Guest “geologist tag-teaming” by David Middleton
This is a follow up to Gregory Wrightstone’s article from yesterday. A couple of the first few comments reminded me that I’ve been meaning to write a post on the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab and what their data has to say about “the snows of yesteryear” and the faux climate crisis du jour.
First the comments:
Second, Loydo
While it appears that Greenland has lost about 0.4% of its ice mass since 1900, that loss began at the end of the Little Ice Age, the coldest climatic episode of the Holocene Epoch.
Ice mass losses from 2002-2017 were estimated from gravity data obtained by the GRACE satellites.
The GRACE measurements upon which the accelerating ice loss claims are based are heavily dependent on the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). While not as large as Antarctica (where the GIA’s margin of error is nearly as large as the asserted ice loss), GIA variations can result in totally different ice loss values… And the GRACE time series isn’t any longer than the MODIS time series.
Wu et al., 2010 determined that the GIA commonly assumed for Greenland was way too high and that the 2002-2008 ice loss rate was 104 Gt/yr rather than the oft cited 230 Gt/yr. Even at 230 Gt/yr, it would take 1,000 years for Greenland to lose 5% of its ice mass.
Riva et al., 2007 concluded that the ice mass-loss rate in Antarctica from 2002-2007 could have been anywhere from zero-point-zero Gt/yr up to 120 Gt/yr. Dr. Riva recently co-authored a paper in GRL (Thomas et al., 2011) which concluded that GPS observations suggest “that modeled or empirical GIA uplift signals are often over-estimated” and that “the spatial pattern of secular ice mass change derived from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) data and GIA models may be unreliable, and that several recent secular Antarctic ice mass loss estimates are systematically biased, mainly too high.”
So… We have barely 15 years worth of data and no idea if the recent mass losses are anomalous relative to the early 20th century Arctic warming, Medieval Warm Period or any of the other millennial-scale Holocene warming periods.
In 2017 the Greenland ice sheet appeared to have gained mass. The GRACE mission ended in 2017; so we don’t know what it’s done since then
The ice mass estimates ostensibly take into account:
- Mass lost to iceberg calving.
- Surface Mass Balance (SMB).
The “funny” thing is that icebergs have a tough time calving if outlet glaciers aren’t advancing toward the sea. Glacial “dropstones” are geological evidence of past “ice house” climates. Dropstones are boulders and large rocks that are carried out to sea by icebergs. When the icebergs melt, the boulders drop to the bottom of the ocean. Increased calving of icebergs has been evidence for colder climates from “Snowball Earth” right up until Al Gore invented Gorebal Warming.
SMB is the net difference of snow accumulation and ablation. The Greenland Ice Sheet has had positive SMB (gained ice) over the last 4 years. More snow has accumulated than ice has melted.
Here’s another odd thing about Greenland:
Greenland’s summer snow cover has increased since 1967. The winter snow cover can’t increase very much. It’s usually close to 100%.
Commentator Henry Pool just pointed out that when I labeled the graphs I generated yesterday, I dated them 31 January, 2010… D’oh! If I get around to it, I will fix the labels. The date should be 31 January 2020.
Third, on to Steve Mosher
Steven Mosher January 30, 2020 at 10:20 pm Edit
what does the science say about winter snow ( your january chart) .
Unlike spring and summer snow that is predicted to FALL under warming scenarios
Winter snow may INCREASE in certain locations and decrease in others. understanding why is simple for most people.
Whatever the snow does, it will have been predicted by the climate models? Or did I read that wrong?
Let’s look at what Northern Hemisphere snow has been up to since “The Ice Age Cometh?”
It does appear that for the Northern Hemisphere, as a whole, it was a little snowier from 1972-1988 than it has been since then. However, the snow cover in 2019 was the same as it was when “The Ice Age Cometh?” Although it does seem that Leonard Nimoy went In Search Of “The Next Ice Age” at just the right time. 1978 was one of the snowiest years in Connecticut that I can remember. Regarding a meaningful trend, can you say: R² = 0.0604?
Now let’s break it down.
The GSL provides weekly and monthly data sets for various Northern Hemisphere regions:
| Weekly | Monthly |
| N. Hemisphere | N. Hemisphere |
| Eurasia | Eurasia |
| N. America | N. America |
| N. America (no Greenland) | N. America (no Greenland) |
I downloaded the monthly data sets for N. Hemisphere, N. America and N. America (no Greenland). I calculated the Greenland snow cover using this equation:
- N. America – N. America (no Greenland) = Greenland
In the graphs to follow, North America includes Greenland. North America is a subset of Northern Hemisphere and Greenland is a subset of North America.
It appears that Mr. Wrightstone was correct about winter.
Now let’s look at spring, month by month.
May starts to get interesting.
Bear in mind that back when we had some snowy months of May, it was right in the middle of That 70’s Climate Crisis Show…
Hey! Who else had this album back in the 70’s?
Well, apparently the August nights weren’t all that hot in 1972.
Steve didn’t tell us what the climate models predicted about the fall… I’m gonna guess that the models must have predicted more snowfall.
Let’s just be thankful for the climate models. They literally saved New York City from being bulldozed by a rampaging horde of godless glaciers.
According to the sacred climate models, if not for The Climate Wrecking Industry, the planet would be colder than “The Ice Age Cometh”…
This proud petroleum geologist says, “You’re welcome.”
Given that nobody has a convincing explanation of why we’re even in our present interglacial, placing a value on the expected natural warming out of the LIA is no better than conjecture.
CAGW is conjecture and circular reasoning all the way down.
Nice double ‘take down and pin’, David!
David, thank you for another fascinating post. Do you suppose these alarmists will wake up any time soon to the fact that they have been duped by a fanatical doomsday cult or will they keep ignoring the mounting scientific evidence that increased CO2 is, on the whole, beneficial to life. Man, I wish we could get back to our destiny of moving up the gravity well to the Moon and planets; but that would require that REAL sciences (like astrophysics and geology) be taught correctly in our schools. I don’t believe that can occur until we throw out all the neo-Marxist garbage that is being force fed to kids today. Have a Happy Groundhogs Day!
Defunding Marxist Academicians (i.e. quit Taxpayer funding of American cultural deconstruction) needs to start in earnest in Trump’s second term…and be completed by the middle of his third term as President.
#MAGA2020. #MAGA2024
Two terms and out, Doc. Particularly for Congress and Senators IMHO.
All of the facts, conjectures, and rhetoric don’t change the weather.
Just one more reason why James Hansen ran from NASA/GISS in April 2013 and the climate scam he started in 1988 after he knew the time for the ~70 ±10 year cycle was up.
1975 + 35 = 2010 ±10 years.
The clock has run out for the climate scam. All they have left are massive surface temp dataset adjustments and fake science model runs.
But thanks to ever more people living in urban heat islands it’ll be even easier to sell those adjustments.
1975 + 35 = 2010 ±10 years.
Seems your clock is the one thats “run out”.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00376-020-9283-7.pdf
Just where do they get all these temperature measurements? Anyone that believes they know the temperature of the oceans to the tenth of a degree C to depths of 2000M or more is an absolute fool.
Tell us Loydo. You are always asking the questions.. tell us; time for an answer.
Loydo believes whatever her handlers tell her to believe.
