Scientists Discover That Their Imaginary Greenland Meltdown Is Not Having Any Effect

Crack government funded scientists are baffled why their imaginary Greenland meltdown is not affecting the Gulf Stream.


Greenland ice sheet meltdown not affecting Gulf Stream – yet 

It never occurred to them to look at the data and understand that Greenland isn’t actually melting. Greenland’s surface has gained 530 billion tons of ice since last summer, and is tracking well above normal.


Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

It is mid-summer in Greenland, and temperatures in the center of the ice sheet are -15C



My flight yesterday tracked south of Greenland, but I did manage to get a few pictures of glaciers at the southern tip of the island.


Anyone with an IQ over 30 understands that ice doesn’t melt at -15C. This group however does not include climate scientists, or progressives.

One week ago our brilliant secretary of state determined that glaciers calving off Greenland’s Jakobshavn glacier indicated a looming catastrophe.


Standing near Greenland’s Jakobshavn glacier, the reputed source of the iceberg that sank the Titanic over a century ago, U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saw evidence of another looming catastrophe.  Giant icebergs broken off from the glacier seemed to groan as they drifted behind him, signaling eventual rising oceans that scientists warn will submerge islands and populated coastal region.

Global Warming: John Kerry sees looming climate catastrophe after Arctic visit

Glaciers are rivers of ice. Excess snow falls in the interior, and glaciers carry the ice to the sea where it calves. Glaciers calving is an essential process required to return the 500 billion tons of annual snowfall to the sea, and has nothing to do with global warming. Kerry was seemingly aware that this was occurring in 1912, but perhaps no one told him that the Jakobshavn glacier has been retreating for hundreds of years.


27 Nov 1903, Page 1 – The Winfield Tribune at

Scientists have been warning of the Greenland glacier and rising sea catastrophe for as long as anyone can remember. They get attention and raise money by telling scary stories.


17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier



Then Kerry went full stupid at the South Pole.

Briefed by researchers aboard a Royal Danish Navy patrol ship, Kerry appeared stunned by how fast the ice sheets are melting. He was struck by the more dire warnings he heard about the same process underway in more remote Antarctica.

Antarctica is gaining ice, not losing it.

 2016-06-26062002 2016-06-26061953


NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses | NASA

“This has been a significant eye-opener for me and I’ve spent 25 years or more engaged in this issue,” Kerry said on the deck of the ship with Danish Foreign Minister Kristian Jensen during a two-day visit that ended late on Friday.

Kerry is a brainless political hack, whose top accomplishments over the past 50 years are lying about his military experience and selling out his country to various communist and Islamic terror states.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Scientists Discover That Their Imaginary Greenland Meltdown Is Not Having Any Effect

  1. Friar Geschwind says:

    The “center” of Greenland is not where the meltdown is. Because of its altitude it’s still going to be below freezing. It’s the edges that are losing the ice during summer.

    • R. Shearer says:

      Most of our mountain snow in Colorado melts in summer also.

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Friar are u saying that the DMI mass balance graph showing Greenland has gained 530 billion tons of ice since last summer is measuring only the high altitude of Greenland? ie factoring in the edge melt yields a net ice loss.
      If so prove it!

      • Cam says:

        There is a definite mass loss on the north and west coast of Greenland along a thin band (of course where Kerry was at the Jacobshaven glacier is one of the big mass losers so far), but along the southeast coast there has been a much greater mass gain over a much larger area. And yes, the 530 billion tons includes the vast interior of Greenland that rarely has surface melting in the summer but doesn’t include a reduction for the ice that is calving from the various glaciers surrounding the island.

    • RAH says:

      If there was significant melting of the ice covering Greenland near the coast there would be significant sea level rise. There isn’t! End of story.

      • Friar Geschwind says:

        No, it isn’t the end of the story. You have to quantify – that’s what scientists do – the amount of ice that’s melting versus increases in water level. A mere word like “significant” does not count since it could be stretched into meaningless semantics.

        Such quantification would begin with data taken by Grace satellites and then “spread out” over 70% of our ocean surface.

        The melting of its ice will be gradual at first then faster as the decades play out.

