Greenland retained 99.7% of its ice mass in 20th Century!!!

(Featured image borrowed from http://www.clipartbest.com)

 

Naturally, the Real Clear Science headline actually read…

Greenland Lost 9 Trillion Tons of Ice in Century

Which sounds even more serious than the original headline…

Greenland.PNG

Greenland has lost 9,000 billion tons of ice in a century

One would think that the fact that 99.7% of Greenland’s ice sheet survived the 20th Century might just be more scientifically relevant than a 0.3% loss… But I guess that doesn’t make for a very dramatic headline.

Here’s the math…

First I converted 9 trillion tons to metric tonnes.

9,000,000,000,000 tons = 8,164,662,660,000 tonnes

Then I converted tonnes to gigatonnes.

8,164,662,660,000 tonnes = 8,165 gigatonnes

Then I converted  gigatonnes of ice to cubic kilometers, assuming 1 Gt = 1 km3.

8,165 Gt ~ 8,165 km3

Note: This conversion is inexact because ice is slightly less dense than water.  But it is close enough for this exercise.

Now that I roughly knew the volume of ice loss during the 20th century, I needed to know how much ice volume was still in place. I chose to rely on the USGS and their figure of 2,600,000 km3.

So now I could calculate the percentage of ice volume which survived the 20th century…

The ice volume at the onset of the 20th century should be…

2,600,000 km3 + 8,165 km3 = 2,608,165 km3

Converting to percentage surviving the 20th century…

2,600,000 km3 / 2,608,165 km3 = 0.997 = 99.7%

 

To put the math into perspective, I’m going to actually rely on the SkepScibots

empire_state1
1 gigatonne of ice is big… Much bigger than an Olympic sized swimming pool.

So, throughout the 20th century, Greenland lost about 8,165 gigatonne ice cubes.  8,165 km3 equates to a 20 km x 20 km x 20 km cube of ice (3√ 8,165 = 20.136565).  That would be one big@$$ cube of ice!

However, it’s not even a tiny nick when spread out over roughly 1.7 million square kilometers of ice surface.  That works out a sheet of ice about 5 meters thick.

 

2,600,000 km3 / 1,700,000 km2 = 1.53 km

The average thickness of the Greenland ice sheet is approximately 1.5 km (1,500 meters).  5 meters is obviously 0.3% of 1,500 meters.

Greenland Map
Isopach map of Greenland ice sheet (Wikipedia).  The “Lost Ice Cube” represents 8,165 cubic kilometers of ice.

 

From a thickness perspective, 5 meters looks like this…

 

Greenland Xsect
Radar Cross Section of Greenland Ice Sheet (Source: Columbia University).  Note that even with a vertical exaggeration of 75 x, 5 meters is insignificant.

The red line along the top of the cross section is approximately 5 meters thick. Here is an enlarged view…

Greenland xsect2

While my math may not be exact, estimates of the volume of the Greenland ice sheet vary from 2.6 to 5.5 × 106 km3.  The difference between 2.6 and 5.5 million cubic kilometers of ice is quite a bit larger than 9,000 gigatonnes.  For that matter, GRACE derived estimates of recent (2003-2011) ice mass balance vary widely as do the glacial isostatic adjustments…

For the analyzed period, the ice mass balance of Greenland and the corresponding GIA correction are, respectively, − 256 ± 21 Gt yr−1 and − 3 ± 12 Gt yr−1 (1%) for SM09, − 253 ± 23 Gt yr−1 and − 6 ± 5 Gt yr−1 (2%) for AW13, and − 189 ± 27 Gt yr−1 and − 69 ± 19 Gt yr−1(36%) for Wu10 (table 1). At the regional scale, the ice mass estimates are more dependent on the GIA correction, especially in NE Greenland where the Wu10-GIA correction is the largest portion of the signal measured by GRACE (table 1).

From Sutterley et al., 2014

With ~±10% margins of error in modern satellite measurements of glacial mass balance and GIA accounting for up to 1/3 of the reported ice mass loss, it is truly amazing that a 0.3% reduction in the Greenland ice sheet during the 20th century can be identified with such robustness [/Sarc].

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

155 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Village Idiot
December 30, 2015 2:15 pm

So there are “Lies, damned lies, and…” what’s the other bit??