Magazine educated, that should explain the misconceptions.
The key question is whether these changes are due to the sun or carbon Dioxide ?
The molarity of CO2 versus the Molarity of the entire air mass is about 1:10,000. How could such such a gas even with its photon blocking properties be enough to have material effect on the earth’s temperatures ? Molar density and pressure have more to do with temperature change and than anything else. The sun is the primary source of energy.
Indeed Peter, better go and check over here to see what this miraculous trace gas can do.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/01/new-research-highlights-how-plants-are-slowing-global-warming/
“When was the last time you experienced snowfall in May in the Northern Hemisphere?”
Last year, 2019. Several inches, in the latter half of May, in fact. But that’s known to happen on the Front Range now and then…
” When was the last time you experienced snowfall in May in the Northern Hemisphere? ”
I don’t get up to the northern bit of the planet as much as I used to but I know it snowed around Edinburgh in May 2010 as I was out running in it. Spring in Scotland…more in the imagination than reality
I remember snow on 1st June in Edinburgh in the 1970s. I also remember walking down the North Bridge to catch a train in shirt sleeves eating an ice cream in October in the 1970s. Odd weather events have always been a feature of UK weather.
“Odd weather events have always been a feature of UK weather.”
That’s pretty much anywhere.
I’ve lived on the east coast, west coast, and the middle of the US. Was stationed in Germany for a bit. I’ve seen the kinds of things you mentioned in all those places.
Back before “CAGW”/”Climate Change” there was a saying common to the various states I’ve lived in or visited for any length of time.
“If you don’t like the weather, wait a few minutes. It’ll change.”
The locals all seemed to almost take pride in thinking their weather was uniquely changeable. 😎
I think it’s the out of the ordinary that stands out in memory, and because it happened quite a few times in our youths, it seems to our recollection that there were more snow events then than now. I also remember 60’s winters when I was upset there wasn’t enough cold weather to ice skate and only cold rain fell, punctuated by ice storms.
A snowfall on Memorial Day weekend in 1986 bent the blooming lilac plants down to the ground in Red Lodge, MT.
SR
23rd of June, 2019 in the valley of the Laramie River.
Four inches in June the first year I lived here (2017) in Sparks, NV (adjoining to Reno). Only lasted four hours. It turned out to be a warm day. We had just moved here from So Cal two weeks earlier. I love snow. It was a great welcome.
This year, by comparison, seems to be skipping winter. Third warmest on record, and so far, only a couple of snowfalls amounting to 2″ each. Phewy. I may be 65 YO, but I like making snow angels, snowmen, snow forts, and snowmobiling! To say nothing of enjoying some slipping and sliding in the 4WD pickup here in the hills. Wife hates that last part – don’t know why. Maybe it’s the cliffs that run along the edge of our dirt road.
O/T, but BREXIT is now officially done.
Congratulations UK.
Time to forge your own future, without bureaucrats in Brussels telling you what, how, or who must govern the citizens of England, Scotland, and N Ireland. This in keeping with 1,000 years of English Isles telling the French-Saxons to get lost.
Well Done!!!
I raise a huge pint o’ lager in your honour… from Your Former Colonies.
v/r,
Joel
a mostly Irish-English Man (by 23 and Me heredity genetics)
Has Wales left the UK since yesterday?
I’m a proud Brit.
The EU isn’t perfect by any means and is in dire need of reform.
I do, however, see Scotland leaving the Union, followed by Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom will fade into memory to become England and Wales (and I’m not 100% convinced Wales will remain).
Still, Rees-Mogg will be laughing all the way to the bank.
JMHO
If scotland leaves it will be in economic chaos within months. As an Englishman, it would be economic boom to England if they do, though.
Save us at least £10bn a year
There are no huge pints of beer. All pints of beer have the same volume.
Now, *that’s* funny!
I’ll have the smaller pint please. Can’t handle as much beer as when I was younger.
Another Yogi-ism comes to mind.
Who wants to drink beer out of a “pint-sized” mug?
@ Javier …forecast for a negative ENSO starting around April/May of this year.
It could be a huge mug, with a pint of lager in it.
No, American pints are undersized! 🙁
With all the kids showing their boxers nowadays, I think American PANTS must be undersized.
Thank you. One of the few times my vote has had a positive result!
A sure fire way to upset a non-English resident of the British Isles
It is the the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is called Great Britain to differentiate the Island from the peninsular of Brittany (little Britain) Britons pre Anglo-Saxon inhabitants.
The former Kingdom of Scotland represents 40% of the landmass of Great Britain, and contributed more than its fair share of wealth to the UK, and more than its fair share to the military of the UK, until Maggie Thatcher declared war on the miners and opted out of investing in defence.
The UK will breakup on a last in first out basis, Northern Ireland first, Scotland second, finally Wales and England will go their seperate ways.
Scotland has a long history of looking to Europe for trade and military support.
The Lubeck Letter 1297
Andrew de Murray and William Wallace, leaders of the army of the kingdom of Scotland, and the community of the same kingdom, to their worthy, discreet and beloved friends the mayors and communes of Lübeck and Hamburg, greeting, and increase always of sincere friendship.
It has been intimated to us by trustworthy merchants of the said kingdom of Scotland that you by your own goodwill are giving counsel, help and favour in all causes and business concerning us and our merchants, although our merits had not deserved this, and therefore all the more are we bound to you to give you thanks and a worthy recompense, to do which we are willing to be obliged to you; and we ask you that you will make it be proclaimed amongst your merchants that they can have secure access to all ports of the kingdom of Scotland with their merchandise since the kingdom of Scotland, thanks be to God, has by arms been recovered from the power of the English. Farewell.
The Auld Alliance signed by John Balliol and Philip IV of France in 1295
The people who voted to “take back control” will realise that Farrage, Rees-Mogg, Stuart, Gove and the rest didn’t have unemployed miners and factory workers in the Midlands and North but their mates in international banking and hedge fund managers.
It was the miners that declared war on the British government.
So Ben of V, Scotland, N Ireland and Wales will opt for a nanny totalitarian rule from Brussels! This is the ‘ward of state’ desire at play. This will make England an even more prosperous state.
I was looking at the Rutgers charts the other day, and noticed that the snowfall in Autumn and Winter in the Northern Hemisphere has been increasing. Spring snowfall has declined.
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
I have no idea why. Should I blame CO2?
It just has to be CO2… Weather was static before 1975… (/Sarc)
I recall my 5th grade teacher remarking back in the 1960’s that when he was growing up in Kentucky in the 40’s and 50’s, there was almost never any snow that “stuck” even in the winters.
In those days, we were up to our waists in snow all winter in Northern Ohio with snow-packed roads from December to March (no general salting back then of secondary roads…just some coal ashes sprinkled over certain intersections).
“It just has to be CO2… Weather was static before 1975… (/Sarc)”
That’s certainly what d*ni*r Mann would have you believe.
