Greatest Single Day Gains In Greeenland Ice Happening Now.

Despite warming, the Greatest single day gains in Greeenland ice and its SMB (surface mass balance) is happening the past days. Ice gain/loss in Greenland is function of the location of the Icelandic Low and how moisture is delivered to Greenland. It is not about changes in average global temperature.

In the graph below, the blue line, if above the zero line, shows how much mass Greenland gained that day. The gray shading shows the range of gained mass in the past and the black line shows the average. Yesterday’s blue line shows Greenland’s gain was literally of the chart

Below is a snapshot of the winds over the north Atlantic today at 9 AM. Brighter green streaks means stronger winds. The anti-clockwise circulation pattern just south of Greenland is the Icelandic Low, and you can see it is pushing moist winds over southern Greenland which is adding snow and ice. Yesterday the location was even more favorable for moisture transport causing the record breaking amounts of one day added snow. The screenshot was taken from a great website, where you can observe real time changes in the earth’s temperature, winds, moisture, etc at different altitudes, available at :,0.00,351

I visit that site daily for a quick overview of the earth’s weather dynamics

Climate scientists determined previous years of extreme ice loss, such as 2011-2012 was due to the location of a High pressure system that caused cloudless skies and stronger solar heating of the surface.

from Hofer (2017) Decreasing cloud cover drives the recent mass loss

on the Greenland Ice Sheet

“We show, using satellite data and climate model output, that the abrupt reduction in surface mass balance since about 1995 can be attributed largely to a coincident trend of decreasing summer cloud cover enhancing the melt-albedo feedback. Satellite observations show that, from 1995 to 2009, summer cloud cover decreased by 0.9 ± 0.3% per year. Model output indicates that the GrIS summer melt increases by 27 ± 13 gigatons (Gt) per percent reduction in summer cloud cover, principally because of the impact of increased shortwave radiation over the low albedo ablation zone. The observed reduction in cloud cover is strongly correlated with a state shift in the North Atlantic Oscillation ”

The negative phase of the  North Atlantic Oscillation also pumps warmer air into Greenland

From the research paper Hanna (2013) Atmospheric and oceanic climate forcing of the exceptional Greenland ice sheet surface melt in summer 2012

explaining the 2011-2012 extreme Greenland melt

 “In 2012, as in recent warm summers since 2007, a blocking high pressure feature, associated with negative NAO conditions, was present in the mid-troposphere over Greenland for much of the summer. This circulation pattern advected relatively warm southerly winds over the western flank of the ice sheet, forming a ‘heat dome’ over Greenland that led to the widespread surface melting.”

It’s all about climate dynamics, not CO2!

Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition

4.8 33 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Tillman
May 27, 2021 6:03 pm

Just weather. Nothing to see here. Move along.

But that one-day surface melt in 2012, now that was Thermageddon. Never mind that the last time it happened was in the 19th century.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
May 27, 2021 6:08 pm

Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice extent yesterday was the highest on that date since 2014, with which it tied.

Also higher than a number of earlier years in this century.

Reply to  John Tillman
May 27, 2021 6:45 pm

Important observation that sea ice extent and volume does not seem to be declining much recently, much to the chagrin of climate alarmists who often predict imminent demise of arctic sea ice. Back to the drawing board for them. They have some model re-tuning to do, or maybe they can homogenize the ice data to fit their models and save some effort 😉

Reply to  RelPerm
May 27, 2021 10:03 pm

No way, the will just lie the derrieres off!

Reply to  John Tillman
May 27, 2021 7:07 pm

Indeed, it was one whole wadham above 2016 yesterday. Also higher than 2004 and 2006.

Gotta do griff’s job for him. You just can’t get good help these days.

Dave Fair
Reply to  philincalifornia
May 27, 2021 8:29 pm

Damnit! Why do I have to wait for it to get down to zero ice (one Wadham) in the summer? I want my Northwest Passage NOW!

