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.
Robert Lund says:
July 13, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“Steve,
What the hell? Whats with the technobabble? Leg of a wave? You do not seem to understand the slightest about chance variation and statistics. Fit a least squares line to the series and test the hypothesis that the trend slope is positive.”
Given the variation in the signal it will be statistically insignificant anyway.
stevengoddard says:
July 13, 2010 at 9:32 am
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.
############################################################
Gravity measurements combined with the land rising at an accelerating rate show that the glaciers are loosing mass at an accelerating rate. What Cook did an excellent job at was combining this data with laser and radar altimeter and all data sets come to the same consclusion. The ice is loosing thickness and mass.
If you really believe what you have written in this article, then I invite you to write your own peer reviewed paper showing our world’s scientists that they are wrong.
rbateman says:
July 12, 2010 at 10:28 pm
How does a mass of ice like Greenland suffer catastrophic melting if 95% of the place is below zero even in the summer?
___________________________________________________________
Rbateman, you have not been listening. The laws of science have now been declared null and void, and are now in the hands of the politician abetted by his paid scientist. Ice is now melting at minus 40C instaed of zero C. The law of gravity has been declared null to assist flying pigs and also carbon-free travelling for Al Gore and his troops. Mercury now expands when it freezes, especially if it is, like milk, homogenised. You can even kneel down infront of Obama or your local MP, begging him to change or nullify any scientific laws that show global cooling, Himalayas not melting, and even stop those stupid negatively-charged electrons that move inside the WWW and debunk AGW, by declaring them positively-charged, thus returning to their original AGW skeptic without arriving to their desired destination, such as my PC. I want my ambient temperature to be 22.0C all year round, except when I go to the beach where I want it to be 27.89760432 C at exactly one meter above sea level.
stevengoddard says:
July 13, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Jeff Green
Good luck finding bedrock in the interior of Greenland. There are only a few mountain peaks poking through the two mile deep ice.
#########################################################
Are you saying that these peer reviewed papers did not use their GPS devices correctly?
Also if you would read with a little more detail the studies are done on the edges of Greenland where the majority of ice melt is taking place.
stevengoddard says:
July 13, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Jeff P
Uhhmm… You might want to think your sea level argument through a little more carefully. Increasing ocean heat content will also tend to raise sea levels, and makes the the ice melting argument even less tenable.
###########################################################
Ocean heat content increasing would be due to AGW. Sea level rise is definitely taking into account thermal expansion. So the ice isn’t melting but the ocean is getting warmer. If as you say AGW isn’t significant, how can you have it both ways.
Steve said:
“I am talking about rates of sea level rise. If the rate of ice loss has doubled, then sea level rise would also have to double.”
REALLY???? And you think I need to think it through?
Steve Said:
“Uhhmm… You might want to think your sea level argument through a little more carefully. Increasing ocean heat content will also tend to raise sea levels, and makes the the ice melting argument even less tenable.”
Steve,
I didn’t make a sea level argument.
I simply said that doubling the rate of ice melt would NOT double the rate of sea level rise as you asserted up thread. Additionally, you seem to think that the sea level rise data supports your claim that Greenland isn’t losing mass. It does not. The amount of ice Greenland is shown to be losing is well below the margin of error in that data.
[Before you can continue on this blog further, you really need to respond (on the Monckton rebuttal thread) to concerns over your accusations about Mr. Monckton making threats to people. Show citations, and leave out the language that has been getting you in trouble. Once you’ve done that, I’ll lift the post hold. – A]
Jeff Green
It used to be claims of “consensus.” Now you are claiming unanimity.
Ramping up the hyperbole a bit, perhaps?
KD
Look at the Glacier Girl section here
http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html
More planes remain at that location, so depths since 1992 may be found.
The link contains comments on the reliability of ice core data
As far I see this article does not rebuke studies that indicate ice loss from Greenland maybe accelerating although some of us question the accuracy of gravity measurements. The article is merely pointing out that the recent warm period is no more exceptional than the 1920-1930 period. Ice loss likely accelerated during that period also. GISP2 indicates there have been many warmer periods in the past 10,000 years including a period where there may have been little ice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GISP2_ice_core_eng.svg
The ice lost from 2003 to 2009 correlates with an increase in Arctic and north Atlantic ocean heat content. Now the OHC is falling and it will be interesting to watch if there is Greenland ice sheet gain and arctic sea ice volume gain. From Bob Tisdale:
http://i49.tinypic.com/5ebpua.jpg
The bottom line is that most of us sceptics believe that accelerated ice loss is but a multi decadal natural cycle not the result of AGW.