Landscapes won’t know what snow is.
https://www.google.com/search?q=snowy+fence&tbm=isch&hl=en&chips=q:snowy+fence,g_1:winter,online_chips:snowy+landscape&client=ms-android-huawei&prmd=isvn&hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwjLv9vhv8znAhUBO-wKHW2nAF0Q4lYoAHoECAEQDQ&biw=360&bih=518
RoHa:
The perceived decrease in spring NH snow is likely due to the manner in which the data is collected. You see, back around 1999, the method was changed from a satellite/human observation and assessment combo to a satellite/albedo combo. In the spring, as the snowfall dwindles, the snowpack gets dirtier with time. Eventually, the albedo drops enough to suggest that snow cover is no longer present. Also, any snow on trees starts to melt/fall, which reads as another negative date point for snow cover. Granted, the cover of trees is limited in the far north, but when combined with the “graying” of the open snow cover with time, it likely helps to explain the suggestion of a negative seasonal trend.
Glaciers are already displacing their mass in magma. Same argument as about northern polar sea ice but slower.
As the glaciers get bigger they’ll displace more mass into the magma causing the magma to be shifted to the side under the oceans making the oceans less deep and the water has to spread inland.
Isn’t physics fun?
Let me tell you about how Gravity regulates temperature through density reduction of heated air masses at ground level! (which means that, mathematically, increases in temperature of surface air aren’t necessarily increases in mass energy!)
Try telling Colorado that late snow cover is decreasing. I went up there 9 months or so ago (Silverton area) and the upper back roads where all still closed in early June. Locals were complaining they couldn’t remember so much snow in early June, and were very worried about the flooding as massive amounts of snow started melting.
Again, its all just weather. They like to cherry pick droughts and warm weather to reinforce their point of view, but completely ignore weather that is contrary to their view.
Someday, Greenland *might* lose enough snow to reveal more of the buried villages, farms, and pastures the Vikings were using. I for one will not be panicking. The warmer the North becomes, the more varieties of interesting wines they can produce, like back in Roman times. Now I’ll drink to that.
I actually got vertigo driving from Durango to Silverton.
Next time take the narrow gage train hugging the sides of the cliff. Take along a spare pair of shorts.
Or wear some Depends.
I had a six pack of Budweiser in the cooler. When we got to a point where it was less dizzying, I had a couple of beers and recovered.
It was nothing like the ride up to Puente Ojuela. My wife was driving and I was in the passenger seat. For large segments of the drive, when I looked out the window, I was looking straight down.
https://www.dangerousroads.org/north-america/mexico/4907-puente-de-ojuela.html
what is a narrow gage train? some sort of plum caravan?
Leo, your kidding –
Leo Smith February 2, 2020 at 2:58 am
what is a narrow gage train:
https://www.google.com/search?q=narrow+gage+train&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&ctxr&ctxsl_trans=1&tlitetl=de&tlitetxt=narrow%20gage%20train
Interesting post David, I have only a couple of things to quibble about.
First
“We have…no idea if the recent mass losses are anomalous…”
Well yes we do. “No idea” might be accurate if you hadn’t overlooked a 4°C rise in the Arctic since the mid 60s.
https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1213190411595988992/photo/1
Lets not call it a smoking gun but sheesh, no idea? Sorry, but we’ve got a very good idea.
Second
Its highly likely Greenland is losing mass – why leave your readers with the impression that Greenland ice mass has in fact been growing and all that “declining” stuff is fake? Whether its “104 Gt/yr rather than the oft cited 230 Gt/yr”, increasing sealevel is coming from somewhere. I haven’t bothered to do the back of the envelope calculation but since sea-level rise = thermal expansion + melt it wouldn’t be that difficault to figure out how many Gts are melting. Instead of producing paragraph after paragraph to cast doubt on that fact and muddy the water – why not just come out and agree that its highly likely?
Third
Why focus on my “increasing” comment when I was merely refuting Charles’ incorrect “declining” comment?
Even though you don’t agree with him, do you suspect you’ve cleverly managed to convince quite a few that you do.
There is a third factor affecting sea level rise
Sea level rise = Thermal expansion + Melt +/- subsidence/rebound
In numerous locations, >1/2 measured Sea Level Rise is due to coastal subsidence
Isn’t that some up, some down so net zero?
Bryan A, there is also sedimentation rate and sea-floor volcanism. Sedimentation rate in the ocean basins would be a combination of elevated terrain plus weather effects, and is likely quite variable during geologic history, however if you fill the ocean basin some the sea level goes up. Sea-floor volcanism is a difficult item to measure, and how irregular these events are is not known, however, if you fill ocean basins the sea level goes up.
The sea level only goes up if you assume that the volume of the ocean basins is constant, which it is not due to volcanic and tectonic activity.
Horst schist.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/29/warming-island-greenland-sea-regional-climate-and-arctic-sea-ice-reconstruction/
The graph I posted was for the whole Arctic, to date, so…you post some completely different horst schist. Btw, love the Frankenstein graph with the core data stapled on, nice.
Um, so, even though half those stations are not in the Artic and even though your graph shows that your ‘The Area You Chose’ area *only* warmed 2°C from the mid 60s to 2003, but the Arctic as a whole has warmed even more, you’re sticking with your “we’ve got no idea why Greenland is melting” schtick are you?
Whatever.
All of the stations are in the Arctic.
The GISP2 ice cores is entirely in the Artic, Kobashi goes up to 1993.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-009-9689-9
Your comment was about Greenland. Your link is irrelevant. It starts in 1960.
And, rather than lying about what I posted, quote my words in context.
“…The graph I posted was for the whole Arctic…”
Yeah, “the whole Arctic,” lol.
You do realize your link is reanalysis (i.e., model) data?
Loydo, when the ‘average’ temperature in the Arctic rises a proportion of that rise will take place in ‘winter’. When the Winter temperature in the Arctic rises from say MINUS 25˚ to MINUS 17˚C
you are witnessing a ‘COOLING’ event.
I’m not sure how much of a grasp of physics you have so if you need me to I’ll explain that in more depth for you I’ll be happy to.
charles, A colder, deeper winter freeze makes ice slower to melt during summer. The reason Gteenland is losing ice mass and that sea-ice is shrinking is mainly because the winters have been milder.
If you think a 4˚C rise is a cooling event, then I’ll get my physics elsewhere thanks.
“All of the stations are in the Arctic.”
Iceland is not above the Arctic Circle.
“…no idea if the recent mass losses are anomalous…”
Its anomalous alright.
The Arctic Circle doesn’t define the Arctic.
All of the stations are north of 60°N.
Arctic proxy locations…
Oh where, oh where did Loydo’s 4 °C of warming go?
Furthermore, my reconstruction wasn’t of the Arctic. It was of Greenland and the Greenland Sea region.
Compared to what? GRACE only operated from 2002-2017.
Too fracking funny!
The Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s and just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period…
McKay, N. P. and Kaufman, D. S. An extended Arctic proxy temperature database for the past 2,000 years. Sci. Data 1:140026 doi: 10.1038/sdata.2014.26 (2014).
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201426
“The Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s and just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period…”
Your own frankenfurter graph above refutes that, silly person, and it stops 16 years ago.
“Oh where, oh where did Loydo’s 4 °C of warming go?”
Here’s some…
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Figures/svalbard-and-jan-mayen-TAVG-Trend.pdf
Some more…
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/81.19N-100.59E
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/69.92N-56.10W
etc, etc, etc…
Good fracking grief… 81.19 N, 100.59 E is a specific point on Earth. Even that shows the 1930’s to be warmer than 2000 and only 1.5 °C of warming since then.