Reply to  Dave Fair
May 27, 2021 8:48 pm

When it’s named after an idiot, the unit is not capitalized.

Reply to  John Tillman
May 27, 2021 8:39 pm

So why is that site using 1981 to 2010? If they insist on using 30 years ending in a 0 year, why not 1991 to 2020. Because the1980 were high years. Cherry picking again.

Reply to  Drake
May 29, 2021 7:42 am

Going to 1991 – 2020 avgs is like pulling teeth for the science-marxists. It would show less above/below avg temps/ice/whatever.

Last edited 23 days ago by beng135
John V. Wright
Reply to  John Tillman
May 27, 2021 10:44 pm

Yes John, I read about that on the BBC. Oh, hang on…

Reply to  John Tillman
May 27, 2021 7:16 pm

One of the most convincing rebuttals to CAGW is that what’s happening now looks exactly like what happened before humanity’s CO2 emissions took off.

So, this spike looks like one that happened in 19th century.

The example that Judith Curry uses is that the early 20th century warming looks a lot like the late 20th century warming.

Reply to  commieBob
May 27, 2021 7:31 pm

Yes, good old natural variability as predicted by the null hypothesis. Isn’t this how science is supposed to work?

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 27, 2021 11:54 pm


May 27, 2021 6:23 pm

Cumulative accumulation is a little below average this year even with the recent record daily snowfall. Looks to me like interesting weather event and not climate change…

Reply to  RelPerm
May 27, 2021 6:31 pm

It didn’t look like it was done yet.

Reply to  RelPerm
May 27, 2021 7:02 pm

Until mid April, the SMB accumulation was exactly average. See attached graph.

Then the pressure systems shifted locations, the winds shifted and stopped transporting moisture to Greenland. I could predict April-MAy SMB accumulation loss before it get posted to the Polar Portal website by watching circulation changes on the website,0.00,351

Today as the Low continued to shift northeastward, you could see the moisture transport diminish but still transport substantial moisture. I expected SMB to drop from the peak yet remain above average. Indeed today’s SMB gain was just posted showing exactly that

Greenland accumulation May 27 2021.png
Last edited 24 days ago by Jim Steele
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 27, 2021 9:04 pm

Thanks for the link !

Reply to  Xnightx
May 27, 2021 10:52 pm

A bit O/T but I like this site: Ventusky


They’ve just added an anomaly for every country which just shows global warming isn’t

Bryan A
May 27, 2021 6:38 pm

Relax…Relax…it’s just a glitch in the sensor, the inconvenient data will be disappeared tomorrow.

Glitch? Son of a Glitch

Reply to  Bryan A
May 27, 2021 7:50 pm

Don’t you mean Son of a Gleick?

May 27, 2021 6:54 pm

So simple weather can override decades of co2 climate abuse?
Have I got that right?

Reply to  Mike
May 27, 2021 7:12 pm

It was never a function of CO2 or global warming. Its all about the climate oscillations and the shift in winds and how heat and moisture is transported. Read Greenland and the 1950s Climate Consensus.–.html

greenland air temps chylek.png
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 27, 2021 7:17 pm

Yes I agree Jim, however just pointing out the feebleness of the other sides argument.

Reply to  Mike
May 27, 2021 7:38 pm

MIke I thought you were. I just took the opportunity to emphasize their feebleness

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 27, 2021 8:11 pm

Full-time CliSciFi practitioners choose to ‘not see’ non-conforming observations. Follow the money.

May 27, 2021 7:07 pm

I have no clue what that spike in the graph means in terms of physical reality. Can someone put it in context for me?

Reply to  commieBob
May 27, 2021 7:41 pm

The spike shows that on May 26, 2021 Greenland gained 12+ Gigatons of mass (snow and ice) when the average for that day is about 4 Gt

Reply to  Jim Steele
May 27, 2021 8:03 pm

OK, make me work … grumble … grumble …

A quick calculation shows that’s equivalent to an extra 1/2 cm layer of ice spread out over the whole 2.166 million square km island.

