Greenland Ice Growth Ahead Of Last Year’s Record Pace

Last year, the Greenland Ice Sheet was on a record pace for surface mass growth most of the year, and finished fifth highest on record. This year is well ahead of last year.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Greenland’s largest glaciers are growing and have been for five years.

https://go.nasa.gov/2ylEMDl

https://go.nasa.gov/2ymBH5U

Despite the fact that Greenland’s surface is gaining mass, and their largest glaciers have been growing for the past five years, criminals known as “climate scientists” tell the public that Greenland is melting down.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

108 Responses to Greenland Ice Growth Ahead Of Last Year’s Record Pace

  1. Ben Vorlich says:

    Not only have the glaciers been growing but the contrast in snow cover between 2012 and 2017 in the area around the glaciers is striking.

  2. Ari Saltiel says:

    I wonder if they will stop showing the data when it gets too “good”.

  3. RAH says:

    So now they must talk about holes in Antarctic Sea Ice.

  4. Arn says:

    I wonder what kind of armageddon has happened when greenland had so little ice that the vikings gave it the name greenland-
    I guess nothing has happened.

    And now we have to argue with some loonies wether a ton more or less ice will cause an apocalypse while greenland is buried in ice.
    ((and i don’t even dare to ask how much/little ice there was at the north at the time when greenland was green))

    • gator69 says:

      This is a TOBS issue, at the time Greenland was observed, the Vikings were too stupid to know the difference between ice and grass.

    • Winnipegboy says:

      There is pretty good evidence that the Vikings were actively trading with the Northern Canadian natives for a long time.
      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/121019-viking-outpost-second-new-canada-science-sutherland/
      The Vikings kept that a secret to protect their trade. The current climate crazies keep that discovery on the down low because even we common folk can figure out that if the Vikes were sailing around the Arctic 1,000 years ago, it must have been warmer.

      • Arn says:

        As i suspected.
        It is ver, probable that the arctic had been ice free at that time for many years-
        and nothing armagedonnesque,apocalyptic has happened.

        btw- i read some stuff about pale skinned ‘indians’ and even some blond ones(i guess chochopaya and manden were their sames),
        so they could have been result of mixing while trading with the vikings,
        but it also could be result of mixing in russia before they entered the american continents((and got rod of the pre clovis cultures there-probably in a politically correct way :)

    • Mark Fife says:

      The primary deflection to the historical facts of that time I have run into is the claim this time where temperatures in the Arctic, Europe, and North America were clearly warmer than today was a local anomaly. It was caused by a temporary change in the flow of ocean currents driving warmer water northward. Or a temporary change in the flow of air currents pushing warmer air north. Or maybe the result of polar bear farts.

      A local anomaly lasting hundreds of years, but affecting only a limited area and not affecting the rest of the world in the slightest. Sounds more like grasping for plausible deniability to me.

      • Gator says:

        It was not local, I have the files that show a global MWP, but cannot access them at my present location. Claiming that the MWP was localized is BS revisionist history.

        • Jack Dale says:

          From Brian Fagan – The Great Warming

          “A growing number of sources tell us that there was never long last medieval warmth, but that between 1000 and 1200, temperatures were a few degrees warmer in some parts of the world, notable parts of China, Europe, and western North America.”

          All northern hemisphere.

        • RAH says:

          Here are a couple. Not that they will do any good. Anyone that has come here professing what Jack has obviously limits their sources to what they want to hear or read.

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/03/documenting-the-global-extent-of-the-medieval-warm-period/

          http://science.sciencemag.org/content/291/5508/1497

        • Arn says:

          It was local.

          The global warming priests decide and define .

          They tell you that three years of flood is a weather anomalie
          while 2 days of sun is climate.

          Therefore very hot temperatures on planet earth some centuries ago is local-planet earth is just a local place in the solar system :)
          These guys are always right.

          btw- i remember reading an article on wikipedia about massive unrests among indians in the southern part of the nowadays USA
          at a time before the white man appeared there.
          The reason was-a decade long drought in regions of
          southern california,nevada and texas.

