Greenland Melt Season Ends – 1.2 Trillion Tons Of New Ice Since 2016

The Greenland melt season has ended, with the surface mass balance showing a gain of 160 billion tons since September 1, 2018.

polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20190823.png

Over the past three years, Greenland’s surface has gained 1.2 trillion tons of new ice.

2017      2018      2019

Experts in the press corps have generously interpreted the data for us, and determined that there is a climate emergency and it is President Trump’s fault.

Their highly researched journalism was based on a single incorrect temperature reading in the center of the Greenland ice sheet.

(24) DMI on Twitter: “🌡️Var der rekordvarmt på indlandsisen i fredags? Nej!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Greenland Melt Season Ends – 1.2 Trillion Tons Of New Ice Since 2016

  1. MrGrimnasty says:

    Even though the claim of Summit exceeding 0C was retracted, the BBC was still allowing people to state that the record was broken without correction yesterday.
    Just as they are still saying 20% of the world’s oxygen comes from Brazil trees even though they now know it is wrong.

    I never once heard the BBC report the 6th July 2017 northern hemisphere record low of −33 °C, let alone mention it dozens of times in one day like they did on Radio 5 Live, for instance, when Summit supposedly exceeding 0C. Ch5 news in the UK did a whole bulletin with an enormous “CLIMATE MELTDOWN” backdrop on the basis of it.

    • Andy says:

      Just as a point the summit has always been a bad point to quote either on here or elsewhere as it is just one point and also is at altitude.

      I say it is a bad place to quote if it is warm or whether is cold, just because of that.

      Most Greenland temp sensors are around the coast, which is more applicable, but still there are not that many. The data is good to know but always have to take that into account .

      Andy

      • rah says:

        “Just as a point the summit has always been a bad point to quote either on here or elsewhere as it is just one point and also is at altitude.”

        Yea, that’s why they put a research station there. Because of it’s irrelevance.

        • Andy says:

          Rah said

          “Yea, that’s why they put a research station there. Because of it’s irrelevance.”

          There is a research station on Mount Washington as well, giving weather readings, but I don’t take those readings as a result for the entire USA…

          Andy

          • Robert Arnold Hains says:

            No, but you should take them as an indication of weather for a large swath of New England. Mt. Washington, the highest mountain in the US east of the Mississippi river, happens to be in a place where the jet stream often dips down and thus actually has even more variable weather than many mountains that are at much higher elevation. Go plot your butt on the facing slope of Wildcat mountain that catches the burble from Mt. Washington when that happens because during the fall you would see how a frost line can form quickly and dip right down into the valley when on the surrounding mountains in the White Mountain range, the line is evident just at the highest peaks.
            Because it can be a comfortable 70 deg, F and less than an hour later there be a real blizzard raging, Mt. Washington is a much more dangerous mountain than one would think for it’s relatively modest elevation and it does have a significant effect on the weather in the area.
            Also that burble is NOT a place to be in a helicopter.

            The data from all weather stations accurately reporting is valuable for forecasting, and not just for the weather in their area.

      • MrGrimnasty says:

        Of course it is just one one place/point. Everything the MSM creates cataclysmic scare stories over is usually just one special point, one random event.

        Every few years we have the Arctic heat wave stories – North Pole reaches freezing point in the middle of winter (for a few hours) – because an active pressure system has dragged up a large air mass, as has been recorded many dozens of times naturally before climate change was a thing.

        The MSM is constantly creating propaganda out of the mundane, exploiting the ignorance and the lack of curiosity of the audience.

        BUT I guess the real intention of your reply is to dilute the point I was making about MSM bias.

        You can’t argue with the empirical facts – if you wanted to argue that all (mostly coastal/inhabited!) Greenland stations generally showed anything alarming in the full record, you would fall flat on your face – find cooling even, obviously linked to known cycles, and then have to claim that that didn’t disprove global warming as per a recent published paper!

        • Ansy says:

          MrGrimNasty said

          “BUT I guess the real intention of your reply is to dilute the point I was making about MSM bias.”

          No, I was making an extra point about statistics.

          That’s why I said, “as an aside”

          Had no comment, diluting or other wise, on your BBC statement which may or may not be correct.

