NOTE: Another related story posted here
By Steve Goddard
A popular AGW cottage industry from 2003-2007 was to make press releases warning that the Greenland ice sheet was melting down. Some fine pieces of journalism were produced, like this one from the BBC.
The meltdown of Greenland’s ice sheet is speeding up, satellite measurements show. Data from a US space agency (Nasa) satellite show that the melting rate has accelerated since 2004. If the ice cap were to completely disappear, global sea levels would rise by 6.5m (21 feet).
This one from New Scientist
The Greenland ice sheet is all but doomed to melt away to nothing, according to a new modelling study. If it does melt, global sea levels will rise by seven metres, flooding most of the world’s coastal regions.
NASA’s Earth Observatory even has a regular section named “Greenland’s Ice Alarm.” In their August 28, 2007 edition they included the map below, which shows Greenland warming at 3°C per decade.
One has to wonder where their data comes from, because GISS shows that Greenland has not warmed at all over the last 90 years.
GISS temperature trends since 1920
Below is the GISS temperature graph for Godthab, Greenland. It was warmest around 1940, and the only recent warm years were from (you guessed it) 2003-2007. The Godthab pattern is fairly typical for Greenland and Iceland.
NASA’s Earth Observatory generated their 3C/decade trend by very carefully cherry-picking their start and end points. Tamino must be incensed by NASA’s behaviour, because he hates cherry-picking.
But you don’t hear so much about Greenland melting down any more.
Vol. 323. no. 5913, p. 458
FALL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION:
Galloping Glaciers of Greenland Have Reined Themselves In
Richard A. Kerr
Ice loss in Greenland has had some climatologists speculating that global warming might have brought on a scary new regime of wildly heightened ice loss and an ever-faster rise in sea level. But glaciologists reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting that Greenland ice’s Armageddon has come to an end.
Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005
Petr Chylek
M. K. Dubey
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA
G. Lesins
Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.
Below is a video I took flying over Greenland from east to west on August 10, 2008 (peak melt season.) On the east side there were lots of icebergs and little evidence of any melt. As you traverse to the west side, you see a few melt ponds.
Temperatures have been running well below normal in Greenland this summer.
It is mid-summer and temperatures in the interior of the Greenland ice sheet are currently minus 16F. Temperatures never get above freezing for more than a few minutes there. Meanwhile temperatures in the interior of the East Antarctic ice sheet are close to minus 100F.
Every good citizen knows that the poles are melting – because they have been fed a continuous stream of gross misinformation. The press loves to print this stuff, but never makes any serious attempt to set the record straight later.
They can always recycle the ice shelf fracturing melting story a few more times.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steven,
Another excellent piece, however, there is much too much detailed logic in most of the posts we get here on WUWT. One must understand that the vast majority of believers do so on an emotional basis. To quote a retired teacher (non-science type) friend of ours when discussing AGW, ” my son is an archeologist and has had a great deal of science and he says there is no global warming. Jim, I cannot NOT believe in global warming.” There you are, most of the believers just believe because they have been told so and are of the progressive bent that will never buck the system.
Trying to change their minds requires a long time a great deal of emotional appeal. Detailed factual arguments have no effect. Perhaps we sould dwell more on the negative socioeconomic impact of the AGW plans.
I hope co2 forcing can over come ten thousands years of Holocene cooling in Greenland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GISP2_ice_core_eng.svg2
It is clear we need more co2.
Looks like some are in disagreement with your findings and are even calling you out by name/website:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up-With-That-concludes-Greenland-is-not-melting-without-looking-at-any-actual-ice-mass-data.html
To properly understand what’s happening with our climate, it’s imperative we consider the full body of evidence. Unfortunately, much confusion is sowed by those who cherrypick select pieces of data while neglecting the full picture. A good example is a blog post at Watts Up With That by Steve Goddard, titled Greenland Hype Meltdown. Goddard characterises the reports that Greenland is losing ice as a “continuous stream of gross misinformation”. Curiously, he provides no actual data on Greenland’s ice mass to expose this gross misinformation. Instead, he cites temperature from a single weather station and some photos he took while flying over the ice sheet.
Let’s look at actual measurements of what’s happening to the Greenland ice sheet. The change in ice mass has been measured using a variety of methods. Satellites use altimetry data to measure the speed of the glaciers as they slide into the ocean. What they find is the glaciers have been sliding faster downhill and dumping more ice into the ocean. Satellite radar altimetry and airborne laser altimetry have also been used to measure the thickness of the ice sheets – they both find the ice sheet is thinning.