        • rw says:

          So are we to conclude from what you’re saying that “mass budget” doesn’t qualify as quantification?

          • Stewart Pid says:

            I think it qualifies as beyond his comprehension. The good Friar may be related to Reggie ;-)

          • Friar Geschwind says:

            What I’m saying is that RAH used the word ‘significant’ which is so vague as to mean nothing.

        • RAH says:

          No the definition of “significant” is not vague.

          “1. sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy
          2. having a particular meaning; indicative of something: ”

          It is impossible to be any more specific because our ability to accurately measure sea levels over time is limited. The bottom line is there is the sea level rise predicted by the alarmists is not happening and there is absolutely no indication it is starting to. The current rate of rise appears to more or less consistent with no spike. So there is nothing that indicates massive ice melt or points to anything “worthy of attention”.

          Again I say, no spike in sea levels, then the ice is not melting enough to cause any problems or even anything note worthy. End of story.

          • Friar Geschwind says:

            This abstract says it all:

            Aircraft laser-altimeter surveys over northern Greenland in 1994 and 1999 have been coupled with previously reported data from southern Greenland to analyze the recent mass-balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Above 2000 meters elevation, the ice sheet is in balance on average but has some regions of local thickening or thinning. Thinning predominates at lower elevations, with rates exceeding 1 meter per year close to the coast. Interpolation of our results between flight lines indicates a net loss of about 51 cubic kilometers of ice per year from the entire ice sheet, sufficient to raise sea level by 0.13 millimeter per year—approximately 7% of the observed rise.


          • Menicholas says:

            51 cubic kilometers lost from a surface area of 2,170,000 square kilometers.
            Correct my math if I am in error, but I think that is somewhat less than 2.5 millimeters of loss averaged out over the entire continent.
            And what is the error range of such an “interpolation”?

            I call bullshit, same as your wanting, Friar, to look at satellite data on sea levels rather than measuring stations in fixed locations at specific locations at the coastlines.

          • Menicholas says:

            Not to mention that 7% of not much is about 1/15th of not much.

          • Menicholas says:

            13 one hundredths of a millimeter per year, or 13 millimeters in one hundred years…not enough to cover my little toenail in water while I am standing up.
            And for that you want the world to join you in your panicky-guy pantomime?

          • David A says:

            Friar, the point is we are measuring ZERO acceleration in small insignificant SL rise.
            Reading this from the J Kerry article,
            “Giant icebergs broken off from the glacier seemed to groan as they drifted behind him…”
            caused me to groan. When I read your meaningless talking point lines I groan at the pitiful indoctrination into the CAGW cool aid. Friar, if politicians can tax the very air you breath they will and are. Think man!

        • Richard says:

          Menicholas, I will first correct your geography, then your math, then your input data. Greenland is not a continent. 51 cubic kilometers divided by 2170000 square kilometers is 23.5 millimeters, so you are off by a factor of 10. Finally, the correct amount of ice loss per year is close to 200 cubic kilometers, so taking that into account, you are off by a factor of 40.

          • Menicholas says:

            Largest island, smallest continent…it contains one of the only two continental glaciers in the world.
            Since I was responding to Friar, I used his own number, so argue with him about that.
            Your figure is four times higher than NASAs own estimate.
            Thanks for checking my math…I am not very good at doing math on my phone while driving.
            As you said elsewhere…divide that number by the surface of the whole ocean.
            Even if true, it is insignificant.
            BTW, what is the error range?
            Never got around to answering that question I notice.
            Note that the latest figures from indicate that Antarctica is gaining mass, after years and years of handwringing by bedwetters such as yourself over how fast that CONTINENT is melting.
            So, do you want the world to join you in your panicky-guy pantomime?

          • Richard says:

            I have no argument with Friar over his number. He acknowledged that it was for 1994 through 1999. I am simply giving the more up-to-date figure. My figure is not “four times higher” than NASA’s – you need to compare similar time periods.

            One paper more recent than the one Friar cited gives a loss of 219 ± 38 Gt/yr. (

            “As you said elsewhere…divide that number by the surface of the whole ocean.
            Even if true, it is insignificant.” And that was my point – the poster I was responding to said we should see a “spike”. So don’t take it up with me, take it up with him.