Here’s the BEST plot of Svalbard and Jan Mayen since 1930:
1938, 1945 and 1954 were all warmer than the most recent year on the BEST plot, 2013. The slope from 1930-2013 is 1 °C per century, with an R2 of 0.04 – No trend.
I don’t have Svalbard handy, but I do have the GISS station data for Jan Mayen…
Only the most recent 5 years have been slightly warmer than the 1930’s. The slope since 1930 is also 1 °C per century, with an R2 of 0.07 – No trend.
The 2,000-yr Arctic reconstruction only extends up to 2000. It cleary demonstrates that there is no modern anomalous Arctic warming.
So… Where is the 4 °C of Arctic warming on anything other than a random image from a random greentard website?
The 1930’s feature promiently in those graphs.
Just thought I would mention that because it was just as warm then as it is now, even in the arctic. Which means there is no unprecedented warming today, which means that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere, which means we don’t have anything to worry about concerning CO2.
Have a nice, tranquil day. 🙂
I just love how the trolls declare that earlier warmings don’t count, because we don’t know what caused them. However the current warming is unprecedented because it’s being caused by CO2.
How do we know the current warming is caused by CO2 and not whatever caused the earlier warmings? Because the models (which by the way can’t model the earlier warmings) have declared that only CO2 could have done it.
David wrote about Svalbard: “The slope from 1930-2013 is 1 °C per century, with an R2 of 0.04 – No trend.”
David, the presence of absence of a significant trend isn’t determined by R2. For that, you need to calculate the 95% confidence interval about your slope of 1 degC/century. (To do that correctly, you need to correct for autocorrelation in monthly temperature data. Because warmer and colder temperature anomalies tend to persist for many months, you aren’t analyzing 12 independent data points a year. (1 or 2 independent measurements a year is typical in some temperature records.)
R2 tells you what fraction of the variance in your data is explained by the trend you have calculated. Clearly noise or other factors have a much larger impact on temperature change that whatever is causing the trend. Nevertheless, you can still have a significant trend in the presence of lots of noise, perhaps even 25 times more noise than trend.
“Well yes we do. “No idea” might be accurate if you hadn’t overlooked a 4°C rise in the Arctic since the mid 60s.”
You mean the Arctic where there is very little coverage as far as thermometers go, and where a lot of infilling (making stuff up) happens in the datasets? That Arctic?
There is nothing unusual about a 4 degree swing in Arctic temperatures. It’s happened many times before. Several of them in the last century.
Make-it-up Mark, makin it up. If you’re not show us what you’re basing this on.
David
When creating a scatterplot of a dependent variable against one or more independent variables, the r^2 value is classically interpreted as explaining or predicting the percentage of variance in the dependent variable associated with the chosen independent variable. A time series isn’t really an independent variable in the sense that it can affect the dependent variable directly. There is an association in the sense that the dependent variable is changing over time. However, r^2 values of 5 or 10% really say that the association is next to useless with regards to prediction. In the examples you provide, the r^2 value is really telling us that we can’t predict anything but a general up or down trend (if there is statistical significance) and points to how great the variance is over time. Anything less than 50% is really like the toss of a coin, done by Sherlock Holmes’ smarter brother — Shear Luck.
“ is really telling us that we can’t predict anything ”
I’ve said similar elsewhere.
Also, it is why Willis E. says look at the data.
William M. Briggs has likely posted on this, but I’m not the one to search it up.
The R2 tells you what percentage of the variability is explained by the trend function.
This relates to the 2 century long upward trend in GAT’s since the LIA. The continuation of that trend Carrie’s with it “statistical inertia” and the continuation of that trend (at the same or lesser rate) would normally not be attributed to some new “forcing” or cause. That would especially be the case if the reason for the upward trend was unknown in the first place.
“The continuation of that trend Carrie’s with it “statistical inertia””
Wha?
I think Shear Luck was Smarters Brother’s (Gene Wilder) nickname for Sherlock
Some asshole on a discord I was discussing just the year-on-year Gt gains with decided to point out that Author must be wrong because some links don’t work.
I told him to stop being childish, as he was claiming that the Author linked to homepages when I can actually see the links were shunted by the homepages.
Since there are about 600 “thomas 2011” articles globally about variable sciences I’d suggest David Middleton or editors provide new links to said articles that aren’t behind shuntwalls.
Dropstones are boulders and large rocks that are carried out to sea by icebergs.
Heinrich event is a natural phenomenon in which large armadas of icebergs break off from glaciers and traverse the North Atlantic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_event
The icebergs contained rock mass, eroded by the glaciers, and as they melted, this material was dropped to the sea floor.
That page uses ” ice rafted debris (abbreviated to “IRD”); but the meaning is the same.
Some “snows of yesteryear”, in 2020:
https://www.iceagenow.info/another-video-from-kazakhstan/
https://www.iceagenow.info/coldest-cold-snap-to-ever-hit-northern-saudi-arabia/
https://www.iceagenow.info/siberia-snowfall-180-230-percent-of-normal/
https://www.iceagenow.info/the-most-snow-on-the-ground-on-record-in-kazakhstan/
https://www.iceagenow.info/many-parts-of-mongolia-suffering-dzuds/
https://www.iceagenow.info/bangladesh-cold-related-diseases-affect-4110-people-in-24-hrs/
David: Spring and summer snow are down (YAY!). Fall and winter snow are up (yay, cause I like skiing SOME of the year). But the yearly change is very near zero.
The 12 month running average of snow extent shows NH snow extent is basically flat over the entire record (near zero anomaly to date), and has increased over the last 30 years.
‘Whatever the snow does, it will have been predicted by the climate models? Or did I read that wrong?”
Ya you read that wrong.
The models do not predict FOR THE FUTURE
1. Increased Snow during the Spring and summer
2. Decreased Snow during Winter EVERYWHERE.
Is that really that hard to understand.
FOR THE FUTURE 2100.
A) Winter Snow will NOT Decrease EVERYWHERE.
B) Spring and summer snow cover is Likely NOT TO INCREASE ANY WHERE.
That means you cannot pick a location TODAY and make any kind of statement.
Further ,
you need to be careful with rudgers data. Did you read the readme?
Did you take care with the missing data during key times?
Probably not or you would have documented it.
Code and data dave.
Just as willis would ask for
“Steve didn’t tell us what the climate models predicted about the fall… I’m gonna guess that the models must have predicted more snowfall.”
Climate models make predictions about THE FUTURE dave.
you showed the PAST
Now you spent some time search for joke videos but spent no time reading science.
Here are some snippets.
NOTES FOR BLOGGERS.
A) Don’t get your science from the MWP
B) Consult the BEST SOURCES
C) actually read those sources
D) Understand that science is never certain.
E) Understand that we can predict with varying levels of confidence.
F) If the science is SILENT about something, like FALL snowfall, that is pretty FFING normal,
we dont know everything.
Here is what the limited science says: about predictions made in the 2012 time period for the future
” Projections of the NH spring snow covered
area by the end of the 21st century vary between a decrease of 7%
(RCP2.6) and a decrease of 25% (RCP8.5), with a pattern that is fairly
consistent between models”
By 2100. BIG HINT..
