The full melting of Greenland’s ice sheet could increase sea levels by about 20 feet.
This river is one of a network of thousands at the front line of climate change.
BY CORAL DAVENPORT, JOSH HANER, LARRY BUCHANAN AND DEREK WATKIN
Five hundred billion tons of snow falls on Greenland every year. All of that has to return to the sea by either melt or glacier calving. Otherwise the ice would be piled up to the top of the atmosphere. These anti-science hacks at the New York Times take pictures of that essential process and attribute it to “climate change”
Even the most ridiculous estimates of ice loss in Greenland are less than 200 km³ per year. The volume of the ice sheet is 3,000,000 km³. Using the most aggressive claims, it would take 15,000 years for the ice sheet to melt. That accounts for a sea level rise of about one hundredth of an inch per year. Does Coral Davenport think that one inch of sea level rise over the next century is going to drown her?
But the reality is that the surface of Greenland gains about 300 billion tons of ice every year. Greenland is not melting.
Ninety percent of the ice sheet gained mass from September 1, 2014 to August 30, 2015.
Claims that the ice sheet is losing 200 km³ / year are based on unreliable gravity calculations made by people with an agenda. Glacial flow to the ocean is controlled by the amount of excess ice building up in the interior. If for some reason the amount of ice building up in the interior decreased, flow would also decrease.
The New York Times has been reporting this same hysteria for almost 85 years.
Thirty years later they were predicting a new ice age.
Climate is cyclical. There is no rational reason to believe that the Greenland ice sheet is going to disappear. More than half of it never gets above freezing most years.
Isn’t that 15,000 years instead of 1,500?
It would take 15,000 years not 1,500 years. 3,000,000 divided by 200 = 15,000. Whew! you had me scared for a minute!
I think we’ll be into the next ice age long before then
I’m hearing that Twilight Zone music again.
Saw this on Reddit
Total mass budget vs. surface mass budget, anyone?
It is not gaining mass when it leaks from sides.
Only an idiot would make a comment like that without reading the blog post first.
Wert, please see ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
About half way down the data is :
2. Accumulation rate in central Greenland
Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
Column 2: Accumulation rate (m. ice/year)
Age Accumulation
1st 0.144043 0.244106
last 2 48.9746 0.091739
49.0034 0.091599
So 490,000 years and there are no negative numbers for Accumulation. Or every time period has increased volume. Greenland over the last 490,000 years has only gained ice.
Thank you, Steven, for your efforts to inform the public about reality. We have lived in a web of deceit for the past seventy years (1945-2015), deceit that seems to be unravelling quickly now on Research-Gate. See “STALIN’S SCIENCE“
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281017812
If ResearchGate survives, truth will out, perhaps before the UN takes totalitarian control of the globe.
Antarctica isn’t melting any time soon either. In the IPCC’s AR4 they reported that Antarctica would contribute negatively to sea level rise for the remainder of this century. I think they’ve reversed that or put up some gobbledygook to disguise the fact in the AR5. I’ll have to look it up.
I wonder if the They are using Climate Change to divert attention from Fukushima Daiichi? Another melt down or so and everyone can forget Climate Change . . .
NYT has to be one of the most alarmist driveling tabloids.. but then I state the obvious