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.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
@ur momisugly 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