            I agree re Antarctica. The points I have raised here have to do solely with Greenland. Why change the subject? And what is your indication that I “want the world to join [me] in [a] panicky-guy pantomime” of your own imagining? Is making shit up your defense mechanism against being called out for a couple of errors?

            Finally, regarding “I am not very good at doing math on my phone while driving’ – You need to stop. Seriously. You could hurt or kill someone.

    • Sheri says:

      Of course—that happens everywhere and anyone who lived where there are four seasons and is over 4 years of age knows this. Summer comes, some things melt. Winter comes, things freeze up. Everywhere with more than one season. Seems everyone except global warming believers get it.

  2. Billyjack says:

    …main accomplishment is marrying into the Heinz family.

  3. Steve Case says:

    I am reminded of an old Dennis the Menace cartoon strip where Dennis draws a treasure map complete win an “X” marks the spot right in his own back yard, and then he digs for the treasure and can’t figure out why it’s not there.

  4. RAH says:

    For those that may not know about Vietnam era “Winter Soldier” and who and what John Kerry really is:
    And then had the temerity when running for President to declare:

    “Swift Boating” was far better than he deserved.

    I would not trust a thing

  5. Pathway says:

    Giant icebergs broken off from the glacier seemed to groan as they drifted behind him,
    John Fin Kerry now known as the “glacier whisperer”.

    • RAH says:

      I wish he would try to whisper to a Greenland glacier right at it’s terminus at waters edge during the summer time.

  6. Pingback: Contradicting hundreds of news reports, Greenland’s ice surface is well above normal for the date » Lysander Spooner University

  7. Pingback: Contradicting hundreds of news reports, Greenland’s ice surface is well above normal for the date » Lysander Spooner University

  8. Robertv says:

    Power Corrupts (and fear does the rest)

    John Kerry knows what will happen if he doesn’t play ball. (As does the teleprompter reader in chief)

  9. Don says:

    How much carbon did the little prince use to make his trips? Phony as ever.

  10. Rosco says:

    I think the reason the bergs groan is they recognize an alarmist with no real purpose in life.

    I just need some funding !

  11. Billy Liar says:

    Taking advantage of the meltdown in the Arctic, the Polar Ocean Challenge continues its blistering pace circumnavigating the pole via the NE and NW passages.

    They are now in Skye, off the coast of NW Scotland. They are already 3 days behind their incredibly optimistic schedule and they have yet to see any ice!

  12. Andy DC says:

    Someone stole all the pins at the Greenland CC! But looks like ideal weather for the upcoming Greenland Open. The only question is if Tiger’s back will hold out for 72 holes. Also whether his balls turn blue from the cold!

  13. ossqss says:

    Kerry’s biggest accomplishment was marrying the Ketchup Queen. Just sayin, I boycott Heinz completely….

    • Sheri says:

      ossqss: I try to boycott appropriate businesses, but at the rate it’s going, I’ll be reduced to eating dirt from my backyard. (I do hunt and grow a garden to get around some of this—though only one seed company can be “safely” purchased from so one has to save seeds.) Too many business people are progressive, marketing, global warming fools. No wonder people are buying less and less. Who wants to do business with these people?

  14. Juan says:

    Remember how all those brown people were going to destroy all the rainforest by now? I think we still have some. I guess leftists never predict disasters well (only try to cause them)

  15. Richard says:

    Wow. Still confused over the difference between surface mass balance and total ice mass? “Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. 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 the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

    • tonyheller says:

      Try using your brain

    • AndyG55 says:

      1. 200GT is a tiny tiny percentage.. and is almost certainly immeasurable, certainly with gravity sensors over a know seismic region.

      2. Even if correct.. its only a small RECOVERY from the massive increases in Greenland during the Little Ice Age. Greenland used to grow crops, they could bury people in the ground (now permafrost)

      So FFS get some real historic perspective and stop being a AGW alarmist boot-licker.

