Greenland Blowing Away All Records For Ice Growth

Greenland has gained 400 billion tons of ice so far this winter, blowing away all previous records for ice gain. Normally they don’t gain that much ice until March.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Meanwhile, climate scientists continue to lie about Greenland, because their scam depends on it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Greenland Blowing Away All Records For Ice Growth

  1. Andy DC says:

    They are going to have to do a lot of extra shoveling to get the Summit Country Club ready for this year’s Greenland Open!

  2. Eric Simpson says:

    Going to have to change its name from Greenland to ICEland!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Ironic, isn’t it.

      Greenland is only every green on a tiny percentage of its extremities.

      Whereas Iceland can be decidedly green and BEAUTIFUL

      Which would ANYONE prefer.. Frozen nothingness, or warmth and beauty. !!

  3. Shooter says:

    I saw that ‘Greenland ice melt’ scare. Don’t they realize ocean currents drive ice melt, not the other way around…? I guess not.

  4. CheshireRed says:

    This must be fake news because there’s nothing in the Guardian about this at all, and they only speak the truth.

  5. -B- says:

    What about their claim that the ice returning the sea, as ice, exceeds that being gained? (on the link)

    That just does not make any sense. It’s the additional ice mass that drives the ice on the edges out into the sea. Stop adding mass, stop the flow. The only way the flow to the sea as ice is larger is because at some point there is so much ice that the rate is beyond what falls. Due to pressure, topography, whatever. When the ice falls back below the critical value again then it will build faster than it reaches the sea once more. Either that or it finds equilibrium.

    They also argue it doesn’t get deeper but that would only be due to compression. That is the new snow compresses all the previous layers to match. Otherwise a plane parked on the ice for 60 years wouldn’t be 250ft+ below the surface. It was found on the same layer of ice it was parked on.

    Unless my logic is off somewhere it comes off that they are trying to desperately find a reason to hold on to their premise in spite of data that shows it to be wrong.

    • Gail Combs says:

      They also neglect to say that Greenland is shaped like a bowl so you end up with an inland lake.

    • Jason Calley says:

      They go out of their way to conflate ice loss with ice melting, leaving the impression that increased warmth is melting the ice. Of course it isn’t. As you say, ice flow is driven by ice mass. Increase the mass, increase the flow. If the ice loss (assuming that they are even correct when they say that there is a net loss) were from CAGW, the loss would be taking place at the surface. It is not. Instead the surface is gaining at record rates.

  6. Greenland is proof of climate change.

    The solution is to send huge fleets of SUVs to Greenland and lots of gasoline.

  7. scott allen says:

    Actually the chart is very deceiving. For the three posted years they all start out at zero, then add or subtract from zero. The next year in the chart then starts from zero again. I realize it is trying to show year to year but even the “mean” never goes below zero, so what accounts for the missing ice?
    The chart starts in 2011-2012 starts at zero and the red line end at zero, great no loss of ice.
    The next line, “light grey”, for the year 2015 – 2016 starts again at zero but ends at a plus 250 Gt of ice for a net gain of 250 Gt.
    But the next line, “blue” for the year 2016-2017 again starts at zero and not at the 250 Gt of ice gain recorded in the previous year.
    This would be like a company starting each year with no assets and disregarding the previous years loss or gain. If Greenland is losing ice, by necessity they should show a loss at some point in time. Even the mean over time shows a net gain.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Read what it says, you dopey git.

      The line is the cumulative SMB gain since September 1 each year

      Of course it starts at zero.

      See how around May, June the line starts to head downwards, that means its losing SM.

      No deception in the graph at all, just an idiot unable to comprehend it.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And yes, there is a net surface gain over time.

      Other losses are from the edges and underneath.

    • AndyG55 says:

      And just to put it into perspective, here is a graph of the Total Greenland Ice Mass since 1900 The changes in either direction are so trivial that they would never show up on a zeroed total mass axis.

      • AndyOz says:

        I calculated it would take 10-15,000 years for all the Greenland ice to melt at current “unprecedented” melt rates as alleged by NASA’s GRACE project. (which I reckon is bogus anyway)

        They didn’t bother checking my math, because they know its right.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey scott allen! “Actually the chart is very deceiving. ”

      Scott, the chart shows exactly what it is labeled as showing. You raised the same objection before in another thread.
      The reason WHY this chart is important was explained and you made no response to the explanation, nor did you ask for more clarification or point out any errors.

      Now you claim that the chart is deceptive.

      One last try… Greenland may or may not be losing ice mass. Either way, if greenhouse gases were causing the atmosphere to warm, then the resulting ice loss would show up as a surface loss, not as subsurface melt loss, not as calving. Surface mass budget does not show a loss. Therefore, while Greenland may (or may not — the error bars are huge) be losing ice, the cause is not CAGW.

      Here is a simple question: If greenhouse causes are causing Greenland to lose ice, why is it that each year the surface accumulates more snow than melts? Or do you think that the chart is in error?

      • scott allen says:

        I will try to respond to both you and andy55.
        Andy55 you called me a “dopy git” how ever you did not read my 3rd sentence in which I stated I clearly understood what the graph was intending to show (that being ice gain over a one year time frame, from year to year) but the graph clearly shows a net gain of ice from year to year.

