Growth Of The Petermann Glacier Since 2012

Greenland’s most famous glacier has grown nearly 10km over the past seven years.

Satellite image

Satellite image

Andreas Muenchow of the University of Delaware told the Washington Post that he stopped being a skeptic due, to what he saw at the Petermann glacier since late August 2012.

 the Petermann Ice Shelf lost another two Manhattans of ice in 2012, and Muenchow decided to see for himself, launching a project to study the ice shelf intensively.

He was back again in late August, no longer a skeptic

In Greenland, a once doubtful scientist witnesses climate change’s troubling toll | The Washington Post

When nature doesn’t cooperate with your scam, simply lie about it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Growth Of The Petermann Glacier Since 2012

  1. Dave N says:

    True scientists *always* declare themselves as skeptical: that is how science works. One of scientists maxims is to constantly question their own work, and that of their peers. Without it, there is no innovation or progress; just an echo chamber.

    Those who declare that they are not skeptics any more, are no longer scientists.

    This is all *regardless* of what the state of Petermann is.

    Either Mooney is paraphrasing, (and/or distorting the facts) or Muenchow is no scientist. This tweet speaks volumes:

    https://twitter.com/AndreasMuenchow/status/899764992953774081?s=20

    If it was video of Trump staring into the sun for a prolonged period, he might have had some point. Since a photo is just one moment in time, Muenchow is no scientist – he’s an alarmist

    • Gator says:

      Beyond ignorant. First, there was no “full” solar eclipse in DC. Second, staring at a full eclipse is safe. Third, glancing at an eclipse is no different than glancing at the Sun with no eclipse. The danger with eclipse viewing is that because the light is diminished enough to allow for longer direct viewing, some idiots like Muenchow might be tempted to gaze even longer.

      Staring at the Sun when it is well above the horizon is bad for your eyes, unless the Sun is actually in full eclipse. Associate professor at the University of Delaware? More like the University of Unaware.

  2. R Shearer says:

    More proof of climate change.

    Isn’t it a little ridiculous that someone can take a snap shot in time and from that declares what has happened and what will happen?

    • Gamecock says:

      Yes, ridiculous.

      The Petermann glacier is subject to local conditions. It couldn’t care less about ‘climate change,’ whatever that is supposed to mean.

  3. MGJ says:

    If the WP report is broadly accurate then if Muenchow is consistent then all it will take is another visit to the Petermann glacier now and he will be a sceptic once again, since that is reportedly all it took last time.

  4. scott allen says:

    Science is more than a body of knowledge, it’s a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogation of the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those that tell us something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs of the next charlatan, political or religious leader who comes ambling along

    Carl Sagan in a interview with Charlie Rose

    • arn says:

      In communism there is no god but communism
      there is culture but communism
      there is no science but communism

      This is why everything became a joke.
      The islam of atheism has and is the ultimate answer on everything
      and can not be challenged.
      That’s why climate apparatchicks and propagandists disguised as scientists can jump a 1000 times with the speed of light to conclusions as soon as the circumstances can missused to prove AGW.
      But not a single time they were able to jump to the opposite conclusion
      though a very long cold winter proved them wrong for 4 month.

  5. Philippe RAI says:

    I am sorry but I cannot see the difference of 10 km on the satellite images that are actually not taken the same month ! Can you explain more ?

    • Gator says:

      What a stupid comment. How would one show growth if both pictures were from August of 2012? The post clearly states this growth is over the past 7 years. Why do leftists have trouble with such basic concepts?

    • KevinPaul says:

      Glaciers don’t seasonally advance and retreat, progress is sped up or delayed seasonally, but this wouldn’t be discernable from space, instruments need to be fixed to the ice to quantify.

    • JCalvertN(UK) says:

      I think your comment might have been valid, if applied to the Jakobshavn Glacier – where the calving events are very frequent and the calving face moves backwards and forwards throughout the year.
      The Petermann Glacier is a different beast altogether. There, the calving events maybe years apart. So the calving face moves forward a dozen or so kilometres over a decade or so, before a Manhattan-sized berg breaks off.

      See https://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/169/2011/tcd-5-169-2011.pdf

      • Disillusioned says:

        …before a Manhattan-sized berg breaks off.