Reply to  Village Idiot
December 30, 2015 8:56 pm

and climate lies.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 31, 2015 6:32 am

I thought it was ” .. and Village Idiots”?

commieBob
December 30, 2015 2:21 pm

But I guess that doesn’t make for a very dramatic headline.

There’s an art to writing headlines. There was a race between an American car and a Soviet car. Pravda reported that the Soviet car came in second and the American car came in second last.

Hivemind
Reply to  commieBob
December 30, 2015 6:37 pm

Last time that story was told, it was a game of golf between President Nixon and the Russian President (although I’ve forgotten his name).

RichardLH
December 30, 2015 2:22 pm

Well as most of that Ice is demonstrating what happens if you pin the edges of it in rock thus you get that lovely rounded gravity driven profile there is nothing much new. 🙂
There is a big dip between the sides in the rock in the centre that doesn’t show up well in those pictures.

RichardLH
Reply to  RichardLH
December 30, 2015 2:25 pm

A ground rock profile across the ice sheet along that red line in the top right hand corner
may inform observations.

Russell
December 30, 2015 2:31 pm

I appreciate you referring to “Olympic sized swimming pool” units, but would you please express that loss in my preferred units, “state of Rhode Islands”?

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  David Middleton
December 30, 2015 5:13 pm

I use the Bronx and Staten…

Brett Keane
Reply to  David Middleton
December 31, 2015 12:55 am

I assume you mean the drinks, the one true unit of power?

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
December 31, 2015 6:34 am

I usually prefer a Manhattan after a hard day at work.

Designator
December 30, 2015 2:32 pm

3% with +/-10% margin of error. Yeah.. 8,165 Empire State buildings sounds scarier.
It’s kinda like how they report differences in temperature of 1/100 of a degree when the margin of error is 1/10, so they just report it as “Hottest Year Evah!!” And everyone is like,
“.01 degrees, 8,165 cubic km, think Empire State Buildings, big, bigness, pictures, fun, no.. rainbows smell like farts because GHGs are really an underground population of tiny soul-eating, unicorn-riding leprechauns out to destroy our skies. Yeah.. That sounds scary.”
“Margin of error? unlikely? failed hypotheses? What are these things you ‘deniers’ are ranting about over their?”
It’s only a matter of time before those CO2 molecules are depicted as leprechauns riding their CH4 evil, soul-eating unicorn counterparts while white lab coats come to the rescue saving the world by banishing them back into Hades via magical sequestration. Don’t forget, kids, hold in those farts. Save the rainbows!
“Wait. The lab coats are white. This might be inconsiderate to certain ‘ethnic minorities,’ I mean majorities.. Wait. Excuse me while I waste away pandering to this nonsense for awhile. When I get back, numbers and logic will be impossible to absorb.”
– Western Culture

December 30, 2015 2:34 pm

Jason Box is an alarmist rock star. Rational Danes see it much the same as this post

Resourceguy
December 30, 2015 3:03 pm

Maybe we should consult with the ocean currents/cycles for the other 0.3 percent, and not GRACE.

December 30, 2015 3:05 pm

DM, an outstanding essay. A wonderful example of the perspectives chapter of The Arts of Truth (which is of cours about the opposite, as the introduction explains. Congratulations on a clear, simple, and total evisceration of warmunist alarmism. Could not have happened to a more deserving website. Well done!

Med Bennett
December 30, 2015 3:20 pm

And how would they even know how much ice there actually was at the beginning of the 20th century, long before accurate measurements of this sort of thing was possible?

prjindigo
Reply to  Med Bennett
December 30, 2015 3:34 pm

Due to Glacier Girl we know it gained 268 feet since 1942…

MarkW
Reply to  prjindigo
December 31, 2015 6:35 am

The reality is that Glacier Girl sank 268 feet as the ice it was resting on subsided under the weight of new fallen snow.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  MarkW
December 31, 2015 8:52 am

The reality is that Glacier Girl sank 268 feet as the ice it was resting on subsided under the weight of new fallen snow.

Er, uhm, ah … No. That did not happen.
The packed ice underneath the aircraft, the ice that it landed on with wheels down, was already denser than the snow falling above it.

