Greenland Continues To Gain Ice

With only 30 days left to the Greenland melt season, it hasn’t started yet. Yet another catastrophe for climate alarmists.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

This is the second year in a row which there has been a large increase in ice.

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

Last year, DMI scientists tried blaming it on Hurricane Nicole, but there wasn’t any hurricane this year. Sea surface temperatures around Greenland are running very cold.

anomnight.7.2.2018.gif (1174×640)

This is the hottest week of the year on the ice sheet, and temperatures are well below freezing.


As Greenland gains mass, climate scientists and the press ramp up their lies to rather spectacular levels – claiming the exact opposite of what is occurring.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Greenland Continues To Gain Ice

  1. GW Smith says:

    I grew up believing that all scientists were objective and altruistic.

    • tonyheller says:

      Scientists were more objective prior to Senator Proxmire. His “Golden Fleece Awards” forced the National Laboratories into becoming political, and it was all downhill from there.

      • Sharpshooter says:

        “The failure of epistemology made postmodernism possible, and the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary” — Stephen R. C. Hicks- Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault

        And the right is as clueless about postmodernism as the left is embedded in it.

      • AZ1971 says:

        Could you expand upon how Sen. Proxmire caused scientists to become politicized with their research? His Golden Fleece Awards brought attention to the wasteful practices of Congress and pork barrel spending. I’m a former resident of Wisconsin and have admired Proxmire’s firebrand rhetoric for years.

    • Gator says:

      The push to call the theory of evolution a “fact” has led to claims of false knowledge, the types of claims that the entire scientific community once frowned upon. Now, when activists in lab coats want to push an agenda, they just claim that the science is settled, and that anyone that disagrees with them is anti-science.

      • bobw40 in NC says:

        Evolution – the *process* of evolution has no evidence that it is possible. In fact, the biology required would violate the physiological principle of homeostasis (that all life processes must remain in balance) and the organism would not survive. I point out this and far more in the book I wrote, Nullifying God, and show there that the true purpose of evolution is to obviate the need for God – that is, that all life that has happened came from purposeless events explained by science / physical principles, so who needs God?

        • Stewart Pid says:

          Yeah … your invisible friend waved his wand and pulled all life forms out of his *
          Man some of you guys are batshit crazy.
          Even the Catholic church stopped denying evolution decades ago.

          • Nutation_discombobulation says:

            The Catholic Church also believes in manmade catastrophic climate change, so why should their opinion on evolution be worthy of any consideration.
            Do you think intelligence is required to comprehend an abstract concept such as light reflections emanating from a moist surface?
            What about another abstraction, the mimicking of a predator of the one who is preying upon you?

            If you were blind how could you visualise reflected light? How could you see what it is that frightens those who prey upon you?

            Not only does the evolutionary process share the same IQ as the light switches in your home, genomic mutations are completely blind and mechanical. It cannot explain the obvious need for directed intelligence we see in interspecies relationships.

            Watch the video and explain to me how a mindless blind process mimicked not only the viper snakelet on the butt of the caterpillar, but went so far as depicting light reflections on its eyes?


            Can a plant see form, colour, and feel texture?
            Can a plant discern and then synthesize complex hormonal olfactory formulations?
            Watch the video and explain to me how the plant went about synthesizing the bee pheromone?
            Explain to me how the plant could mimic the bees’ bodily characteristics on its flower even down to the body fur.
            Why has the plant formed a unique relationship with this one species, when reproductive survival would best be ensured through enlisting multiple species?
            If I set you up in a chemistry lab, how do you think you would go formulating and concocting a Horned Bee sex pheromone analogue? I expect that without the help of quadrupole mass fragmentography, plus high resolution gas chromatography, and a degree in chemistry you would be stumped, yet you have faith and belief that evolution can do this inter species biomimicry by mutation alone.

            The latest of hypothesis dealing with first life emergence is the RNA model, so they have decided the egg came first. To demonstrate how long chain RNA first formed they tried to reproduce the conditions in the lab, but they had to use segments of DNA (chicken) instead of RNA, the reason being, RNA is too fragile and volatile to orchestrate this process in the lab. Well a critically thinking person would straight away conclude that if a controlled setting in a lab were not stable enough to support this process, how on earth could it occur tens of thousands of times outside the lab in the a chaotic and entropic earth environment within a very narrow time frame?

            The old catch cry of evolution “over millions and millions of years” just doesn’t add up, a process without eyes to see can look and look for a billion years but it will never produce a serpent on the butt of a caterpillar.

            The process control of the genetic regulatory machinery that performs the mechanical read and application operations was once thought of as being similar to an assembler type program running in a crude embedded system, however recent findings have discovered that it is in fact a high level language consisting of over 600 opcodes that process the genetic information in ways still not understood. The complexity is so staggering that to assign this to evolution is like saying Linux just wrote itself, a preposterous assertion.

            I could list hundreds of examples like the above, but the bottom line is that DNA regulatory machinery goes to extraordinary lengths to ensure gene fidelity is constantly maintained, even detecting and repairing mutations, and when the damage reaches an irreparable threshold, autonomous apoptosis occurs to stop the mutated cell reproducing. But when this so called evolutionary driver escapes these supervisory failsafe measures the true results of evolution become manifest, metastatic cancer, hideous deformities and disabilities, non-epigenetic chronic terminal diseases etc.
            These mutation failsafe measures are evident in a myriad of animals such as the horseshoe crab in its unchanged state for 450 million years.

            All that the species are now is what they always have been, and any adaptations past present or future spring from the adaptations-in-waiting repository contained within the “junk DNA” sequences currently in the completed genome.

            The theory of evolution has enabled the de-civilisation of humanity to that of a beast and creeping thing, He executes 125,000 unborn children every day, men perform acts on each other like dogs, He lies, commits adultery, steals, and murders without conscience or remorse, in complete denial of his true purpose.

            The problems with evolution are myriad, just like mann-made climate change. Those that fall for the one lie easily fall prey to the other. Science Institutions complain that there is a growing distrust of science, and demonise those that point out its faults. But really, is it any wonder why people are becoming distrustful and disillusioned with academia. Non-academics, the general populace have great propensity and intuition when it comes to deciding who they should trust or dismiss.

            Sorry for the rant…touchy nerve syndrome :-)

          • neal s says:

            When actually examined closely, macro-evolution has little to no support.



            In a manner similar to ‘climate science’ those who try to publish papers critical of evolution find almost no chance of being accepted.

          • buster says:

            So you think because God has not seen fit to talk to you that God cannot exist. What frigging illogical nonsense.

            You know nothing about the Catholic church either. The Catholic Church does agree with Darwinian evolutionary theory – ONE pope said that God MAY have used some principles of evolution in creating different forms of life.

            Fact is that there is very scant fossil evidence which supports Darwinian (speciated) evolution. And now known mechanism has ever been observed in the 150+ years since Darwin to show it is possible.

          • buster says:

            So you think because God has not seen fit to talk to **you**, that God cannot exist???!!! What frigging illogical nonsense. Your undeserved arrogance is profound.

            You know nothing about the Catholic church either. The Catholic Church does NOT agree with Darwinian evolutionary theory – *one* pope said that God MAY have used some principles of evolution in creating different forms of life. This does not affect Catholic doctrine even in the slightest.

            Fact is, that there is very scant fossil evidence which supports Darwinian (macro) evolution. And now known mechanism has ever been observed in the 150+ years since Darwin to show it is possible.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Stewart, you believe quite a few things that are invisible. Why? I don’t think you are batshit crazy.

        • Gator says:

          The Catholic Church also stopped “denying” man made climate change. Settled science.

          Dr. Wilson is a retired research biologist and holds a PhD in Zoology with training in anatomy, physiology, and pathology. He spent much of his 33-year career in the pharmaceutical industry evaluating new drugs for certain infectious diseases and cancer. Bob has been married since 1964 to his beautiful wife, Lynn, and the couple has two children and four grandchildren. He has been a Christian for more than 40 years and has served as a Bible study leader as well as a group leader in a Teen Community Bible Study. Bob and Lynn live in Beaufort, NC.

        • buster says:

          Thanks for writing that book, I have not heard of it but am going to check it out!

      • Kent Clizbe says:

        Very interesting, Gator.

        Have you been following the discussions on WUWT brought about by Tim Ball’s posts?

  2. Andy DC says:

    Every idiot knows that climate change can cause Greenland ice to increase or decrease. Sometimes both at the same time! It is all Trump’s fault!

  3. arn says:

    They will always pull an excuse out of their butts
    because they are just like me.
    I never did homework and was a grandmaster of excuses
    therefore i can spot guys who didn’t do their homework from 10 miles away.

    (the real guileful thing in their rhetorics btw is that they can blame AGW as cause for the hurricane and than the hurricane for greenland= AGW is reason
    for the failed predictions=they are always right.No matter what and how.
    A reversed catch22 as perpetual Excuse that makes them always look right.

  4. spike55 says:

    Not only is Greenland gaining ice, but according to MASIE, the Arctic sea ice extent is gaining rapidly against other years.

