Have you never been to a science journal before to view a published paper?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Greenland Has Been Cooling In Recent Years – 26 Of Its 47 Largest Glaciers Now Stable
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
Have you never been to a science journal before to view a published paper?
Have you never been to a science journal before to view a published paper?
Answer my question.
I guess we need to build that wall!!!! Because of you know - brown people
Or in your case - We need Brexit!!! Because of you know - brown people
Irrelevant nonsense.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Irrelevant nonsense.
It's remarkable to think that there is another Stringy around, my first instincts about him were correct. Yet another stupid cunt, fuck him and his brown people reference, my missus is brown people!!
It's remarkable to think that there is another Stringy around, my first instincts about him were correct.
There are plenty of his ilk about, Tom.
I enjoy watching their bumbling attempts to score points.
Irrelevant nonsense.
Yes, your question is irrelevant nonsense. It seems to be your modus operandi. Introduce irrelevant nonsense and then demand that others respond to your irrelevant nonsense. That way you never have to address the relevant topic.
By the way, the current topic is what is in the paper not whether the published paper is the full paper. Of course the full published paper is the full published paper. It also includes all of the footnotes which are part of the full paper.
Let me know when you have read the paper and can discuss it.
An interesting side note. The other link Havana posted leads to a report that states this about 2018..
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/polarportal-saesonrapport-2018-EN.pdfThe Jakobshavn glacier continued its retreat and lost 2.6 km2 in relation to the year before
So even though the front edge of the Jakobshavn glacier grew it didn't make up for the loses in the rest of the glacier.
This isn't really news to those that follow climate science and refuse to listen to climate alarmists with their Chicken Little prognistications of doom and gloom.
https://tinyurl.com/y5ch24xy
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3
Greenland used to be a lot warmer, with almost no glacier coverage. There was actually a thriving agriculture going on. There is a reason the Vikings named it Greenland.
Of course the full published paper is the full published paper. It also includes all of the footnotes which are part of the full paper.
How do you know?
It's remarkable to think that there is another Stringy around, my first instincts about him were correct. Yet another stupid cunt, fuck him and his brown people reference, my missus is brown people!!
You are the one that brought up how people can be scared. Brexit was sold as a way to keep out immigrants. The wall is being sold as a way to keep out immigrants. What is scary about those immigrants to many of those voting for Brexit or Trump and his wall? It's being sold as preventing the influx of scary brown people.
And of course, anyone that points out you use a lot of nice words but don't know fuck all must be another "stupid cunt." It could never be that you are the shite that every bloke at the pub prefers to avoid at all costs. You are too damn smart to have to go read the actual science when you can just select headlines and claim it proves you correct.
Brexit was sold as a way to keep out immigrants.
Who told you that?
^ Legion MO - ask an irrelevant question.How do you know?
I know it is the full published paper from decades of experience in reading scientific articles.
You still haven't read it have you? I can tell because you have failed to address anything actually in it.
Now let's start to address how Havana's first link cherry picked data and quotes -
His link was here:
https://tinyurl.com/y5ch24xy
The first part of that link leads us to the science report here:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/polarportal-saesonrapport-2018-EN.pdf
Havana's source mentions that 26 of 47 glaciers grew or were stable in 2018 but fails to include the following parts of the report:
2018 had the wettest May on record since 1948 and the second wettest June.
Albedo of the ice sheet was at a record high for June, July and August. High albedo leads to less melt because of the reflection of sunlight.
There were 2 abnormal openings in sea ice north of Greenland.
But the most telling part of of how the link attempt to manipulate the science is to compare 2 statements.
From Havana's source -
• In 2018, 26 of Greenland’s 47 largest glaciers were either stable or grew in size.
From the actual science -
Of the monitored glaciers, 21 retreated and 12 grew in size. In the remaining 14 glaciers the changes in area werewithin ±0.2 km2.
While one could argue that Havana's source is technically correct, it is clearly misleading. More glaciers retreated than grew. More glaciers retreated than stayed the same.
When talking about total advance and the 6 largest glaciers Havana's source says this:
• Overall, the 47 glaciers advanced by +4.1 km² during 2018. Of the 6 largest glaciers, 4 grew while 2 retreated.
This is out of context -
To put it in context this is from the science report
The changes are thus very small. In comparison, the Petermann glacier lost 323.4 km2 in 2010 and 277.6km2 in 2012
So the total advance in Greenland glaciers was less than 2% of the loss of a single glacier in 2010 or 2012.
Then there is this about the 6 largest:
If only the 6 largest glaciers are considered, they have grown only slightly overall. This applies to Jakobshavn, Kangerdlugssuaq, Helheim, Petermann, Zachariae and 79°Glacier, which increased their area by an average of+3.7 km2 during the year
His link was here:
https://tinyurl.com/y5ch24xy
The first part of that link leads us to the science report here:
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/polarportal-saesonrapport-2018-EN.pdf
Havana's source mentions that 26 of 47 glaciers grew or were stable in 2018 but fails to include the following parts of the report:
2018 had the wettest May on record since 1948 and the second wettest June.
Albedo of the ice sheet was at a record high for June, July and August. High albedo leads to less melt because of the reflection of sunlight.
There were 2 abnormal openings in sea ice north of Greenland.
But the most telling part of of how the link attempt to manipulate the science is to compare 2 statements.
From Havana's source -
• In 2018, 26 of Greenland’s 47 largest glaciers were either stable or grew in size.
From the actual science -
Of the monitored glaciers, 21 retreated and 12 grew in size. In the remaining 14 glaciers the changes in area werewithin ±0.2 km2.
While one could argue that Havana's source is technically correct, it is clearly misleading. More glaciers retreated than grew. More glaciers retreated than stayed the same.
When talking about total advance and the 6 largest glaciers Havana's source says this:
• Overall, the 47 glaciers advanced by +4.1 km² during 2018. Of the 6 largest glaciers, 4 grew while 2 retreated.
This is out of context -
To put it in context this is from the science report
The changes are thus very small. In comparison, the Petermann glacier lost 323.4 km2 in 2010 and 277.6km2 in 2012
So the total advance in Greenland glaciers was less than 2% of the loss of a single glacier in 2010 or 2012.
Then there is this about the 6 largest:
If only the 6 largest glaciers are considered, they have grown only slightly overall. This applies to Jakobshavn, Kangerdlugssuaq, Helheim, Petermann, Zachariae and 79°Glacier, which increased their area by an average of+3.7 km2 during the year
Who told you that?
^ Legion MO - ask an irrelevant question.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/projects/migration-and-brexit/
https://www.financierworldwide.com/...-of-immigration-in-the-uk-and-eu#.XOR9iqROlhE
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/brexit-immigration/487880/
Have you bothered to read the science yet now that you have a link? Care to discuss it or are you going to keep up with your childish antics? You are like a 13 year old that didn't do the assigned reading and thinks if he avoids the topic and asks silly questions about what anyone else says no one will notice that he has nothing at all to contribute.