A Trillion Tons Of New Ice

Since September 2016, Greenland’s surface has gained a trillion tons of new ice.

2016-2017   2017-2018

Two years ago, Greenland had a warm day in April, and that was cited as proof of global warming.  Since then, almost every single day has had below normal melt, but that is just weather.



The constant stream of lies from climate scientists never ceases.

Greenland’s Ice Melt Grew by 250 Percent, Satellites Show

Ice does not melt at -20C.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to A Trillion Tons Of New Ice

  1. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Slight correction – the SMB only includes the snow fall and the loss by melting and sublimation. It doesn’t include the loss by glacier flow and iceberg calving.

    Here’s the bit right at the end of the DMI page which covers this:

    For an ice sheet that neither grows or shrinks, there is at all points averaged over the year a balance between
    •the amount of snow that falls and is compressed to ice
    •the amount of snow and ice that melts or evaporates (sublimates) and
    •the amount of ice that flows away due to the ice motion

    The two first contributions make up the surface mass balance. For the ice sheet as a whole, there is a balance between the surface mass balance and the amount of ice that calves into the ocean as icebergs.

    If climate changes, the surface mass balance may change such that it no longer matches the calving and the ice sheet can start to gain or lose mass. This is important to keep track of, since such a mass loss will lead to global sea level rise. As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade.

    The 200 Gt/y number is the old GRACE number, which is dodgy. It comes from the period 2003-2013 which not only ended in a very low level (see 2012 in the Japanese data page) but included the rise of the AMO to its peak in about 2013. As the AMO has plateaued and is starting to fall again the mass balance on the Greenland ice sheet should start to go positive, if it hasn’t already.

    But sadly the concatenation of the SMB accumulation graphs isn’t valid since it doesn’t account for glacier flow.

    • tonyheller says:

      Calving would occur even if the temperature never got above freezing, and using the fake GRACE numbers – climate fraudsters would still claim Greenland is melting down. Calving is a response to snowfall in the past, and has little to do with the current climate.

      This blog post discusses Greenland’s surface – so what exactly is it that you are “correcting?”

      • AndyG55 says:

        And if meltwater is flowing from underneath, and not from the surface….. then how can that possibly be anything to do with atmospheric warming.

        Calving of glaciers is like a river emptying into the sea.
        The more water (of whatever form) falling in the catchment area, the more goes out to sea…. just somewhat delayed.

        Its obvious that the surface mass balance is all that is important if you are talking about atmospheric warming, from whatever cause.

        And the surface is gaining mass.

        • arn says:

          A good discrption
          ((but maybe the gained 1 trillion tons occured in an
          aream smaller than 1 million square kilometer
          =according to griff this should be considered ice free))

          Anyway-considering all the bold armageddonic predictions things are perfectly fine and normal.So fine that they would be considered fine and normal in a world without climate change scare and
          that nothing that we can observe with our own ice
          (arctic size,bi polar bear population,sea level rise,snow a thing from the past)prooves AGW
          and that this exists exclusively in the statistics
          of Lysenkos grandchildren & their minions.

      • Steve Case says:

        Calving is a response to snowfall in the past, and has little to do with the current climate.


      • Bruce of Newcastle says:

        Sorry Tony, all I’m correcting is the erroneous concatenation of two years of the SMB graphs.

        That is just because they omit the amount of H2O discharged as glaciers and icebergs.

        If the graphs included that it would be correct.

        The real Greenland icecap mass balance is the SMB number minus X. We don’t know what X is. If as likely the icecap mass balance is flat, as I suspect, then X is minus 1 trillion tonnes over two years. I agree the GRACE number is a misdirection, but so is concatenating the graphs without factoring the omitted variable.

        We climate sceptics have to be accurate. The climatistas omit two major variables in their calc of ECS – the Sun and the ocean cycles. If they were included the empirical value of ECS would be below 1 C/doubling, therefore harmless.

        We should not fall into the same erroneous practices they use. That just gives them a point of purchase. They often do the fallacious smearing technique of saying ‘you’re wrong in this one issue, therefore you are wrong on all issues”. Which the MSM then takes to their audience, who don’t have the education and training to know better. So don’t give them the opening.

        It is entirely correct to use the SMB graph as a relative comparison – ie that the last couple years the snow tonnage has been much higher than the average. The AMO has flipped and we’re into the solar minimum, so that is as it should be. But the total Greenland icecap tonnage has not gone up by 1 trillion tonnes in two years.

