If “Greenland is catastrophically melting”, how do alarmists explain NASA’s growing Greenland glacier?

This photo of a dog sled team going through some meltwater on ice in Greenland has made headlines….but it’s just a snapshot of one place, with summer approaching. Nothing really all that unusual is going on.

Climate scientist Steffen Olsen took this picture while travelling across melted sea ice in north-west Greenland (Source: BBC UK)

Melting as summer approaches is natural, and spikes of fast melting due to lack of cloud cover and clear skies are not unprecedented, as some overwrought people (Bill McKibben comes to mind) like to claim.

We’ve covered it before in 2012 – along with the same level of catastrophic squawking.

In the image above, you can see that there’s a quick batch of surface meltwater visible to satellite. The cause was simple, and not catastrophic. In fact, it happens regularly on century-long scales.

It turned out to be a weather event, unrelated to “climate change”. The next year, there was no “insta-melt“.

In fact. we’d not even know about the melting in Greenland before satellites came on the scene. So how many times in the history of the Earth has Greenland has a quick melt spike? I’m guessing hundreds of thousands of times.

Meanwhile, NASA Earth Observatory has this to say:

Major Greenland Glacier Is Growing

June 6th, 2019 Jakobshavn Glacier in western Greenland . Image acquired on June 6, 2019, by the Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8, shows a natural-color view of the glacier.

Jakobshavn Glacier in western Greenland is notorious for being the world’s fastest-moving glacier. It is also one of the most active, discharging a tremendous amount of ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet into Ilulissat Icefjord and adjacent Disko Bay—with implications for sea level rise. The image above, acquired on June 6, 2019, by the Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8, shows a natural-color view of the glacier.

Jakobshavn has spent decades in retreat—that is, until scientists observed an unexpected advance between 2016 and 2017. In addition to growing toward the ocean, the glacier was found to be slowing and thickening. New data collected in March 2019 confirm that the glacier has grown for the third year in a row, and scientists attribute the change to cool ocean waters.

“The third straight year of thickening of Greenland’s biggest glacier supports our conclusion that the ocean is the culprit,” said Josh Willis, an ocean scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and principal investigator of the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) mission.

2016 – 2019 Download the large JPEG image

The maps above show how the glacier’s height changed between March 2016 and 2017 (top); March 2017 and 2018 (middle); and March 2018 and 2019 (bottom). The elevation data come from a radar altimeter that has been flown on research airplanes each spring as part of OMG. Blue areas represent where the glacier’s height has increased, in some areas by as much as 30 meters per year.

The change is particularly striking at the glacier’s front (solid blue area on the left) between 2016 and 2017. That’s when the glacier advanced the most, replacing open water and sea ice with towering glacial ice. The glacier has not advanced as much since then, but it continues to slow and thicken.

Willis compared the glacier’s behavior to silly putty. “Pull it from one end and it stretches and gets thinner, or squash it together and it gets thicker,” he said. The latter scenario is what is happening now as the glacier slows down: Notice that by the third year, thickening is occurring across an increasingly wide area.

Willis and colleagues think the glacier is reacting to a shift in a climate pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation, which has brought cold water northward along Greenland’s west coast. Measurements of the temperatures collected by the OMG team show that the cold water has persisted.

“Even three years after the cold water arrived, the glacier is still reacting,” Willis said. “I’m really excited to go back this August and measure the temperature again. Is it still cold? Or has it warmed back up?”

NASA Earth Observatory images by Joshua Stevens, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey, and data courtesy of Josh Willis/NASA JPL and the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) Program. Story by Kathryn Hansen.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
June 19, 2019 4:02 pm

The picture of the sled dogs in standing water is rather like the cachexic polar bear a few years ago, much more striking an image than actually revealing anything about the Arctic.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 20, 2019 12:43 am

It reveals that by the wonder of cheap fossil fuels, a lot more photographers are going to the Arctic.

A century ago, almost no one but the most sophisticated and costly teams could get to the Arctic. Today, almost any idiot can and does go there and with cameras that are largely idiot proof many of them can take amazing pictures …. without a clue what they mean.

Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
June 20, 2019 6:19 am

The idiot that reported this is Dr. Jason Box. His monitoring tools produced the curve.

Be careful with how you criticize.


Reply to  Ken
June 20, 2019 7:58 am

The odd thing about his monitoring curve is that this dramatic spike isn’t nearly as dramatic in DMI:s version:


And after all they are the ones who actually have weather stations there.

And if he is actually an arctic specialist he will presumably be aware that meltwater pools on sea-ice is perfectly normal in summer.

Reply to  tty
June 21, 2019 2:07 am

Yep. It’s when they don’t get melt water pools during the summer that it is time to start paying attention.

Lorne Newell
Reply to  Ken
June 22, 2019 1:21 am

One of my first questions would be: Who paid him to do this trip. Next question what is his annual income. Putting food on the table is important.
Follow the money.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
June 20, 2019 10:22 am

I recall that several years ago some folks not familiar with the Arctic were visiting the North Pole and saw several polynas. These openings in the sea ice form regularly due to ocean currents moving the ice around. But the visitors didn’t know this and wrote an article in the New York Times proclaiming that the Arctic was melting. As usual, the panic traveled half-way around the world before the truth could get its boots on.

June 19, 2019 4:06 pm

“as some overwrought people (Bill McKiebben )”..McKibben ?
Great post Anthony…

June 19, 2019 4:12 pm

“It turned out to be a weather event, unrelated to “climate change”.

The last 30 years has been a series of weather events, but the alarmists point to all weather events, including cold weather events, as evidence of global warming and climate change. Even if we have a severe volcanic forcing leaving us with no summer for a few seasons’s and a billion people die of starvation, this is still a weather event. And 30 years is a fairly short duration to even judge what exactly is happening with climate, and what is natural and what is human caused. We don’t even fully understand natural climate change, so making statements about normal weather events is meaningless.

Regarding the surface water on the snow/ice, that must have some effect on how that season is recorded in the annual layering when looked at in an ice core a century from now. I can only assume that many ice cores we study have been similarly altered and affected from ponded melt water on the ice. Being told it takes many years for accumulated snow to turn into compacted ice sort of makes all that seem like fiction too.

