Climate Science : A Thought Free Zone

The interior of Greenland gets huge amounts of snow, and rarely, if ever, gets above freezing.  Yet climate scientists have determined that it is not gaining ice.

Total mass change: Polar Portal

They have to dig their research facilities out of the snow several times a year to keep from disappearing under the ice. Yet they believe that location is not gaining ice.


The stupidity on display is … breathtaking.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Climate Science : A Thought Free Zone

  1. Steve Case says:

    A news search on Greenland Melting turns up gobs of bullshit.

    • Kris J says:

      That’s exactly my point from my question yesterday…

      People writing the news don’t know how to do a mass balance. How do you gain 500 GT/year (DMI), and also have a net loss of 200+ GT/year? Are they saying it gains 700 in snowfall, and then loses 200 during the melt? Or it gains 500 and loses 200, for a net gain of 300? Or it gains 500 and then melts off 700? I’m getting a bit confused

  2. Andy DC says:

    What happened to all the flags at the Greenland Country Club? According to alarmists, by 2030, Greenland and Antarctica will be the only habitable spots on earth, so they do need to be ready for golf’s next major tournament.

  3. arn says:

    in a world-
    where extremly low numbers of an extremly weak climate gas can turn a planet into a fireball

    -oceans can be blamed for absorbing all the heat,to explain the hiatus away((strange somehow that thousands of scientists discovered this amazing ocean abilities when they needed them most,and not in all the years before)

    -Huge ice loss in perma-sub-zero regions is what one can expect.
    ( i guess evil hitler co2 molecules are eating the ice away& ice gains are result of russian hacking)

  4. Pedro Kulzer says:

    Hey Tony,

    sorry for writing it here, but I can’t figure out how to contact you in any other way, so: I read some typical alarmist stuff about a huge 6000 Sq. Km sized “iceberg” having gotten lose from Antarctica, blaming, yet again, “Global Warming”! Did you see into that? What’s the real news here? Just one of the gazillion links with the same news:

    Pedro Kulzer

    • wert says:

      Ha. American trillion tons is just one cubic km. Mile squared and 1000ft thick. About. When you see it, it is 100ft high and a mile wide.

      {trillion is an idiotic word because it can be 1e18 or 1e9}

      • Kris J says:

        American trillion is 1 x 10^12. Billion is 10^9. Very confusing. Many members of Congress don’t understand the difference. That’s no lie

    • Jeremy McManus says:


      You don’t make clear what the “alarmist” source of your anxiety was. You do imply though that “yet again” it blames “Global Warming”! (I feel obliged to keep to the spirit of your post).
      To settle your nerves you turn to Tony for guidence which I’m sure will do him no end of good.
      But the puzzle for me is that you post a link to Sciencealert which gives a very measured account of the great calving event, with lots of detail and, most importantly, all the reassurance you could wish for that it was a natural event, not one caused by humans. Dr O’Leary has in fact since reiterrated this point, saying that there is no sign that it was caused by global warming.
      So happy days for you, then!

  5. wert says:

    Basically the mass gain/loss can be detected by rising/dropping summit height. Each year some new ice forms. At the same time, ice flows downstream towards the sea. The net glacier height is the key. Some uncertainty comes from glacier bottom movement. Is the baserock going up or down?

    I don’t see this as an easy question. On the other hand, I see absolutely no reason to panic. Every year new ice forms. The balance does not need to be perfect, andit has no reason to be.

    • tonyheller says:

      GRACE uses gravity measurements, which are affected by lots of things other than ice mass. The people doing the calculations are too stupid to understand this.

      • Jeremy McManus says:


        Of course they are, Tony. Absolute dimwits, the lot of them; the entire collaborative team of befuddled specialists from the University of Texas, NASA’s JPL and Germany’s National Reseaerch Centre for Geosciences: all utterly incompetent. If only you’d been available to guide their efforts!
        Interesting for me that such a comment as yours attracts no challenge at all here. Perhaps, on reflection, that’s not surprising given the partisan nature of site. Nevertheless, commenters here do appear to get heated by views that contradict their own, and when they do the label they like to use is Troll. So do be careful. .

        Anyway, there might be more precise means of determining mass loss than by measuring gravity anomolies, I don’t know: I’m no expert in this field of research. But what it does provide at the very least is a close agreement with other data showing mass loss. But of course to suggest such a thing is to invite charges of being a troll. So now I’d better be careful.

  6. Gonzo says:

    The fact they’re using GRACE is reason to doubt any data they put out. One of the satellites is diminished and they’ve had “warts” from the get go. NASA’s Jay Zwally went as far as to consider GRACE an outlier for the Antarctic ice mass balance.

  7. BallBounces says:

    “The stupidity on display is … breathtaking.”

    It’s a well-known fact that breath-taking is caused by global warming. You are Exhibit A of global warming!!!

  8. Leonard Lane says:

    Interesting post, thanks.
    I am sure you remember this post about WW II airplanes buried under ~ 260 feet of snow and ice.

  9. dave1billion says:

    “Overall, the Greenland Ice Sheet has during 2003-2011 on average seen a net annual ice loss corresponding to 234 km3 of water. Or approximately 0.65 mm in average annual contribution to global sea level rise (Barletta et al. 2013). ”

    Even given that dubious assertion, we’re talking about a 2.5 inch seal level rise per century.

    I (and others here) have run the calculations for a net ice loss of 250 cubic km per year and I believe that it would take a projected 15,000 years at that rate for the ice cap to completely melt.

    • David A says:

      Likely well within any reasonable margin of error and not significantly different then 0.

    • Jeremy McManus says:


      Why should the Barletta et al figures for those 9 years be applicable to years hence?
      Have you taken the accelerating effects of positive feedbacks into consideration?
      By the way, your “running the calculations” is a nice touch. It sounds as if you know what you’re doing, and so much more impressive than “I’ve done a few sums of my own”. Nice.

  10. RAH says:

    All one has to ask to expose the lie is ‘Where did the water from all that melting ice go?’

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I think Gator already found the answer. The meltwater is hiding at the bottom of the oceans together with Trenberth’s missing heat. That’s why sea level didn’t rise.

  11. Gator69 says:

    I see Jeremy is still posting out of ignorance.

Leave a Reply

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