Glacial Expansion In Greenland

The Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland retreated very rapidly from 1850 to 1950, then stooped retreating through the end of the 20th century.  Now it is growing. There is no correlation with atmospheric CO2.

Jakobshavn Glacier Grows for Third Straight Year – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Glacial Expansion In Greenland

  1. GWS says:

    I’m sure there are many at NASA who would prefer that this news be canned.

  2. Disillusioned says:

    Reality never supports fearmongering Climate Change™ catastrophists. Besides the fraudulent practice of changing temperature data to fit their failed theory, their other big sin is their repeated LIE that they follow science. The data changers are criminals, controlled by easy money, fame and peer pressured, politically correct consensuses. In their world, their is no scientific method. It died a long time ago.

  3. AndyHce says:

    Why no information on the last 7+ years? Surely, if the issue has any slightest importance, someone has checked in such a long period.

  4. Ben says:

    Sir, The article stated that the growth was the result of a known climate cycle which will “flip” again. What cycle is that? How long will it remain in the “cold” mode? Are we looking at 10 years? 30?
    Thanks

  5. Steve says:

    It must be a full-time job for someone with a wonderful imagination to explain why the ice is growing. I think the new ice age is coming theory of the 70’s is more likely than the catastrophic global warming theory of today. Not a single one of their predictions has come about. Not one.

  6. Larry Kahn says:

    Dr. Heller, this article links to NASA’s global climate change page. Referred to on that page are several other articles which, to my non-science understanding, do in fact seem to show sea ice amounts in constant and current design. For instance this article, https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3114/nasa-finds-2021-arctic-summer-sea-ice-12th-lowest-on-record/ , does indicate the climate alarmists aren’t totally nuts. How do you explain findings like this? Thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.