See that? By 2100. Hint hint.. hard to miss
Next BIG HINT : RCP 8.5 is a worst case, dont expect this to happen.
Notice this: The best science says NOTHING about 2019
wanna know why? If you are predicting a Long term change ~10-15% over 90 years, then
you are not gunna look at 2019 data.
Sidebar
Dave M: Hey lets drill here! in a few years we should be doing 1M barrels a day.
-two weeks later!! –
Local idiot: “hey NO OIL, your prediction is wrong dave.!”
Sidebar over
What else does the best science say?
“. In particular, the largest changes over northern
Eurasia and North America are projected to occur during winter. At
high latitudes of the NH, the precipitation increase may lead to an
increase of snowfall in the colder regions and a decrease of snowfall
in the warmer regions due to the decreased number of freezing days
(see Section 12.4.6.2). ”
INCREASE in colder regions
DECREASE in warmer regions.
2080 comes along;
Son of dave M: ‘hey! in Greenland winter snow increased”
CLimate scientist: As predicted.
Son of Mosher: Hey Antarctic snow decreased:
Climate scientist: Oh interesting!, Not as predicted!
Son of dave M: ‘hey! Michigan Snow winter snow decreased”
Climate scientist: As predicted.
Son of Mosher: Hey Illinois winter snow increased:
Climate scientist: Oh interesting!, Not as predicted!
More
“Excluding ice sheets and glaciers, analyses of seasonal snow cover
changes generally focus on the NH, where the configuration of the
continents on the Earth induces a larger maximum seasonal snow
cover extent (SCE) and a larger sensitivity of SCE to climate changes.
Seasonal snow cover extent and snow water equivalent (SWE) respond
to both temperature and precipitation. At the beginning and the end
of the snow season, SCE decreases are closely linked to a shortening
of the seasonal snow cover duration, while SWE is more sensitive to
snowfall amount (Brown and Mote, 2009). Future widespread reductions of SCE, particularly in spring, are simulated by the CMIP3 models
(Roesch, 2006; Brown and Mote, 2009) and confirmed by the CMIP5
ensemble (Brutel-Vuilmet et al., 2013). The NH spring (March-April
average) snow cover area changes are coherent in the CMIP5 models
although there is considerable scatter. Relative to the 1986–2005 reference period, the CMIP5 models simulate a weak decrease of about
7 ± 4% (one-σ inter-model dispersion) for RCP2.6 during the last two
decades of the 21st century, while SCE decreases of about 13 ± 4% are
simulated for RCP4.5, 15 ± 5% for RCP6.0, and 25 ± 8% for RCP8.5
(Figure 12.32). There is medium confidence in these numbers because
of the considerable inter-model scatter mentioned above and because
snow processes in global climate models are strongly simplified.”
Notes for rock hounds
MEDIUM CONFIDENCE. Not certainty
EXCLUDING ICESHEETS, wonder why?
More
“Projections for the change in annual maximum SWE are more mixed.
Warming decreases SWE both by reducing the fraction of precipitation
that falls as snow and by increasing snowmelt, but projected increases in precipitation over much of the northern high latitudes during
winter months act to increase snow amounts. Whether snow covering the ground will become thicker or thinner depends on the balance
between these competing factors. Both in the CMIP3 (Räisänen, 2008)
and in the CMIP5 models (Brutel-Vuilmet et al., 2013), annual maximum SWE tends to increase or only marginally decrease in the coldest
regions, while annual maximum SWE decreases are strong closer to the
southern limit of the seasonally snow-covered area.
It is thus very likely (high confidence) that by the end of the 21st century, NH spring snow cover extent will be substantially lower than today
if anthropogenic climate forcing is similar to the stronger scenarios
considered here. Conversely, there is only medium confidence in the
latitudinal pattern of annual maximum SWE changes (increase or little
change in the coldest regions, stronger decrease further to the South)
because annual maximum SWE is influenced by competing factors
(earlier melt onset, higher solid precipitation rates in some regions).”
Notes for Boulders
Location matters.
Now it is far easier to simplify this to a catchy message.
The snow will disappear.
This is what journalists do
And then any 2 digit boulder can attack the journalist and ignore the science which is much more nuanced
and uncertain. And if you throw in plots of the past to understand the future projections you are a perfect match for the journalist
Yep… Whatever happens, it was predicted by the climate models.
“Next BIG HINT : RCP 8.5 is a worst case, dont expect this to happen.”
Tell it to the alarmists.
Skeptics don’t think RCP8.5 is realistic, it is the alarmists who use the unrealistic RCP8.5 as the basis for their Human-caused climate change scaremongering.
“Climate models make predictions about THE FUTURE dave.
you showed the PAST”
They apparently can’t predict either one.
You need some anger management Steve.
A bad day for lefties I know – Brexit done, Trump off the hook.
Take a long walk and some deep breaths.
Next BIG HINT : RCP 8.5 is a worst case, dont expect this to happen.
Yes but RCP 8.5 is what all the politics is based on.
You guys know how to have your cake and eat it.
BTW, the word “predict” implies the future.
If you don’t want to predict the future, don’t write climate models.
They implicitly predict the future.
Wrongly.
Now that right there is funny! And on target!
Too fracking funny…
Steven Mosher January 31, 2020
Steven Mosher February 1, 2020 at 12:17 am
Since the models have never demonstrated any predictive skill, I have to agree with you.
Sure, the models have never demonstrated any predictive skill:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EBHfoNIXoAIdAxr?format=png&name=small
Seems like an underestimation (true global SAT is somewhere between dTs and loti)
Hansen’s epic fail…
Scenario C is where humans basically undiscover fire at the end of the 20th Century.
RCP2.6 and RCP4.0 are strong mitigation scenarios.
What Exxon Knew in 1978…
The current temperatures are at the high end of “approximate range of undisturbed climate in past few centuries.”
The models haven’t improved. RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset vs. CMIP-5 climate models. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% probability band. Apart from the recent El Niño, RSS has tracked cooler than more than 95% of the models. The predictive mode is post-2005. (Remote Sensing Systems).
Whether taking the temperature in the atmosphere (UAH v6.0) or at airports (HadCRUT4), the observations track near or below the bottom of the 5% to 95% range. Apart from the recent El Niño, the observations track cooler than 95% of the models. (Modified from Climate Lab Book)
If the oil & gas industry defined predictive skill in the same manner as climate “scientists,” Macondo (Deepwater Horizon) would have been the only failed prediction in the past 30 years… because the rig blowing up and sinking wasn’t within the 5% to 95% range of outcomes in the pre-drill prognosis.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/06/climate-models-have-not-improved-in-50-years/
I was wondering if anyone caught that complete contradiction.
I guess if you think that way you will believe the models predicted whatever has happened or will happen.
Like most alarmists, Mosh says whatever he thinks will advance the narrative and ensure that his paycheck continues.
Actually expecting him to think about what he’s saying is above his pay grade.
The models are right 50% of the time and there is a 10% chance of that. 😉
My family and I moved from New Jersey to North Carolina in the fall of 2014. That prior winter (2013-2014) had been particularly brutal. It just kept snowing, and I had nowhere to put the snow in our apartment complex. My neighbors and I just piled it where we could, and by the end if it all we had snow walks separating us up to my eyeballs.
I’m 6’1”.
