Glaciers be damned, we’ve got more important things going on today.
Note the involvement of Lemurita in this endeavor.
****
Time for a reality check.
Contrary to ideas about the disappearance of Pastoruri, engineer Benjamin Morales Arnao, local glaciologist, to state testing a method to reverse the thaw, though many may consider unorthodox, has already received its first positive results: Cover the ice with a layer of sawdust 15 cm thick. The experiment was carried out in the mounts Chaupijanca and Pastoruri. The results are clear: the fields look like a plateau covered in snow. Thus, the first glacier managed to keep four meters of ice and in the second five. “This material acts as an insulator. Contains cellulose and, thus, we managed to decrease the melting glacier. Although this method has worked well, we’ll be testing other alternatives”, refers Morales.. (Yes, wikipedia but reported on NPR today)
Let’s assume for the sake of a silly argument that SOYLENT GREEN is absolutely and utterly full of sh*t (and he is, by his own admission, just not about AGW and many other things †), and we’ll assume that AGW is “real”.
Note: Hilariously, SOYLENT GREEN’s posting today is titled “Do The Math”…
Some numbers based on Arnao’s experiment. Let’s propose that we are going to save that glacier (Pastoruri Glacier) using his method – cover a glacier with 150mm of sawdust.
AG (area Pastoruri glacier) = 3.1 km^2 = 3,100,000 m^2
DC (depth of chips) = 0.15m depth
VC (volume chips) = 465,000 m^3 = 608,197 yds (cubic)
Dens (oak ‡) = 600 lbs/yd
MC (mass of chips) = 364,918,224 lbs
MOT (mass of one oak tree) = 20,000 lbs
SNOTTMD (small number of oak trees that must die) = 18,245 oak trees for 3.1 km^2
(breathes, continues)
AGW (oopsie, area top 10 glaciers in the world) = 13,745,426 km^2
At 18,245 oaks per 3.1 km^2 it’s 5,885 dead oaks per km^2…
LNOOTTSTPG (large number of oak trees to save the planet’s glaciers) = 81,255,670,649 oak trees
Now, just prove to me that these numbers are any less silly than the bullsh*t numbers SOYLENT GREEN and others are fighting daily that have come out of Hansen, Gore, Briffa, Jones, etc. Most of the numbers were researched educated guesses based on assumptions pulled out of my ass. Just like science.
I’m pointing out what kind of fruitbats conduct experiments covering glaciers with sawdust.
So next time some idiot spouts off about saving the glaciers remind them that a fellow fruitbat suggested killing 81 billion trees to accomplish that mission.
† SOYLENT GREEN is most definitely not full of shit unless he wants to be
‡ Oak was used because there are a lot of numbers on it and denser trees make for more believable numbers than if we used pine trees
Lemur King's Folly 
When I saw this, I asked how many trees the ecowhackjobs were willing to sacrifice for Gaia, and if they were willing to wipe out the Amazon Rainforest for it.
Exactly as I had hoped, Missus Sith.
Why not teak or Koa…ooh, Ebony. They could wipe out an entire species that way. More…something…for the rest of us.
Yeah SOYLENT amd Aggie, my first thought was “How can one wipe out the entire rainforest?” But as I looked I realized that the environmintalist-types (yes, I spelled it that way) aren’t really keen in terms of talking about how many board feet are in the forests or how much wood is represented. They only think of it in terms of “vast quantities are disappearing every day, for Gaea’s sake!”
So I stuck with the workhorse of the western world, oak. Something where there were published numbers that I could butcher.
Soylent Green’s shit is equal to most folks’ highest levels of creativity – and way beyond the intellect of any Climate Alarmist “mathematicians”.
He go, Man! You too, Oh Mighty Lemur!
…And I like that pizza cartoon. Like I said, “From the mouths of children…”.
Global warmmongering in a nutshell.
Math and models that actually model reality are not required for global warmmongering, they’re actually tools of the debil.
And if you point out the math they’ve ignored, you’re a religious fanatic who doesn’t believe in evolution.
I’ve had that conversation so many times it just bores me anymore so now, I just ask if they know the average temp of the Earth or what percentage of the atmo is CO2 and they go off in a huff.
I’m actually a religious fanatic that does believe in evolution, so maybe that’s going to confuse them even more.
A model for an ultra-complex system is only going to be as good as the assumptions and the data going into it. You can also have tons and tons of data and if the model sucks you’re going to have results that may be deterministic for that data set but cannot work with other valid data sets. Like right now. All the constant backwards tweaking is utterly ridiculous.