Reply to  Earthling2
June 19, 2019 8:07 pm

This is not caused by “weather”.
comment image
comment image

Reply to  Loydo
June 19, 2019 9:29 pm

Given that Greenland has 2,850,000 cubic kilometres of ice, the recent loss of a very small amount of ice (4000 Gt) relatively speaking to the total ice sheet mass is a rounding error. That is .00014% melting the last 17 years according to your link. It would take 14,000 years to all melt at current melting rates. We don’t even see much of an acceleration in SLR from all the supposed melting of the icecaps at both hemispheres, although I suspect Antarctica is probably growing to a similar amount than is lost in Greenland including all the mountain glaciers. It would even be weirder if everything just stayed the same forever. I am not worried and you shouldn’t be either.

Reply to  Earthling2
June 19, 2019 10:51 pm

Uh huh. But you agree with my statement: This is not caused by “weather”.

Reply to  Loydo
June 19, 2019 11:35 pm

If sealevel rise is not accelerating, its weather.

Nice try, again.

Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 12:08 am


It´s weather. Without “”s.

Another Paul
Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 4:48 am

Why does melting glacial ice during an interglaical period always cause so much concern? Isn’t that exactly why they named it interglaical in the first place?

paul courtney
Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 10:18 am

Loydo: When the Laurentide sheet melted back, it wasn’t weather. Hard to imagine your state of panic if you’d been around back then. Put aside what word we use to describe it, instead tell us, what caused the Laurentide (vastly more ice than anything we see melting off Greenland) to melt? After you tell us that, you can then tell us what’s different about the current melt from the Laurentide melt. “Til then, you should consider the old adage about keeping quiet, so we only THINK you’re a fool.

Reply to  Loydo
June 21, 2019 6:44 am

Looydoo sez:
This is not caused by “weather”.

At least try to get simple definitions right. It’s ALWAYS weather. “”””Climate”””” is a math-construct.

Radical Rodent
Reply to  Earthling2
June 20, 2019 2:07 am

I do note that the start of the graph is around 1980; i.e. around the end of “The ice age cometh!” scare. Is it possible that, at the start of this graph, sea ice extent was anomalously high? Very possible, when you view the data since satellite measurements began, in 1973, which shows that the sea ice has slowly gone back to that extent, then.

Reply to  Loydo
June 19, 2019 10:21 pm

Oh my!
Again, you reproduce a simplistic straight-line extrapolation of a cyclical trend of a 66-70 year sea ice cycle, extrapolating it past its highest ever measured point, extrapolating down below its lowest values. For fully 1/3 of the measured years, minimum sea ice has not continued decreasing, but has been steady since 2007.

By the way, less sea ice in the Arctic year-round, more heat energy is lost to space by increased LW radiation from the exposed ocean waters, increased convection losses to the air, increased evaporation from the open ocean, and increased conduction by loss of the insulating ice blanket.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
June 20, 2019 6:14 am

Again, you wave your arms aroung and provide nothing to back up your 66-70 year claim.
Doesn’t look cyclical to me.

September/October seaice has flattened but every other month shows continuing decreases because its become warmer since 2007.

On track this year for a record low or near record low. I know, you expect things to turn around any time soon because warmer means less ice means more heat radiates away means colder. Warmer means colder, right?

Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 7:17 am

The existence of 60 to 70 year cycles is well documented already.
I’m surprised you are still able to ignore them.

Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 8:06 am

We are going to play snap in future with “Loydo random graph of the day”. So any day we see a Loydo random graph first to reply snap wins and gets one to their score tally.

Bryan A
Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 12:36 pm

Warmer means Colder seems to be the AGW narrative
As in a warming world means more cold spells in the great plains of the USA

Pat Frank
Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 1:08 pm

There’s no larger significance to any melting glaciers on Greenland, Loydo.

The climate has warmed and some glaciers are melting back. So, what? That just means the climate has become more clement.

We can expect milder weather extremes, a longer growing season, and prosperity in a warmer climate.

There’s no evidence whatever that human CO2 emissions — your implicit grounds of concern — have impacted the climate in any way (except for the general greening-up of the global ecology)

Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 9:02 pm

So there is “evidence whatsoever”?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Loydo
June 21, 2019 9:18 am

Witty riposte, Loydo.

How about, no evidence of any scientific kind that human CO2 emissions have impacted the climate (except for the greening).

Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 7:15 am

It’s not caused by climate either. It’s caused by normal cycles in the North Atlantic.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 10:39 am

We’re talking about glaciers and you present pictures of sea ice?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 20, 2019 4:23 pm

Next week will get pictures of the ice in his freezer.

Reply to  Earthling2
June 19, 2019 8:57 pm

Greetings Earthling2, I am currently writing a political play that has the Yellowstone super-volcano blowing up on a scale similar to what you describe in your comment but the worst-case scenario could be a mass-extinction event:

As winter approaches, take heart in the fact that it won’t last 80 years. That’s how long two volcanic winters may have lasted after two separate explosions of the Yellowstone volcano about 630,000 years ago, the same eruptions that formed the Yellowstone caldera, and the last big eruptions of the volcano. The explosions occurred about 170 years apart and helped drop the ocean surface temperature by about 5.4 degrees.

However, this worst-case scenario happening in our lifetimes is extremely unlikely and the Yellowstone super-volcano may never have an eruption again.

The poetic irony of the play is the Green Party character recognizing that the preparation against global warming was misdirected energy that should have gone to preparing against weather events and natural catastrophes.

Reply to  Herk
June 19, 2019 10:30 pm

This is why I believe we should try and argue that any public funds that are spent on climate mitigation efforts are spent wisely on things we will need anyway to protect from weather events and natural catastrophes. Things like expanding and hardening/securing our electricity grids, investing in flood capture control by monetizing water as a comodity, and planing for eventual sea level rise with storm surge barriers, to list just a few. Unfortunately, things like a carbon tax that just go into general revenues to win elections for the governing party wind up lowering overall economic activity so that we don’t have the monies to pay for the resilience that is always required from normal everyday weather and natural catastrophes. Hopefully Yellowstone doesn’t pop off in the mean time since that would seriously crimp our style.

Reply to  Earthling2
June 20, 2019 12:14 am

One of the reasons I recently switched from the Greens to the Peace & Freedom Party was there lack of understanding on how to properly prepare for future developments- over the years I reached out to their leaders (Nader, Cobb, Stein, Hawkins) and their followers about many issues such as pushing for direct federal governmental investment in wave technology instead of the totally eliminating fossil fuels fantasy with no success- I wish I could write for a worthwhile congressional candidate (running against the candidates of the two evil war parties) that believes in strengthening and expanding the electrical grid wisely and gradually; unfortunately, political parties have divided us so deeply that almost none of the many Liberals, Progressives, Socialists and Greens that I have encountered are willing to support my idea of a Green Libertarian Socialist Labor Party voting coalition so for now I am going back to writing plays that address our fascist police state style. Thanks for your response.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Herk
June 20, 2019 6:18 pm

progressives never mean the compassion they tout, Herk. They have supported every single mass-murdering collectivist state of the 20th century, including Fascist Germany.

