As WUWT readers are aware, there has been a great deal of attention paid by the main stream media to the extensive melt on the Greenland icecap that occurred during July (for example, see here, here, here, here, and here). The topic was addressed here at WUWT in two postings here and here. Anthony noted in the later posting that Andrew Revkin was almost alone in taking a more nuanced and skeptical view of the unprecedented nature of the event and has taken a fair amount of heat in comments for his effort.
I’m sure it will confirm the worst suspicions of some of Anthony’s critics, but Fox News has just posted an article on line: NASA’s claim that Greenland is experiencing “unprecedented” melting is nothing but a bunch of hot air, according to scientists who say the country’s ice sheets melt with some regularity.
A heat dome over the icy country melted a whopping 97 percent of Greenland’s ice sheet in mid-July, NASA said, calling it yet more evidence of the effect man is having on the planet.
But the unusual-seeming event had nothing to do with hot air, according to glaciologists. It was actually to be expected.
“Ice cores from Summit station [Greenland’s coldest and highest] show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.
The writer of the article contacted Anthony for comment:
“It’s somewhat like the rush to blame severe weather and drought on global warming,” Anthony Watts, a noted climate skeptic and the author of the Watts Up With That blog, told FoxNews.com. “Yet when you look into the past, you find precedence for what is being described today as unprecedented.”
Read the whole article here.
I’m sure our readers don’t really need to have it pointed out that the melting event did not melt 97% of Greenland’s ice sheet, but rather occurred over 97% of the surface area of the ice sheet and that the melting event has ended. We will undoubtedly be treated to that 97% statistic for a long time to come.
H/T to commenters PRD and David L. Hagen
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Solar input this summer is no different (even fractionally lower) than decade ago, what is different is the nearby SST, which is currently at peak of the 65 year natural cycle .
The SST is the trailing, while the atmospheric pressure is the leading indicator.
Greenland ice melt isn’t foretelling the future, it is a delayed reaction to the past absorbed energy.
97%? Isn’t that the same as the percent of scientists in the “consensus”?
Fox is MSM, and they frequently interview Mucho Kooky who is pro-AGW. But they are the least strident of the MSM as pertains to AGW. So, one element of the MSM who airs one doubting article isn’t a bow wave. I hope it’s a start, but none of the other media groups will pick this up.
97% of the surface area. It was not that long ago the alarmists were lecturing that it was volume, not surface area that mattered.
“melted a whopping 97 percent of Greenland’s ice sheet”
So Washington D.C. is now underwater? We’re saved!!
NPR just had a report, parroting the ‘unprecidented’ line.
In same breath, they mentioned the 150 year melt cycle. They asked the scientwit (Jason Fox) what this current melt event means in the context of that observed cycle, and instead of answering that question the jackass launched into the ‘we expect these events will be more common in the future’ warmist talking point.
We know that it is happening, because we expect it to get worse. This is ‘science’.
When journalism’s pressure to produce an “exclusive story” exceeds political pressures, the truth will appear. …except this is Fox News, where journalism already does exceed political pressures.
We wish!
I believe we will be seeing this same metric for Spring and Summer melt ponds on floating Arctic ice. And it WILL be unprecedented! If surface melt can be detected on Greenland’s icesheet, it can be detected on Arctic ice. The headline will read something like, “97% of Arctic ice surface has melted!”
Wow, “melted a whopping 97 percent of Greenland’s ice sheet in mid-July”? Just, wow. Yet another example of the pitiful state of scientific and technical journalism that fills the old-style media. One steaming pile of *bleep* stacked upon another.
Physics Major says:
July 26, 2012 at 11:37 am
Yes, it’s the climastrologists favorite number! Well, except when forecasting the future where 90% spells certain doom; OK, very likely doom.
““Ice cores from Summit station [Greenland’s coldest and highest] show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.”
Kind of like a certain solar cycle.
I’m familiar with trying to engage some of my more pro-AGW aquaintances on this issue.
