More Stunning Stupidity From Climate Scientists

Two months ago, scientists were stunned by the Greenland meltdown.

2016-06-06 03 17 492016-06-06 03 17 592016-06-06 03 17 412016-06-06 03 18 19

Scientists are stunned by what just happened in Greenland – The Washington Post

The actual Greenland is a completely different place from the lies being presented by scientists and journalists. Greenland ice gain this winter has been well above normal and not far from a record high.

2016-06-06 03 14 50

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

It is very cold on the ice sheet and and scientists are getting buried in ice once again this year.

2016-06-06 03 13 27

summit:status:webcam

Even the low elevation glaciers on the coast of eastern Greenland are still buried in fresh snow.

2016-06-06 03 44 51

2016-06-06 03 01 36

Grönland / Freya Gletscher – Foto-Webcam.eu

But there is nothing new about this scam. Scientists have been using the same “Greenland melting, we are all going to drown” scam for nearly a century.

2015-10-22-05-30-44

17 Dec 1939, Page 15

2016-06-06 19 25 03

31 May 1947 – Danger Seen In Mysterious Warning Of Arctic Climate

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to More Stunning Stupidity From Climate Scientists

  1. Greg Raven says:

    It’s well known that ice melting accelerates dramatically once the temperature hits -15C.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I keep telling people but they don’t get it. This is not some sissy metrosexual tap water we are talking about. It’s tough, hard-boiled Arctic water. It is used to the cold. Once it warms up to -15C it is just happy and comfy. Of course it is going to melt and frolick around. But if you poured some emasculated city water overboard into the waves it would freeze instantly and float helplessly around. That’s what people don’t understand. Ice made of Arctic water is not like the effeminate ice cubes city folks have in the fridge. Bill Nye should do a demonstration for the children so they can explain it to their parents and set them straight.

  2. Andy DC says:

    I believe -15 C is around +5 F. How can ice melt dramatically at such a frigid temperature?

    • Sunsettommy says:

      I think Greg, is being sarcastic.

    • Stewart Pid says:

      RE how can ice melt at -15C.

      VERY SLOWLY ;-)

      • Dolf says:

        What is the freezing point of salt water?

        • tonyheller says:

          Arctic sea ice is mainly comprised of freshwater

        • AndyG55 says:

          Normal salt water freezes at around -2ºC, but because it forces most of the salt out as it freezes, it melts at 0ºC

          But as TH says, the top surface of the Arctic is not as salty as normal because any meltwater sits on top of the saltier water, hence the surface re-freezes at 0ºC

          • Stephen Richards says:

            Salt water freezes down to -4C depending on the level of saturation. It can freeze at -26 according to Foster if the water is super saturated. Sublimation can occur at temps below freezing.

            Greg and collorado are probably playing. I do hope so co my coffee came very close to self ejection

    • Neal S says:

      Toss that ice into the dead sea. (Very salty) Even at around -15 F it may still melt there.

  3. RAH says:

    Completely OT here but this day should always be remembered I believe. 72 years ago.

    The Allied invasion of Normandy remains to this day the most complex military operation ever carried out. Perhaps it is even the most complex endeavor that mankind has ever attempted. As I write this 100’s of men were dying violent deaths. Some of their bodies would be blasted to pieces by mines and artillery. Others that had drown would be chopped up by the propellers of landing craft. And others would be flattened by the tracks of tanks. On Omaha beach the living trapped in the beaten zone near the shore would use the bodies of the dead for cover from small arms and artillery fire.

    Modern amphibious warfare cannot be compared to the ancient seaborne invasions. And D-day Normandy cannot really be compared to the many other amphibious operations carried out during WWII. With mechanization and developed road nets defenders on continental land masses can react with concentrated massive force much more quickly than they could ever before. And ultimately the outcome of a seaborne invasion in such circumstances is determined by who can get there “furstest with the mostest” even more so than in other types of operations. The Germans had 52 Divisions of varying quality and capability and type in France on D-day plus more in other countries that could be added time allowed. The allies initial assault on D-day was made by three airborne divisions and five seaborne divisions over a seafront of only 50 miles. There were many ways the allies could fail but only one way they could win. Get ashore quickly and pile in the men and weapons and materials needed just as quickly as possible to maintain local superiority or at least parity in forces. In essence the invasion of Normandy had to be an amphibious Blitzkrieg. A quick advance expanding the depth of the bridgeheads was essential first to push the enemy back far enough to free the beaches from artillery fire and then to allow room for the quick expansion of the forces and their materials.