You’re being duped by their rhetoric.

Whenever Progressives get into power, the result has been tyranny, thought crimes and mass-murder. Without fail.

Take a look at what’s happening in Canada right now. Under advancing Progressive control, Canada now has legislated thought crimes. Make a gender dysphoriac cry because you used the pronoun of biological reference, go to jail.

It’s a generational march to tyranny.

I published Progressivism is Hostile to Humanism, that lays out the case.

Progressives oppose every single Enlightenment value that makes our civilization worth supporting: freedom of conscience, freedom of association, freedom of speech.

Progressives stand in opposition to every single one of them.

That case is obviously made in the headlines describing suppression of speech, association, and conscience on college campuses all across the West. By progressives.

Once again, Herk, you’re being duped by progressive rhetoric. They don’t mean what they say. The issue is not the issue, remember?

Their words are just a vehicle to power. Their way is paved with useful idiots.

Support Progressives, collude in murder.

Reply to  Herk
June 21, 2019 6:34 am

Unfortunately, I feel that many Americans are being duped into voting for the Democrats with liberal rhetoric and are being tricked into voting for the Republicans with conservative beliefs who represent mostly Neo-Liberal governance and Neo-Conservative foreign policies while We The People are being controlled by the FED (and the other big banksters) and our elections are being purchased by corporate interests; without the freedom to vote out our corporatized parasites in free and fair elections there will no worthwhile progress made in American Society just many broken promises, unnecessary subsidies, crushing taxes and token gestures made by our politicians while manipulative warmongering for blood-money profits remains unchecked so that is why my activism is primarily focused on the totally non-partisan movement of establishing a real democracy by getting rid of the instruments of tyranny (abolishing the electoral college, repealing FECA, replacing the hackable voting machines and ending Citizens United) and my main goal, speaking as an aspiring political speechwriter, is to work for a worthwhile congressional candidate that will actually represent the victimized masses instead of our mass-murdering Fascist Rulers hellbent on global domination. Ironically, the Peace and Freedom Party might have a more compatible candidate for me to work for than either the Greens or the Libertarians because my political blog is called Green Libertarian. Luckily, my desire to speak freely against our fascist police state has opened my conscious enough to freely associate with any anti-war party who supports peace and freedom regardless of their ideology, the basis of a new Green Libertarianism. Thanks for your interest.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Herk
June 21, 2019 9:31 am

The first thing you might do to improve your speech writing skill, Herk, is to make use of paragraph divisions.

The US is not a Fascist police state. There are no Fascist state observables in the structure of US politics.

There is no ‘everything inside the state, nothing outside the state.’

There is no resting of privileges on adherence to a party line (as is the case in China, for example). There is no government-enforced trampling upon individual rights (as is the case in China, for example).

There is no police oversight of your daily life, no thought-crimes, no political show-trials.

The absent traits are characteristic of Fascist states. None are present in the US.

The Electoral College provides protection against the tyranny of the majority, Herk. It gives the rural population some political clout against domination by the few large population centers. A Libertarian would support that.

If you see problems then by all means apply yourself to them. But seeing problems through the lens of a political ideology such as Progressivism is just a way to substitute new problems — usually worse ones — for the old problems.

Reply to  Earthling2
June 20, 2019 9:28 am

Yes, one (1) glacier has been growing for three years…

Reply to  François
June 21, 2019 6:49 am

Good thing you weren’t living during the world-wide glacial melting at the beginning of the Holocene. You’d really be wringing your hands.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Earthling2
June 20, 2019 10:37 am

When I was on the edge of the glacier east of Thule AB (Camp Tuto) in July of 1966, I observed an Arctic Fox running on the surface of the glacier. However, the surface was a slush that I doubt would have supported the weight of a human, at least not without snow shoes. I threw a large cobble (maybe 10 lbs) as far as I could and it sunk what appeared to be well over a foot into the slush. Such a drastic modification of the surface (annually?) would certainly call into question the temporal resolution of CO2 measurements in drill cores. From inside the tunnel that the Army had driven into the glacier, a melt water stream could be heard flowing when an air shaft being driven upward got near enough to the surface for blue light to be seen. At the base of the ice tunnel, there were intermixed layers of clear and sediment filled ice that were shearing upward from the uneven topography, adding yet another variable to the dating of the ice, particularly in cores that get near the bottom.

Alan Mackintosh
June 19, 2019 4:52 pm

Any picture manipulation folk had a close look at this image yet? I found it a bit strange that any sledder would take a valuable team out onto open melt water. I had a look and found some distortion on the right sled runner and on the dog lines.

Curious George
Reply to  Alan Mackintosh
June 19, 2019 5:45 pm

It is a melted sea ice (please pay attention to image captions, especially BBC captions). The team is riding on a solid sea floor. 🙂

Reply to  Alan Mackintosh
June 19, 2019 7:15 pm

Here’s the guy what done it, don’t think there was any photo shopping going on:

The explanation says it all – you can even see the ice in the full version here:
comment image?20190618112258

Reply to  Alan Mackintosh
June 20, 2019 4:05 am


Reply to  Alan Mackintosh
June 21, 2019 8:12 am

I agree, Alan. I wouldn’t trust anything coming from the leftist media. Any and every trick/manipulation/lie is employed.

J Mac
June 19, 2019 5:12 pm

Catastrophic linear thinking refuted by the real cyclical world.

Pat Frank
June 19, 2019 5:18 pm

catastrophic squawking,” has a nice clarifying sound to it, with respect to so-called catastrophic global warming.

For the last 30 years or so, we’ve been experiencing an increasingly greater level of catastrophic anthropogenic global squawking.

Anthropogenic global squawking has now reached crisis levels, wherein small events lead to major squawks.

Maybe we’ve entered a squawk tipping point, or maybe it’s an accelerating squawk cascade. Experts disagree.

It’ll take a squawkentist to get the model right.

Joe B
June 19, 2019 5:18 pm

The 4 big Iceland glaciers have also grown this year.