        When that happens, it cannot be emphasized enough that that is a sign of a growing glacier. Growing glaciers must calve (break away and form icebergs) as these frozen rivers march toward the sea.

        Even if a calving event takes a glacier back several km, it is still a sign of a growing glacier. Nick Stokes stepped in it big time when he implied otherwise.

  6. -B- says:

    But the climate scientists only measure at the point on the extreme right of the edge of the glacier in the photo from 2012 on.

  7. Christiaan says:

    Hi Tony. Off topic (direct) topic.

    Thought you might find this interesting.

    Blaming climate change on big yellow jacket homes.

    https://gizmodo.com/alabamans-are-battling-car-sized-yellow-jacket-nests-th-1836013001?utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow&utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook

  8. KevinPaul says:

    I’m skeptical, but with a big enough grant and some fully funded junkets north I could be convinced.

  9. Nick Stokes says:

    Why compare Aug 30 2012 with June 30 2019? It’s easy enough to find June 30 2012.

    https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2019/07/peter1.png

    Two months of summer makes a big difference.

    • spike55 says:

      Wow. Little nick shows before the break-away.

      Tony shows after the break-away, when this Muenchow guy visited.

      Tony then shows that the GLACIER REGROWS .

      You do know that glacier are RIVERS of ice, don’t you little-nick. !

    • tonyheller says:

      That has nothing to do with it. Muenchow started his research in August 2012 after a big calving event. Since then the glacier has been steadily growing. It will be even larger in August than it is now.
      You probably should have read the Washington Post article before commenting on it.

  10. JCalvertN(UK) says:

    The position of the calving line makes for good publicity. But for an ice tongue that has been afloat for nearly a decade before it finally becomes an iceberg, the final break-off makes no difference at all to sea-level rise.
    The grounding line and the thickness of the glacier upstream of the grounding line, is what matters.

  11. Jim Hicks says:

    The agenda is a return to nuclear energy production. By creating a scenario of fear the climate alarmism are in effect leaving no options but nuclear to save the earth.

    • kamaeq says:

      And? Nuclear energy, at least as practiced in the USA, is the cleanest and least polluting form of electricity production in the world. It is also renewable like no other energy source.

      Which is why the simplest and most logical solution to the “carbon problem” in power generation would be building more nuclear power plants, but is pushed back against by alarmists as “evil” and “vile”.

    • Martin says:

      Not in Germany. Remember the energiewende? Due to the Fukishima meltdown Germany started to close the nuclear power stations from 2011 on. Besides most alarmistic governments do not choose to build more nuclear. In contrary.

    • Nicholas McGinley says:

      Alarmists are dead set against nuclear.
      Also they generally oppose hydro power.
      You can always guess what alarmists will support, and what they will condemn: If it provides abundant, reliable, and inexpensive energy, alarmists are against it.
      If it provides huge handouts to their cronies via gubmint subsidies, they are strongly for it, and will insist that all power be made that way or the world will end and everyone will die.
      Even if the ones in that first category make no CO2, and the ones in the second group do nothing to reduce CO2 production!

      Fossil fuels, hydroelectric power from dams, and nuclear reactors, all are capable of supplying huge amounts of highly reliable power, and do so inexpensively.
      Warmista doomsday catastrophists hate these.
      They want to end usage of fossil fuels, no matter the consequence.

      They want to decommission nuclear plants and never build any more of them.

      They want to deconstruct existing dams, which store massive amounts of water for drinking and irrigation, prevent devastating floods on rivers that have many of them, end years where there is little or no stream flow, and provide massive amounts of clean and cheap electricity while doing all of those great things.