GPS receivers have been placed at selected locations around Greenland to measure how much the bedrock is lifting in response to thinning ice sheets. These find the land is now rising up at an accelerating rate. An overall picture is obtained by satellites measuring the change in gravity around the ice sheet. As the ice sheet loses mass, the gravity around Greenland changes, as measured by the GRACE satellites. These measurements find accelerating ice loss.
Net accumulation and loss of ice mass from Greenland are calculated using measurements of precipitation, snow accumulation and the discharge of glaciers into the ocean. The net accumulation/loss measurements find the same rate of ice loss as the GRACE gravity data. When all these independent lines of evidence are compared, we find a consistent picture of accelerating ice loss over the last decade and a half.
Matthew L
Nice how you chopped off half of my sentence.
Your graph shows half as much sea level change in 2007 as it did in 1998. That is the exact opposite of doubling.
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/8536/sealevelchange.gif
What part of that is confusing to you?
Robert
Wow, are you suggesting that “all the world’s glaciologists” believe that Greenland is experiencing a meltdown?
What about the ones quoted in this article who say the exact opposite?
The GISP2 link above was broken.
Temperature reconstruction from the last ice age to present (Holocene) from the GISP 2 ice core:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GISP2_ice_core_eng.svg
Matthew L: July 13, 2010 at 6:34 am
The 12 month rolling average sea level change during the period of study for GRACE mentioned by Villabolo (2002-2009) went steadily downward.
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/8536/sealevelchange.gif
Yet GRACE found the loss of ice mass to have doubled over that same period of time.
One wouldn’t reasonably expect annual sea level change to get lower as ice mass loss doubled. One of us appears to be suffering from confirmation bias alright. And it ain’t me.
Off topic, but interesting. While clearly happenstance, today Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Area are a picture of parity.
Antarctic Sea Ice Area Anomaly, is currently a positive 1.337 Million sq km;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
while Arctic Sea Ice Area Anomaly, is currently a negative 1.333 Million sq km:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Global Sea Ice Area is thus currently a positive 0.004 Million sq km;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
and clearly indicative of a rapidly approaching ice age…
Historical temps from DMI is to be found here (scroll down until you get to the chart):
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/index/klima/klimaet_indtil_nu/temperaturen_i_groenland.htm
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/dk2009_side1_dk.gif
There is not much unprecedented in that. Most of Greenland seem to be at the same temps as in the 1930’s and 40’s.
Oh, there is no stations from Eastern Greenland in the chart BTW.
Goddard says: “Taking lots of measurements around the coast tells you nothing about what is going on under the ice sheet.”
Tell me then Steven, how is it that GIA can accelerate at the rate at which ice losses have been incurred. What is the physical mechanism which would cause what looks to be a doubling of ice losses in a 10 year period? Do you understand how long it takes GIA to occur and at what velocity and scale? Also tell me how you plan on refuting radar interferometry and altimetry data which show the same trends?
In all honesty, you don’t have the background to be discussion glaciology here so why are you doing it? Why not ask for a guest to post or something? I mean that site that one of the commentators showed (climate4you) is run by Dr. Ole Humlum (University of Oslo Geosciences Department), a well known vocal climate skeptic who specializes in glaciology and permafrost. At least then we could have a constructive debate on the real issues at play. Don’t stretch yourself into fields that you have not researched enough to make these comments on.
Looks like Robert is another victim of Greenland Hype Meltdown.☺
Dave Springer,
SLR had a residual that they could not explain in the past. We now know that was due to Ice Sheets. There is a plethora of evidence which shows that ice losses have rapidly increased in greenland. It would be foolish for you to suggest otherwise considering Glacier accelerations are extremely visible with radar interferometry and thinning has occurred in all low elevations in Greenland. Losses have even spread to the northwest sector of greenland in recent months, something that had not occurred previously. Your math and the real math out there aren’t the same things. What makes perfect sense to you doesn’t make it reality and irrefutable. What people need is a better understanding of the core literature on these topics.
Robert
Yes.
Please stop invoking imagined authority and start discussing science.
Mark
Cook is confusing interpretations of gravity data with “actual measurements.”
Sea level is (closer to) an actual measurement, and disagrees with the interpretations of gravity data.
Robert
Where do you think the water from these rapidly accelerated ice losses is going?
If you don’t see a corresponding increase in the rate of sea level rise, then your theories are simply not balancing. Conservation of mass is a fundamental scientific principle.