    The Major Superlatives are what many seem to interest most people today but often it’s the more minor ones that provide better insight:

    The primary Operations Order contained about 1,400 pages not including annexes or maps and had about the same word count as the first addition of a popular novel of the time, Gone With the Wind. No operations order ever survives long after first contact with the enemy is made but they are still essential for success.

    About 11,000 allied aircraft, from 4 engine heavy bombers to the powerless gliders that would carry troops in, were involved in the invasion in one way or another.

    The major superlatives go on and on. But here, this former soldier would like to give the reader an idea about what went into the seaborne portion of the operation because so much emphasis has been placed on other aspects of the event in the past and in fact the weather aspect has been discussed on this blog before.

    Neptune, the code name for the massive amphibious operation and it’s supporting logistics, warships, landing ships and craft, and auxiliaries involved over 6,000 vessels and 1 million men. This does not include the ships and men required to keep the vital life line of supplies, weapons, and troops, from the US running across the Atlantic that would be necessary to sustain military operations once the troops were ashore. It was estimated that over 42 tons of materials would be required for each soldier put ashore in order to sustain operations on the European mainland and in the actual event the total supplied was more than that. Despite the most massive ship building surge in history in which the US was producing more ships and vessels than the rest of the nations of the world combined by the end of 1943, throughout WW II the key constraint on Allied planning of operations in all theaters was the amount of shipping and landing ships and craft available. So strategic planning through out the war was more a matter of what the Allies could do than what they wanted to do. The Allies had planned to invade Southern France at the same time they invaded Normandy but because of the shortage of shipping that operation was postponed so that the ships designated for it could instead be used for Neptune. And even with that measure taken Ike delayed the invasion of Normandy in order to gain a months production of the vital LSTs (Landing Ship Tank) and other landing craft. No operation in history better demonstrates that the old saying that “amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics” is a truism in the military art.

    171 embarkation ports were required for the ships and landing craft. Ports from as far north as Scotland, down the west coast to the Bristol Channel and along the southern coast of England and up the south east coast were packed full of landing craft and ships. For the big assault transports and ships the materials were loaded into their holds by cranes and then later most of the soldiers were shuttled to them in landing craft where they climbed aboard carrying their personal loads up the cargo nets they would descend to their landing craft once they prepared to land. Others boarded using gangways from the piers or the extendable ramps on the LCIs that they were boarding. The loading facilities were inadequate in many ports so 200 ramps called “hards” were constructed to allow the loading of the 20,000 vehicles on LSTS and landing craft that would cross the channel in the initial waves. Each hard was surfaced with 1,000s of 350 lb. concrete blocks installed one at a time. Many of these ramps survive today and are used by pleasure boaters. Typical of the items loaded across these hards was that put on LST-543 bound for Juno Beach, which took on 66 light and heavy trucks, 2 artillery pieces, 12 small tracked vehicles known as Bren Gun carriers, and 354 Canadian soldiers. Each vehicle had to be gingerly backed onto the vessel that would carry it and then secured to the deck with chains. It took an average of 2 1/2 hours to load an LST in this manner. The average personal equipment load for each soldier that would go ashore in the assault waves or drop from the sky by parachute or glider, regardless of nationality or the type of transport, was 68 lbs. (that figure does not include the weight of the parachutes used by the airborne troops.) While all this was going on the waters in some ports were so rough that soldiers on smaller vessels began puking before they even left port. Once the LSTs and other smaller landing craft were loaded as many as possible were covered by camouflage nets until it was time to depart and their human cargo waited in mounting winds and seas and cold rains.