RAH
Reply to  prjindigo
December 31, 2015 7:48 pm

That team dug down through more than 200′ of ice for a P-38 F model aircraft. The P-38 F was the first operational model of that very advanced for it’s time fighter aircraft but still had plenty of problems. Even in those early days of WW II the P-38 had a longer range than any fighter the allied powers had. Long enough to ferry it from Goose Bay to Greenland to Iceland to Scotland. Even if it did have to fly through some of the least predictable bad weather on the globe. And those doing the ferrying weren’t specialists. They were the fighter jocks that would take the aircraft into combat when they reached N. Africa where US forces would first face. So a B-17 with it’s four engines and dedicated navigator and more capable radios with dedicated operator would act as a mother ship for a gaggle of P-38s. Remember this was in the day when navigation was done by dead reckoning, terrain association, star sightings/sun lines, and radio beams.
The reason why Glacier Girl was under the ice in the first place and why some other P-38s, B-17s, and C-47s remain under Greenlands Ice because the U-boat scourge impelled the US to ferry P-38s to Europe and then down to N. Africa. At the beginning of the war the P-38 was the most advanced fighter the US had . It was deemed essential by George Marshall and the planners of ‘Torch” (the invasion of N. Africa) that at least 100 P-38s be available to support the initial operations with more needed later. But the US accelerated ship building programs were not yet exceeding losses to the U-boats and wouldn’t until early in 1943. Meanwhile the supplies needed to keep going to the UK and Russia while at the same time the US was trying to launch an invasion of N. Africa with multiple Divisons including an Armored Division which required massive amount of transport. And at about the same time launching it’s first offensive thrust in the form of “Watch Tower” putting the first Marine Div. to be reinforced on Guadalcanal and Tulagi in the Solomon islands.
It was deemed that a 10% loss of aircraft and crew was acceptable for this ferrying operation. That’s how desperate the situation was. As it turned out losses of all types of aircraft was under 5% with most of the crews being rescued. In fact the ferry operations were judged to be such a success that plans were made to ferry 4,000 P-38s to Europe. But by May of 1943 the Allies had won what Churchill termed “The Battle of the Atlantic” . U-boats would still take their toll but were being sunk in greater numbers and sinking less Allied shipping tonnage while at the same time the US Ship building programs were taking effect. (In the years of 1944 and 1945 the US launched more total tonnage of all types of vessels than the combined total from all other nations of the world.) This fact plus the advent of developing racks that fit on the decks of tankers to carry fighter and some types of light and medium bomber aircraft made it possible to ship enough of the aircraft instead which was much safer and economical so from then on only the larger aircraft continued to be ferried.
The P-38 was the ONLY US fighter aircraft that remained in production as a front line fighter from before Pearl Harbor through VJ day. It was the type flown by the top US WW II aces, Dick Bong and Tommy McGuire. I find it Ironic that men would go to the great trouble and expense of digging down through 100s of feet of ice to recover a P-38 F when at the end of WW II one could buy a brand new surplus P-38 L model which was a far more advanced and reliable aircraft for $1,200. Now days there are less than 20 P-38 fighters of all models still flying which makes it a very rare beast and that is why it was worth recovering Glacier Girl.

December 30, 2015 3:22 pm

I am at a loss at the very insignificant loss in a 100 years.
John

Reply to  John Whitman
December 30, 2015 4:48 pm

What warmunists do not explain, but which would if they would, explains your loss of explanation. Greenland is a bathtub shaped underlying geology. Essay Tipping Points in ebook Blowing Smoke even provides multiple geological surveys. We are talking several thousand feet of depression/ rim mountain fringe. So the only ice that is lost is on the ‘outside’ of the bathtub. On the interior, it still accumulates. Glacier Girl landed on the interior. And now you know at what rate it accumulates on the interior of the ‘bathtub’. QED.

MarkW
Reply to  ristvan
December 31, 2015 6:37 am

If snow in the interior was accumulating at the rate of 200+ feet in 60 years, then the height of the interior ice should be hundreds of miles high by now.
It’s flowing out somewhere.

dp
December 30, 2015 3:33 pm

Is this surprising given the LIA ended a short time prior to this time frame? I expected more but then I’m still waiting for my flying car.

dp
Reply to  David Middleton
December 31, 2015 2:47 pm

Yes – meaning melting would be the next natural thing to expect. I’m left wondering why the alarmists find it alarming when an expected melt happens. Given the scale of their alarm I expected to see base rock in the satellite images. Who wouldn’t given the clamor they set up and the taxpayer money that has been wasted on it.