          Maybe it coincides even with the time that greenland was green,
          therefore the local theory would not work,no way((and i’m pretty sure at that time the co2 levels had been around 300ppm-nothing man made there.

          And that”s the reason why those guys would never admitt that the warming was global at that time and not local.
          It would tear their pathetic AGW theory completely apart .

      • Mark Fife says:

        Let’s just say, for the sake of hypothetical argument, the MWP was just an isolated event. That it ranged from what is now the northern US, through Canada, Greenland, through Russia, and of course towards the north pole as historical evidence suggests. But it did not affect China, Alaska, India, the Middle East and so forth. Basically an Atlantic phenomena.

        Now, would such an anomaly have affected the true global average temperature? Of course it would have. But that really isn’t the question. How much of an affect would it have had on the measured GAT, accepting as fact the true GAT and the measured GAT are not the same. Had it occurred back in the 1950’s it would have had a tremendous impact because most of the temperature measuring stations in the world were located within that limited area affected. And of course the greatest change would have been to the colder sub regions of this area.

        Now, let’s fast forward and consider if this localized event were to happen today. Based upon the coverage in terms of temperature today how would such an event affect the measured GAT? Obviously the number and locations of temperature stations has changed dramatically since the 1950’s. I would imagine it would still have an affect but not nearly as much. I think that should be obvious.

        Okay, now let’s assume the LIA was also a localized event. What affect would it have had on the measured GAT back in the 1950’s? Again, it would have had a dramatic affect for the same reasons.

        Do you see what I am driving at? The MWP and the LIA, even considered as local events, represent major changes in climate for a very large area. Profound changes sufficient to drastically change the lives of people. A similar occurrence, changing from the height of the MWP to the depths of the LIA, in the modern world would be inescapable. It would be incredibly dramatic. Yet, nothing so dramatic has occurred. Where, exactly, do you see changes having occurred in the modern era anywhere near the magnitude of the changes that occurred in Iceland, or England, or even New England?

        But there is more. Accepting the premise of the transition from the MWP to the LIA as a local anomaly, how can you dismiss the possibility of such anomalies of greater or lesser magnitude occurring today or in the not so distant past? Further, how would such anomalies affect the measured GAT? Would that affect not be skewed depending upon measuring station locations?

        I content the MWP and the LIA both poke serious holes in the AGW theory period, either as world wide or localized events.

    • Jack Dale says:

      Eric the Red called it “Greenland” as a marketing ploy.
      https://thornews.com/2013/12/25/why-erik-the-red-named-greenland-greenland/
      The Viking settlements occupied a very small portion of SW Greenland. The GISP2 ice core data covers 120,000 years.

      • Gator says:

        Those settlements would not be possible today, and they were then. Looks like you are buying…

      • RAH says:

        The built a Cathedral and had a Bishop Jack. Their long houses used timbers many times larger than can be found anywhere in Greenland today. Native grown timbers. The evidence is indisputable that their intent was to settle there for the duration and the societies were well developed.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “The GISP2 ice core data covers 120,000 years.”

        Yes and they CLEARLY show that the MWP was warmer than now.

        Do you have foot in mouth disease, Jackass?

        • Jack Dale says:

          From Richard Alley on the misuse of his GISP 2 data

          “So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.”

          Are you stupid, misguided or misled?

          • AndyG55 says:

            https://s19.postimg.org/juac2rmk3/holocene.png

            Alley has been bough and sold to the AGW scam.

            His own data does not support what he says.

            Are you totally GULLIBLE.. seems like you are, Jackass.

          • GW says:

            Alley is a Kool-aid swilling liar ! And he markets his brand of swill as if it was the finest of fine wines.
            Keep buying it jack

          • sunsettommy says:

            Jack,

            Dr. Easterbrook a Geologist,

            “Don Easterbrook
            January 3, 2017 at 7:10 am

            The MWP and many other temp fluctuations are well shown in the oxygen isotope GISP2 ice core data. These temp variations are specific to Greenland but correlate very nicely with the global records of glacier advances and retreats. Details of the isotope data may be found in the 2016 Elsevier volume “Evidence-based Climate Science.” What the ice core data shows very well is that the first 8,500 years of the Holocene were several degrees warmer than present, then 1,500 years of fluctuating cooler temps. The MWP data show temps slightly warmer than the top of the core (1950).”

