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
- “The Floridian quakes with apprehension”
- Milton Propaganda
- “Yes … definitely”
- “Antarctica has turned green”
- Rapidly Intensifying Hurricanes
- Kamala Can Prevent Hurricanes
- The Ultimate Global Warming Test
- “ready for the next one”
- Combining Science And Religion
- 500 Million Years Of Warmer Temperatures
- “Arctic sea ice is headed toward a historic low”
- “Record winter low”
- Kamala Planning Another Half Trillion Dollars For Ukraine
- “the science is absolutely certain”
- Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- AI Climate Math
- AI Math
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
Recent Comments
- Crispin Pemberton-Pigott on “Yes … definitely”
- Robertvd on “The Floridian quakes with apprehension”
- Bob G on Milton Propaganda
- Greg in NZ on “The Floridian quakes with apprehension”
- Bill on Milton Propaganda
- Francis Barnett on “The Floridian quakes with apprehension”
- Patrick Powers on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- Gordon Vigurs on Milton Propaganda
- Bob G on “The Floridian quakes with apprehension”
- Bob G on Milton Propaganda
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.