    The time of departure for the various groupings of ship varied depending on the distance they had to travel, speed of the vessels, mission, and when they were scheduled to arrive off the invasion beaches. The very first ships would depart their port in Oban in northern Scotland days before the first amphibious vessels were loaded. They were the “corncobs”. The derelict ships being towed to be sunk in order to form the outer breakwater of the Mulberry artificial harbors. The next major contingent would be the more than 300 vital minesweepers tasked with clearing ten channels (two for each landing beach) to the invasion beaches. All but 32 of the minesweepers were from the Royal Navy but their escorts were US PT boats led by Lt. Commander Bulkeley who had earned a Medal of Honor for his exploits in the Philippines, including evacuating Gen. MacArthur. Behind each echelon of minesweepers followed smaller vessels dropping red and green buoys to mark the channels. After sweeping the channels the sweepers started working right off the beaches. Several would be lost to mines. Despite this massive effort loses to mines, while not reaching the pre-invasion estimate of the planners, would be significant and gruesome. In shallower waters the Germans had deployed “oyster” mines that were initiated by the pressure wave of a good sized vessel passing over it and could be set to allow several vessels pass over before detonating. In deeper waters they had laid some mines that actually bowed out of the way of the sweeping gear or were designed to damage that gear. The minesweepers efforts in their dangerous but usually little noted task, were not without notice. The Captain of the US Battleship Nevada wrote: that minesweepers “deserve the lion’s share of the credit for the successful accomplishment of the mission.” High praise from the Captain of a major fleet unit that would be praised for providing critical fire support for the US troops during their assault.

    But of all the ship types that provided fire support for the allied beaches it was the Destroyers with their fast firing 5″ and 4″ guns laying direct fire which above all others would prove their worth. They came in close to shore at Omaha beach scrapping their bottoms in order to see their targets through the heavy smoke and dust of the battle. So close that they could see where the few tanks that had survived were firing and use that as their reference to fire on targets they could not see. Several of these ships, ignoring orders issued based on previous plans, fired until they were almost completely out of ammunition for their primary armament. Their crews played the stream of fire hoses on their guns to keep them firing. Their contribution was noted by the Commander of the 1st Infantry Div. who said his veteran Division would have never gotten off Omaha beach without the heavy direct fire of the Destroyers that had risked coming in close and running aground and German artillery fire to lend critical direct fire support at the crucial time. IOW Omaha beach would have most likely have had to be abandoned without those smaller warships risking all to do a mission that had not been foreseen. That is a prime example of the spur of the moment initiative and innovation that wins battles.

    And it should never be forgotten how the young jr. naval and coast guard officers and enlisted coxswains who for the most part had not experienced battle before, and in many cases had not been adequately trained, pushed their landing craft through mined obstacles to deliver their charges to the beach. To them, both the successful and those that failed due to mines or enemy fire, equal accolades as those given to the warriors they transported, should be given.

    After the allies gained their toe holds the logistic battle really began. In the end despite the most powerful June storm to hit the English channel in over 100 years, that destroyed on Mulberry harbor and put the other out of action for weeks, and destroyed or damaged many vital landing vessels, they succeeded. By July 29th as the troops eliminated the last resistance at the channel port at Cherbourg, the allies delivered 23,000 tons of supplies over Utah and Omaha beaches. By the time the extensively demolished and mined port at Cherbourg had been cleared and was starting to become operational on August 1st, allied ships had landed 16,000 tons at Omaha beach that same day. That is exactly double the amount that was set as the goal for that beach in pre-invasion planning.

  4. dave1billion says:

    Thanks for the reminder RAH. I had completely forgotten.

    My Grandfather landed on Omaha Beach with the 299th Engineer Combat battalion. He was too old to be drafted and had 3 kids but he volunteered anyway.

    The paragraph below gives a brief summary of the 299th’s actions at Normandy.

    “The human cost of the engineers’ heroism on OMAHA was enormous. When the Army elements of the gapping teams reverted on D plus 5 to control of the 146th and 299th Engineer Combat Battalions, then attached to V Corps, they had each lost between 34 and 41 percent of their original strength. The units had not yet accounted for all their members, and the Navy set losses among the naval contingents of the teams at 52 percent. Fifteen Distinguished Service Crosses went to Army members of the team; Navy demolitions men received seven Navy Crosses. Each of the companies of the 146th and 299th Engineer Combat Battalions involved and the naval demolition unit received unit citations for the action on D-day.”

    My grandfather never talked to me or really anyone except for his VFW buddies about the war. He did talk about all the pretty frauleins and the time he cleaned his barracks out shooting craps.

    He also told me that he had got orders to ship out to the Pacific Theater for the invasion of Japan a few weeks before the US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. His reaction was, “Good, I hope they drop another one.” After going through hell at D-Day it’s easy to understand his reluctance to go through another invasion.