December 30, 2015 3:35 pm

8,165 cubic km divided by 360,000,000 square kms of oceans = 0.00002268 km sea level rise = 0.022681 metres = 2.268056 cm = 0.892935 inches…in a century…call off the hysteria… (and please correct my math if I’m wrong)…

mrmethane
Reply to  Eric Booth
December 30, 2015 4:15 pm

“They” say 2mm/year rise over the past kazillion years so your quick math reveals that G-land “could” contribute about 1/10 of that. Got quite a shake for a few seconds last nite – how about your place? /mark

Lance of BC
Reply to  mrmethane
December 30, 2015 5:44 pm

Yep, we got the shaker/roller here last night, I thought it was large truck going by! hehe!
Fortunately it was small and some 48km under Sidney(or close).

Catcracking
Reply to  Eric Booth
December 30, 2015 4:28 pm

I did not check your math but after subsidence of the ocean floor the net might be a negative number. The claims from CAGW are not very scientific when all is taken into account.

R Shearer
December 30, 2015 3:37 pm
Marcus
Reply to  R Shearer
December 30, 2015 3:51 pm

Hahaha!! Check out The Weather Network. http://www.theweathernetwork.c… Current temp at N pole is -23 and -33 is forecast for tomorrow. Two week forecast shows nothing above -20 for the next two weeks. Situation normal at Climate Panic Central

Marcus
Reply to  Marcus
December 30, 2015 3:52 pm

That was a Bruce Daniels comment at the Atlantic….

Marcus
Reply to  R Shearer
December 30, 2015 4:03 pm

OMG…it’s worse than we thought. The meteorologist at the Atlantic mixed up the North Pole with North Pole,Alaska !!! LMAO ….

R Shearer
Reply to  Marcus
December 30, 2015 4:06 pm

Where Santa lives?

Reply to  Marcus
December 30, 2015 4:50 pm

Not where Santa lives. Where the tourist attraction Santa house lives, in the suburbs of Fairbanks, below the Arctic Circle.

peter
Reply to  Marcus
December 31, 2015 1:23 pm

Over at the Huff post someone pointed this out, and provided a link to this article. He was instantly derided for thinking anything true could be posted on this site. As near as I can tell to the majority over there the mere fact that WUWT that posted this correction is defacto proof that the original story was correct.
how can you argue with a mind set like that?

prjindigo
December 30, 2015 3:39 pm

Dunno if my post-reply way above worked:
Someone tell Groanpeace that Greenland lost aproximately 27,000 trillion liters of freshwater over the last century. (26,675,951,219,512,194.598l after density adjust, but I figured they’d want to round up by the actual amount lost from total volume just to have an easy number to write up)

prjindigo
Reply to  prjindigo
December 30, 2015 3:40 pm

* IF the perimeter of the glacier is uniform for its entire height.

Anthony
December 30, 2015 3:48 pm

And THAT’S what you call an “attention getter” headline. Big numbers attract people, even if they mean very little. People read headlines say “huh”, and move on.

December 30, 2015 4:00 pm

99.7% of scientists believing 99.7% of remaining ice with a 99.7% level of certainty and a 99.7% error margin??

December 30, 2015 4:27 pm

So let’s see how that compares with the volume of ice that disappeared since the glacial maximum:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/43/15296.full.pdf
“29 to 21 ka BP with a maximum grounded ice volume of ∼52 ×10^6 km^3 greater than today;…”
This ice lost equates to 52,000,000 Gt lost since ~25,000 yrsBP. One century loss in Greenland therefore represents 8000/52,000,000 = 0.000154, or 0.015% of the total ice lost since the glacial maximum. This total period is 250 centuries, so the average loss per century since the glacial max is 52,000,000/250= ~208,000Gt per century so Greenland’s ice loss in one century is ~8000/200,000 or approximately 4% of the average century ice loss.
Wow, ice loss has been slowing down amazingly in recent centuries. Perhaps we are nearing the earth’s ice minimum before it begins climbing again.