Reply to  commieBob
May 28, 2021 1:27 am

spread out over the whole 2.166 million square km island.


When doing “climate since” you must make your calculation of weather event impacts spread out over the total surface area of the planet.

Reply to  Jim Steele
May 27, 2021 11:50 pm

Sounds like a heavy snowstorm.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 28, 2021 12:17 am

Lets put this closer to home for the old Nick the greater blue mountain area is 2,600 square km so that is over 4 meters of ice over the entire thing in one day


Mount Buffalo National Park in Victoria is 350 square km in area so a mere 34m of ice in a single day.

Yep to Nick that is just a heavy snow storm 🙂

Reply to  LdB
May 28, 2021 9:48 am

Yes, but it isn’t the Blue Mountains. It is Greenland, and commiebob calculates, it is equivalent to 5 mm over the whole island. Or 50 mm over a tenth of the island.

M Courtney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 28, 2021 2:25 am

It’s weather, not climate.
But then, isn’t everything worth mentioning?
That’s just a function of scale and speed of impact.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 28, 2021 3:33 am

Indeed. The part of the arctic I am familiar with is basically a desert. There’s plenty of blowing snow but not much precipitation. During my time in the arctic I don’t remember any heavy snowstorms.

However, there’s this:

… the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, between Greenland and Scandinavia is an exception. Storms forming in the Atlantic Ocean bring moisture up into this area, especially in winter.


Last edited 24 days ago by commieBob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 28, 2021 6:41 am

Oh Nick your so observant. LOL. Indeed the point is gains and losses of SMB on Greenland is largely driven by the dynamics of the Iceland Low that modulates heavy snow accumulation or not. Greenland’s ice sheet is not about the greenhouse effect or CO2

Last edited 24 days ago by Jim Steele
Reply to  commieBob
May 30, 2021 1:22 am

Context or perspective?

If you had landed your plane where the graph shows dark blue frozen water accumulation…

You’d be working hard to prevent that plane from joining the lost squadron.

May 27, 2021 7:08 pm

The amount of heat gained over the last 50 years is still there. There has not been a massive outgoing radiation burst to remove that energy.

When the long term is looked at there will still be extra loss of ice

Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 27, 2021 7:20 pm


Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 27, 2021 7:54 pm

The amount of heat gained over the last 50 years is still there.

gha you dont know what you are talking about

Please explain how much heat Greenland ice has gained?

Indeed elsewhere where sea ice has been reduced such as the Barents Sea there has been more OLR

When the long term is examined we see over the past 4000 years glaciers and sea ice have an increasing trend, punctuated by short periods of warming and melting. Greenland was gaining ice from 1960 to the 1980s, which doesnt correlate with rising CO2 like the BS stokes tried to push. The past decades of a melt trend with maximum in 2011-2012 has ended.

Greenland ice 1900 2010.jpeg
Dave Fair
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 27, 2021 8:38 pm

Uh, heat is transported poleward for radiation into space. We see cyclical warming and cooling, but no long-term accumulation of heat. Anyway, you would not like a return to the Little Ice Age climate.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 27, 2021 9:04 pm

The amount of heat gained over the last 50 years is still there.

Gag Half Runt, please explain where this heat is hiding.

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 28, 2021 1:54 am

Well, I’ve got 500 gal hiding in a tank + another 500 gal of invisible vapour in another tank + 4 tons disguised a black stones … but don’t tell any one !

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 28, 2021 4:30 am

I was just stating a fact – there has been no massive exodus of energy from the earth. Hence obviously that energy is still on the earth somewhere. If you agree with the satellite temp record the the world has been warming i.e. energy in to earth is greater than energy out of earth.
This energy is still here despite Europe and N. America having coldest may on record, despite mass balance on Greenland increasing. Where ever it is it will be added to by the energy imbalance and will in the very near future, overcome the changes in polar vortex. Of course if Europe and N. America temperatures do not increase then the excess energy will be felt elsewhere

Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 28, 2021 5:50 am

You are babbling with nothing, how come you ignored Jim Steele’s reply to your data/fact free assertions?