    • Robertv says:

      Bomber crews certainly the first years of the war had their invasion day every mission they flew.

      https://youtu.be/ML_uUT05QT4

      • RAH says:

        While Pilots from both the USAF and the RAF suffered tremendous casualties, there were several US Divisions during WW II in Europe that suffered 100% and over a dozen that had 50% casualties over the course of the war.

        The only US division in the seaborne invasion on D-day that had seen combat was the 1st ID having fought in both N. Africa and Sicily. They suffered more than 100% casualties during the course of the war.

        As tough as many jobs are during the war I would be surprised if anyone would say there was a tougher one than being in combat arms on the ground. It’s just plain difficult to argue that 25 or even 35 bombing missions compares to 300-400 days or more of front line combat which is what some veteran ground pounders endured.

      • Robertv says:

        Of those who were flying at the beginning of the war, only ten percent survived. It is a loss rate comparable only to the worst slaughter of the First World War trenches. Only the Nazi U-Boat force suffered a higher casualty rate.

        The crews faced formidable odds, odds seldom appreciated outside the Command. At times in the great offensives of 1943 and 1944 the short-term statistics foretold that less than 25 out of each 100 crews would survive their first tour of 30 operations.

        http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/commandlosses.html
        Of Course in the last years of the war the possibility of surviving a tour increased enormously. But then they had fighter escort during the entire mission and there wasn’t much left of Germany’s Luftwaffe.

    • RAH says:

      David, the engineering teams, both Army and Naval, that were tasked with clearing the obstacles on Omaha beach all suffered horrendous casualties. The Navy teams were all volunteers. The Army, not so much because many were smart enough by that time not to volunteer for anything. So in the way of the Army when you lack volunteers you volunteer them. Thus in at least one case they just separated out the guys who’s first names started with A through J from an engineering company and told them they had volunteered for that dangerous duty. Two LCVP landing craft carrying obstacle clearing teams were blown up and every man killed by mines or mortar rounds hitting their demolitions before they even made shore at Omaha.

      There are several reasons why Omaha was so much worse than any of the other 4 beaches.
      1. Terrain: Unlike the other beaches Omaha was over looked by an escarpment that varies from 100′ to 50′ high. The beach was concave allowing the Germans on the flanks to sight right across the length of the beach from one end to the other. Thus about every inch of that beach was subject to either grazing fire or plunging fire and most of it to both.

      2. Defenses: There were 82 machine gun nests arrayed against Omaha. 3X more than at any of the other beaches. Omaha’s defenses also had more major bunkers and pill boxes than were encountered at any other beach.

      3. Littoral characteristics: Omaha was more exposed to the Channel than any of the other beaches. The tide at Omaha was much more drastic than at any of the other beaches and raised and fell much faster than at any of the other beaches. It dropped at 1″ per every 12 seconds going out. Cross currents effected all the beaches but at Omaha they resulted in far more sandbars than at the others making it much harder for landing craft there to make shore without getting hung up. The Navy needed the land on a rising tide because a tide that drops that quickly would strand their landing craft and thus the pictures showing men wading 100 yards with still another 300 to 400 yards of open beach to cross.

      4. Bombing and supporting fire: The British landed about 1 hour later than the Americans did because that was how much the tide and littoral geography varied. This allowed the British to get in an hours more naval bombardment. Heavy bombers were used for prepping all the British beaches and Omaha. Hardly a bomb fell on the beach defenses because the bombed by radar due to cloud cover and were requested to hold for 5 to 10 seconds beyond their calculated release points to prevent bombing their own troops. Utah beach was bombed by medium bombers that flew under the overcast and bombed visually and that bombing was relatively effective.

  5. Kristian says:

    Here’s that freakish melting event in April:
    http://forskning.no/sites/forskning.no/files/dmi_tidlig_juni.png

    But other than that one, this year’s melting season thus far hasn’t been all too impressive, now has it?