      • Richard says:

        Andy – Oh, so that means the article is correct? Bwahaha. No. Try defending the article against the point I raised rather than make irrelevant assertions.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Seems you can’t read

          So FFS get some real historic perspective and stop being a AGW alarmist boot-licker.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You didn’t comprehend one word of what I said in those 2 points, did you.

        • AndyG55 says:

          And how is it “irrelevant” that ice levels around the whole Arctic region are actually ANOMOLOUSLY HIGH for the current interglacial, compared to the all but the last few hundred years (LIA), which was the coldest period in the last 10,000 years.

          It is highly relevant to realise that there is actually one heck of a lot of ice up there.

          Far more than the Holocene norm.

          That fact really hurts the alarmista story, doesn’t it, Dick.

          • RAH says:

            All of the paleo record refutes the claims of the alarmists. That is why they have tried to hard at times to alter it! ie: the hockey stick.

            A quote from Michael Mann latest:

            “Fundamentally, I’m a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate-model output and observational climate data trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change,”

            What more evidence does one need to understand that his efforts were and are about validating an agenda and not finding about following the evidence and data where it leads him? IOW what Mann has done and is doing has NOTHING to do with science or the scientific method.

  16. Richard says:

    Surface mass balance is not the same as total ice mass. SMB doesn’t count calving. Greenland to still losing ice. This information is included in the DMI site linked in the article, but it’s clear that this article’s author is counting on readers not to read that far.

    • tonyheller says:

      Calving has nothing to do with melt, and those claims of total ice loss are based on junk science.

      • RAH says:

        It is obviously beyond the capability of some to understand that increased ice mass at the higher elevations well above the terminus will push the ice below down hill resulting in calving.

        The time to start wondering what is going on with a glacier that has it’s terminus at a body of water is when it stops calving.

        • Richard says:

          Calving has always been going on. As long as the surface mass balance is positive enough to offset that, the total ice mass does not decrease. What has happened in recent decades is that the calving (not included in SMB) plus melt loss has exceeded the new snow. Only the latter two are included in SMB, so using SMB. as an indicator of change in total ice is delusional. It leads to gross errors (hundreds of gigatonnes).

          • RAH says:

            IF what was claimed were correct then there would be a corresponding spike in sea levels. There has been no spike or even appreciable increase in the long term rate of sea level rise.

            Thus either terrestrial ice is increasing elsewhere as that in Greenland declines or the claims being made about the ice melting in Greenland at an increased rate are dead wrong. So which is it?

          • RAH says:

            Richard must be running back to his mentors to find some kind of answer to my point.

          • Richard says:

            RAH, how large a “spike” in sea levels are you expecting? Why don’t you try dividing the volume of ice lost by the area of Earth’s oceans to sea what the annual rise from this source should be (something I did for myself many years ago)? You will find that it is within the measured rise, and the difference can be explained by other sources, notably thermal expansion. So the observation is consistent with the expectation. No surprise there. I’m surprised you didn’t check for yourself to avoid embarrassment.

          • RAH says:

            I don’t need to do calculations to see through this. I just need to be able to read the data. The “measured rise” rate of SLR is today is very close to what it was 20 years ago and yet the multiple claims of unusual melting year after year after year keep being made and argued!

            What is with this constant quest to find something to validate the human caused global warming/climate change hypothesis despite the fact that CO2 levels continue to rise and what has been claimed will happen due to that rise has not!

            There is nothing unusual going on with our climate. It is warming a little but at a rather mild rate compared to times in the past according to our understanding of the paleo record . And it’s not nearly rising to the extent it has been claimed it would by the imminent authority (IPCC) with their models that it would as CO2 levels rose.

            The whole hypothesis was based on runaway feedbacks caused by warming due to increased atmospheric CO2 despite the fact that CO2 levels were much higher in the past and it didn’t happen then. And there is simply no evidence any feedback is running away despite repeated claims over time that we have passed critical thresholds of CO2 levels or time.

