Fifth Largest Mass Gain On Greenland’s Surface Since 1981

Overall, initial figures suggest that Greenland may have gained a small amount of ice over the 2016-17 year.

Guest post: How the Greenland ice sheet fared in 2017 | Carbon Brief

Antarctica is also gaining ice.

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

Greenland and Antarctica are both gaining ice, yet experts say sea level rise is accelerating. They must believe in an extraterrestrial source of water.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

82 Responses to Fifth Largest Mass Gain On Greenland’s Surface Since 1981

  1. Edmonton Al says:

    It seems to me, and I have said this before, that all Alarmists look at a Mercator projection map of the world and see Greenland as a giant continent, bigger than Africa, that will melt and flood the world. [WE ARE DOOMED].
    Just look down on the north pole on a globe, and see how small Greenland is in size.

    • XYZ says:

      If you look at the globe (not Mercator projection) you see that only some 5% of surface area is on polar regions. Those regions receive only very marginal amount of solar radiation, vast majority being on tropics. Water occupies 3800 times more energy than air. 70% of surface area of earth is water. Only 13% of iceberg is visible on surface. Water currents are slow compared to wind. Arctic and Antarctic ice behavior is therefore more dictated by sea temperature than air. So I think we are focusing on wrong things.

      • Kris Johanson says:

        Yes, HEAT and WATER; not TEMP and AIR. And do a complete mass and energy balance before overturning Western civilization and imposing authoritarian government and tax structure on us all, confiscating private property, trashing the Bill of Rights, and so on…

        • Stewart Pid says:

          Kris you are so wrong it is unbelievable … don’t u know CO2 is the satanic molecule and has magical properties of insulation and warming? Like the mighty OZ it is all powerful.
          Griff’s lessons haven’t taken with u have they?
          hopefully obvious sarc

        • XYZ says:

          Exactly. Calculate watts per square meter on earth at various stages on orbit PLUS solar activity. Take into account absorption of water (remember salinity and up/down currents and remember also that sea is 3 km deep as average = huge reservoir). It is self balancing system. What ever you do, it bounces back.
          CO2 is not killing us. Nature is (if). How ironic.

    • Griff says:

      Scientists have measure the mass of the non-floating ice on both Greenland and Antarctica and sea level rise predictions are based on that indisputable and accurate information.

  2. Nelson says:

    Isn’t this what we would expect with the AMO turning negative. I think lots of people are going to look foolish in a few years. Also, I am surprised that so few people are talking about the rapid decline in the Earth’s magnetic shield. Throw in the quiet sun and we have likely have some interesting decades ahead.

    • RAH says:

      Yep. I suspect we’re in for some stormy years and heavy winters. This year tornadoes are right at the 50 percentile in the adjusted numbers for the US and hurricanes are going to at or a little above average in incidence and intensity it seems.
      My next big purchase is going to be a good sized snow blower in anticipation of the snows to come. Already checked out my generator to make sure it’s ready to go.

  3. RAH says:

    They claim the SLR is due to thermal expansion. This active Atlantic hurricane season should help take care of some of that.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Just Harvey alone (27 trillion gals supposedly) equates to a .3mm drop in global sea level (how’s that for mixing units) so you have a good point

  4. Kris Johanson says:

    The way this is going, we may have to spread pulverized coal on the ice sheets after all

  5. Griff says:

    yes, storms dumped a lot of snow onto Greenland – but how much melted and calved away?

    How typical is this and will it continue?

    There’s no way to represent this as a turn around: it may slow things a little.

    Ask why those storms were there to dump that snow.

    • Gator says:

      Ask why those storms were there to dump that snow.

      It’s called “weather” Ms Griff.

      Why do you hate poor brown people?

    • Latitude says:

      How typical is this and will it continue?

      Griff, there’s been no global warming for about 20 years…
      …so what ever was put into place to cause a reduction in ice happened 20 years ago..and it’s been slowly happening ever since

      • richard verney says:

        There has been no global warming in the vicinity of Greenland for nigh on 80 years.

