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
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
Recent Comments
- Charles Higley on “even within the lifetime of our children”
- arn on Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- David M Kitting on Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- Gamecock on Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- arn on “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- conrad ziefle on “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Bob G on “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Bob G on Diversity Is Our Strength
- Tony Heller on Diversity Is Our Strength
- Scissor on Diversity Is Our Strength
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.