            You know what got me interested in this whole climate debate in the first place? The claim of “acidification” of the oceans. A better example of hyperbolic bull crap could not be found for anyone with even a HS level understanding of pH. Starting from the basic understanding that sea water is alkaline/basic and must pass through neutral before the word acid or acidic or any derivative of those words can be used to describe it I started learning. The more I learned the more I found out how debased the whole claim of human caused global warming/climate change is. And the very fact that they changed the terminology in midstream from “global warming” to the far more ambiguous term “climate change” and the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change was claimed to be the authority made it clear to me that this whole issue is really at it’s core, a social/political fabrication more than anything else.

            As a soldier I’ve had dealings with the UN at the field level in more than one place over time when my own precious ass was on the line as well as my team mates and those experiences taught me to be very wary of that organization even when dealing with US officers assigned to UN duty let alone certain others.

          • Richard says:

            RAH, you wrote a lot but none of it addresses my objection. You claimed the loss of 200 gigatonnes of ice would cause a “spike” in sea level but you refuse to do a simple calculation that would show you are wrong. Then you wander far afield talking about things like acidification and (for some unfathomable readon) the UN, none of which bring any evidence to bear on the question at hand. If you had anything relevant to say you would say it rather than engage in these evasive tactics, so clearly you have nothing.

        • RAH says:

          I addressed your point in the very first paragraph. But here is the data I am referring to.

          SLR is only 1.48 mm Per Year per the long term gauges.

          Besides that are the unbelievable claims by some Alarmists like James Hanson that have not happened and there is absolutely no indication that they will. For example:

    • AndyG55 says:


      Just to keep it VERY SIMPLE for you… because I suspect that is all you can manage.

      Glaciers are rivers of ice..

      They FLOW.

      Comprendi !

      • Richard says:

        Yep, glaciers flow. So what? That’s why they calve. Do you have anything material to contribute?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Do you ?

          Apart from alarmist junk?

          • Richard says:

            I already have. I pointed out that SMB excludes calving. That is not “alarmist junk”, it is in the definition of SMB. Your only counter is to say that glaciers flow (which is why they calve, and therefore why SMB is not the whole picture, and therefore only supports my point, which I am sure was unintended). My point stands unchallenged.

        • AndyG55 says:

          What I find really bizzare is that you seem to have zero idea of the relevance pf the very small decline of ice throughout the whole Arctic


          And that is a real worry.

          • AndrewS says:

            1912, still creeping up out of the LIA.
            Titanic hits iceberg 600KM South of Newfoundland.
            LIA Greenland Mass Budget Loading created more ‘bergs. Watch out for Bergs!

          • Richard says:

            If the question is whether ice in Greenland is declining, or by how much (and yes, that is the question, because it is one of the premises of the article, and in particular it is the one I addressed), then what the rest of the Arctic is doing has *no* relevance to the question.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Yawn, , another wilfully ignorant twerp.

            Ignore reality.

            Its what you do.

          • Richard says:

            So you can’t actually address my objection. You decide it is necessary to resort to insults instead. Okay, I get it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            1. 200GT is a tiny, tiny percentage.. and is almost certainly immeasurable, certainly with gravity sensors over a know seismic region.

            2. Even if correct.. its only a small RECOVERY from the massive increases in Greenland during the Little Ice Age. Greenland used to grow crops, they could bury people in the ground (now permafrost)

            I have done, you are just too dumb or ignorant to comprehend.

            The 200Gt comes from GRACE satellites, the same one that said the Antarctic was melting, and have been proven incorrect.

            The same ones that are used for location gravity fluctuation which are invariably over volcanic regions, which Greenland is.

            There is no guarantee at all that the 200GT is actually ice being measured, especially as we know that the whole area is currently quite volcanically active.

            If it was melting any quicker than it has in the past, it would show up in the sea level.. and it doesn’t.

            I repeat,

            ADMIT that Arctic and Greenland ice is anomalously high as it recovers very slowly from the LIA, or prove yourself to be wilfully ignorant.

            Which will you choose, to be wilfully ignorant.. or go against the AGW alarmist meme.

            Pretty sure you will choose the first option.

  17. Richard says:

    Yep, glaciers flow. So what? That’s why they calve. Do you have anything material to contribute?

  18. Ronnie says:

    This blog is utter crap. “Anyone with an IQ over 30” would understand that. Get a life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.