        My contention is that if the graph shows an overall gain there should be a corresponding graph that show ice budget lost (and where the ice is “lost”. The original site just says there is a loss but points to vague calving of ice etc (and which my personal opinion they can not articulate where the missing ice went). My objection to this graph is not one for or against global warming. It’s that it only shows what the gain is. The story then contradicts the gain by saying there was a loss. It akin to getting audited by the IRS and have charts, graph and figures to show your company made money but then telling the IRS that you lost money with no proof of the loss and that is why you paid no taxes. Sorry but its the accounting side of me that needs to see the loss statement, if you are claiming a loss.

        Jason I reposted my contention again without seeing your response for which I am sorry.

        • AndyG55 says:

          roflmao.. You still haven’t figured it have you, keep wearing the dopey git tag.

          Nothing deceptive about the graph..

          Its the SURFACE mass balance…. and the surface gains mass each year..

          Its not that difficult, really it isn’t !!

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Jason I reposted my contention again without seeing your response for which I am sorry.”

          But you must have seen his response to know there was one.

          Who is the DECEPTIVE one here !!

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Scott! “My contention is that if the graph shows an overall gain there should be a corresponding graph that show ice budget lost (and where the ice is “lost”. ”

          OK, fair question — indeed there ought to be a graph that shows where the ice is being lost. I have not seen it, but there ought to be one somewhere. The only possibilities that come immediately to mind (other than the surface budget (which would, of course, include sublimation) is subsurface melt and calving.

          My understanding is that the Greenland ice loss is calculated from the GRACE satellites and has error bars much larger than the estimated loss. The bars are large enough that Greenland could actually be gaining ice instead. But let’s just assume that the 200GT loss is real. For most of the readers here, the focus is on CAGW, hence the emphasis on the surface mass budget, and the lack of support for the “Greenland is melting!” theme.

          However, yes, you raise a good question. If Greenland is losing ice mass, where is it going? I suppose that calving losses could be estimated from satellite photos. Finding subsurface melt and runoff would be difficult. How many streams emerge under glacier tongues that are already floating? How would we know? Maybe there is a way to check salinity around the island and make some calculations of how much fresh water is diffusing outward.

          Good question. I do not know who has reliable answers.

          • scott allen says:

            Jason thank you for the well reasoned response.
            My post(s) were to point out their claim to the 200Gt of loss should be documented some where not just an estimation or a wish and since the graph shows an over about 200Gt of mass gained (average) and they claim a total loss of 200GT they need to show a loss of 400Gt (year to year) came from some where.

          • Latitude says:

            Scott, they are comparing gain or loss agains the mean…each year….starting in Sept…zero

            If it goes below the mean line….red one…it’s loss
            If it goes above….blue line…it’s gain

            using Mean as the base line each time

   least that’s the way I’ve always thought about it

  8. AndyG55 says:

    Ironic isn’t it

    Greenland is basically all ice, apart from a tiny coastal fringe in summer

    Iceland can be BEAUTFUL and green×678.jpg

    Seriously.. Which would you prefer?

  9. AndyG55 says:

    TH, I’m really struggling to get pics to display or post.

    Never had this issue previously.

    • neal s says:

      You need to save off locally (on your own device) any image you wish to post. Then at the bottom of all other fields in the reply/post box, there is a “choose file” button. Click that button, and then navigate to the image you previously saved locally. Note that oversize images will be scaled down to fit, and the allowable width diminishes as the reply/posting depth increases.

  10. Kris Johanson says:

    Evidently, the bedrock underlying the Greenland ice sheet is pretty warm.
    Translation: about half of the entire ice sheet is basically sitting on a warm frying-pan. Refer to image of basal thermal state below. (This is from MacGregor, et al, 2016)

    Further, it’s sitting on a ringed frying-pan (see Gail Combs’ 3D graphic above)

    This makes me wonder how many Joules are just simply conducting up from the layers below.


    • -B- says:

      So under the ice there is a geological heat source in play??

      Well sure enough:

      “The North Atlantic Ocean is an area of active plate tectonics. Between 80 and 35 million years ago tectonic processes moved Greenland over an area of abnormally hot mantle material that still today is responsible for the volcanic activity of Iceland. The mantle material heated and thinned Greenland at depth producing a strong geothermal anomaly that spans a quarter of the land area of Greenland. ”

      Now that would cause ice to go into the sea more rapidly. It would create lubricated surface for the ice to slide on. It wouldn’t have to be a great source of heat either because the thick ice above would serve as insulation and a cold mass that could not be melted by it. The result would just be thin layer of water at the bottom.

      Every time I think I understand the depth of the fraud I learn something more that shows it to be deeper and more intentional than I had thought.

      • Kris Johanson says:

        Here’s the pull-quote from the paper:
        “The study indicates that about a half of the ice in north-central Greenland is resting on a thawed bed and that the meltwater is routed to the ocean through a dense hydrological network beneath the ice”.

        So a large portion of the Greenland ice sheet is resting on warmed slush, being heated from the earth’s mantle underneath.

        Has anyone ever done an order-of-magnitude calculation on the Joules potentially coming up from the mantle, and compared it with the alleged atmospheric contribution?
        I’m just curious.

        • Latitude says:

          half of the ice in north-central Greenland is resting on a thawed bed…

          Makes you wonder how cold and how much snow had to fall to get snow to stick there in the first place

      • Latitude says:

        The center of Greenland is about 1000 ft below sea level

    • AndyG55 says:

      Being on top of moving magma, makes using gravity based measurements more than a bit iffy ;-)

      I think we can ignore any data from GRACE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.