Reply to  Joe B
June 19, 2019 8:45 pm

How do you know? Links?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 8:05 am

The crowd around here is fairly sophisticated, when it comes to dealing with internet troll behavior.
Asking others to provide links is a well- known tactic, used by rather unsophisticated trolls.
Now, you know about it, too. What an opportunity to step up your game!
There is more to you than what your history here reveals, isn’t there?

Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 12:32 pm

Asking for evidence from arm-wavers is trolling? And then you go and feed me, so sophisticated.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 5:03 pm

Others will no doubt notice, that you did just admit to your game.
It looks like my simplistic effort bore fruit, after all.

Reply to  Loydo
June 21, 2019 2:20 am

Trolls always demand to be spoon fed with evidence that runs counter to their Climate Change Religion dogma. These links I am about to provide you Loydo, are readily available and easily found.
So, not that it will do one little bit of good, here’s some of the “evidence”:


Now who is the “arm waver”?

Reply to  Loydo
June 21, 2019 3:20 pm

So, not that it will do one little bit of good, here’s some of the “evidence”:


This has nothing to do with Iceland’s glaciers.

Typical of this site, no evidence just a lazy lie and pointing out the lie is regarded as trolling.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Joe B
June 20, 2019 2:03 am

Loydo – look 4 yourself:


Icelandic Glaciers are Expanding For the First Time in Decades – Grand Solar …

06.12.2018 · Icelandic Glaciers are Expanding For the First Time in Decades — Grand Solar Minimum.

According to researchers from the University of Iceland, ALL Icelandic glaciers are projected to expand this year, this would make it the first time the glaciers wouldn’t have shrunk year-on-year in a quarter of a century.”

Grand solar Minimum!


Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
June 20, 2019 5:30 am

When I googled it I found that link too, but don’t get too carried away:

Langjökull had been losing around one and a half meters of ice per year for the past twenty years, “but in the last few years he has been close to zero, that is, he has neither expanded nor diminished. And that applies to this year, both for Vatnajökull and Langjökull as well,” said Pálsson.

I’m still wondering where Joe B read this: The 4 big Iceland glaciers have also grown this year. Or did he make it up.

James P. Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Joe B
June 20, 2019 9:17 am

This year?

What about the trends?

Reply to  Joe B
June 23, 2019 11:17 pm

The result for the last glacial year (september to september) shows for the Vatnajökull no growth.
And Vatanjökull ist the biggest one:


June 19, 2019 5:44 pm

Facts are sooooooooooooo inconvenient !

June 19, 2019 5:44 pm


Reply to  Charles Rotter
June 20, 2019 6:27 am

Charles whose quote is this? “Greenland is catastrophically melting”

Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 8:19 am

It’s not a catastrophy until a greenie gets a wedgie from hot weather … after that it goes nuclear.

Eoin mc
June 19, 2019 5:56 pm

We have long past reached Peak Hype on Greenland etc. Just watched an edition of the Irish equivalent of Meet The Press in relation to the media and political consensus to railroad through savage carbon taxes; ban the sale of petrol/diesel private vehicles by 2030; and to outlaw new installations of fossil fuel home heating by 2025. In the codes for broadcasters in our national Broadcasting Authority of Ireland there is a Guideline which says that “views and behaviour that damage the environment” should not be permitted and that “artifical balance” is not required. In tonight’s programme a Labour politician was worried that cold and wet Ireland would soon become a “sizzling wasteland”. Game over. Greta rules.

Bart Tali
June 19, 2019 5:58 pm

Meanwhile , in Antarctica there’s a -5.5°C temperature anomaly.


But no one talks about this, for some reason. /s

Duncan Smith
June 19, 2019 6:03 pm

“how do alarmists explain NASA’s growing Greenland glacier”….easy…Jakobshavn Glacier is the only one growing, all others are melting. Actually this glacier is stealing ice from other glaciers, so factually it is not growing, it is making the others melt faster, including itself. /sarc

nw sage
June 19, 2019 6:09 pm

“Glaciers actually getting thicker? – We don’t want to talk about that anymore”– union of consensus scientists.

Reply to  nw sage
June 19, 2019 8:22 pm

“Glaciers”. One glacier for localised reasons: “rapid cooling of the ocean current in southwest Greenland in early 2016. The cooler waters arrived near Jakobshavn that summer”.

“It lost so much ice between 2003 and 2016 that its thickness, top to bottom, shrank by 500 feet (152 meters).”


J Mac
Reply to  Loydo
June 19, 2019 10:26 pm

Sure, Loydo,
When Jakobshavn glacier is receding, it’s the AGW poster child sign of impending doom. When it’s growing and advancing, it’s just one localized anomaly. Riiight!

It’s amazing how facile the duplicitous, worm tongued arguments from ‘Climate Change’ catastrophists can be. Truly, amazing!

Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 1:20 am


How´s your cherrybucket? Enough for next winter already?

Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 8:09 am

Not one glacier, and not localized:

¨f only the 6 largest glaciers are considered, they have grown only slightly overall. This applies to Jakobshavn, Kangerdlugssuaq, Helheim, Petermann, Zachariae and 79° Glacier, which increased their area by an average of +3.7 km2 during the year. Two of these glaciers retreated, however, whereas the other four grew in size.”


June 19, 2019 6:15 pm

Ok.., well can one of you geniuses tell me “What Are” the Negative effects of Human CO2 emissions on Climate. ? Or is it being said Here that CO2 has No Causes on Climate change..?

Reply to  FlazhThompzon
June 20, 2019 12:45 am

Well, CO2 IS effect. Warm is the cause. Nobody can change cause / effect.
Nature loves CO2, and more is better.

And who cares what ice is doing in Greenland, in summer? What is this hysteria?

Reply to  FlazhThompzon
June 20, 2019 4:57 am

Try to write the English language correctly and you might receive an answer.

Kurt Linton
Reply to  JimW
June 20, 2019 9:23 am

F!nn, the hysteria is from cultural effemination resulting in snarky language police like JimW.

Kurt Linton
Reply to  JimW
June 20, 2019 9:29 am

Oops, if moderator can’t strike my prior remark, my apologies to JimW. I thought he was mocking F1nn’s English (which would not have been cool) when he was just pushing back on “Flazh”.

June 19, 2019 6:28 pm

The growing Jakobshavn glacier is caused by global warming….obviously.
Nothing to see here.

steve case
June 19, 2019 6:53 pm

In fact. we’d not even know about the melting in Greenland before satellites came on the scene. So how many times in the history of the Earth has Greenland had a quick melt spike? I’m guessing hundreds of thousands of times.