  6. Catweazle666 says:

    If Greenland is really losing ice, it makes me wonder how this happened:

    On 15 July 1942, due to poor weather and limited visibility, six P-38 fighters of 94th Fighter Squadron/1st FG and two B-17 bombers of a bombardment squadron were forced to return to Greenland en route to the British Isles during Operation Bolero. The aircraft were forced to make emergency landings on the ice field. All the crew members were subsequently rescued. However, Glacier Girl, along with the unit’s five other fighters and the two B-17s, were eventually buried under 268 feet of snow and ice that had built up over the ensuing decades.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl

    Glacier Girl was recovered in 2002, so apparently 268 feet of snow and ice accumulated in 60 years – approximately 4.5 feet per year. And yet we’ve been told that Greenland has been losing ice due to Global Warming…

    Someone is making stuff up!

    • Catweazle666 says:

      Oops, I got the date wrong, recovery took place in 1992 – so 268 feet in 50 years, 5.36 feet of increased depth of ice cover per year.

      Here is the story of Glacier Girl’s rescue.

      http://p38assn.org/glaciergirl/recovery.htm

      • RAH says:

        It is indeed a wonder how those aircraft got buried in a place with an ice sheet that is supposed to be melting way.
        Here is something I wrote about why those aircraft were there in the first place:

        The reason those aircraft were there was because of the Battle of the Atlantic. For the US to become engaged it had to get it’s fighting forces and their equipment to where the action was. With the German U-boats sinking so many allied ships during 1942 and early 1943 shipping, especially across the N Atlantic, was a big problem. The allies would not truly gain the upper hand in the Battle of the Atlantic until May of 1943.

        In April 1942 the US Army Air Force (AAF) began it’s initial deployments to England which was the beginning of what would be come the Eighth, Ninth, and Twelfth Air Forces. The heavy bombers, at this point all B-17s, could fly over on their own but what about fighter aircraft? At the time the Lockheed P-38F and G models were the only combat worthy US fighter aircraft ready for deployment that had the range to make it to where it was needed.

        They would be staged across starting from Goose Bay, Labrador with stops in Greenland and Iceland before landing in Scotland. Of course this had to be done over vast stretches of deadly cold water across a region of the world with some of the worst and least predictable weather on the globe during a time when the tools for weather forecasting and navigational aids were nothing like what we have today. Add to that the Germans broadcasting false navigation beacon signals.

        Because of the navigation involved and the need for long range CW communications a B-17 was assigned to be the mother ship for each flight of six P-38 fighters.
        This was a wise decision though the fact that out of the first flight of B-17s attempting the flight across the N. Atlantic three were lost (crews recovered) gave reason for some worry.

        The situation was so desperate that the AAF determined that a loss of 10% of the aircraft and pilots in transit would be an acceptable loss.

        In the end a total of 179 P-38s made it across the N. Atlantic in 1942 out of 186 that attempted and only one pilot was lost. The N. Atlantic route was considered closed during the winter months but it was a quite impressive performance for the time.

        By the summer of 1943 the Battle of the Atlantic was well on the way to being won and the miracle of production from US yards was beginning to show up. It was much cheaper to ship the aircraft and a scheme for carrying them on the decks of oil tankers worked so well that the numbers being shipped were more than adequate so there was no reason to ferry the P-38s over the great white north again.

        However if things had not gone well and the allies had not gained control of the shipping lanes the Army already had a contingency plan to ferry 4,000 aircraft across the Atlantic in 1943.

        • Catweazle666 says:

          Thanks RAH. Interesting.

        • Billy Liar says:

          They would be staged across starting from Goose Bay, Labrador with stops in Greenland and Iceland before landing in Scotland.

          I was lucky enough to fly that route in March 2014 in a Cessna 210. GPS, modern communications and global weather information make it much easier than it was even 30 years ago. It was a most enjoyable adventure. Narsarsuaq (Bluie West One) to Reykjavik was the highlight of the trip. Flying over the spectacular scenery of the southern Greenland icecap was unforgettable.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narsarsuaq_Air_Base

        • Stephen Richards says:

          There is a possibility that the weight of the aircraft caused them to melt the ice directly underneath them so that they gradually sink into it. You can do the experiment yourself. Freeze a block of ice in your freezer, as cold as you can, then bring it out, hang a length of wire over the top with some weights either end and watch.

          The block refreezes as the wire passes through.

          I am fairly sure there will have been also a contribution from falling ice

          • AndyG55 says:

            Um, that’s because the wire conducts energy from the atmosphere which is warmer.

