Arctic Melting Scam Reaching A Tipping Point

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Ten years after the screaming ice-free Arctic reached a tipping point, sea ice extent is “normal.”

North Pole could be ice free in 2008 | New Scientist

Scientists: ‘Arctic Is Screaming,’ Global Warming May Have Passed Tipping Point | Fox News

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Arctic Melting Scam Reaching A Tipping Point

  1. oldbrew says:

    The ‘experts’ were screaming, the Arctic not so much.

  2. Scarface says:

    Hi Tony,

    Would you be so kind to look at this text from DMI wrt Greenland?

    “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.”

    http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

    How does that match with their graphs?

    http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png

    • tonyheller says:

      I’ve addressed this many times. The abuse of GRACE gravity data by climate scientists is one of the biggest parts of the global warming scam.

      • Scarface says:

        Still, how can they claim a loss of mass of 200 Gt/yr while showing a big gain in lower the graph ‘Acc. SMB (Gt)’ and some sort of positive-value-flatlining (except for the summer) in the upper graph ‘SMB (Gt/day)’ Where is the loss of 200Gt? Or is that a seperate value, not shown in here?

        • dave1billion says:

          “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 chart only shows the “surface mass balance” due to precipitation and melting.

          The net loss that they calculate includes mass loss including iceberg calving.

          If you run some numbers on their estimated mass loss, it would take something like 15,000 years for the Greenland ice cap to melt. 200 GT/yr sounds like a lot, but put into that context, even if the number is accurate, it doesn’t really amount to much more than background noise.

          • steve case says:

            dave1billion says: …The net loss that they calculate includes mass loss including iceberg calving.

            The calving of ice bergs is a function of how much snow fell decades or centuries ago. Doesn’t have anything to do with temperature

        • Cam says:

          From my understanding of their methods, they don’t deduct the suspected calving from the totals. The graphs they show only give the amount of precipitation that is dropped on the ice sheet daily and accumulate through the year. As Tony said, they then use GRACE and models to “calculate” the mass balance gain or loss for the year and attribute all losses to calving (a natural phenomenon).

        • Gerald Machnee says:

          The more ice that forms, the more calving you will get – it has to go somewhere——–.

        • spike55 says:

          Just for your reference, here is a graph of the total ice mass of Greenland, including supposed losses, from 1900.

          BTW, you do know that calving is as natural as a river running into the sea.. Don’t you ???

          • Jason Calley says:

            Hey spike!

            “The average CAGW enthusiasts says, “But… but… but… 200 GT is such a BIG number!”

            They really have no understanding of how gigantic the Earth is. These are the same people who screamed that “the oceans have gained 24X10^23 joules of heat in the last 50 years!” Of course they have no idea how much of a temperature change that is. If they did understand, they would yawn and go back to sleep.

    • Lasse says:

      The date is important!
      © DMI, 25 April 2017.

      It is a theory that has a best before date that has expired!
      Sour and not fit for human consumption.
      Maybe fit for human confusion?

    • AndyDC says:

      Greenland is currently getting huge amounts of snow. Of course, every idiot knows that more/less snow is entirely consistent with catastrophic warming. Normal snow too!

    • spike55 says:

      That text is generic text, based on erroneous gravity data over a volcanic region

      It has ZERO basis in reality

  3. GW Smith says:

    I love this idea the left has of “normal”, in whatever field. It’s similar to “fair” and “just”, all unreal ideals which they fervently believe exist, somewhere and at sometime, but definitely not now.

  4. Steven Fraser says:

    DMI Sea Ice Volume for Nov 20:

    Still #8 in the 16-year record, up 134 cu km since the report for Nov 19th. Current Volume is 99.03% of the 16-year series, and 98.52% of the DMI-graphed reference period of 2014-2013. Current gaps between 2018 and those averages are 139 cu km, and 213 cu km, respectively.

    Since the September 10th low stand, DMI Sea Ice volume has grown 7,976 cu km, or 128.38%. The average for the last 10 days growth has been 161 cu km/day, 50 cu km/day higher than the average for the same 10-day period in the 16 year series, and highest of the similar values since Nov 4.

Leave a Reply

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