The climate lobby doesn’t say it’s never happened before, but if that’s what the media reports, they don’t pipe up with a correction.

Reply to  steve case
June 20, 2019 1:39 am

There´s forest under the Greenland ice. It´s inconvenient truth.
In Finland we have found oaks in Laplands swamps. Now Lapland is tundra, with few scrubby birch.

But those facts are not very interesting, and for sure that kind of news don´t sell.

June 19, 2019 7:06 pm

Tonight’s headline:

“Spring arrives, ice melts!”

June 19, 2019 8:01 pm

A crevasse opened up right under the end-of-the-world narrative.

June 19, 2019 8:14 pm

“The third straight year of thickening of Greenland’s biggest glacier supports our conclusion that the ocean is the culprit”

Josh Willis? He of the Argo buoys are wrong? 😉

June 19, 2019 8:35 pm

Have you guys read Steffan’s twitter feed? It’s an absolutely sickening line of “journalists” asking permission to use the photo for their “climate” stories. None ask why the event occurred, if it has occurred in the past, how frequent it occurs or any other information. Just hyenas looking for a startling image to associate with climate change regardless of any facts.

Literally 2 months before and just a couple tweets down, Steffan says: “Impressions from the ocean, climate and cryosphere monitoring program, NW #Greenland, just successfully completed by local hunters and #dmidk. Preliminary results show an increased #seaice thickness and less heat in the ocean compared to recent years.”

Steven Mosher
June 19, 2019 8:48 pm

69°10′N 49°50′W is where the glacier is.
south west.

Photo was taken at
77°27′N 67°48′W
inglefield gulf

Imagine that.

in one place further north you have ice melting.
further south you have snow accumulating in one area.

There is a REASON we look at Large areas ( and not just single locations)
and there is a REASON why we look over long periods of time.. not just a day
photo of melting ice or a couple years of glacier growth.

large areas: long times.

otherwise you get to confirm your bias and enjoy cherry pie

Martin C
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 19, 2019 9:50 pm

. . . like the Alarmists do, Stephen . . ?

. .really . . ?

Reply to  Martin C
June 20, 2019 3:31 am

Warmistas mostly aren’t very intelligent people, but Coolistas aren’t even a bit better!
That is exactly what Steven Mosher wanted to explain.

And he is perfectly right.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Bindidon
June 20, 2019 5:55 am


I see this crap on both sides.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 20, 2019 3:22 pm


June 19, 2019 9:09 pm

Melting of Himalayan Glaciers has Doubled in Recent Years

A newly comprehensive study shows that melting of Himalayan glaciers caused by rising temperatures has accelerated dramatically since the start of the 21st century. The analysis, spanning 40 years of satellite observations across India, China, Nepal and Bhutan, indicates that glaciers have been losing the equivalent of more than a vertical foot and half of ice each year since 2000—double the amount of melting that took place from 1975 to 2000.

Reply to  Loydo
June 19, 2019 10:08 pm

“Here, we quantify changes in ice thickness during the intervals 1975–2000 and 2000–2016 across the Himalayas, using a set of digital elevation models derived from cold war–era spy satellite film and modern stereo satellite imagery. ”

So what was the accuracy of the sensors 40 years ago that allows such conclusions to be drawn?

Reply to  lee
June 20, 2019 7:21 am

Particularly since only the older less exact imagery has been declassified.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  tty
June 20, 2019 10:59 am

There was little that was ‘inexact’ about the older military satellites. The film cameras were state of the art. The spatial resolution has only been exceeded in about the last two decades, which is unclassified commercial imagery. There is little reason to keep the older imagery classified since we now have higher resolution imagery available. Of course, the intelligence imagery now has the highest resolution that tax money can buy. But, that is largely overkill for monitoring a glacier.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  lee
June 20, 2019 10:52 am

Actually, the resolution of the older satellites wasn’t too bad. If memory serves me right, Corona was about 8 meters per pixel — far better than the Landsat series that followed a decade later.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 20, 2019 11:09 am

Actually, for elevation determination, the older sensors were superior because they were overlapping scenes that could be analyzed with stereoscopes to determine the relative elevation differences. Most modern satellites have very little if any overlap, precluding stereoscopic analysis.

Reply to  Loydo
June 19, 2019 10:09 pm
Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 1:51 am


So what? Who cares Himalayan glaciers? Go there and try pick up your cherries.

How much has sealevel rise accelerated because your cherries? It hasn´t.

Relax and go play with your legos. Do something useful for a while.

Reply to  F1nn
June 20, 2019 3:26 am

I understand that the Himalayan glaciers do matter because they provide the water supply for people over a wide area. Whether they are actually going to disappear is another question.

Reply to  Susan
June 20, 2019 7:21 am

When reading F1nn’s supertough comment I suddenly remember that one of my friends had a short stay somewhere in the Great Plains, about 20 years ago.

He told to a farmer’s sun (+- 20 y) a bit about Europe.
The farmer’s sun replied: “Yurop? Wha’s that? C’n I eat it?”

john harmsworth
Reply to  Susan
June 20, 2019 8:39 am

This is an issue I Don’t quite understand. Back in the 70’s they had quite regular catastrophic floods in Bangladesh as a combined result of the high altitude seasonal melt and the monsoons.
Thousands died almost every year.
If the glaciers weren’t there to melt in the spring then it would mean that the snow that falls during the winter would be melting earlier and more gradually and sometimes it would be rain. I can’t see how that would be a catastrophe as it should mean a more steady supply of water and less flooding.
What am I missing? Seems to me that those with an axe to grind foresee disaster no matter what changes occur. Pretty superficial and juvenile.

Reply to  F1nn
June 20, 2019 7:28 am

“I understand that the Himalayan glaciers do matter because they provide the water supply for people over a wide area.”

You don’t understand. This is pure fantasy. Glaciers don’t miraculously create water out of nothing. They can however be important by evening out flow in rivers by accumulating snow in winter which then melts during the dry summer season. However this does not apply to Himalayan glaciers since in South Asia the summer is the wet season (summer Monsoon) while winter is dry.

As a matter of fact the only way a glacier can provide a net water supply is by melting.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  tty
June 20, 2019 11:04 am

Yes, if it suddenly turned much colder, the Winter snow would quit melting and the people down river would find a shortage of water. What the people of the Indian subcontinent need are Goldilocks Glaciers.

Reply to  Loydo
June 20, 2019 4:01 am

It must be a failing in me, but for years I have mistrusted the phrase “a newly comprehensive study” (or similar wording). Somehow it mostly turns out that I was right to.