I grew up in Georgia, and I’d seen enough. I’m so thankful to be back in a land where the mere threat of snow is enough to close schools and shut down the city.
So much nicer than shoveling it.
RoHa:
The perceived decrease in spring NH snow is likely due to the manner in which the data is collected. You see, back around 1999, the method was changed from a satellite/human observation and assessment combo to a satellite/albedo combo. In the spring, as the snowfall dwindles, the snowpack gets dirtier with time. Eventually, the albedo drops enough to suggest that snow cover is no longer present. Also, any snow on trees starts to melt/fall, which reads as another negative date point for snow cover. Granted, the cover of trees is limited in the far north, but when combined with the “graying” of the open snow cover with time, it likely helps to explain the suggestion of a negative seasonal trend.
David Middleton says,
“The Greenland Ice Sheet has had positive SMB (gained ice) over the last 4 years. More snow has accumulated than ice has melted.
2015-2016: +247 Gt
2016-2017: +544 Gt
2017-2018: +517 Gt
2018-2019: +169 Gt”
Well duh. The SMB is positive every year, David. 169 Gt represents a very small gain compared to the 1981-2010 average.
The SMB has been negative in some years. I think it was negative in 2014-2015.
169 Gt is insignificant relative to the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS)… So is the 375 Gt/yr it was supposedly losing from 2011-2014. At 375 Gt/yr, it would take 3,178 years for the GrIS to lose 5% of its ice mass.
According to U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1386–A (2012), the volume of the GrIS is 2,600,000 km3. The USGS cites a 1954 reference for this number and also cites Bamber et al., 2011, which puts the volume at 2,900,000 km3. Bamber has subsequently upped his estimate to 2,960,000 km3. This is funny. Either the GrIS added 360,000 km3 of ice from 1954-2013 at a time when NASA said the GrIS was losing 4,089 km3 or the uncertainty of the volume of the GrIS is about 1,000 times the annual ice loss that is asserted with such precision by Amazing GRACE.
According to Kjeldsen et al., 2015, the GrIS lost over 9,900 km3 of ice from 1900-2010 and an article in The Economist asserted that the GrIS lost 375 Gt/yr (409 km3/yr) from 2011-2014.
Here’s a graphical depiction of this projected up to 2017:
99.58% of the Greenland Ice Sheet has not ablated or calved since 1900.
“The SMB has been negative in some years. I think it was negative in 2014-2015.”
Please read from your own link:
“In other words, 169 Gt more snow fell than what melted and ran off into the sea. This figure is almost 200 Gt below the 1981-2010 average of 368 Gt. As a point of reference, the lowest calculated SMB was only 38 Gt in 2012. However, as the name implies, this applies only to the balance on the surface, and thus not the total balance, which also includes melting of glaciers that come into contact with warm seawater and calving of icebergs.”
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/polarportal-saesonrapport-2019-EN.pdf
*****
Yes, I agree. Melting from the Greenland Ice Sheet is very small compared to the overall volume.
I didn’t link to the 2014-2015 report.
Neither did I. The quote is from the report you DID link.
I linked to the most recent years with positive mass balance. This is not a difficult concept.
Near-to-me Hagerstown, MD, USA — snowiest winters:
From http://i4weather.net/climate.html
HAGERSTOWN MD SNOWIEST WINTERS
SEASON OC NO DE JA FE MA AP TOTAL
1 1960-61 T T 17.5 21.5 29.5 3.0 2.5 74.0
2 2009-10 0 0 22.4 4.0 44.1 T 0 70.5
2 1995-96 0 8.1 6.1 42.9 9.4 2.3 T 68.8
3 1963-64 T T 14.6 16.5 26.6 11.0 T 68.7
4 2002-03 T 0.5 13.8 7.6 34.8 2.2 0.4 59.3
5 1917-18 T 1.0 12.5 23.0 0.5 T 19.0 56.0
6 1993-94 0 T 4.2 21.4 15.6 12.6 0 53.8
7 1904-05 0 1.5 16.8 22.3 8.0 3.0 T 51.6
8 1898-99 0 5.9 4.4 2.0 31.0 4.0 0 47.3
9 1992-93 T T 4.4 2.8 19.4 20.5 T 47.1
10 1910-11 0 5.0 11.8 6.3 8.5 11.0 2.5 45.1
11 1921-22 0 T 10.5 22.0 10.0 2.0 0.5 45.0
12 1962-63 T 2.0 19.0 7.1 11.5 4.5 T 44.1
Notice that many of the snowiest winters are quite recent. Obviously, at least there, the snows of yester-year are not up to the snows of the modern era.
Dave Middleton is living in the past.
.
.
Each one of his “graphs” say: “Data from Rutgers University Global Snow Lab https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/index.php Graph by David Middleton, 31 January 2010
Because the data are from the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab and I made the graphs, using the data, in Excel.
How can you have data in the graph past 2010 if they were made in 2010?
It’s called a typo. I made the graphs yesterday in Excel.
David: I think the question is when were the graphs constructed: 2010 or 2020?…
I’ll eventually fix the dates on graphs… maybe.
David: I figured as much – particularly when I did the same thing today balancing my checkbook….
Rutgers’ Yesteryear correct representation would be, for the NH (1979-2019):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NjHX1d5He9QY7r-woFjynd2i9n97weGO/view
Due to the very high, snowfall-inherent standard deviations from the mean, no statistically significant trends are available (neither for absolute levels nor for their departures wrt 1981-2010), as the resulting standard errors are higher than their trends for any period since 1979.
Looks pretty good, no reason for any lenghty polemic.
P.S. It would be interesting to think about why snow cover increase trends for falls & winters are bypassed in their sum by the decrease trend of the subsequent springs.
J.-P. D.
Back before “CAGW”/”Climate Change” there was a saying common to the various states I’ve lived in or visited for any length of time.
“If you don’t like the weather, wait a few minutes. It’ll change.”
The locals all seemed to almost take pride in thinking their weather was uniquely changeable. 😎
OOPS!
I made this comment above.
This is an accidental double comment.
Sorry.
Spring snow cover declines as farmers bring more land into cultivation. You can plow in late winter ready for the growing season. That plows in the snow, and increases local warming because of the albedo change.
They can’t do anything about fall snow, so it is rising under the effect of the cyclic downturn.
Here is a thought which just came to mind as I listened to a Randall Carlson interview on YouTube. In one part he discusses the puzzle of the melt water pulses 1A and 1B, plus smaller melt pulses are also seen on a graph he displays. This was the thought which immediately popped into my mind.
“… consider this thought. When sea level dropped to around 400 feet lower during the lowest portions of the glaciation that would have very likely meant that the Antarctic ice mass would have been greatly increased as the newly exposed land surfaces would immediately freeze over. The newly exposed land surfaces would then build immense glaciers over a period of tens of thousands of years, just as is now seen across that continent. Now surface snow/ice on Antarctica can only be lost by the process of sublimation, and continental shelf ice will still slowly melt from below due to contact with warmer ocean waters.
To the point, what do you think would happen to the land ice as the oceans rise due to Northern Hemisphere glaciers melting as the NH warming reasserts itself? Perhaps that is the KEY to the melt pulses. Vast sections of land ice would be overwhelmed by rising ocean waters which would float the ice off of the continental shelf, and then they would rapidly melt in the oceans, ie: a rapid melt pulse. By George, that could well be the reason for the pulses.