      On the other hand, wind turbines are an awful way to make power. Over their stated useful lifetime, they make little more power than it takes to build and operate them, when all inputs are accounted for.
      They are so expensive and give so little power back that no one would build one if it was not mandated and subsidized by politicians throwing around taxpayer dollars, and the operators of them promised a premium rate for the minimal and unpredictable power they do generate, which raises the electric bills every month for everyone who lives where they exist. A double fleecing.
      And they are not lasting anywhere near as long as was stated when they were sold. Many may only last half as long. And that is only the ones that last until they wear out…some fail catastrophically. And this mode of failure can occur at anytime including right after they are installed and are brand new. No one know how often this happens because the incidents are going unreported, but there is ample reason to think that failure rates are twice what is being reported.
      Meanwhile, when they are in operation, they are an imposing menace to human health and the environment: Reports have emerged that many people who live near them are being harmed by something called infrasound. This is low frequency noise that has not been taken seriously by the medical community, but is ruining the health, well being, peace of mind, and the ability to ever relax, ever, of the people who suffer from them. A constant flickering, and low rumbling sound that walls do not stop, becomes an inescapable and permanent reality for anyone who is unfortunate enough to live where someone decides they will be put in. Personally I cannot imagine it. We all know how things like a dripping faucet or a buzzing light fixture can become nearly unbearable for some people. These things are a quarter mile high and almost as wide, can be going anytime of day or night, 24/7/365, for days, weeks, months, years, decades…basically forever. Do not like it? Too bad.
      Move? Nope…hardly anyone will buy a house near one of these.
      Then of course are the bird deaths, and bat deaths. No one knows how many, because they are exempted from the normal rules that everyone else in the world has to follow, under pain of massive fines and imprisonment.
      But it is a lot, and not songbirds like cats occasionally catch, but large birds, raptors, migratory birds, some very rare, all highly intelligent, many endangered, and all dying in unprecedented numbers in these bird choppers.
      The alarmists want to cover the Earth with these things, but long before that could ever happen, it is very likely many sorts of large birds will be extinct.
      Maybe those extinction rebellion people are not so full of shit…they are just pointing at the wring people and causes…actually demanding more of these horrifying wastes of money.
      Of course, yes…warmista love wind turbines.
      Could not care less about the fact that places that have lots of them have had a hard time reducing CO2 production at all, since standby FF generators must be on running standby for every watt of power any wind or solar installation creates.
      Turning food into motor fuel which actually reduces the mileage and saves no gas?
      Warmistas love it.
      Turbines and solar, which produce a fraction of name plate rated capacity?
      Yup, they love those too.
      If it is a worthless way to make power, they are gung ho and all in.
      If it makes tons of power whenever we need it, for cheap…they hate it.
      That is how you know who these people are, and what the real agenda is.

  12. Both data and interpretation of Petermann’s forward motion are accurate as demonstrated earlier by Muenchow et al. (2014). Using observations starting 1876, I show that the glacier grows seaward at about 1.1 km per year or 10 feet per day. After the 2010 and 2012 large calving events, the glacier has actually moved faster where it is afloat. If the same amount of ice is moved from land to the floating section, the floating glacier thins. A thinner glacier moves faster forward and breaks up easier.

    More details I summarize at

    https://icyseas.org/2019/07/03/

    that includes links to original publications. The figure below is from Muenchow et al. (2016). It shows how the seaward motion of the glacier varies both along its axis and time.

    • tonyheller says:

      I don’t see any mention of the growth of the glacier since 2012 in the Washington Post article, nor do I see any reason why your observations would have convinced you to stop being a skeptic.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Andreas Muenchow,

      I read the Washington Post article and I have two questions.

      1. Did you like the way Chris Mooney represented your change of position?
      2. Did your findings really cause you to stop doubting your understanding of the matter?

      Thanks in advance for your reply.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        The reason I am asking:

        I know from several personal experiences, including a lengthy interview lasting several hours, that some journalists make things up or twist them to match a story they had in mind before they started. They don’t shy from including complete contradictions of what was actually said. There are honest journalists who follow the real story but they seem to be a rare and dying breed.

        • Nick Palmer says:

          Colorado Wellington. As a clue to Tony’s methods, the number of words he quoted from the WAPO article was about 188. The whole article is about 2950… Cherry picking on a massive scale. Read the whole article and it becomes clear that the scientist was never a global warming sceptic or ice sheet retreat sceptic, as insinuated by Heller. The reporter’s first few words, which Heller cherry picked/quote mined could be interpreted to say that BUT ONLY IF one didn’t read the rest of the article which puts it in context. Heller didn’t show you that part, like a magician never shows you the hidden aspects that make an illusion work

          • tonyheller says:

            Nice attempt at twisting out of alarmists being caught in an obvious lie.

          • Disillusioned says:

            Nick, you fool. The glacier kept growing, regardless of what the author said, or didn’t say, whether Tony cherry picked 188 words, or whether he had quoted the entire article (he did provide a link to the entire article, from which you tailored that BS).