If further investigation turns up the words “computer” or “model” my score rises to 100%.

June 19, 2019 9:41 pm

Doesn’t McKibbles ever get tired of being wrong all of the time?

Reply to  ATheoK
June 20, 2019 7:22 am

So long as his paychecks don’t bounce.

Nicholas McGinley
June 19, 2019 10:54 pm

Is it cold water in the ocean, or is it the huge leap in the amount of snow that has fallen over Greenland in the past several years, that has effected the glacier?

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 20, 2019 3:25 am

Arctic oscillation has recently switch to cold mode, and it is near north Greenland. It have effects and this recent hysteria maybe is one of them.
Everyone who have lived over 60 years know these 60-65 years oscillations, and next is the big one coming = AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation). So 70´s iceage hysteria is coming back. And, of course, it´s man made this time.

Reply to  F1nn
June 20, 2019 7:23 am

You don’t have to have lived over 60 years. Just be willing to read all of the literature, not just the stuff that supports your paycheck.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
June 20, 2019 4:41 pm

Yeah, that is all Jim Bandy for sure, but I still think growing glaciers a few years after records snows in the source are for the glacier, maybe just May Be somehow connected.
But I’m crazy like that , so…

June 19, 2019 11:58 pm

I’m sure we’re still very doomed.

Reply to  RoHa
June 20, 2019 2:29 am

That is so very right. But our doom is not global warming.

“”There is two infinite in the world: Humans stupidity and space. But I´m not certain about the last one.”” Albert Einstein.

That is our doom.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  F1nn
June 27, 2019 3:55 pm

I think Einstein’s English was much better than your quote.

James in WNC
Reply to  RoHa
June 20, 2019 7:44 am

“Very” hilarious!

June 20, 2019 12:34 am

This is easy:

When glaciers retreat this is a sign of global warming due to “melting”
When glaciers advance this a a sign of global warming due to “melting”

All the climate cult need to do is change what they say happens when glaciers melt. When convenient they retreat, when convenient the “melting” causes the rate of movement to increase.

June 20, 2019 12:45 am

Oh come on! that melt even was definitely an exceptional event… and you might look at the 2019 SMB chart too…

This one glacier is growing not because melt has slowed in Greenland, not because it is getting colder, but due to a temporary cooling of waters adjacent due to the NAO. It will reverse within a few years.

the argument of this piece is ‘look, we have proof Greenland ice cap isn’t melting!’ which is absolutely and incontrovertibly NOT the case.

Reply to  griff
June 20, 2019 7:25 am

Translation. Ignore the data, only look at the models.

BTW, over the last few years, the Greenland ice cap has been growing.

Reply to  griff
June 20, 2019 9:03 am

If no polar bears are around to see a glacier melt and no baby seal pups were there to hear the glacier melt did it really melt at all?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  griff
June 27, 2019 12:31 pm

Griff, it’s only exceptional for the extremely myopic, like yourself.

June 20, 2019 3:49 am

The Danish meteorology and climate people at DMI havew few in common with alarmism.

But… here is their graph showing Greenland’s accumulated mass gain & loss balance sheet since last September:


This graphical balance sheet might be understandible for September, but isn’t for June.
That’s all.

It is as Mosher writes: you can’t simply select an isolated corner in space and time and derive a consistent meaning out of this little bit.

The dogs’ picture over melting ice and the pictures showing Jakobshavn’s advance are imho of exactly the same useless vein.

J.-P. D.

Davy lars
June 20, 2019 5:03 am

With regards to the dogs wading through water
After a bit research I came across an article from the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources
I wonder if the more scientific posters on here can make anything of this?

“The final branch of the Gulf Stream swings around the southern tip of Greenland, at Cape Farewell, and flows up along the west coast of Greenland through Melville Bay and into Inglefield Bredning, where the current occurs as a relatively warm and saline core at a depth of approx. 300 m under the cold and relatively fresh surface water. The ocean current’s journey ends in the innermost part of the fjord, at 77 degrees north. The Atlantic Gulf Stream waters mix with meltwater and flow out of the fjord near the surface.
This blending of the waters deep in the fjord causes the Atlantic water to lose some of its warmth, making the sea ice thinner in the innermost part of the fjord. Here it is only roughly 70 cm thick, whereas it reaches a thickness of approx. 120 cm farther out because the ice towards the mouth of the fjord is protected by the cold layer of surface water.”

Paul Rossiter
June 20, 2019 5:21 am

The McKibben graph at the top of the post is typical alarmist nonsense, comparing as it does a short term fluctuation with a longer term average. If like is compared to like the story looks different, see:

June 20, 2019 5:23 am

Last fall the DMI posted that the 2018 melt season was unusually cool, with a low melt and a higher than usual albedo.
The article also noted the same for 2017 summer.
Now Greenland has been warmer than usual.

June 20, 2019 5:24 am

Graphical catastrophic squawking…

0.42% of the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) has melted since 1900!!!

The GrIS has lost the volumetric equivalent of a Lake Superior worth of ice!!!

Based on the asserted loss of ice since 1900, the GrIS has lost the equivalent of a Lake Superior-sized ice cube. However the GrIs remained larger than the Gulf of Mexico (by volume) despite losing a Lake Superior. The Gulf of Mexico has a volume of about 2.5 million km3. If the GrIS melted, the volume of water would be about 2.71 million km3. Before losing Lake Superior, the equivalent water volume was 2.72 million km3.

Catastrophic squawking, writ large…

Most of the melting since the beginning of the Holocene has occurred on the outboard, lower elevation portions of the GrIS – Same as it ever was. X-axis is in calendar years AD(BC). Elevation reconstruction data from Vinther et al., 2009. Map from Weißbach et al., 2015.

The image below is a GPR (ground-penetrating radar) cross-section of the GrIS.  It is literally a work of art.  GPR is analalogous in many ways to the reflection seismic data that we use in oil & gas exploration.  If you click on this link, you will see a full-size image of the cross-section.  Note that most of the ice is above the 12 ka horizon.  This is very close to the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary.  It indicates that most of the ice was deposited since the end of the last Pleistocene glacial stage (ice age in layman’s terms).


According to the “ice sheet goeth” graph, since 2001, Greenland lost about 3,600 gigatonnes of ice or about 3,840 km3 … That equates  to a 16 km x 16 km x 16 km cube of ice (3√ 3,840 = 15.66).  That’s YUGE!  Right? Not really.