Here’s a post by one of them that I responded too (knowing it was a lost cause, but the post was just too much for me.
His post:
“Fun Fact: Never in recorded history has more than 55% of Greenland’s icecap experienced summer melt. This year? 97%. But there is no global warming. ”
My Response:
“Your ‘fun fact’ is absolutely erroneous. The facts are that Greenland’s ice cap is not experiencing ‘melt’, the surface of Geenlands ice cap is (and that is what the 97% figure refers to). The two are ENTIRELY different. If 97% of Greenland entire ice cap melted it would immediately raise sea levels by about 2 feet. Has that happened? Greenlands surface melt occurs EVERY year, just in different proportions. I know the article stated “unprecedented’ surface melt, but, if you read the article, the author states, ““Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.” I’m not sure, but last time I checked, ‘unprecedented’ doesn’t mean ‘once every 150 years’. ”
His response:
“Apparently Bill, you said it occurs regularly. But in 1889, it did not reach 97%. BTW, the earth experienced a volcanic winter in 1887-1888. Can you say that didn’t affect weather patterns the next year? You’re a damned fool Bill. Sue for a refund.”
Okay then.
“melted a whopping 97 percent of Greenland’s ice sheet”
Every Manns dream… 🙂
*FAINT*
My FIRST hat tip!!
We won’t worry about how many years of reading this site it took me to learn what H/T meant.
“97% of the surface area”
Which equals what? 1% of the volume?
I can’t help but wonder about the MSM (even Fox News). While in the first paragraph the Fox News article states that the NASA claim of “Unprecedented” Melting is unfounded, it makes a very grievous error and states in the second paragraph that 97% of the ice sheet has melted.
Even the Pro-truth (skeptic) Fox News can get their facts skewed
Wow, climate alarmists love 97, and yes, it was also used in the consensus argument as well, both similar, in that they are poor statistics with little factual basis behind them, but what they lack in facts, they make up in agenda.
To the Warmistas Fox News is not MSM. They consider Fox another limb of Big Oil, Koch, and the RNC or whatever other nefarious organization the Warmers believe is paying Fox this week.
Likely if they see it at all they will just snicker and say “Faux News again” Most people that watch Fox already have a healthy amount of skepticism.
Usually it takes a few decades in Greenland for enough overburden to accumulate to seal the air bubbles in the firn layer. But events like this would quickly freeze over and instantly seal everything beneath. This might complicate the dating of ice core CO2 readings, if sometime there’s a 20 year lag, and sometime no lag at all.
The great thing is that now, whenever the doomsayers cry that the greenland ice cap is going to melt, we can say “So what? 97% of it already melted back in 2012.”
Actually, to be accurate let’s acknowledge that the contra statement by the glaciologist seems weak. She says it happens about every 150 years based on ice cores from the summit. It seems to me that if you want to claim there is melt over 97% of the icecap, you need to base this on cores from around the icecap. What she may have meant was “Ice cores from the summit indicate it gets warm enough to melt ice at the summit about every 150 years. We assume that when it is warm enough for melt at the summit that it is warm enough to cause melt over 97% of the icecap.”
Funny I keep looking at the summit base cam and so far I don’t see any water. As far as I can see the snow doesn’t look like it has melted. The outside temp is -12C. Not a whole lot of swimming going on 🙂
Bill Marsh says:
“Apparently Bill, you said it occurs regularly. But in 1889, it did not reach 97%.”
And he has the horse-drawn satellite data to prove it!
Geeze, what maroon.
Your response to him was too long, and too complex. You need to talk a lot slower and spoon feed things one at a time morons like that. Start by explaining that, when he sees any variation of the word “record” used in refrence to climate, he needs to find out what time period that refers to. “Never in recorded history” does not necessarily go back any further than last week, let alone to any period before he was born.
Please fix URL to Andrew Revkin’s post
July 25, 2012, 1:25 pm ‘Unprecedented’ Greenland Surface Melt – Every 150 Years?
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/unprecedented-greenland-surface-melt-every-150-years/