Greenland Melting Scam Crashes And Burns

For the second year in a row, Greenland’s surface has gained far above normal amounts of ice.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

For climate alarmists, reality is the enemy. So they scan the globe for any data point they can cherry pick. And if that doesn’t work, they simply make things up.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Greenland Melting Scam Crashes And Burns

  1. sunsettommy says:

    No comment from Warmist ice haters?

    Snicker………………

    • Andy says:

      I’m not one, but I would comment that you need to be more scientific in your comments on this blog rather than sounding like an 8 year old.

      Andy

      • sunsettommy says:

        Now you are a lying like hell since I have posted published papers a number of times, which YOU often ignore,to maintain YOUR set of misleading claims or flat out lies.

        • Andy says:

          I don’t care if you were the first to discover ice was frozen water and have the paper to prove it, you still need to be more scientific rather than just post drivel

          • spike55 says:

            Look at your own post first, little Andy..

            … before you accuse ANYONE else of writing DRIVEL. !!!

    • Joan Denuzzi says:

      Hot weather=Climate Change
      Cold weather=just weather
      Support Climate Change=settled science
      Refute Global Warming=drivel
      Now do all y’all understand the game rules??

  2. Steven Fraser says:

    Yep, right now it is just a little below what it was this day last year.

    I wonder what excuse they will use this year for the outstanding SMB result? No Hurricane this time…

  3. spike55 says:

    Greenland likely to remain colder than average for next several weeks.

  4. Taphonomic says:

    What are the odds that the blue line for 2017-2018 will be disappeared from the graph (like the line from 2016-2017) and the red line for 2011-2012 will remain?

    • Steven Fraser says:

      I think they’re pretty good you are correct. So, I keep around a copy of last year’s SBM for comparison. See below how the two years stack up.

      The timing of this years SMB and Sea Ice Volume have been shifted in the calendar to later than occurred in 2016-17. But you can see via the guides and the circle where the equivalent day was last year. Quite close, and also very much above average.

  5. Andy says:

    Large amounts of snow last two years added to the mass and also upped the albedo, coupled with a strong positive NAO leading to record temps in Europe this early to late summer and Greenland being cold, the SMB is large.

    Does it disprove AGW ? No. But it stops people wanting it to easily prove AGW :)

    Andy

  6. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    I’m curious, how reliable is the DMI as a source of climate data? From their website:

    “Here you can follow the daily surface mass balance on the Greenland Ice Sheet. The snow and ice model from one of DMI’s climate models is driven every six hours with snowfall, sunlight and other parameters from a research weather model for Greenland, Hirlam-Newsnow, and since 1 July 2017 the HARMONIE-AROME weather model. We can thereby calculate the melting energy, refreezing of melt water and sublimation (snow that evaporates without melting first). The result of this is a change in the snow and ice from one day to the next and this change is shown below. All numbers are in water equivalent, that is, the amount of water the snow and ice would correspond to if it was melted.
    The model has been updated in 2014 to better account for meltwater refreezing in the snow, and again in 2015 to account for the lower reflectivity of sunlight in bare ice than in snow. Finally, it has been updated again in 2017 with a more advanced representation of percolation and refreezing of meltwater. At the same time, we have extended the reference period to 1981-2010. The update means that the new maps, values and curves will deviate from the previous ones. Everything shown on this site, however, is calculated with this new model, so that all curves and values are comparable.”

    And then there’s this:
    “Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. 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.”

    I’m asking this question because they use a model to guesstimate ice volumes, and I assume they are referring to GRACE satellite data, which is highly suspect.

    • Steven Fraser says:

      Louis: On their calving comment, yes, GRACE. However, in their retrospective of last year, they opined that the net change favored mass gain, clarifying that the 2016-2017 year did not conform to the comment ‘Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr’, which had been going on awhile. IIRC, it was something like 50Gt above the calving loss. Others can correct me.

      If my recollection is correct, then the break-even is somewhere around 100Gt above the average mark on the chart at the end of the year, August 31, which is right about where we are today. Based on the Greenland snowfall forecast between now and the end of August, this year and last could be quite comparable.

  7. Steven Fraser says:

    Update for today (Aug 26): SMB went positive yesterday. If this continues, the net melt season is over for the 2017-2018 year. We should know in a few days. Meanwhile, this week’s forecast shows a series of snowfall storms on the north end of the island.

    Its interesting to note how small a melt we have had so far, compared to last year, the average and especially 2012. We did not get last year’s maximum SMB, but we have not had the same level of melt, either. This is consistent with the overall colder Summertime Greenland has had.

    Anyone know where DMI publishes (if they do) the numeric table for SMB? It might be nice to see, especially since their own text mentions that the highest and lowest values for any given day of the year are not contained in the ‘grey area’ of the chart.

    It is though, logical to conclude that the 2012 melt year produced the lowest SMB, as the grey area does not include it.

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.