Here is the question you ignored: “Please explain how much heat Greenland ice has gained?”

Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 28, 2021 6:56 am

half runt , Again you dont know what you are talking about. You are mindlessly trolling. Look at any of the energy budgets such as Stephens (2012) attached. The claim in W/m2 is

Incoming solar 340.2 +/- 0.1
Outgoing LR 239.7  +/- 3.3
Latent Heat leaving the surface 88 +/-10

Lots of uncertainty as would be expected for a total earth energy budget guess-timate.

+/- 3.3 OLR means the earth could be cooling

+/- 10 latent heat export means there is so much uncertainty, it’s all about who can tell the best scary campfire story. Half runt your “analysis” falls more in the line with “silly stories”

Energy Budget Stephens crop.png
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 28, 2021 10:11 am

there has been no massive exodus of energy from the earth. Hence obviously that energy is still on the earth somewhere.

This is a fallacy – that climate change can only result from top of atmosphere radiation imbalance. The fallacy of the passive climate only forced from outside in which the ocean is ignored as a passive puddle.

The “puddle” has a billion cubic km of water and 97% of climate heat. Small changes in vertical heat transport and storage in the ocean can and do change climate temperature.

It is in the ocean that the heat exchange and budgets of importance to climate occur. Not at the top of atmosphere. Top of atmosphere radiative budget renormalises spontaneously with no relevance to climate.

Richard M
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 29, 2021 5:56 am

I somewhat agree. The ocean mixed layer has warmed about .5 C according to HadSST3. Probably add another .5 C if you go all the way back to the depths of the Little Ice Age.

The problem with the greenhouse gas theory is it doesn’t explain the natural warming and why recent warming rates really aren’t any higher. What does explain it is changes in ocean salinity over the period.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 27, 2021 11:56 pm

What an ignorant and stupid comment.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
May 28, 2021 4:32 am

Are you saying the energy before this may some how escaped to space? Can you please show your proof?

M Courtney
Reply to  ghalfrunt
May 28, 2021 2:26 am

You gotta have Faith, Faith, Faith…
You gotta have Faith.

May 27, 2021 7:08 pm

“Ice gain/loss in Greenland is function of the location of the Icelandic Low and how moisture is delivered to Greenland. It is not about changes in average global temperature.”

That is not the general scientific view. Here is a paper in Nature, 2018 from ten distinguished scientists:

“We find that the initiation of increases in GrIS melting closely follow the onset of industrial-era Arctic warming in the mid-1800s, but that the magnitude of GrIS melting has only recently emerged beyond the range of natural variability. Owing to a nonlinear response of surface melting to increasing summer air temperatures, continued atmospheric warming will lead to rapid increases in GrIS runoff and sea-level contributions.”

John Tillman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 7:29 pm

What distinguishes them?

Summer air temperatures are decreasing, not increasing. As with Arctic sea ice, 2012 was the melt trough.

Reply to  John Tillman
May 28, 2021 4:26 am

They wore Groucho glasses and a moustache 🙂

Last edited 24 days ago by LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 7:30 pm

NIck try to read ALL the science.

The publishing of that paper just goes to show how climate catastrophe beliefs trump the evidence. You can see they are fear mongering with statements like “the magnitude of recent GrIS melting is exceptional over at least the last 350 years.” Of course the exceptional melting is relative to the 200 years of the Little Ice Age and the expansion of glaciers and Arctic sea ice reaching its greatest extents in 10,000 years, followed by the recent exit from the LIA, all of those changes correlate better with solar induced changes

Read ­Why Vanishing Ice Is Likely All Natural with links to several research papers