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 less about 2 meters thick… Not even a rounding error compared to the average thickness of the Greenland ice sheet.

The average thickness of the Greenland ice sheet is approximately 1.5 km (1,500 meters).  2 meters is about 0.15% of 1,500 meters.

From a thickness perspective, 2 meters looks like this:

When some actual perspective is applied, it is obvious that “the ice sheet goeth” nowhere:


James P. Yushchyshyn
Reply to  David Middleton
June 20, 2019 7:17 am

Rate of ice melt is a function of temperature. It will speed up.

Reply to  James P. Yushchyshyn
June 20, 2019 9:54 am

Faster than Milankovitch cycles? It can only melt a few months out of the year then gains back nearly everything it melted over winter. I think it will be around in nearly the same structure for many thousands of years. Much like the claims that Antarctica will melt down to nothing — the catastrophic claims are exaggerations and propaganda. Why do you think they need to use trickery like starting graphs in local maxima in order to show a decline? Why do you think they lie to you about the scale of loss and the actual nature of the change in the system?

Reply to  James P. Yushchyshyn
June 20, 2019 4:25 pm

Cooling temperatures make ice melt faster?

Reply to  James P. Yushchyshyn
June 22, 2019 7:58 pm

You mean if temps increase it will go from an infinitesimal melting over the last 120 years to a slightly less infinitesimal melting over the next 120?

Reply to  David Middleton
June 20, 2019 7:56 am

Mods – Please elevate/promote to a post.
Great Post!

Glenn Sliva
Reply to  RHS
June 20, 2019 9:06 am

a 3D image of the ice sheet using the Ground Penetrating Radar of the GRIS and Antartica plus the other ice volumes of the earth would be priceless. In other words a viewable comparison and over time if we have it would answer the lying eyes thing. i. e. a counter to the famous polar bear picture and this “photoshopped or cropped dogs running on water” picture. These Cult Scientists argue so strongly and with such insulting “flat earthers” attacks because they view Global Warming, Climate Change, CO2 is poison, etc etc as attack on them their very identity. Because they take it as a part of them. You can’t have a discussion or debate with people protecting their own identity. That’s the problem here. Facts don’t matter even when it’s obvious. Thanks David Middleton. You can’t argue with that cross section and comparison to the historical record. Yet they do. 🙂 thanks again

Reply to  Glenn Sliva
June 20, 2019 9:35 am

This is a particularly good image…

One common feature of the various cross-sections is that the volume of Holocene ice appears to be as large or larger than the volume of Pleistocene ice. It’s particularly notable that in Central Greenland there is still a significant remnant of Eemian ice. In much of Central Greenland about 12,000 years worth of Holocene ice is thicker than over 100,000 years of Pleistocene ice. This is due to the fact that glacial stages (AKA ice ages) are very cold and very dry. The snow accumulation rate during the Holocene has been much higher than that of the last Pleistocene glacial stage.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Middleton
June 20, 2019 11:24 am

And, the Holocene climate optimum may have melted a lot of the exposed Pleistocene ice.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Glenn Sliva
June 20, 2019 11:21 am

Show some respect for these dogs! Remember that “dog” is God spelled backwards. They are holy dogs that can run on water. Even Christ was not known for being able to RUN on water. That act requires webbed feet. They can’t convert water to wine, but they do have the ability to turn the water yellow, at least temporarily. The Cult Scientists should bow-wow down to these divine creatures.

Reply to  RHS
June 20, 2019 9:29 am

Those are excerpts of previous posts of mine.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 20, 2019 8:52 am

Its worse than we thought!
Think of the children!

Bloke down the pub
June 20, 2019 5:41 am

BBC News covered a story about cold war satellite imagery of the Himalayas being used to show the extent of glacier retreat. No mention that the period in question was cold in more ways than just international politics.

June 20, 2019 6:41 am

We could be having our leg pulled here. Bredning in Danish means ‘broadening’ as in a strait or a gulf.
As opposed to a fiord.

They caption as the “Inglefield Bredning fjord”, however there seems to be no such place. There IS however an Inglefield Gulf, with several fiords and glaciers running into it. I would appear that at this time of the year the gulf is usually mainly open water.

Google Translation of the article below:
A broadening denotes a larger open water area in connection with a healthy or other narrow waters. In Denmark, broads are known from fjords and healthy. Widenings can be how narrow waters expand, they can be an extension of other widenings or they can border up to the open sea.

En bredning betegner et større åbent vandområde i forbindelse med et sund eller andet smalt farvand. I Danmark kendes bredninger fra fjorde og sunde. Bredninger kan være hvor smalle farvand udvider sig, de kan være i forlængelse af andre bredninger eller de kan grænse op til åbent hav.
I Limfjorden er bredning en hyppigt benyttet betegnelse og af kendte bredninger i Limfjorden kan fx nævnes Nibe Bredning, Halkær Bredning og Thisted Bredning.

A 19th century map is here:
comment image

Reply to  markx
June 20, 2019 7:17 am

Google translatyish. There are two homophone words “sund” in danish, one means healthy, the other a strait.

Reply to  markx
June 20, 2019 12:37 pm

When using Google’s translator, the best is to switch back and forth two times.
This avoids unnecessary surprises.

June 20, 2019 6:52 am

It seems Inglefield Bredning ‘fjord’ is something of a misnomer.

There IS an Inglefield Gulf, and the word ‘bredning’ in Danish means broadening, or gulf.
Inglefield Gulf is apparently largely open water at this time of the year.

A broadening denotes a larger open water area in connection with a sound or other narrow waters. In Denmark, broads are known from fjords and healthy. Widenings can be how narrow waters expand, they can be an extension of other widenings or they can border up to the open sea.

(In geography, a sound is a large sea or ocean inlet, deeper than a bight and wider than a fjord; or a narrow sea or ocean channel between two bodies of land (see also strait). There is little consistency in the use of “sound” in English-language place names. Contents. 1 Overview; 2 Etymology; 3 Bodies of water called sounds.)

En bredning betegner et større åbent vandområde i forbindelse med et sund eller andet smalt farvand. I Danmark kendes bredninger fra fjorde og sunde. Bredninger kan være hvor smalle farvand udvider sig, de kan være i forlængelse af andre bredninger eller de kan grænse op til åbent hav.
I Limfjorden er bredning en hyppigt benyttet betegnelse og af kendte bredninger i Limfjorden kan fx nævnes Nibe Bredning, Halkær Bredning og Thisted Bredning.