I have a very high degree of confidence in the data used by GRACE. To argue that Greenland is not seeing ice mass loss based on errors from isostatic rebound, is to not give credit to the highly refined validation of data that GRACE went through, when the longer term isostatic elements were accounted for. I would suggest it would be helpful for some to read this arcticle:
http://grace.sgt-inc.com/methodology.html
Greenland is losing ice mass. This isn’t “hype”, but simple fact, and tools such as GRACE show us this in amazing detail.
Nature Geoscience 3, 404 – 407 (2010)
Published online: 16 May 2010 | doi:10.1038/ngeo845
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/abs/ngeo845.html
Subject Categories: Climate science | Cryospheric science
Accelerating uplift in the North Atlantic region as an indicator of ice loss
Yan Jiang1, Timothy H. Dixon1 & Shimon Wdowinski1
Top of pageVertical motions of the rocky margins of Greenland and Antarctica respond to mass changes of their respective ice sheets1, 2. However, these motions can be obscured by episodes of glacial advance or retreat that occurred hundreds to thousands of years ago3, 4, 5, 6, which trigger a delayed response because of viscous flow in the underlying mantle. Here we present high-precision global positioning system (GPS) data that describe the vertical motion of the rocky margins of Greenland, Iceland and Svalbard. We focus on vertical accelerations rather than velocities to avoid the confounding effects of past events. Our data show an acceleration of uplift over the past decade that represents an essentially instantaneous, elastic response to the recent accelerated melting of ice throughout the North Atlantic region. Our comparison of the GPS data to models for glacial isostatic adjustment suggests that some parts of western coastal Greenland were experiencing accelerated melting of coastal ice by the late 1990s. Using a simple elastic model, we estimate that western Greenland’s ice loss is accelerating at an average rate of 8.7±3.5 Gt yr−2, whereas the rate for southeastern Greenland—based on limited data—falls at 12.5±5.5 Gt yr−2.
#########################################################
This is a peer reviewed article showing both negative and positive acceleration along the coast line.
############################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Greenland-rising-faster-as-ice-loss-accelerates.html
Lastly, one interesting point. The amount of uplift in Greenland varies from location to location, from 1.4 mm per year in northwest Greenland to over 10 mm per year in other places. In some locations, this exceeds the current rate of global sea level rise which is around 3.2 mm per year. Greenland’s uplift rate is predicted to double by 2025.
##########################################################
Again if you believe to find the peer reviewed science wrong or that David Cook has misinterpeted it, by all means show us how it is wrong. Write a peer reviewed paper to show the world that your ideas are the ones we should follow.
Plus, some of us skeptics believe that at some point in time in the future the ice sheet WILL MELT to levels previously experienced in history, pre-human emissions. This will cause all sorts of issues, no doubt. But to believe that we can impact this in any significant way by spending billions/trillions of dollars to reduce our emissions is simply naive. We can’t keep flood plains from flooding in the face of “hundred-year” storms (which, by the way, happen every 100 years or so by definition), so how is it we’re going to stop the ice-sheets from melting?
stevengoddard says:
July 13, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Jeff Green
It used to be claims of “consensus.” Now you are claiming unanimity.
Ramping up the hyperbole a bit, perhaps?
##########################################################
I have brought in peer reviewed science and now you are agruing with distraction. Since you differ with the consensus of science on Greenland melting, be the Galileo and be right with all your might. Show us why all these peer reviewed articles are wrong.
KD says:
July 13, 2010 at 3:21 pm
“Plus, some of us skeptics believe…”
How can you use a phrase like that without a hint of irony?
R. Gates
The polar ice sheets have been losing mass since the end of the last ice age, and sea level has been increasing since the end of the last ice age.
Even if Congress had passed cap and trade 16,000 years ago, Chicago would not still be buried under a mile of ice.
Hansen claims five plus metres this century, and so far is only off by a factor of 15.
Jeff Green
I don’t have interest or time in digging out the details of what they are doing wrong.
