Climate experts say that Greenland is melting down, but 90% of the ice sheet has gained mass since September. Experts define meltdown as “any lie necessary to keep the global warming scam alive”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Again
- Over The Target
- Michael Mann’s Latest Research
- “an amazing documentary dismantling the climate change theory”
- The World’s Greatest Climate Scientist Speaks Out
- Startling New Revelation
- Just An Illusion
- Climate Conditioning
- Fact Checking Reuters
- No Correlation
- I Offended Their Religion
- The High Priest Has Forbidden Questioning His Religion
- Hiding And Rewriting History
- Fact-Free Economist
- Academic Tipping Points
- Desperate Academics
- Climate Misinformation
- Unreliable And Toxic
- Unreliable And Toxic
- Fossil Fuels To End Risotto
- HG Wells “CHANGES IN THE WORLD’S CLIMATE” 1920
- SCIENCE : THE ICE AGE COMETH?
- Climate Misinformation
- “Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington”
- Climate Refugees
Recent Comments
- arn on Michael Mann Again
- arn on Michael Mann Again
- Russell Cook on Over The Target
- Disillusioned on The World’s Greatest Climate Scientist Speaks Out
- Timo, not that one! on Michael Mann Again
- Mac on Michael Mann Again
- Disillusioned on Michael Mann Again
- Eric Simpson on Michael Mann Again
- Conrad Ziefle on Michael Mann Again
- czechlist on Michael Mann’s Latest Research
Melting is going to catch up I think…
http://beta.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png
There is not going to be any meaningful melting of the mile plus thick Greenland ice sheet anytime during your lifetime. It melts along the the edges each summer, then rapidly refreezes once you get into Autumn. That yearly pattern is not changing anytime soon, regardless of what propaganda you buy into.
It has lost 1000+ cubic kilometres of ice in the past decades. And yes, compared to the total amount this is still peanuts.
Since you’re so well informed…..exactly when does your “past decades” start?
…you do realize it can’t be static…and in order to gain, it has to lose first
cfgj,
why hasn’t the Barnes ice cap on Baffin Island disappeared. It is so much smaller than the Greenland ice cap but it’s still there 20,000 years after the end of the last glaciation. Does CO2 pick on Greenland and leave the Barnes ice cap alone?
You don’t think, you parott, you troll, and you run away when facts don’t support your belief system.
Sunny?
Sorry wrong comment. I’m very well informed about the mass-balance of the Greenland ice-sheet, way better than anyone reading just blogs could be.
No, you think you are well informed, because you believe everything the alarmists print. I have already schooled you several times about the methodologies used to “determine” ice mass, something you obviously are not that well informed about, or I would not have had to correct you.
cfgj, you must be Jason Box and I claim my $5.
No it isn’t. The forecast is for below freezing temperatures over 90% of the ice sheet the next two weeks.
And will it be sunny?
No Gator, I’m well informed because I talk to the scientists face-to-face and follow the science. That has nothing to do with “alarmism”, or US internal politics.
If you talk to the scientists and folllow the science, how is it you did not know that GRACE is not measuring ice?
Nice try dunce.
Yes following GRACE quite closely too. Greenland has been losing mass – fact.
Your fact and data free posts are childish dunce. So let me school you once again.
The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495
Increases offsetting losses:
…“The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning.
Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves.
In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.”
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495
GRACE is an error ridden platform, that never had proper calibration, and whose data is then run through models, until the grantologists get their desired results.
What’s a TRF error? That stands for Terrestrial Reference Frame, which is basically saying that errors in determining the benchmark are messing up the survey. In land based geodesy terms, say if somebody messed with the USGS benchmark elevation data from Mt. Diablo California on a regular basis, and the elevation of that benchmark kept changing in the data set, then all measurements referencing that benchmark would be off as well.
In the case of radio altimetry from space, such measurements are extremely dependent on errors related to how radio signals are propagated through the ionosphere. Things like Faraday rotation, refraction, and other propagation issues can skew the signal during transit, and if not properly corrected for, especially over the long-term, it can introduce a spurious signal in all sorts of data derived from it. In fact, the mission summary shows that it will affect satellite derived data for sea level, ice loss, and ice volume in GRACE gravity measurements.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/
And the Earth’s gravitational field is not uniform, or constant. GRACE measure gravity, and not ice or water.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/20/graces-warts-new-peer-reviewed-paper-suggests-errors-and-adjustments-may-be-large/
Time to start listening to us, and stop talking to grantologists.
roflmao..
Even if you are not just *anking, do you really think these guys with their shiny toys are going to come out and say that those toys really aren’t very accurate..?
Oh wait, they have said so !!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/
Yes, that is one of the links I provided the dunce, and more than a couple of times now. But you cannot educate dunces.
WUWT is a shitty source for satellite-related stuff. I checked out the TRF-issue at the time and it’s an order of magnitude or more smaller than the measured signal.
The paper was peer reviewed, nice try dunce.
You don’t seem to be aware of the magnitude of the TRF-uncertainty and the magnitude of the height-change signal over ice sheets. Your bad.
You don’t seem to be able to back your claims with data, and you are not qualified to refute a peer reviewed paper, dunce.
And thanks again for a fact and data free post, dunce.
Just check what is the TRF-related uncertainty is, you can find the info in the paper referred by WUWT. Signal over ice-sheets is from centimeters to hundreds of meters.
I am familiar with the paper dunce, that is why I posted the link. The information I detailed absolutely refutes your claim of “fact”.
Grow up child, you are all mouth.
Who cares if it’s sunny cf? Are you saying the sunlight causes sublimation? It can’t, because if there were much sublimation there would be no annual layers to count when they do GISP2 and GRIP studies.
the big problem with the arctic sea ice crew is they actually believe the crap in some papers,written by desk jockeys that have never been to the arctic over the actual picture they post on their own forum. they seem to think high pressure and sunny skies are bad for the ice ,yet every clear sky pictures show frozen high albedo snow/ice.
the cloudy pictures tend to show the opposite in the same areas,go figure. yes the temps up there are highish this year, they tend to forget that whether it is water or air, anything heading north is only going to do one thing, get cooler.
we are watching the planet getting rid of huge amounts of heat at the arctic this summer, will be interesting to watch this coming northern hemisphere winter.
The TRF uncertainty is millimeters and therefore 1 to 4 orders of magnitude too small to affect altimetric measurements of ice sheet surface height change.
That is your assertion (which goes against the opinion of the peer reviewed paper), and does not even begin to address the other issues. Your claim of “fact” is BS, and you know it.
You are all mouth child.
I’ll try to explain this s l o w l y so you have a change to get it too: the TRF-uncertainly is of the order of a fraction of a millimeter per year (see 1st and last slide on WUWT) and is therefore way too small to affect measurements of ice loss, which is frequently meters or even 100+ meters. If you do not get this you are clearly out of your depth. Leave the satellite-related stuff to me ok?
Once again dunce, that is only one issue with GRACE measurements, and in a peer reviewed paper was shown to be a problem. GRACE does not measure ice dunce, it measures gravity.
I have a Remote Sensing degree, and am in my sweet spot, dunce.