        Both Greenland and Iceland show the 1940s as their warmest period during the time of the thermometer record (when RAW temperature data is used).

        Hadcrut area weighted 70deg to 90 degN shows that 2016 has a 27 month smoothing anomaly figure of + 1degC and 1936 and 1944 had a similar + 1 degC anomaly.

        If one takes out the smoothing, Hadcrut shows 1936 with a + 7degC anomaly and 2015 with a + 4 degC anomaly (2016 being cooler than 2015). See;

        The fact is that there has been quite a lot of multidecadal variation, but overall there has been no warming.


    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Ask why those storms were there to dump that snow.

      Yeah! Science! Why were there all those storms in the past that dumped snow on Greenland? If there were no snowfalls there would be no ice sheet. How typical was it in the past that storms dumped snow on Greenland?

      Ms Griff wants to know and she ruthlessly demands answers. There is no stopping her.

    • tonyheller says:

      Is that a trick question Griff? The SMB shows that 550 billion more tons of snow fell than melted.

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Grifftard …. why are any storms anywhere? Which ones are natural / weather and which are your mythical climate change storms???
      I await your detailed response.

    • Robert Austin says:

      I am sure that you realize that calving at the glacier terminus means that the glacier is advancing. But in the zealous pursuit of your religion of climate catastrophe, you assume license to ignore or distort information contrary to the “settled science”.

    • XYZ says:

      This comment proves that there is no way to win in this war. It is all pink fuzzy bunny slippers from science side, and facts on the other. Who wins?

      • gator69 says:

        Thankfully Ms Griff is part of a very small minority, a fringe element that will never understand climate science because they do not care about the science. All this group of sick doomers will ever know is their agenda, and supporting propaganda. They will not allow anything to get in the way of the genocide they wish to inflict upon poor brown people, whom they consider inferior to ice.

        • Griff says:

          er no… most of the world, including all governments except the Us and North Korea, accept the science.

          There’s only a tiny fringe of politically motivated scientists in the Skeptic camp – many of those paid by fossil fuel interests like the Heartland institute

          • gator69 says:

            er no.. here is what most of the world thinks about climate change. You have been shown this before, so thanks for outing yourself once again as a liar.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Ha ha, the worn out consensus fallacy is back!

            The IPCC many temperature predictions/Projections have failed.

            There is no Troposphere “hot spot” either.

            The far into the future modeling projection to year 2100 are untestable,therefore worthless.

            No increase in Hurricanes or Tornadoes for several decades. No increase in Drought. No increase in floods either.

            Doubt that a SINGLE short term IPCC projection has been found to be correct.

            The AGW conjecture has failed many times now,Griff.

            You have NOTHING,which is why you warmist morons employ many fallacy arguments instead,since you can’t defend a dead hypothesis.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “but how much melted and calved away?”

      Very little…

      If you know any better .. produce data.

      Or crawl back into you sopping wet bed.

    • kyle_fouro says:

      Obviously the answer is climate change, no matter what the question

    • Gerald Machnee says:

      **Ask why those storms were there to dump that snow.**
      You dummy, they always have storms there. Nothing new.

      • gator69 says:

        Actually billions of Polar Bears, that once roamed the Arctic, would continuously roll up enormous balls of snow that they then pushed across the ice (that was frozen solid year round until 1980) only to end up in Greenland, naturally. Of course now it’s man’s fault.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Maybe, but before we accept your polar bear hypothesis we need hard facts. We must reanalyze existing Greenland ice cores.

          Scientists assumed that the 2-3 km deep ice originated from snow dumped by past storms but is it really true? How rigorously did they examine their assumptions? Did they consider alternatives?

          Modern climate science tells us that ice accumulated this year originated from storms that do not happen without man-made global warming. Such storms are not naturally occurring and they could not have existed in the past.