“Instrumental records of Greenland’s air temperatures, also recorded the fastest rate of warming during the 1930s and 40s44 coinciding with increased inflows of warm Atlantic water.53,54,55,56 Accordingly intruding warm waters also transported more southerly fish species, prompting the birth of Greenland’s Cod fishery.59 CO2 driven models have completely failed to simulate this Arctic warming.60

Simultaneously the best studied Greenland glacier, the Jakobshavn, began retreating from its Little Ice Age maximum with it fastest observed retreat of 500 meters per year between 1929 and 1942. The rapid retreat was amplified when the glacier’s terminal front became ungrounded from the ridge. That earlier grounding point had previously prevented warm subsurface waters from entering its fjord. With more warm water entering the fjord, the grounding point rapidly retreated.9,11,30,31

When warm water intrusions subsided, the glacier stabilized, and even began advancing between 1985–2002. Although the recent retreat of Greenland’s glaciers is reported as an acceleration relative to the 70s, the rate of retreat is now much slower than the 30s and 40s. And again the 20th century pattern of retreat does not correlate with rising CO2 concentrations.

The 20th century pattern of Greenland’s melting glaciers correlates best with the timing and distribution of intruding warm Atlantic water. As seen in these illustrations, due to changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation in the 1990s, a sudden influx of warm Atlantic water entered the Irminger Current. The numbers here indicate that the current’s temperature cooled from 10°C to 1.5 °C above freezing as it traveled along Greenland’s coast.10  

Last edited 24 days ago by Jim Steele
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jim Steele
May 27, 2021 9:24 pm

Stokes may actually read all the science. However, as a professional dedicated sophist, he only presents quotes and links for the things that support his belief system.

Last edited 24 days ago by Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 7:42 pm

That is not the general scientific view.

On point, that man! Thank you for pointing out one of gaping the holes in scientific consensus.

Last edited 24 days ago by dk_
Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 8:17 pm

The study assumes 300+ y/o ice gazing is as accurate as second-by-second satellite estimates.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 9:11 pm

They assume they know the “range of natural variability”. They know no such thing on any climate relative time scale going to several hundred years to a millennia.
An Illusion of knowledge is their real problem.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 27, 2021 9:41 pm

They also assume it will continue to warm. A cursory look would show cyclic behavior in the various climate metrics. Additionally, current (non-UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs) estimates show that possible ECSs are very low.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2021 10:05 pm

“…ten distinguished scientists:”
Not being licensed to think for myself (or others) I am troubled by your implication that truth is subject to the social status of those involved.
Please tell me your theories have more to rely on than the word of tenured social butterflies…
P.S. Can any of the more grown-up people here please reassure me that science has not been reduced to calling upon authority as a didactic device?

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 28, 2021 12:34 am

There are NINE names on that paper. Once again, you overestimate..

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 30, 2021 1:33 am

From your lauded link:

Satellite observations reveal positive trends in GrIS surface melt extent4, but melt variability, intensity and runoff remain uncertain before the satellite era. Here we present the first continuous, multi-century and observationally constrained record of GrIS surface melt intensity and runoff, revealing that the magnitude of recent GrIS melting is exceptional over at least the last 350 years. We develop this record through stratigraphic analysis of central west Greenland ice cores, and demonstrate that measurements of refrozen melt layers in percolation zone ice cores can be used to quantifiably, and reproducibly, reconstruct past melt rates. We show significant (P < 0.01) and spatially extensive correlations between these ice-core-derived melt records and modelled melt rates

Just another one of nature’s ‘It’s worse than we thought’ fantasy research models developed by research teams with heavy confirmation bias beliefs.

May 27, 2021 7:24 pm

I would like to see a plot of the annual integration of deviation from the mean versus the year for 1979 through 2020. — Willis?

It doesn't add up...
May 27, 2021 7:26 pm

I note that DMI seem to be running a few days behind. Anything to do with trends not co-operating?

Joel O'Bryan
May 27, 2021 9:08 pm

It’s all about climate weather dynamics, not CO2!