          Andy

      • spike55 says:

        It will be a long time before Greenland Ice levels drop to the levels of the MWP.

        Especially if they keep growing.

      • spike55 says:

        Greenland temperatures follow the AMO, like most other Arctic temperatures.

        https://i.postimg.cc/PrDdcNcx/Greenland_Dec_temps.png

        https://i.postimg.cc/xTGGxgBX/greenland1.jpg

        There is more Greenland ice are than any time in the last 8000 years except the LIA.

        https://i.postimg.cc/VkYrnZhL/Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Briner.jpg

        That’s because the temperature has been cooling pretty much through the whole Holocene.

        https://i.postimg.cc/3N0k908b/Greenland_Kobashi_2017.png

  2. Gator says:

    The bell has been rung, and the troll trap has been baited! Grab some popcorn…

  3. czechlist says:

    Can’t recall where I saw it, but a few weeks ago I read a report about how our brains can’t process climate change. Seems we humans are wired to be more concerned about the present than about the future.
    I reckon I can ignore the lion in my path because there may be a drought next year.
    People are actually paid large (with our tax money no doubt) for such discovery.
    Gotta laugh though. I recall my Calc I professor – it was all intuitive to him, but it was anything but for me.

    • Gator says:

      Leftist brains (if they exist) cannot process climate change, and we now have decades of scientific studies to prove this. Leftists also have issues with processing anything other than their childlike immediate wants. The study should have included some rational people, but apparently did not.

  4. Andy says:

    Good point Tony.

    People have currently jumped off this on twitter to Amazonian fires it seems. When things get back to normal they are put on the back burner. Their attention span from below or above normal is instantaneous but drops off rapidly like a short lived nuclear particle.

    Trends in the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland are worth following, but over years, like on here. Things trending over years rather than trending over hours on social media….

    They really wind me up.

    Andy

  5. LexingtonGreem says:

    Was that big melt day legitimate? The graph did not change after the faulty temp error was discovered. And least I don’t think it did.

  6. GW Smith says:

    Why aren’t these people held to account?

    Because the only ones objecting are “deniers”?

    Perfect combination.

  7. Disillusioned says:

    So let me get this straight – Somebody projected Greenland is going to lose 440 billion tons of ice over its annual summer melt season, and the press corps write about that as a “climate emergency.”

    But Greenland really had a net gain of 160 billion tons of ice since September 1 last year, and the media do not write about that.

    For whom are the rotten press corpse working? Certainly not for their readers. Is it 1984?

    • Tel says:

      All they do is pick up pre-canned press releases, copy and paste then change a few words here and there. That’s modern churnalism.

      They aren’t working FOR anyone … they aren’t even doing any work.

      • Robert Arnold Hains says:

        Their “talking points” are given them. All they have to do is try to come up with a few original words to express those points and they usually fail miserably at that. So they all end up sounding the same.

      • Robert Arnold Hains says:

        I’m going to try again. For some reason some of my posts aren’t showing up.

        They have their talking points given them and all they have to do is try to come up with some original way of stating those points. They usually fail miserably at that.

    • Robertv says:

      When those in power can monitor every move we make I would call that 1984 Big Brother. But it is not government because those like the press are just puppets.

      • Disillusioned says:

        Robert,

        Thanks for your post.

        Sure, surveillance was a big part of the story. But in 1984, I seem to recall the news was what the powers wanted told. Do you believe Operation Mockingbird was just a conspiracy theory, was just a one-off or that cooperation between the media and a deep state does not occur today?

        Heck, you even referred to the media as puppets. Puppets have even less autonomy than ‘cooperation.’ A puppet does exactly what his hand master wants. Whose puppets are they?

        Dunno. A lot of what goes on today seems eerily like 1984 to me. Perhaps it’s just my wild imagination. Shrug.

  8. John Francis says:

    Tony
    Believe dates are not matching on graphs and captions.

  9. Rob G. says:

    Hi Tony. I am not fully understanding your report as it relates to the DMI report, especially 2018, where it says that calving is actually shrinking the total mass of the ice shelf at an average of 200 gt/year, even counting surface mass increase from snowfall.

    Can you clear this up for me, because regardless if it snows more than it melts, they can still claim that Greenland is losing mass, even if by calving?

    Thanks for the blog and the time!

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.