David misleadingly wrote: “The Greenland Ice Sheet has had positive SMB (gained ice) over the last 4 years.”
David is citing only the changes due to snowfall and melting. There is an additional loss from calving and melting of Greenland glaciers that touch the ocean. In the reports he cites, the loss due to calving and ocean melting is reported in km^2, while the surface mass balance is reported in Gigatons, so these quantities can’t be combined.
In Antarctica, there is snow accumulation, but negligible melting, so the loss of ice there is all due to calving and melting at the interface with the ocean.
Horst schist! I specifically explained this in the post. SMB doesn’t include calving of icebergs.
David: Above the section on surface mass balance (SBM), you had a section on the change in total mass balance and GRACE. However, only the change in total mass balance is important to sea level rise, and SLR is the only real concern of readers of WUWT. This section of your post didn’t make it clear to readers that changes in SMB have no direct relevance SLR. For this reason, I asserted that this part of your post was misleading.
For example, it the GIS were completely stable and Greenland were not causing any change in sea level, the surface mass balance would be strongly positive and would be exactly counterbalanced by the mass lost by calving and melting at the interface with the ocean. SMB alone is meaningless.
Another example: Surface mass balance in Antarctica is certainly positive because (unlike in Greenland) almost no surface melting occurs in Antarctica. Whether or not Antarctica is adding to or subtracting from SLR depends mostly on whether the amount of calving and melting at the ocean interface is greater or less than snowfall in the interior of the ice sheet.
The big picture is that about 50% of SLR is due to thermal expansion of the ocean, which is now well characterized by ARGO. Most of the remaining 50% is due to melting and calving of ice caps, and Greenland’s is the major ice cap that is melting. As far as I know, there has been no dramatic slowdown in the rate of SLR during recent years when you assert that important changes in SMB have occurred. (If they weren’t important, why write about them.) However, it is possible that I am poorly informed about how changes in Greenland SMB have significantly reduced SLR in recent years. I’d love to be enlightened about that subject.
This post is not about sea level rise. It is about snow cover. Learn how to read!
Instead of lying about what I wrote, quote my exact words in context. This is exactly what I wrote:
The ice mass estimates ostensibly take into account:
The “funny” thing is that icebergs have a tough time calving if outlet glaciers aren’t advancing toward the sea. Glacial “dropstones” are geological evidence of past “ice house” climates. Dropstones are boulders and large rocks that are carried out to sea by icebergs. When the icebergs melt, the boulders drop to the bottom of the ocean. Increased calving of icebergs has been evidence for colder climates from “Snowball Earth” right up until Al Gore invented Gorebal Warming.
SMB is the net difference of snow accumulation and ablation. The Greenland Ice Sheet has had positive SMB (gained ice) over the last 4 years. More snow has accumulated than ice has melted.
Time to recycle an old comment.
“When glaciers calve, alarmist have a cow. That explains all the bellowing!”
David: I didn’t accuse you of lying – I said you presentation of this data was misleading. (It was misleading enough for me that I clicked on your links and read the sources of the data before I understood what it meant.) Above the section on surface mass balance, you were discussing the TOTAL mass balance measured by GRACE. Total mass balance is the only thing of real interest to readers – that is what is causing SLR. The numbers you provide on recent SMB are easily confused by readers with total mass balance – the only thing readers really need to know. (It was misleading enough for me that I clicked on your links and read the sources of the data before I understood what it meant.)
The surface mass balance on Greenland has usually been positive in Greenland – even in the years about a decade ago when the total mass loss from Greenland was greatest.
When the GIS was “stable”, the SMB was positive and all of that positive mass was lost calving icebergs and melting at the ocean. A positive mass balance tells us nothing about whether Greenland is contributing to SLR or subtracting from it. Therefore – IMO – your citing a positive SMB is misleading in the absence of a clear discussion of what it means about SLR.
IIRC, about half of SLR is attributed to thermal expansion, which is now well defined thanks to ARGO. Most of the other half is due to melting of ice caps, and most of that is due to Greenland. As best I can tell, there hasn’t been a major slowdown in SLR in the past few years, so there likely has not been a dramatic slowdown in the total mass balance of Greenland. That’s the big picture, as best I understand it – but I’d love to learn why I am wrong.
I didn’t say you accused me of lying. My comment was in English:
QUOTE
Instead of lying about what I wrote, quote my exact words in context. This is exactly what I wrote:
The ice mass estimates ostensibly take into account:
The “funny” thing is that icebergs have a tough time calving if outlet glaciers aren’t advancing toward the sea. Glacial “dropstones” are geological evidence of past “ice house” climates. Dropstones are boulders and large rocks that are carried out to sea by icebergs. When the icebergs melt, the boulders drop to the bottom of the ocean. Increased calving of icebergs has been evidence for colder climates from “Snowball Earth” right up until Al Gore invented Gorebal Warming.
SMB is the net difference of snow accumulation and ablation. The Greenland Ice Sheet has had positive SMB (gained ice) over the last 4 years. More snow has accumulated than ice has melted.
END QUOTE
Prior to discussing SMB, I discussed the net ice mass loss estimated by GRACE. And I clearly stated that SMB was only part of the equation.
This is what I wrote right before discussing SMB:
QUOTE
Ice mass losses from 2002-2017 were estimated from gravity data obtained by the GRACE satellites.
The GRACE measurements upon which the accelerating ice loss claims are based are heavily dependent on the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). While not as large as Antarctica (where the GIA’s margin of error is nearly as large as the asserted ice loss), GIA variations can result in totally different ice loss values… And the GRACE time series isn’t any longer than the MODIS time series.
Wu et al., 2010 determined that the GIA commonly assumed for Greenland was way too high and that the 2002-2008 ice loss rate was 104 Gt/yr rather than the oft cited 230 Gt/yr. Even at 230 Gt/yr, it would take 1,000 years for Greenland to lose 5% of its ice mass.
Riva et al., 2007 concluded that the ice mass-loss rate in Antarctica from 2002-2007 could have been anywhere from zero-point-zero Gt/yr up to 120 Gt/yr. Dr. Riva recently co-authored a paper in GRL (Thomas et al., 2011) which concluded that GPS observations suggest “that modeled or empirical GIA uplift signals are often over-estimated” and that “the spatial pattern of secular ice mass change derived from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) data and GIA models may be unreliable, and that several recent secular Antarctic ice mass loss estimates are systematically biased, mainly too high.”
So… We have barely 15 years worth of data and no idea if the recent mass losses are anomalous relative to the early 20th century Arctic warming, Medieval Warm Period or any of the other millennial-scale Holocene warming periods.
In 2017 the Greenland ice sheet appeared to have gained mass. The GRACE mission ended in 2017; so we don’t know what it’s done since then.
END QUOTE
Furthermore, this thread has nothing to do with sea level rise. It’s about snow.
David or moderator: I appear to have become confused about whether one of my comments disappeared into moderation and have repeated myself. Most inexcusably, I have failed to quote your remarks. My apologies, I must be tired. If you can delete what I just wrote. please do so.