Robert,
I think glaciologists lost some credibility when they did not speak up about the IPCC claim that glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035.
stevengoddard says:
July 12, 2010 at 11:56 pm
GRACE measures gravity, not ice thickness. Greenland is subject to large changes in elevation due to post-glacial rebound, and there are very few calibration points available away from the coast.
GeoFlynx – Steve, glacial rebound produces a more POSITIVE gravity response over time while the off flow of melting ice results in a more NEGATIVE anomaly. The reductions in gravity, attributed to melting ice by the GRACE system, are not likely confused with Greenland’s attempt at isostasy.
Nice summaries of the recent scientific literature on the Greenland ice sheet at John Cooks ‘skepticalscience.com website. I think that it’s worthwhile to take a look at the published scientific literature, rather than just relying on anecdotal comments.
Mark (9:04 am)
Just trying to understand what skepticalscience is trying to say: The ice sheet is melting (getting smaller), causing chunks of it to slide downhill into the sea. And as the rate of melting increases the land rises faster and ice falls away like it has tumbled down a staircase. I always thought that receding means moving away, ie backwards. When glaciers melt in alpine areas do huge chunks fall off them in ever increasing numbers? I can’t see how ice can fall into the sea when it shrinks and when it expands or maybe its the Greenland Paradox?
As for the falling net accumulation, could the decline in the GRACE data be the result of ablation?
Also, I would love to see the time series plot for the GPS stations to see if they are moving on the surface of the ice sheet, which they must if the sheet is plunging headlong into the sea. Perhaps they are behaving like the debris on the surface of most glaciers and will be moving to the sides—the parts that are lower than the middle—during basal sliding. It all seems strange to me.
About GRACE: I have little faith in a measurement tool that puts an opposite polarity on the gravity anomoly of the Andes compared to the Himalayas. Perhaps it just doesn’t work???
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/
It failed to detect the mid-Atlantic ridge – surely we would expect to see a gravity anomoly there?
I think you would struggle to find anything useful to use regarding gravity from that project.
GeoFlynx
Isotasy goes both directions. Scotland rising. England sinking. (Not referring to football.)
Response:
The one thing we do know is that ice is being lost from the ice sheets. Perhaps we have less thermal expansion going on now than previously or maybe cazanave et al. 2009 are correct in their assumptions. Regardless, you can’t take a look at sea level rise and say, oh its not rapidly accelerating so the DIRECT MEASUREMENTS of Ice loss must be wrong. You look at it and say well maybe we have some assumptions wrong about sea level rise. You can call grace not a direct measurement all you want but then we can just chat about radar interferometry and radar altimetry or laser altimetry? You won’t have near as much to say by the time Cryosat-2 has made its first pass and shows relative agreement with grace.
Look at it this way.
We have direct measurements of sea level rise and direct measurements of ice sheets/glaciers and ice caps
In terms of partitioning how much SLR is due to what is where theories come in. You can’t say that because the theory doesn’t fit the data that the measurements are wrong. Ultimately maybe we just have underestimated the ice contribution and overestimated the thermal expansion. Who knows, either way, you cannot refute the multiple sources of evidence for ice losses unless new evidence becomes available.
Robert
You do understand SLR, right? If the oceans are rising it is either due to more water in them or thermal expansion or both. Clearly the oceans have been rising since satellites began measuring them in 1991.
Just as clear is that GRACE measurements implied a doubling the rate at which ice mass was going down from 2002-2009.
It’s not arguable that during 2002-2009 the rate at which the oceans were rising steadily decreased.
So if the rate of water being added to the oceans from ice melt doubled and the rate at which the ocean was rising halved then, if we presume that both GRACE and sea level measurements are trustworthy, it means the oceans have been cooling at such a rate that it overwhelmed the accelerating rate of added meltwater.
Either way, bubba, it doesn’t support global warming. Period. End of story.
Sean Peake ,
What is being said is that the Greenland ice sheet is experiencing increasing melt which is contributing to loss of ice. Furthermore, the increased melting is resulting in more water flowing to the base of the glacier creating less frictional forces and thereby basal sliding. This increase in velocity results in more calving at the termini of outlet glaciers and ice streams. Glaciers do not EVER move backwards. Their terminus’ do recede which means that the forward motion of ice being brought by the accumulation zone does not equal the melting/calving of the ablation zone of the glacier. In Alpine regions calving is not something which is possible except where glaciers terminate in large lakes. The calving is something which is prevalent for water terminating glaciers because of the water melting away the underneath of the ice causing it to lose its structural integrity. The decline in the Grace data is a result of increased ice loss through ablation. The GPS stations are all attached to exposed bedrock.