          There must have been another, yet unidentified source that created the Greenland ice sheet and and the ice cores could tell us what it was. First, there are other animals besides polar bears. Next, the Dorset or Thule people could have raised the ice sheet just like other ancients built their pyramids. Erik the Red’s people could be behind it, too. They were a playful bunch and maybe they built up the inland ice sheet for winter sports.

          Ms Griff is asking all the right questions.

    • Andy DC says:

      When it snows in Greenland, that is bad and when it is sunny in Greenland that is bad too. So what exactly should Greenland’s climate be? What needs to be done to make it ideal?

      Since it seldom gets near 32 degrees on the icecap, how does all of this magical warming on Greenland take place? Same goes for Antarctica.

      Calving is a natural process by which an icecap rids itself of excess ice. What is wrong with that, and what would you propose to do in order to stop that perfectly normal process?

    • Gonzo says:

      [Ask why those storms were there to dump that snow.] Ahhhhhh. Because it’s cold!! Maybe you should ask Ruth Motrin from DMI?

    • richard verney says:

      Further to my comment above showing that the Arctic has not warmed for some 80 years, it is worth looking at the Hadcrut Arctic record in more detail.

      If one looks at the 24 year period between 1922 and 1946, and compare this to the 24 year period between 1992 and 2016, and note the number of years where there has been around a + 4degC anomaly, one notes that during the period 1922 to 1946 there are 12 years with this or greater anomaly (ie., half the period) whereas during the period 1992 to 2016 there are only 6 such years.

      It is clear that it was generally considerably warmer in the Arctic during the period 1922 to 1946 than it is during the recent period 1992 to 2016. Not only are there more + 4 degC anomalies during the earlier period, the peak anomalies are higher.

      It is quite clear from this that if there is any material ice loss in the Arctic it is not due to global warming, simply because there has been no material warming in the Arctic region over the course of the past 95 years.

      One can see from the Hadcrut record that there is absolutely no correlation between temperatures and CO2, and further during the period when manmade emissions started escalating, late 1940s on wards ,generally temperatures in the Arctic have been cooler than they were prior to the date of escalation, ie., during the period prior to the late 1940s.

      • Griff says:


        The how can the sea ice have declined since 1979 is if wasn’t any warmer?

        • gator69 says:

          Take a block of ice out of your freezer. Sit it on your kitchen counter at 80F.

          Does it melt?


          Now turn your thermostat down to 75F.

          Does the ice still melt?

          Why do you hate poor brown people Ms Griff?

        • richard verney says:


          The decline in sea ice is not due to warmer air temps, but rather due to variations in warm currents and wind/storminess.

          Further, of course, on a historic basis there has not been the decline in sea ice that you think that there has been.

          There is more sea ice now than there was in the 1920s. That is why the recent Pen Hadow sailing expedition came to a freezing halt and could go no further than “80 degrees 10 minutes North, 148 degrees 51 minutes West, reached at 22:04:12 (Alaskan Time, GMT-9hours) on 29 August 2017 by yachts, Bagheera and Snow Dragon II.” Likewise, why the earlier British rowing expedition got blocked by ice on 10th August 2017 just off the North West coast of Svalbard at about 79°55’50” N.

          Whereas, in the 1922 the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition that reached 81°29’ North. This is more than 1 deg further North, and the expedition was not blocked by ice. It still reported ice free waters.

          The contemporaneous newspaper report is set out:

        • AndyG55 says:

          How can the sea ice have expanded SO, SO MUCH since the MWP to the LIA, if it was not SO MUCH COLDER.

          Why is the current level SO MUCH HIGHER than the MWP , griff ?

          Move to Siberia if you want it COLD, griff. I dare you.

          But you won’t will you……

          Warm southern UK with fossil fuel HEATing in winter..

          That is the inner city ghetto that griff slithers about in.

  6. Steven Fraser says:

    I’d not ever seen the yearly calving mass estimate before.. 500G tonnes. Gonna tuck that behind a brain cell.