            He clarifies shortly afterwards,

            ” Don Easterbrook
            January 3, 2017 at 8:47 am

            Phil–you’re confusing the ice core temp data of Cuffy (also by Alley) with the oxygen isotope data. If you look at the original data of Stuiver and Grootes, the top of the core is 1950. There is a lot of confusion about the Alley curve and Alley himself told me he isn’t sure himself.”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/03/documenting-the-global-extent-of-the-medieval-warm-period/#comment-2387494

            Once again you are wrong…….

          • AndyG55 says:

            roflmao.. Jackass cite deltoid and some backwater scam blog as evidence

            DIG DEEPER, Jackass. !!

          • Gator69 says:

            Hilarious post Jack! Alarmists projecting their own cherry picking habits onto Don. Funny stuff!

          • sunsettommy says:

            Jack,

            Why can’t you just address what Dr. Easterbrook said instead?

            “Don Easterbrook
            January 3, 2017 at 8:47 am

            Phil–you’re confusing the ice core temp data of Cuffy (also by Alley) with the oxygen isotope data. If you look at the original data of Stuiver and Grootes, the top of the core is 1950. There is a lot of confusion about the Alley curve and Alley himself told me he isn’t sure himself.”

            You second link fails to notice the difference too since they didn’t have the decency to QUOTE what he said about that chart:

            “Another graph of temperatures from the Greenland ice core for the past 10,000 years is shown in Figure 5. It shows essentially the same temperatures as Cuffy and Clow (1997) but with somewhat greater detail. What both of these temperature curves show is that virtually all of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than the present.

            So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.

            The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.

            It’s really much to do about nothing.”

            That is the quote from the link THEY provided, which doesn’t support your warmist friend lies. Who make a big deal about the chart ending at 1855.

            You need to read the whole thing first before you make a fool of yourself, depending on warmist Liars.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Jack, here is the research paper by Dr. Easterbrook who make clear the Ice core data is up to year 1987:

            “Oxygen isotope measurements (δ18O)

            Figure 1 shows δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years. The isotope record begins at 1987 AD at the top of the core. Temperatures higher than those in 1987 (the horizontal line) are shown in red, lower in blue. The most striking thing about the curve is that temperatures for almost all of the 10,000 year record were higher than those in 1987. The last 1500 years or so were cooler. Thawing out has occurred since the Little Ice Age, but temperatures are not yet back to where they had been for almost all of the Holocene.”

            Here are the words below the chart,explaining it,

            “Figure 1. δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years. Red areas represent temperatures warmer than those in 1987 (top of the core); blue areas were cooler. Almost all of the past 10,000 years were warmer than the past 1500 years. (Plotted from data in Grootes and Stuiver, 1997)”

            It was from a published science paper here,

            Oxygen 18/16 variability in Greenland snow and ice with 10−3- to 105-year time resolution

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97JC00880/abstract

            You stupid friends lied to you!

      • Arn says:

        Of course he did.
        Sending his own people to die in foreign lands?
        he was sponsored by wall street and therefore sent his own people willingfully to die
        (they did so when it got colder again)

        Greenland was a marketing ploy as
        Eric the Red was a marketing ploy :)
        Greenland was not green and Eric never had red hair.

        btw-
        how do you build houses and ships on ice covered territories?
        You can not as you have no access to resources.

  5. Jack Dale says:

    More disinformation from Tony. The SMB does not include calving. “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.” https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

    • Gator says:

      Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

      That would be GRACE, and GRACE does not measure ice.

        • Gator says:

          NASA knows this, apparently you do not know Jack.