        I’m sorry to give you a hard time on this but we have to be as scientific and as accurate and as transparent as possible.

  2. Do you mean “since Sep 2016”, Tony?

  3. Griff says:

    No it didn’t.

    This is the summary for 2017:

    A model-based assessment of Greenland’s total net mass balance from snowfall, rainfall, and melt runoff (surface mass balance or SMB) shows large snow input in fall and winter 2016, followed by low surface melting in summer 2017. Relative to the 1981 to 2010 reference period, the ice sheet accumulated just under 200 billion tons more snow than typical. This value does not include the mass lost through ice flow to the ocean that produces icebergs, or to melting on the underside of the ice as it first flows into the ocean. Compared with 2014 to 2015 and 2016 to 2017 melt years, where mass loss ranged between -190 and -270 billion tons, it is likely that 2016 to 2017 was very close to a zero net mass gain, and possibly positive. If so this would be the first time since the late 1990s that the ice sheet increased in size. ”


    It is at peak at the moment and whatever melt it sees in the rest of, together with the glacial calving, will see result in at best a tiny positive gain over 2018.

    • AndyG55 says:

      ” it is likely that “

      griff science !!

      That have ZERO data of mass loss.

      GRACE is NOT reliable over volcanic regions and not particularly accurate anyway. It measures gravity, not sea ice mass.

      Glacier calving is from moving glaciers, just like water flowing into the sea.

      And do you REALLY think that melt from underneath is caused by CO2 warming.

      You really are a DUMB little trollette, aren’t you.

      Remain an ignorant putz, griff.

      Its all your life is.

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      “A model based assessment… shows…”
      Stop right there. As we all know, climate models project crap, not data.
      I don’t trust or believe your “model based assessment”.

  4. Mark aka supergriff says:

    Someday Hansen Mann Jones gore dicrapio nye hayhoe griff et Al will be living in caves beneath 2 miles of glacier tapping to one another with ice picks in Morse code. “See…if it weren’t for anthropogenic global warming there would be THREE miles of ice above us instead of just two! Good thing we gave em all the heads up!”

  5. --B-- says:

    Melting into the sea at in increased rate. Hmm… It sounds like clever wording to mislead the public.

    When I read this it says to me that the ice is flowing in to the sea at an increased rate. Ice flows to sea faster when there is more pressure from more ice in the interior and the system speeds up thus maintaining more or less an equilibrium.

    Of course they want to make people think the ice is melting and then flowing to the sea as water, and it does make that impression but it’s not what it says. If flowed as water to the sea it is not melting into the sea. It is already melted by the time it gets there. It would be melting and forming rivers to the sea. Something quite different than what they wrote.

  6. RAH says:

    Increased calving is a sign of accumulation of more snow and ice and a sign of increased accumulation. least balance between accumulation and ablation. When valley glaciers, which is what those in Greenland that terminate at the sea are essentially, quit calving is when one needs to start paying attention.

  7. The Other Brad says:

    It may tip over with all that extra ice. ;-)

  8. Tom of Tampa says:

    April 29 ice melt at Iowa Great Lakes breaks 67-year-old record
    A very late departure of ice at the Iowa Great Lakes broke a record set in 1951, and slightly disrupted the Iowa DNR’s fish stocking efforts.
    OKOBOJI, Iowa — Perhaps unsurprisingly given the late-season winter weather, the ice managed to hang around quite a bit later than usual at the Iowa Great Lakes this spring.

    Jonathan Meerbeek, a research biologist with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, said the ice at West Okoboji Lake, East Okoboji Lake and Big Spirit Lake did not officially melt until Sunday.

    The late retreat of the lake ice breaks a record that dates back to 1951, when East Okoboji saw its ice disappear April 26, while West Okoboji and Big Spirit saw their ice leave April 28.

    Normally, the ice would be gone by the first week or two of April. Kirk Ewen, a longtime Iowa Great Lakes ice watcher, said the ice has melted as early as the first week of March in some cases.

    The stubborn ice did cause a snag or two with the DNR’s walleye breeding efforts. Most years, boats would be out scooping up fish with nets and electrofishing equipment, taking the males and females (alive) to a hatchery for breeding purposes, before releasing them back to the lakes.

    “With the late ice out, it makes it obviously difficult to get out on the water,” Meerbeek said.

    While the DNR was still able to perform its fish-stocking functions, the all-important fish spawn will probably be delayed a while.

    “It’s obviously temperature-dependent,” Meerbeek said. “Temperature is kind of the most important factor.”


Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.