    It is now in 5th since 2006 , but VERY close to overtaking those 4 in front of it.

    Will be very interesting to watch.

    Wouldn’t it be HILARIOUS to watch the Arctic bed-wetter faces if it jumps to HIGHEST EXTENT :-)

    • spike55 says:

      Should watch NSIDC as well.

      It currently above 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, and 2017

    • spike55 says:

      Here’s a clip from the MASIE chart (day of year on horizontal axis)

      • Steven Fraser says:

        Spike55: great chart! Suggestion: be explicit to say what is being represented in a chart. You cannot tell what other posts will get interpolated between your reference to ‘extent’, and the chart. IMO, best way is to add that word to the post that carries the chart.

        It does seem that this year’s sea ice extent is approaching the higher years’ values.

        Thanks for posting it.

        • spike55 says:

          Its just a pre coffee clip from the full chart.

          Everyone know what MASIE measures, or they shouldn’t be in the discussion :-)

          Proppa heading now :-)

  5. Steven Fraser says:

    Inspired by Tony’s post, I clipped 2018 and 2017 DMI Greenland SMB images together, adjusted the vertical aspect to equalize the units, and put in cross-hair lines to link the current day-of-the-year values together.

    On the left, 2018 values from July 2. On the right, 2017 values (in brown). The thin, blue horizontal line links the current value with the 2017 values, and a thin vertical blue line shows the location of July 2.

    For fun, I also copied in a section of the GT scale into the 2018 chart, to make the differences of the values between this year, the average, and 2012 more readily understood.

    This year is ~ 100GT higher than the average (dark grey line), and more than 200 GT higher than 2012.

    While the ‘average’ line is declining, and the light-grey (all other values but highest and lowest from 1981-2010) area is declining, the decline this year is minimal.

  6. Steven Fraser says:

    Tony mentioned in his post about the melt season for Greenland SMB. I thought it might be great to see what each of the graphed years shows for the timing of the melt, what the polar portal shows as the ‘daily tab’ chart at

    There is a date field at the bottom of the graphic. By typing in any date from Sep 1, 2011 to yesterday, you can see the graph. Of particular interest to me in this was to see melt (and the accumulation) days over the calendar.

    The attached image is the graph for each available August 31, including all the days for the accumulation and the melt, spanning the Sep1 to Aug31 year. You can see, for example, the 3 very high (12Gt) days of the 2014-2015 year, and the drastic low in 2012.

    As Tony mentioned, July shows up as the height of the melt season in each, but not to the same extent.

    Enjoy! When we get to the end of August, I will do an update.

  7. Kirye says:

    Hi Tony,
    The temperature had been below freezing in Greenland all last month.

  8. Gerry Beauregard says:

    “Surface Mass Balance” is a somewhat confusing term, in that it is *not* a measure of the net change in the mass of the ice sheet. That’s pretty clear from the text on the page from which the first graph is taken:
    “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

    • tonyheller says:

      Any ice mass numbers based on gravity data are worthless, and have nothing to do with climate or melting.

      • Gator says:

        They do not even bother with language like “may” or “could be”, anything supporting a radical agenda must be supported by statements like this…

        Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

        Disgusting and childish activism has replaced the scientific method.

      • Gerry Beauregard says:

        Tony, thanks for your reply.

        I think you missed my main point, which is that the Surface Mass Balance (SMB) is not the same as the Total Mass Balance (TMB). To get the TMB from SMB, you also need to know the losses from discharge (D), i.e. calving of glaciers. In other words:

        TMB = SMB – D

        Your post focuses on SMB, and while it’s certainly encouraging for the health of the Greenland ice sheet that the SMB for 2017-18 is larger than usual, by itself SMB doesn’t give you the sign of the TMB (i.e. whether the ice sheet as a whole is gaining or losing mass).

      • spike55 says:

        It is also interesting to look at melting due to Geothermal fluxes.

    • spike55 says:

      That statement has been there for ages.
      “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

      It is a generic AGW statement, totally not applying to current years.

      Why is it that people don’t pay attention more.

      If you want to claim losses due to calving etc, FIND SOME DATA..

      and no, NOT gravity based data over a major volcanic area.

      Until then, realise that Current area is just a small amount down from an 8000 year high.

    • spike55 says:

      And temperatures have been dropping more than climbing in different parts of Greenland

    • spike55 says:

      And to put things into real perspective, even taking into account the highly dubious GRACE data,

      The following is a graph of Greenland Total Ice Mass since 1900.

    • spike55 says:

      And of course the general decline in Greenland temperature over the last 9000 or so years.

Leave a Reply

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