          • Jack Dale says:

            “Data from NASA’s GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica (upper chart) and Greenland (lower) have been losing mass since 2002. Both ice sheets have seen an acceleration of ice mass loss since 2009. (Source: GRACE satellite data)” https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

          • Gator says:

            Jack, you are reading the simpleton’s guide to GRACE, and not investigating the details. GRACE measures GRAVITY ANOMALIES, not ice. I was a climatology student and have a degree in Remote Sensing, you obviously have no clue what GRACE does or doesn’t do.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Grace was WRONG over Antarctica.

            https://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html

            Antarctica is over a volcanic region.

            Stop being such an ignorant Jackass.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Jack, you apparently don’t realize WHERE their claimed ice losses are in parts of Antarctica that NEVER,EVER ever get above freezing during the short summer time!

            Amazing Grace

            “But why are we looking at temperature trends anyway? The real issue is absolute temperatures. Some of the regions in which GRACE claims ice loss in East Antarctica average colder than -30°C during the summer, and never, ever get above freezing. How can you melt ice at those temperatures?”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/29/amazing-grace/

          • sunsettommy says:

            Jack stupidly writes,

            “CO2science – classic contextomy

            This is a classic example:

            http://www.co2science.org//articles/V15/N30/C2.php

            Jack you just get dumber every week,since your claim is FALSE!

            First the SOURCE of the paper was posted,

            Reference
            Lu, Z., Rickaby, R.E.M., Kennedy, H., Kennedy, P., Pancost, R.D., Shaw, S., Lennie, A., Wellner, J. and Anderson, J.B. 2012. An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 325-326: 108-115.

            Here is the ABSTRACT of the paper:

            “Abstract

            Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the δ18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing δ18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.”

            Ooops,

            Dr. Lu himself says that MWP is found at the Antarctic Pinennsula,which is in the DEEEEEP Southern Hemisphere. The very thing I was telling you in the first place.

            Meanwhile the summary written by Dr.Isdo was honestly written.

            From the link YOU provided at CO2 Science:

            “Background
            In an attempt to rewrite climatic history, certain scientists have for several years promoted the idea that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) were neither global in extent nor strong enough where they did occur to have a discernible influence on mean global air temperature, which made it easier for them to claim that the warming of the last decades of the 20th century was highly unusual, which they equated with anthropogenic-induced, which they associated with the historical rise in the air’s CO2 content, which gave them a reason to call for dramatic reductions in the burning of fossil fuels. And because of this glaring misuse of science, we have ever since scanned the emerging scientific literature for studies presenting new evidence that comes to bear upon the crucial central question of whether or not the MWP and LIA were truly significant global events.

            What was done
            Explaining that ikaite “is a low temperature polymorph of calcium carbonate that is hydrated with water molecules contained in its crystal lattice,” Lu et al. write that “ikaite crystals from marine sediments, if collected and maintained at low temperatures, preserve hydration waters and their intact crystal structures, both of which have the potential to provide isotopic constraints on past climate change,” after which they go on to describe “the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP)” that they say were “suitable for reconstructing a low resolution ikaite record of the last 2000 years.”

            What was learned

            The nine UK and US researchers report that “the ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.” They also state that the “most recent crystals suggest a warming relative to the LIA in the last century, possibly as part of the regional recent rapid warming,” but they add that “this climatic signature is not yet as extreme in nature as the MWP,” suggesting that even the dramatic recent warming of the AP may not yet have returned that region to the degree of warmth that was experienced there during the MWP, when the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration was more than 100 ppm less than it is today.”

            A New Record of Late Holocene Climate at the Antarctic Peninsula

            http://www.co2science.org//articles/V15/N30/C2.php

            DR. Isdo main point of this reference was that the paper show that MWP AND LIA can be found in the Antarctic Peninsula.

            Meanwhile your other link has Dr. Lu complaining about something CO2 Science website did NOT say.

            “Recently published climate research by Zunli Lu, a geochemist in the Department of Earth Sciences in Syracuse University’s College of Arts and Sciences, has gone viral across the Internet by bloggers. A number of media outlets, including the Daily Mail and The Register, which are published in the United Kingdom, claim this research supports arguments that human-induced global warming is a myth. The claims, Lu says, misrepresent his work and the conclusions in the study. The statement below is an effort to set the record straight. The original news story about the research is posted on Arts and Sciences News. ”

            You tried to lie and badly since what Lu complained about is NOT in Dr. Isdo’s post.

            It is clear you have NOTHING!

      • wert says:

        Whatever it measures has little consequence to anything.

        I frankly don’t quite buy the idea calving is any issue of sorts. It’s like telling ending ice age is an issue. Greenland is not gonna melt in 2100, or even 3100.

    • Kris Johanson says:

      Jack, that CYA clause on the DMI website has been batted around this forum at least a hundred times and has more holes in it than Jarlsberg cheese. Someone with more knowledge than me can elaborate….

      • Jack Dale says:

        From The NASA site to which I referred.

        GREENLAND MASS VARIATION SINCE 2002
        286.0 Gigatonnes per year margin: ±21

        • Jack Dale says:

          GREENLAND MASS VARIATION SINCE 2002

          Data source: Ice mass measurement by NASA’s GRACE satellites.
          Credit: NASA

          • Gator says:

            Jack, you are regurgitating model outputs, derived from gravity anomaly measurements. As we all know, models are not reality, and gravity anomalies are not ice.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Your ignorance of what Grace can actrually measure is quite astounding
            The inaccuracies of GRACE are well known.

            It is TOTALLY UNFIT for measuring ice mass over volcanic regions.

            You seem to be DENYING actual science, hack. !.

          • David A says:

            Jackt hink!##
            How does attempting to measure gravitational flux on a very extremely minor flux separate all potential mass changes, geothermal ( very active) 18 year lunar tidal flux, anomalous orbital flux, etc….?
            Grace is not fit for purpose of separating ice flux from many potential affects. This is well known.

        • AndyG55 says:

          More important is to know Greenland’s area changes over the Holocene.

          Current levels are pretty much just a tiny amount down from the highest extent in 8000 years. Down after the LIA, yes, but still anomalously high.

          https://s19.postimg.org/ceo16fi7n/Greenland-_Ice-_Sheet-_Briner.jpg

          Remain wilfully and gullibly ignorant, Jacky-boy, its fun to watch.

    • Latitude says:

      Jack…you left out the caveat “Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance.”

      While true…it is also purposely misleading

      When you average over the past 10 years….they are correct
      ….but that doesn’t take into consideration the recent ice gain

    • dave1billion says:

      Jack,

      Please demonstrate basic high school math skills by calculating:

      1. How long the Greenland Ice Sheet would take to melt at a rate of -200 GT/yr.
      2. Please give the ratio of that estimated loss to the total mass of the Greenland Ice sheet, and explain how that fraction can be considered anything besides background noise, given that these losses are calculated by models and not empirically.
      3. Please discuss the fact that the 2016-2017 SMB calculation showed an increase of approximately 200 GT over the 1981-2010 period with the claimed loss of 200 GT per year over the last decade. Are we to consider a 30 year period (started at the coldest period in decades) more significant in the terms of geologic time than a one year period?

      Nobody else on your side has even been able to do the calculation in Step 1, or if they have, they disliked the results and changed the subject. If you do the calcs and still want to argue, at least we’ll know that you’re mathematically literate and not another member of the crowd carrying a “SCIENCE!!” sign.

  6. sunsettommy says:

    Ha ha,

    I see Jack Dale has left a blog with his silly improper science paper placements argument, to come here salivating over flawed Grace measurements.

    Not once did you actually address Tony’s statement:

    “Last year, the Greenland Ice Sheet was on a record pace for surface mass growth most of the year, and finished fifth highest on record. This year is well ahead of last year.”

    Try harder next time.

    • Jack Dale says:

      What part of SMB does not include caving do you not understand?

      • AndyG55 says:

        Where is your data for calving , Jackass?

        What part of “stop digging, you are in a deep hole”, don’t you understand, Jackass.

      • David A says:

        Nobody here said it did. Why are you repeating yourself?

      • sunsettommy says:

        Ha ha,

        you still have not addressed what Tony wrote,

        “Last year, the Greenland Ice Sheet was on a record pace for surface mass growth most of the year, and finished fifth highest on record. This year is well ahead of last year.”

        Try again.

      • Jason Calley says:

        And the plausible mechanism whereby CO2 causes calving is…..?

  7. sunsettommy says:

    I hope Jack doesn’t continue his stupid attack on Easterbrook over the Ice core 1855 ending date,as I have a coup de grace ready for him and his stupid warmist friends,who doesn’t even know it was already well known 3 years ago.

  8. Andy DC says:

    It almost never gets above freezing on the Greenland icecap and when it does, only for a couple hours. How is all of this magical melting of 8,000 feet of ice taking place?

    It is amazing how all of these smug little trolls, spoon fed with alarmist BS come to this site to die from a thousand cuts. Reggie, Griff, Jim and now Jack.

    • sunsettommy says:

      I think Jack got tired of being smashed over at NTZ blog where his latest baloney was about proper places to publish science research.

  9. John Smith says:

    The latest fake news from down-under:

    Sydney, Melbourne urged to prepare for 50C days by end of century
    Jake Evans, Wednesday October 4, 2017 – 09:05 EDT
    see full article at

    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/sydney-melbourne-urged-to-prepare-for-50c-days-by-end-of-century/526954

  10. Ben Vorlich says:

    The DMI graph of surface mass balance starts each year at zero, then measures the increase/decrease over the subsequent 12 months. Leaving a mean gain of 380 gt at the end of 12 months. It also says that annual total loss including calving is 200gt. This implies that the mean amount of ice calved must be at least 500gt annually.

    After 40 years of monitoring by satellite there must be some studies which backup the statement by DMI about the overall loss. Are there any available?

  11. AndyG55 says:

    “It also says that annual total loss including calving is 200gt”

    NO. It says NOTHING about this year or any of the last several years.

    There is NO data on calving .. period. !!

    The 200Gt is based on GRACE data from when the GRACE satellite s were known to have major issues.

    They cannot discern the tiny changes in ice mass against the much larger changes in sub-surface volcanic magma movement. The ice changes are NOTHING but minor noise.

    • Ben Vorlich says:

      Andy,
      Thanks The mass gain of roughly 380 gt is equivalent to 380 km^3 which spread over the surface of Greenland (2,166 million km^2) is, as you say, not a great deal (~17cm). It is the tens of thousands of years that count. (All calculations are by pen and paper)

      Equally if the theoretical calved ice was 25m high then it would cover an area roughly the size of Sardinia or Shikoku, which are a tenth the size of Victoria Island.

      I’m not sure how long it takes snow to turn to ice on Greenland but after 50 years Glacier Girl was about 80m below the surface, which is a lot more than 17cm per year.

    • Gator says:

      These data were calculated from the “flux gate” method (Rignot and Kanagaratnam 2006), which determined horizontal ice velocity in the 1992–2009 period from satellite radar interferometry and ice sounding radar-derived ice thickness profiles normal to ice flow. The 1958 and 1964 estimates are based on extrapolation from a subset of 19 west Greenland glaciers and relatively short (less than 2 week) time interval repeat air photos (Bauer et al. 1968; Carbonnell and Bauer 1968). Surface mass balance calculations after Box et al. (2006) and Hanna et al. (2008) are used to estimate ice loss due to surface melting in the area below the flux gate. The LM data after Rignot et al. (2008) from 1958 and 1964 have an assumed uncertainty of 20% or 103 Gt yr−1. The LM data after Rignot et al. (2011) from 1992 to 2009 have an estimated uncertainty of 5.5% or 31 Gt yr−1, which accounts for uncertainties in ice thickness, thinning rate, velocity, and surface mass balance.

      Yeah, more GRACEBS and broken models. I’ll stick with actual hard science and natural variability.

Leave a Reply

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