Reply to  markx
June 20, 2019 7:52 am

Ingefield Gulf is still mostly ice-covered, but the snow has largely melted:


Reply to  markx
June 20, 2019 8:22 am

No-one asked the vital question is the fishing any good?

James P. Yushchyshyn
June 20, 2019 7:16 am


Even though most of the world is warming, some places are warming and some are cooling all the time. Such as when 1934 was one of the hottest years in US history, but not globally. And when the Vikings had their colony in Greenland.

In addition, there are regions deep in Greenland and Antarctica where it is not yet warm enough for the ice to melt but have warmed enough to get more snow. I have no doubt that the same thing happened in what is now the center of Canada when the Wisconsin glacier started to melt.

Reply to  James P. Yushchyshyn
June 20, 2019 1:24 pm

James P. Yushchyshyn

A fair, sober comment.

June 20, 2019 7:47 am

Meltwater pools on sea-ice is of course perfectly normal, and has always occurred. For example read Nansen’s description of their problems sedding over the ice North of Franz Josephs Land in 1895. There was so much water that at times they had to use kayaks to cross. At last they gave up and lay still until the snow had melted and the water had drained away. This was in late June at 82 degrees north.


Or read this:

“Note that sea ice thickness cannot be accurately measured from CryoSat during the Arctic summer period (May-Sept), due to the formation of melt ponds on the sea ice surface. ”


Incidentally this meltwater is the explanation why multi-year ice is harder and more durable. The fresh water from melted snow drains away through the salty first-year ice and leaches away most of the salt which means that second year and older ice is virtually salt-free.

Mike McHenry
June 20, 2019 8:10 am

Back in 2012 the discovery old Danish photos from the 1930’s showed similar melt. It was discussed here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/30/old-aerial-photos-supply-new-knowledge-on-glaciers-in-greenland/

Gunga Din
June 20, 2019 9:44 am

Mr Layman here.
Ice melt before satellites.
As I recall a number of WWII planes have been “dug up” and recovered from Greenland glaciers. My impression has been that they were under ice due to snow falling on them and then being compressed by more snow into ice.
Has anyone checked to see if they sank into the ice as it melted then refroze?
Honest question.

Reply to  Gunga Din
June 22, 2019 10:37 am

Your impression is correct. That is how glaciers work. You can even count the annual layers of snow, and even the occasional brief melt episodes which leave thin telltale ice layers in the snow.

comment image

June 20, 2019 11:24 am

Falsehood will fly, as it were, on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind ; her steps though sure, are slow and solemn, and she has neither vigour nor activity enough to pursue and overtake her enemy.
Thomas Francklin 1787

June 20, 2019 1:22 pm

Mike McHenry, Gunga Din

This question of whether it was warmer in the Arctic in the 1930s than it has now, has already given rise to many comments.

In fact, there must have been very warm months there; Finally, there were even pictures of submarines that broke through the then very thin ice cover at the North Pole.

Here is a graph showing the GHCN daily station temperatures for the globe and for the Arctic from Jan 1900 to Dec 2018:


And as you can see, some months in earlier times have been warmer than at present, as can be seen on the top 20 list of the warmest months during the inspected period:

1937 1 4.8
1981 1 4.4
2016 2 3.7
2017 12 3.7
1944 12 3.5
2016 1 3.3
1930 1 3.1
1938 11 3.0
2011 12 3.0
2007 1 3.0
1995 4 2.9
1943 4 2.9
2017 3 2.8
1934 2 2.8
1977 1 2.8
2016 3 2.7
2018 2 2.7
1914 12 2.6
2012 2 2.6
1953 4 2.6

But: the averaging over 5 years (dark red curve) reveals that the long-term trend was nevertheless cooler than now.

Nick Werner
June 20, 2019 3:33 pm

Overwrought Bill might want to keep his charting app on warm standby in his Taskbar.

Because when temperatures return to normal next week, melting of the foot of fresh snow that fell on Athabasca Glacier to mark the last day of spring in Canada is liable to produce another Gore-Line charting opportunity.


Phil Salmon
June 21, 2019 3:52 am

The growth in height of the Jacobshavn glacier does make it look less like a hockey stick:

comment image

June 21, 2019 4:43 am

Note that the graph in the McKibben tweet shows data only to about June 10, even though it was written on June 18. The current curve is here: http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/ It shows that the ice has mysteriously “refrozen”, back into the gray variability region.

June 21, 2019 6:38 am

Dr. Raveendran Narayanan USA
#unep #epa #environmentalprotection #climatechange #globalwarming #un #google #wordpress #linkedin #ipcc #wef #rewrittingearthscience #notco2 #idadesal #unohchr #aig #nasa #noaa #1000ppmco2noproblem #nobelpeace #nobelpeacecommittee #pulitzerprize #stopsearaisenow #chile2019 #airconditioningthemotherearth #unfcc #stoppingcalamites #iachr #who #2019earthsciencecommettee #challengingexpertglaciologists #raveendrannaray #parisagreement
#worldwaterresearcher #waterprize

June 21, 2019 4:49 pm

If “Greenland is catastrophically melting”, how do alarmists explain no change in the rate of sea level rise?

June 21, 2019 9:54 pm

I think if all sceptics joined the believers they will not have any bull shite to report to us and will all be out of a job and on the dole

June 23, 2019 8:42 am

Satellite photographs on May 31 2019 show Inglefield Gulf (where Qaanaaq is now located) covered in perfectly white sea-ice. The satellite photos are spoiled by cloud for the next few days. Then on June 7th the sea-ice has acquired a turquoise tinge. The best view is on June 10.

But if we go back through the years on the same website we find almost identical occurrences on June 10 2006, June 10 2011, and (especially) June 10 2012.

June 23, 2019 1:40 pm

Based on a scan of MODIS satellite photos from 2000 onwards, it seems that the meltwater on the sea-ice in Inglefield Gulf causes that beautiful turquoise colour almost EVERY YEAR.
Check out:
June 10 2019, June 14 2018, June 29 2017
June 15 2016, June 27 2015, June 17 2014
June 13 2013, June 10 2012, June 10 2011
June 23 2009, June 12 2008, June 15 2007
June 10 2006, June 23 2004, June 06 2003
June 20 2002.

NOT “unprecedented”! NOT extraordinary!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
June 27, 2019 12:08 pm

SHHHH!! You’re ruining the narrative! You don’t want those unwashed Stinky Rebellion people coming around, do you??

%d bloggers like this: