want then trying (unsuccessfully) to discredit a source when it shows what doesn't fit ones agenda.

[LithiaWx]

DMI posted mass balance yesterday.

[The_Global_Warmer]

[AvantHiatus]

That's not good when those cracks melt, water gets inside and expands when frozen. Hopefully the 2014 melt season is just like 2013 or more favorable.

[Jonger]

That's not good when those cracks melt, water gets inside and expands when frozen. Hopefully the 2014 melt season is just like 2013 or more favorable.

On the flip side, with less diesel soot and more environmental controls, eventually that remaining soot will wash off and sink deep into the ice and thus absorb less solar energy.