    • The calving mass of ice is ice that is cooling the oceans. There is more calving when the oceans need more cooling and there is less calving when oceans nee less cooling. This is how the system works. climate is self regulating. when oceans are warmer, polar oceans thaw and more snowfall increases ice volume. More ice volume calves more and cools the oceans more. This is a natural cycle that was not caused by humans.

    • gator69 says:

      You are exactly right Andy, look at all that frigging ice! Thanks for pointing this out to everyone here.

      We have absolutely no reason whatsoever to concern ourselves with melting Arctic ice any longer. Let’s use the climate change budget to feed the starving millions, instead of focusing on meaningless ice and a slightly changed and improved climate. I mean, really, who thinks ice is more important than human life? Why spend any time or money on ice that will have zero impact on 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of humanity.

      Not Andy

    • AndyG55 says:


      Sure, the Arctic is down from the EXTREMES of the LIA.. thank goodness, but the Antarctic has recovered well from the El Nino based melting of last year. The general upward trend of the last few decades will continue, because.. guess what.. ITS COLD DOWN THERE.

  7. Andy says:

    “The general upward trend of the last few decades”

    Can you show a graph of this?


    • AndyG55 says:

      OMG .. you really ARE that wilfully ignorant !!

      I know that data has been shown to you many times , while you were yapping about Antarctic sea ice earlier this year.

      Are you totally incapable of learning anything ??

  8. Andy says:

    Please ignore 1979 which was a bad year to start any set of data … seeming so …

    It was the peak !


    • gator69 says:

      I always ignore 1979, as it is an alarmist cherry pick. Why is it that some people are not smart enough to figure that out?

      Not Andy

    • sunsettommy says:

      It was the start of a new Satellite,which is nice,but ignoring the previous Satellite sea ice data back to 1973, is dishonest.

      Why can’t you look at this in an honest way?

    • sunsettommy says:

      The Data exist Andy, it was in the early IPCC report and still archived at the NSIDC website. Here I post the NOAA/Navy

      NOAA/NMC/CAC Arctic and Antarctic Monthly Sea Ice Extent, 1973-1990

      But warmists today completely ignore the 1973-1978 portion,despite that the data gathered is. legitimate and good.

      You can drop your silly crap now.

      • gator69 says:

        Removing inconvenient data is job #1 for climate salesmanists…

        From: Tom Wigley
        To: Phil Jones
        Subject: 1940s,
        Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009

        Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.

        If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

        So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

        It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

        Data, blip, whatever…

  9. RGB from Oz says:

    Ben Strauss on climate refugees in the “sinking” Kiribati. I think he forgot to check the data. Sea level rise is now below 1mm per year in Kiribati and falling. 1949 to present.

  10. Duh, it snows more when polar oceans are warm and thawed. that is how the upper bounds of temperature are limited.

  11. The simple ice cycles are Occam Razor simple. Most climate scientists seem to not understand this, but most other regular people on the street do understand this and enough of them understood this to elect Trump who understood this.

  12. My comments are awaiting moderation. I suspect so. comments that disagree with consensus are generally not allowed. I look forward to seeing how this works out on this site.

  13. They wrote: Greenland and Antarctica are both gaining ice, yet experts say sea level rise is accelerating. They must believe in an extraterrestrial source of water.

    leap second data shows that less leap seconds were added in the last 12 years than were add in the first 5 years of atomic clock data in the 1972 to 1977 time frame. Earth is spinning faster, ocean level must be lower. Higher oceans would increase inertia and slow down the spin rate. There is a lot they do not understand yet!

    If Greenland and Antarctic are both gaining ice, sea level cannot be increasing. They really don’t even read and think about what they write.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “yet experts say sea level rise is accelerating”

      Except that they aren’t :-)

      Last few years, tide gauges show a downward trend in many places.

      Ignore the satellite sea level data, its a load of fudged nonsense.

      They keep “inventing” reasons to steepen the trend. ;-)

Leave a Reply

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