My point is that their interpretation of gravity data is inconsistent with sea level data. Sea level measurements are much easier to interpret and much less prone to error. Thus I am inclined to believe the sea level data.
stevengoddard says:
July 13, 2010 at 11:35 am
Glacial rebound is not slow at all. There are places in Canada that have risen 1000 feet just since the last ice age!
GeoFlynx – My statement compared relative speeds as follows: “due to the high viscosity of the Earth’s mantle, rebound changes toward isostasy are relatively slow (like soccer) compared to gravimetric changes in melting ice.” Once the ice goes it takes a while for the mantle to catch up. In your example “since the last ice age” suggests perhaps a 10,000 year lag? Parts of New England and New York are still experiencing glacial rebound from the last glaciation, the Wisconsinan, and it has been about 12,500 years since the ice left.
Jeff Green
I use that statement without irony because, like all good scientists, I am a skeptic first, meaning that I believe in challenging “consensus” until said consensus is proven with fact and easily replicated by other scientists. Skeptics do have beliefs. The primary one being the belief to require proof before taking action.
Jeff Green
I use that statement without irony because, like all good scientists, I am a skeptic first, meaning that I believe in challenging “consensus” until said consensus is proven with fact and easily replicated by other scientists. Skeptics do have beliefs. One of the primary ones being the belief to require proof before taking actions.
GeoFlynx
So you are confirming my point. Greenland is still experiencing glacial rebound from the last ice age.
stevengoddard says:
July 13, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Jeff Green
I don’t have interest or time in digging out the details of what they are doing wrong.
My point is that their interpretation of gravity data is inconsistent with sea level data. Sea level measurements are much easier to interpret and much less prone to error. Thus I am inclined to believe the sea level data.
############################################################
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
A common error in climate debate is drawing conclusions from narrow pieces of data while neglecting the whole picture. A good example is the recent claim that sea level rise is slowing. The data cited is satellite altimeter measurements of global mean sea level over the past 16 years (Figure 1). The 60 day smoothed average (blue line) seems to indicate sea level peaked around the start of 2006. So one might argue that sea levels haven’t risen for 3 years. Could one conclude that the long term trend in sea level rise has ended?
#############################################################
Here are reasons that tidal gauge measurements are effected by variations of the earths conditions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
sea level is subjected to the inverse barometer effect
tectonic movements
glacial isostatic adjustment
############################################################
From the same article presented by David Cook based in peer reviewed science the long term trend is a continual rise in sea level. When corrections are made for the measurements that effect the tide level gauges the correlation of gravity data becomes more consistent with sea level rise.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
What we’re most interested in is the long term trends. Figure 2 shows 20 year trends from the tidal data. From 1880 to the early 1900’s, sea level was rising at around 1mm per year. Throughout most of the 20th century, sea levels have been rising at around 2mm per year. In the latter 20th century, it’s reached 3mm per year. The five most recent 20-year trends also happen to be the highest values.
KD says:
July 13, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Jeff Green
I use that statement without irony because, like all good scientists, I am a skeptic first, meaning that I believe in challenging “consensus” until said consensus is proven with fact and easily replicated by other scientists. Skeptics do have beliefs. One of the primary ones being the belief to require proof before taking actions.
############################################################
There are differnet levels of skepticism on this blog. WHat of the literature have you been reading of AGW material?
“Again if you believe to find the peer reviewed science wrong or that David Cook has misinterpeted it, by all means show us how it is wrong. Write a peer reviewed paper to show the world that your ideas are the ones we should follow.”
Go read climate audit to find out why this is impossible . The entire climategate scandal shows us there are issues with peer review in climate science. Another warrent-less challenge that means nothing.
And for the record, no one is going to go to your web site. There are many better AGW web sites to head towards that I am sure look better and have smarter people on them. I haven’t even clicked on the links and I already know your logic and reasoning are flawed.
All the alarmists still have yet to answer the underlying problem: If sea level rise is not accelerating, and the temperature series shows no warming in Greenland, what is really happening there? I mean if ice loss is happening when temperatures are not going up, doesn’t this mean that perhaps what is happening is a natural cycle? That is what conclusion a reasonable and scientific mind would come to.
Until you argue those points, your listing off some study that I could care less about is fruitless and off topic. I am not going to waste my time on figuring out how this particular data cherry-picked data to come to the conclusion that the sky is falling.
If you are going to make this claim then you should calculate the expected sea level rise from the amount of mass loss that is being measured.
Anything else from you is hot air!