David: You are correct that corrections for GIA make the interpretation of GRACE data challenging. There is a global correction for GIA that is added to global sea level rise. There are local corrections for GIA under ice caps. These local corrections are not added to produce the global correction.
GIA increases the mass under Greenland and lowers the ocean floor around Greenland (thereby decreasing the mass of the ocean around Greenland because rock is more dense than water). This shifting of mass has no effect on sea level, if the height of the ice cap has remained the same. From the SLR perspective, I think we should be paying more attention to the height of the ice cap (altimetry) and less attention to the mass of the ice cap.
I don’t see any comments listed as pending, spam or trash.
The problem with just focusing on the altitude of the ice sheet, is that it could be losing mass, without losing altitude due to post glacial rebound. This is why getting GIA right is so important.
The paleo-altitude has been reconstructed from O2 content (IIRC) in ice cores. Almost all of the ice loss since the end of the Pleistocene has come from outboard areas.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/22/a-geological-perspective-of-the-greenland-ice-sheet/
On the other hand, SMB can be directly measured and is not necessarily dependent on models.
Exactly.
What part of this wasn’t in English?
This is exactly what I wrote:
The ice mass estimates ostensibly take into account:
The “funny” thing is that icebergs have a tough time calving if outlet glaciers aren’t advancing toward the sea. Glacial “dropstones” are geological evidence of past “ice house” climates. Dropstones are boulders and large rocks that are carried out to sea by icebergs. When the icebergs melt, the boulders drop to the bottom of the ocean. Increased calving of icebergs has been evidence for colder climates from “Snowball Earth” right up until Al Gore invented Gorebal Warming.
SMB is the net difference of snow accumulation and ablation. The Greenland Ice Sheet has had positive SMB (gained ice) over the last 4 years. More snow has accumulated than ice has melted.
Regarding the first graph: so often we see the GISP2 data mislabelled and here is no exception.
That data series ends in 1855, NOT in 1950 as labelled.
This has been made clear on this site so often, since 2010 in fact, that it’s hard to believe people keep using it without knowing that to be the case.
Why mislead people if our argument is so strong?
Horst schist. Try reading the x-axis label.
The most recent year in the time series is 95 BP… The P in BP is 1950… 95 BP is 1855. 1950 is the standard present for radiometric dating.
As someone who knew the environmental program at Rutgers University, I think one cannot underrate the degree of liberal, progressive thought and action there. Almost all universities are extremely progressive these days, but Rutgers is among the most far-left. It has been distressing to see the march to the left of this once-proud institution, and in particular the atmospheric and environmental science programs within the environmental school. Rutgers, and most schools, became political and leftist in the ’60s and ’70s, and they have only gotten worse. The current NJ State Climatologist has morphed from a wait-and-see stance on human-caused global warming in the late ’80s and ’90s to a full-on alarmist attitude in the past decade, as evidenced by his media interviews, which incestuously coincide with the agenda of the far-left media in NJ. And isn’t it convenient how this meshes with the far-left Sierra Club director to provide a nice little program of indoctrination and brainwashing to a gullible populace? The demographics in NJ have changed markedly over the past few decades, and this new political and cultural landscape of people eagerly laps up this material, no matter how wrong, stilted, lensed, or agendized. Of course, since the science is settled, it isn’t necessary, as if it ever was, for this cabal to offer counterweight or balance (I say sarcastically, of course). I have been exceedingly disappointed to see this NJ State Climatologist’s departure from common sense and rational thought over these past couple of decades. With a PhD in Geography, this has seemed enough for Rutgers to hand over the reins of the State Climatologist duties to him. Of course, as Rutgers has turned farthest socialist, this seems a marriage made in heaven for a Geographer to ensconce himself in such a program to fund a career and reside in, and raise a family in, one of the toniest areas of NJ. Multiply this by hundreds and even thousands around the world, and you begin to see the problem. I’m really surprised at this NJ State Climatologist, too, since the textbook that he used in a course he taught in the ’90s showed surprising and radical temperature swings over decadal periods, long before greenhouse gases became “responsible.” He really ought to know better, but he has swallowed the liberal pap of human-caused atmospheric world-ruination, instead of the common-sense reality of mild and benign natural climate warming that results from cycles of varying natural causes and lengths, which can be additive or mitigating, depending on the specifics. The Modern Warm Period is only about half completed; it will probably be another 100-200 years before we descend into another Little Ice age, when it will be very noticeable that temperatures are falling globally. Of course, the alarmists/scientists/historians of that era will be thanking today’s “heroes” for making that possible. The former NJ State Climatologist, the late Dr. David Ludlum, must be at turning at high RPMs in his grave.
It should be apparent that several important segments of society are starting to accept the alarmist dogma; witness the response of the business community in just the past 5 years. This is going to gather even more momentum, in my opinion, and when the next Democratic president in the USA takes over, probably in 2024, we will see an acceleration of change to combat a non-existent problem, with significant and possibly severe consequences to our economy, our personal economics (in the form of higher taxes, food and energy prices), and our freedoms. Unfortunately, and pessimistically, absent a global emergency or world-changing event such as global war or a wide-ranging natural disaster, I foresee no reversal of this historic error of gigantic proportions for several generations at the least.
@David Middleton
If you were aware that every year of measuring, going back several decades, has found a positive SMB, then this obviously includes the 4 most recent years. No need for the announcement. Hence my remark, “well duh”.
As it turns out you were not aware, evidenced by your assertion, “The SMB has been negative in some years. I think it was negative in 2014-2015.”
Wrong on both counts of course, which is why I suggested you take a closer look at your own sources.
You are correct about 2014. I thought that when I first read it, it was negative. When I double-checked, it was positive.
With all of the claims of unprecedented surface melt, particularly in 2012, I have to admit that I’m shocked that the SMB wasn’t negative that year.
@ David Middleton,
you state: “With all of the claims of unprecedented surface melt, particularly in 2012, I have to admit that I’m shocked that the SMB wasn’t negative that year.”
What is shocking to me: someone with such poor understanding of processes in snow and ice is writing here on these topics. Where do you think can the meltwater from the 2012 melt event at the Summit station be found?
It is porbally not more than 1 to 2 feet below the place where it melted (and turned into ice when diribling down into the snow cover). And as such the SMB at this place is definitely not negative.
Actually, the SMB might have been negative in 2012. The surface melt was not limited to the high elevations of the interior. Note the 2012 error bar:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/05/the-irrelevance-of-greenlands-ice-mass-loss-in-five-easy-charts/#comment-2910271
Dr. Riva recently co-authored a paper in GRL –> Dr. Riva recently co-authored a paper in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL)
“Hey! Who else had this album back in the 70’s?”
____________________________________
And what about Hot Summers in the City in 1966:
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ACYBGNQBOX-RhOt1vbBc528QM_VmASxxgw%3A1581522944916&ei=ACBEXpzAN9rUmwXCt6K4AQ&q=++The+Lovin%27+Spoonful+++++summer+in+the+city&oq=++The+Lovin%27+Spoonful+++++summer+in+the+city&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
Artist: The Lovin’ Spoonful
Album: Hums of the Lovin’ Spoonful
Released: 1966
Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: John Sebastian / Mark Sebastian / Steve Boone
Summer in the City lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, Round Hill Music Big Loud Songs, BMG Rights Management, Carlin America Inc