Greenland Ice Growth Continues To Blow Away All Records

Experts say Greenland is melting down and unraveling.

As with everything else they say, the exact opposite is occurring. Greenland is blowing away all records for ice gain.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

This is what Greenland looked like a month ago. I didn’t see anything unraveling.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Greenland Ice Growth Continues To Blow Away All Records

  1. Colorado Wellington says:

    ‘The Arctic Is Unraveling,’ Scientists Conclude After Latest Sobering Climate Report

    One needs to learn how to read climate news these days. They briefly sobered up a bit, counted the days till inauguration, concluded their global warming scam is unraveling, did a little projecting on their climate insider websites, looked at job openings in Cuba, and got drunk again.

  2. Eliza says:

    As the Irish say what a bunch of ejits. BTW the big fraud story of today is that a huge chunk of ice is breaking off Antarctica, the size of Wales according to warmists BBC, Sky News ect Mainstream BS media, Well DUH its summer down here. It breaks OFF EVERY year. Its supposed too! AGW idiots!

  3. wert says:

    Clearly weather. No, worse, unprecedented floodrisk in Greenland!

  4. Latitude says:

    Did you guys know the US built a secret missile base….under the ice in Greenland??
    …I didn’t

    The secret Cold War city the US built under ice: Incredible footage reveals the hidden missile base in Greenland that would have destroyed the Soviet Union in minutes

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Latitude …. more like a plan to build a missile base since there never were any missiles deployed before they gave up on the idea. Also they only built a very small part of the 2,000 miles of tunnels mentioned but that story makes it sound like the entire project was completed.
      Interesting idea but a frosty place to work.

  5. Andy DC says:

    I hope Trump swings a huge ax and puts these lying parasites out on the street.

  6. scott allen says:

    I have been looking at the graph of the surface mass budget. I am curious why each year starts at 0. Shouldn’t each year start where the last year left off. I mean 2014 2015 ended with over + 200 gt but the graph shows 2016-2017 starting back at 0 (as they all did) it might be great to show year to year comparison but not for total ice budget. And the story says that greenland is loosing 200gt of ice a year (average) but none of the graphs show any negative loss.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey scott! As you point out, the graphs only show the annual build up in surface ice. I think you are right that an ongoing chart, one where each year starts at the end of the previous year would be interesting.

      You are also correct that the charts show most years gaining ice — but remember that this chart is for “surface mass budget”. It does not include ice flowing out into the ocean, it does not include ice melting at any geothermal hot spots, etc. It only shows how much ice is building up (or melting away) on the surface. Why would someone want to show only the surface ice budget? Because IF (big IF) Greenland were being melting away from CAGW, the place it would show up first is at the surface. All the effects of global warming take place in the atmosphere and then work their way down. The only way for heat from the atmosphere to melt away the ice is by going through the surface first. Suppose Greenland actually is losing 200GT of ice per year from glacial calving and subsurface melt. Glacial calving is caused by ice flow and increases when the ice gets thicker and flows faster — not by melting. Suppose that Greenland is losing ice from melting below the surface, maybe where it contacts the bedrock. That melting can’t be from heat coming from the top down through the ice, or the surface would be melting first. The point is that any atmospheric induced melting will show up at the surface first. Ice lose that does not show up as a surface ice loss is not from global warming. Non-atmosphereic melting and ice loss may very well be taking place, but if it is, it is NOT caused by CO2 and a warming planet.

      As for the 200GT of ice loss — it sounds huge, but it isn’t. The Greenland ice sheet has close to 3,000,000 GT of ice. If it melted, sea level would rise just about 24 feet. At 200 GT per year you are looking at 15,000 years for it to all melt. That works out to less than 2/100th of an inch per year of sea level rise.

      Scary, huh? The alarmist do not usually do have a feel for numbers or for how large our planet is. They did the same thing with their scare about how “the oceans have stored up 24X10^22 joules of heat over the last 50 years! Sounds huge! It isn’t.

  7. Duke Silver says:

    If you showed only the total, it would make it much harder to show a high or low yearly buildup. The yearly increment would be hidden until the total was greater the total from years ago. It’d be hard to show or see a catch-up phase.

  8. Andy says:

    This is actually to be expected as we discussed earlier that the Arctic pole and basin was warmer than normal because cold air had moved south. Greenland is to the south of this region, as is Canada and USA, so I am not surprised that Greenland has more snow gain at this point.

    As you rightly pointed out the high temps in the Arctic sea are weather not climate change, but also this means this is equally just weather, and not climate change.


  9. Kris Johanson says:

    Please comment:
    An increase in atmospheric CO2 from +/- 300ppm to 400ppm represents an increase of 100ppm, or just ONE MOLECULE PER TEN THOUSAND of air. In other words, CO2 is an extremely minor constituent of the atmosphere, much less than water vapor for example. Further, the heat capacity of gaseous CO2 is practically ZILCH compared to water vapor.

    Is there any convincing research out there which challenges the prevailing view of CO2 as the causative agent?
    Comments please

    • Gail Combs says:

      Dr Evans took apart the basic climate model and analyzed it as a mathematician/electrical engineer (Lots of applied physics needed) — About Dr Evans

      He then wrote a series of blog posts that tear down/ critique the basic climate model architecture and shows that carbon dioxide caused less than 20% of the recent global warming. However Dr Evans then rebuilds the model introducing the notch-delay solar theory and predicting cooling within the next few years.
      This is a unique bit of research since the paper (and it will be a paper) was presented and critique and modified in real time in front of a large international audience with the input from the audience.

      Dr Evans was able to do this in such a way that knowledgeable laymen could actually follow what he was doing and ask questions.

      Index to analysis

      Main Message

      Global temperatures will come off the current plateau into a sustained and significant cooling, beginning 2017 or maybe as late as 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3 °C in the 2020s, taking the planet back to the global temperature that prevailed in the 1980s. This was signaled (though not caused) by a fall in underlying solar radiation starting in 2004, one of the three largest falls since 1610 when records started. There is a delay of one sunspot cycle, currently 13 years (2004+13 = 2017).

      (Please note that even if this solar hypothesis and prediction prove to be wrong, the identification of the errors in the conventional climate models and the finding that carbon dioxide is not the main cause of recent global warming are still correct.)


      • Kris Johanson says:

        I will be reading and re-reading Evans’ essays and the paper itself in the coming days. A lot to chew on, here. Thank you!

        • Gail Combs says:

          You are welcome. I found the discussions fasinating. My degree is in chemistry so I have just enough physics and math — barely to follow the discussion.

  10. Joltinjoe says:

    After all is said and done, I remain a skeptic. Measurements fall outside the margin of error. Significant causes of temperature changes are excluded from all the warmists presentations. It is clearly not science. Now you know.

  11. Kris Johanson says:

    Please comment and poke holes as necessary:
    I’m trying to wrap my brain around the water mass balance…

    1. Greenland’s SURFACE is adding +/- 300GT per year on average (Danish Meteorological Inst.)
    2. In spite of this, Greenland OVERALL is losing 200GT per year.
    3. That means +/- 500GT per year is breaking-off or melting below the surface. Now granted, a lot of that is just big ice chunks floating around, it isn’t all necessarily liquid.
    4. 500GT of water equivalent, spread over the world’s oceans, would translate to +/- 1.3mm per year ocean rise.
    5. That’s a lot of Joules coming from somewhere.
    6. As Jason Calley points out, above, it isn’t coming from the atmosphere, because there apparently isn’t much surface melt.
    7. Do we know what the bedrock looks like? Has anyone measured the temperature patterns of the underlying strata?
    8. Otherwise, this represents a lot of BTU’s being sucked out of the ocean.

    Knock it over, please.

  12. AndyG55 says:

    “2. In spite of this, Greenland OVERALL is losing 200GT per year.”

    Not really proven. A worthwhile red can be found at this link.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      1. Okay, I see the problem with my mass balance. The +300GT surface mass increase has to evaporate from the oceans. I forgot to factor that in.

      So the NET-NET annual increase is only +200GT after all (generous assumption) and that translates to only 0.3mm per year ocean rise (3cm per century).

      2. Thank you for the link above. Very interesting….
      Your Greenland graph puts it in perspective quite well.

Leave a Reply

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