Every year, the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet gains a massive amount of ice. Experts report this massive gain as a “meltdown.”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- In This House We Believe In Science
- “BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL”
- Federal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned To Space Station
- Mikey The Victim
- Colorado Local Hero
- Women’s Progress Over The Last 60 Years
- Democrat Fears Free Speech More Than He Fears Fossil Fuels
- Accelerating Sea Level Rise In Philadelphia
- The Wuhan Vaccine Sales Business
- Tough Week For Science Criminals
- Global Warming Researchers Rescued From Snow
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Disappearance Of The Flu
- 1970 – The Beginning Of Time
- Hiding The Heat Of 1934
- ‘malice toward the planet’
- Final Score For The Inflation Reduction Act
- Fraudster Fighting Climate Misinformation
- Ice Free Glacier National Park
- Climate Comedy Cancelled
- Warmest March On Record
- New Climate Metric
- Bad-Faith Trial Misconduct
- Food And Energy Experts
- “Are We Imagining It?”
Recent Comments
- Bob G on “BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL”
- Disillusioned on In This House We Believe In Science
- arn on In This House We Believe In Science
- Luigi on In This House We Believe In Science
- Russell Cook on Federal Judge Orders Astronauts Be Returned To Space Station
- Terry Shipman on “BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL”
- czechlist on “BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL”
- oeman50 on “BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL”
- arn on Colorado Local Hero
- arn on In This House We Believe In Science
And today the IPCC issued yet another warning we are doomed due to hot hot hot stuff. It was 48 degrees F last night and tomorrow night, again, here in upstate NY which is October weather. No days above 85 degrees since mid-July.
Wrong. that only shows surface mass balance and thanks to calving of ice-streams Greenland loses hundreds of gigatons of mass every year.
Calving is unrelated to melting or a meltdown, Homer. If the numbers you cite were accurate, which they aren’t, all they would indicate is a temporary imbalance of flow vs. accretion.
The point is that even if the SMB is positive, ice-streams remove enough mass to make the total mass-balance negative.
…and the numbers are likely to be correct as three different and largely independent techniques used (altimetry, SAR and gravimetry) all give similar numbers.
Ice streams adjust to the surface balance. If the amount of new ice on the surface declines, then the flow of ice will also decline in the future. Glacial flow is driven by pressure caused by gravity.
Computer modelers may want to note the gray area on the chart. The text at the site indicates this gray area represents 2 standard deviations. Note the discrepancy between the end of August (+190 to -190) verses the beginning of September (ZERO).
Errors in the models again?
Oh, I get it.
(Too early and not enough coffee….)
Ice-streams also respond to grounding-line retreat and basal lubrication. See Jakobshaven ice-stream.
Given that the surface is gaining ice, the idea that melting is producing basal lubrication is another nonsensical proposition from the team.
So how come some big ice-streams becoming thinner and faster?
Is most of Greenlands land surface convex or concave??
What amazes me is the vast area of northern Greenland which is devoid of glaciers. It cannot be due to temperature because it is mainly above 80°N. My conclusion is that the top end of Greenland gets less snow that it did in the past.