bobfj
December 30, 2015 5:06 pm

Worryingly, some authoritative institutions make sensational claims about Greenland that are not credible, such as this from Washington University; “Greenland’s fastest glacier sets new speed record”:
“…in summer of 2012 the glacier [in Danish; Jakobshavn] reached a record speed of more than 10.5 miles (17 kilometers) per year, or more than 150 feet (46 meters) per day. These appear to be the fastest flow rates recorded for any glacier or ice stream in Greenland or Antarctica, researchers said… …But they point out that even the glacier’s average annual speed over the past couple of years is nearly three times its average annual speed in the 1990s.”
But, the retreat record since 1850 is incoherent and very contradictory per this NASA image:
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d14a1056970c-pi
Source 1, NASA: http://tinyurl.com/nrjwur7
Source 2: Updating information: http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2015/08/jakobshavn-record-retreat.html
The updating source tries to be scary about a big calving in mid-August 2015, (slightly short of the end of the normal melt season) but the satellite shots suggest that there is virtually no retreat 2013 through 2015. The fastest annual retreat by far was in the season 2002-3 of some 5 or 6 km/year but awkwardly, between 1964 and 2001, the retreat rate was comparatively very low. (Only around one kilometre, spread over seven years, or a factor of some 35 times slower). Also, the total retreat in the last eleven or twelve years looks to be around half of that of 2001 through 2004, = very much slower in the last decade and especially “the past couple of years”!

H.R.
December 30, 2015 5:42 pm

The alarmism of meaningless large numbers reminds me of The Day The Dam Broke, by James Thurber. Those familiar with the short story will get my drift immediately.
If you’re not familiar with that piece, here’s a link. It’s a very short read and will add some perspective to the constant clanging of climate alarmism.
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2011/01/thurber-tonight-my-life-and-hard-times_09.html

lee
December 30, 2015 5:55 pm

‘ We estimate the total ice mass loss and its spatial distribution for three periods: 1900–1983 (75.1 ± 29.4 gigatonnes per year), 1983–2003 (73.8 ± 40.5 gigatonnes per year), and 2003–2010 (186.4 ± 18.9 gigatonnes per year).’
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v528/n7582/full/nature16183.html
Seems to be in gigatonnes already.

lee
Reply to  David Middleton
December 31, 2015 3:35 am

Not enough to worry about. But the article seemed to use 9,000 billion tons, whereas the article extrapolates at 9,013 gigatonnes; if my math is correct. So that the article seems to have conflated tons and tonnes

lee
Reply to  David Middleton
December 31, 2015 3:36 am

the Nature article extrapolates.

Bob
December 30, 2015 6:20 pm

In 1889 the Jules Verne book, “In the Year 2889” was published. The main character in the story is a wealthy newspaper owner. People would come to him with requests for him to fund their inventions or ideas.
“As you are aware, sir,” began applicant No. 3, “by the aid of our solar and terrestrial accumulators and transformers, we are able to make all the seasons the same. I propose to do something better still. Transform into heat a portion of the surplus energy at our disposal; send this heat to the poles; then the polar regions, relieved of their snow-cap, will become a vast territory available for man’s use. What think you of the scheme?”
I’m saying it is a good, or even practical idea, but it does illustrate an attitude different from those concerned about a 0.3% loss of ice.

oblongau
Reply to  Bob
December 30, 2015 7:24 pm

Typo: “I’m not saying it is a good…”

Willigan
December 30, 2015 6:51 pm

In your third to last paragraph you say:
“The difference between 2.6 and 5.5 million cubic kilometers of ice is quite a bit larger than 9 trillion gigatonnes.”
I think you meant to say 9 trillion tons or 9,000 gigatons.

Mike
December 30, 2015 7:04 pm

http://sciencenordic.com/greenland-has-lost-9000-billion-tons-ice-century

The new study is the first of its kind to reconstruct the amount of ice lost from the Greenland ice sheet in the 20th century, based on observations rather than model predictions.

Well that’s a good start. At least someone’s realising that you need to start with observation in science.

In the 20th century, Greenland has lost around 9,000 gigatons of ice, accounting for 25 millimetres of sea level rise that is missing in the latest IPCC report.
According to Professor Jason Box from Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, the new data will make the predictions of climate change and sea level rise even more robust.
Oooo! Even more “robust” than they aren’t already. Fab.

“It’s an elegant study in which we use the information from the landscape and old photos to reconstruct the loss of ice since 1900. It provides a more complete picture of how Greenland has changed over the past 11 decades,” says Box.

Ooooo, elegant, not less. Robust and elegant at the same time.
Too busy being “elegant” to point out the error margin on an estimated change of 0.3%
Now 0.3% +/- 20% does not sound too “robust” to me. It sounds like hype.
Excellent article by David.

tom
December 30, 2015 7:38 pm

Your conclusion seems both robust and novel.

Lance of BC
Reply to  tom
December 31, 2015 1:45 am

+1,,and “unprecedented”

Verified by MonsterInsights