            Now try the same experiment in your freezer.

            Put a ball bearing on to of an ice cube..

          • AndyG55 says:

            typo correction

            on top of…

          • Neal S says:

            But since the airplanes are LIGHTER than ice, the effect you describe could not occur once the planes were covered with ice. If anything the planes would wind up being higher rather than lower if that effect were substantial enough.

          • AndrewS says:

            Planes sink.
            Ice floats.

        • Neal S says:

          If the plane is filled with air it will NOT sink into the ice. If the plane is filled with water, then it can sink. They ran out of gas. The gas tanks are substantial. Even if the rest of the plane filled with water, the gas tanks alone would be enough to keep it afloat. The gas tanks would not be prone to being filled with water. And I don’t think the whole planes were filled with water or ice.

        • Billy Liar says:

          I think you’ve all got it wrong. The planes don’t sink into the icecap they are merely covered by every snowfall. The depth they were found at represents the snowfall during the period since their disappearance, minus some thickness to allow for compaction of the ‘firn’.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firn

          The ice under the planes is slowly and continually both compacting further as the weight of snow above increases and flowing toward the exit glaciers that drain the icecap. See the image at the bottom of this page:

          http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

  7. RickS says:

    One-More-Time…

    From Hitler himself, and propagated through Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister of Nazi Germany “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed” !

    Even hear at this site, this blog, still you see complete idiots who are primed to believe stupid things, like…

    5° Fahrenheit is not cold enough to maintain a frozen entity, yet these same idiots won’t step out into “5°” Fahrenheit for “5” minutes because of fear of freezing ?

    Can anyone here spell [Hypo-Crite] ???

    Trivia Time:

    What is worse than an Idiotic Hypocrite ? ! ?

    StupidOn

  8. Dick says:

    Whoever RAH is, remarkably accurate history of this date. I was 6. My deceased father in law landed that date. We have a room with his artifacts. Ironically grandmother died 6-6-66.
    I’m a physicist-chemist and agree with above comments.

    • RAH says:

      Dick

      My name is Robert A. Hains. I’ve been reading war history since I was a tike and have compiled a pretty good library on many subjects with WW II and US Civil War being the most extensive. As a soldier who was stationed in Germany for three years plus add a about 2 more for TDY time over there I have been to very west European country except Sweden and thus had a chance to visit many of the places in the west where the battles were fought during WW I and II.

      It is one thing to go to a place and try and learn what happened there. It is quite another to have studied what happened there and then visit that place. Doing the later one sees and understands things others don’t because they know where to look for what their trying to find and when they find it they know what they’re looking at.

      So my suggestion to anyone that is going to take in a historic place of any kind in any place is to learn all you can about it before you go.

      I’ve visited the Battlefield at Gettysburg 5 times. I can’t count the times I have been standing at a location on the field with some reference open trying to figure out some detail of the battle that occurred at that particular place and been asked by other visitors “what happened here”. They come unprepared and see the ground and the monuments. Some of them may even start to feel the aura of the place that I feel so strongly when I’m there. But they leave still not really understanding “what happened here” because you just aren’t going to learn it in an afternoon or even a couple or three days. Crack a few books before you go and you will have a better idea and much greater appreciation of “what happened here” when you get there.

  9. AndyG55 says:

    What do people think.

    My take on Arctic probably gains (black) and losses (red)

    TRIVIAL and MEANINGLESS WEATHER RELATED CHANGES.

    I think EVERYBODY would have to agree..

    especially considering the HUGE SWINGS over the current interglacial..

    .. from near zero summer for most of the first 3/4 of the Holocene to the much larger sea ice levels over the LIA.

    I may have some circle wrong.. so be it.

    .

  10. jaytee says:

    “Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

    from the site for the graph labeled “Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI” above.

  11. Neal S says:

    With a total mass of around 2,900,000 gigatons this loss of 200 Gt is less than 0.007 percent. At that rate it will take about 145 years to even lose 1% of the total. (Scary isn’t it) (Yawn…) Wake me up when there is something actually alarming.

  12. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    DMI monitors the suface melting: http://www.dmi.dk/groenland/maalinger/indlandsisens-massebalance/
    And the first episode gained a lot of headlines, but no one told that it all froze up again a bit later. At present time it is not even on par with the mean.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *