Greenland has gained nearly 100 billion tons of ice so far this month.
This is coming after two years of near record surface mass gain.
Greenland Gains Huge Amounts Of Ice For The Second Year In A Row | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
This is a big change from the 1930s, when the Greenland ice sheet was losing huge amounts of ice.
18 Nov 1930 – LOCAL AND GENERAL – Trove h/t AndyOz
There is a reason I don’t want to live in Canada.
Greenland isn’t in Canada …. am I missing ur point or WTF?
I just went to vote in shorts and sandals and so I really don’t get ur point. I admit that we Canucks have long winters but that is why skating and skiing were invented ;-)
You must be in sunny Lethbridge.
Ok, ok! There is a reason GW Smith doesn’t want to live in Denmark. ?
Last fall, the DMI reported that the “melt” season was unusually cool and the albedo was high.
Same for the previous season of 2017.
It will be interesting to see what this summer brings to the far North.
How many Manhattans or Wadhams does that equal?
It’s probably rotten ice anyway…
Speaking of which, whatever happened to “rotten ice”? For at least a few years that was the big CAGW complaint about the Arctic ice which refused to melt away. “Well, sure, there’s still some ice up there — but it’s all rotten! It’ll be gone by next year…”
Thanks Tony. I’ve been looking for these graphs since they moved from their previous site. I thought they might have just stopped doing them because of the large accumulations in 2017 and 2018. It’s good to see that they continue to delete graph lines from previous years that show large accumulations while showing the data for 2011-2012 (sarc).
I just ran across this piece of work
My question is. Who wrote it?
Hey Jim, I only looked at the first link. I have no idea who posted it, but it does not take long to see it is a pure piece of ad hominem rant void of reason or evidence. That said, I had to laugh at one of his reasons showing that Tony is wrong about CAGW:
“As you can see, (potholer’s) videos enjoyed more viewers and his like/dislike ratio is far better than (Tony’s).”
It is difficult to imagine any adult reduced to citing YouTube likes and dislikes as evidence for scientific facts. As much as I disagree with potholer’s analysis, it must be embarrassing for him to have that level of supporter. Sigh…
Almost invariably, those types of videos, instead of debunking their intended target, end up as illustrations of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.