            Who was being deceptive? Muenchow and Mooney, et. al fearmongered and made a really big deal about something that did not happen. They FAILED to provide any support that the Petermann glacier is shrinking or in trouble. It’s a growing glacier. What part of that do you not understand?

          • Nick Palmer says:

            Tony’s fundamental technique is the implied strawman. The deceit used about this glacier is that Heller insinuates that the science definitively said that retreating glaciers (a trend of reduction in total mass and size) means that every year the ‘terminator/terminus’ (the end of the ice ‘river’ where the ice meets the sea) would be further inland every year. It never did and the scientist never said that and even the WAPO article didn’t say that if read in its entirety.

            Heller insinuates it to make his deceptive and misleading case, and he repeatedly uses this technique in all of his videos and output. The cherry picked data he shows you is accurate, but the conclusions and implications he asserts from them are absolutely not valid. His ‘thinking’ processes and arguing style are deeply fallacious

          • spike55 says:

            “It never did “

            Oh, so all the newspaper clamour was just LIES.

            Thanks Nick. :-)

            (its always hard keeping up the continual LIES about global warming, isn’t it Nick. ;-) )

  13. Nick Palmer says:

    I don’t respond nicely to having a serial deceiver like Heller/Goddard accuse me of “twisting”when I’m not. I particularly don’t like mentally incompetent deceivers like Heller describing honest scientists as ‘liars’. Gloves off. The point is, it is NOT an ‘obvious lie’. If an intelligent clear thinking person reads the science, it is an obvious truth! Heller’s inability to comprehend when he is is wrong is why Anthony Watts kicked him off WUWT. The reality is that Mr Heller either cannot properly comprehend the reality of the facts and science he sees before him or he is being deliberately deceitful for ideological reasons. While there are obviously legions of gullible inter-netters who get sucked in by Tony’s rhetoric, the fact that the ice sheet is shrinking is invulnerable to his childishly simplistic hand waving. This is yet another example of his one trick pony act. He tells his scientifically illiterate followers that the glacier is growing and fools them with the same techniques of partial slanted truth deceptions as a magician uses to fool his audience.

    The video relates to sea ice, but it’s all being melted by the same thing

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh3oakgxZ9w

    “They FAILED to provide any support that the Petermann glacier is shrinking or in trouble”

    That is just so utterly stupid and ignorant of reality. Muenchow even posted here because he was pissed off that such a deluded crackpot pseudo-scientist as Heller called him a liar. Read his stuff – if, afterwards, you still believe Heller’s utter nonsence then you must be a gullible grade A idiot.

    “he did provide a link to the entire article”

    Tony probably relies on his followers not actually following though on such links plus that even if they did, they would be so blinded by his rhetoric that they wouldn’t see the evidence in front of their eyes that Heller has deceived them – there are none so blind as those who will not see. Hellers’s insinuations, based on the 188 words are clearly debunked if one reads the whole 15 times larger article. Heller relies on his followers being too thick to follow through on the whole evidence or too blinkered to see what is in front of their noses.

    • Gator says:

      Muenchow isn’t even bright enough to know that a) looking at a full solar eclipse is perfectly safe, b) that the photo he retweeted clearly shows obvious shadows on Trump and therefore it was not a full solar eclipse, c) that DC was never under a full eclipse, and d) that glancing at a partial eclipse is no more harmful than glancing at the Sun.

      As I said earlier, a professor at the university of Unaware. A political hack posing as a scientist.

  14. True or false?

    “A glacier moving out to sea can shrink.”

    The original poster answered this question incorrectly by violating physics and ignoring data on Petermann Glacier published since 1876.

    The small triangles in the graph below are the observations of how long the glacier is at different times. The upward sloping lines represent constant growth rates. Note how the glacier is getting shorter over time, even though it keeps moving out to sea at a constant rate. This “growth rate” is a velocity indicated by upward sloping lines. The downward slopes result when a large iceberg separates from the glacier.

    All physics is simple, yet few appreciate its complex beauty.

  15. Put another way:

    Petermann Glacier will need to keep growing at the current ~1 km per year rate until 2045 without any calving to get back to the position it was at in 2010. I consider this unlikely, because there are several large cracks across most of the floating iceshelf about 10-15 km back. If those areas break off, then we may need until 2050 or 2060 to get back to where we were in 2010.

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.