May 27, 2021 9:17 pm

This multi-standard deviation spike is likely a computer glitch—as we’ve seen numerous times with daily climate data.

Let’s wait to see if there is an announcement on this.

Reply to  SAMURAI
May 27, 2021 9:42 pm

Samurai, Guarantee that it reflects reality to a large degree. They might try to reduce the gain, but as seen in the attached illustration from May 25, there is clear evidence of a strong flow of moisture over the entire surface Greenland which made me predict, before the SMB gain was posted, there would be a strong above average gain, but I didnt expect to be quite as extreme

You can see the video of the flow at,64.23,281

you can compare the flow on May 12 when there was no SMB gain,64.23,281

Greenland May 25 2021.png
Last edited 24 days ago by Jim Steele
Abolition Man
May 27, 2021 9:31 pm

Thanks for helping with my continuing education; I guess the emeritus is more titular than actual as you keep schooling those of us still willing to learn. Of course, you also tend to school the close minded science deniers that pop up here trying to sell their religion, and it is a real pleasure watching a professorial beat down every now and again!
Landscapes and Cycles remains close at hand, along with Patrick Moore’s book, for any questions that arise; but it sure would be nice to see an updated edition or an expansion of the oceanic cycles as weather determinates. Have you ever considered putting your head together with Willis? I have a sneaking suspicion that a good accounting of ocean cycles and emergent phenomena would pretty much kill off the CAGW bubble permanently!

May 27, 2021 11:43 pm

With all this sudden ice mass accumulation, the Greenland will very soon tip over and capsize.

The end is nigh !

May 28, 2021 12:30 am

and this means the long term survival of the ice cap is changed how?

surely this shows that there is increased precipitation, due to climate change… something UK residents are all too aware of.

And the arctic sea ice? Which is being pushed out to melt around Svalbard in extraordinary fashion this season?

Clutching at straws, misrepresentation… this is almost like reading Tony Heller.

Reply to  griff
May 28, 2021 6:02 am

Did you bother to read the post by Jim Steele at all?

You have a bad habit of skirting the presentation to make a shallow comment that doesn’t really address the post in any detail, you are so busy making goofy replies that some here think you are paid to be this dumb and shallow to generate fog and disrupt the thread with insubstantial babble, your clumsy and stupid attacks on people not even here is why ALL of your comments are in moderation.

You need to improve your comments and make a case that is fully on topic and encourage real debate, not the usual put down replies you receive because of your shallow comments.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
May 28, 2021 12:00 pm

Enviro-armagedonists try to bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Anything above name calling, deflection, or straw man is not in their play book.

Reply to  griff
May 28, 2021 7:08 am


back at you

this shows that there is increased precipitation, due to climate change” HOW?

Richard M
Reply to  griff
May 29, 2021 6:32 am

So how is “increased precipitation” a bad thing? A reduction in droughts and increase in plant growth worldwide does not seem like it would be much of a problem.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
May 28, 2021 12:35 am

I am fascinated how the beginning of the Industrial Era is now playing like a concertina, extending backwards and forwards to the required tune of the climate hysterics. Who would have guessed that people digging canals in England for all those terrible CO2 emitting horse drawn barges to transport goods have been responsible for the melting of ice today? Well, well, well…

May 28, 2021 1:56 am

Pesky atmospheric rivers.
And then on the next day we had the typical Mediterranean Climate low pressure of late May in the Alboran Sea bringing rain to Andalucia, Morocco and Western Algeria.

Michael in Dublin
May 28, 2021 3:03 am

Will this gain mean more reflection of sunlight down the line and hence lower temperatures?
Climate alarmists view weather and climate simplistically and so imagine we can engineer the climate. Recognizing the complexities and how much we do not know will stop us from following “the engineering myths of a Swedish teenager.”

Ewin Barnett
May 28, 2021 3:08 am

“caused cloudless skies [resulting in] stronger solar heating of the surface”. Any correlation with externalities such as cosmic ray flux levels?

David Dibbell
May 28, 2021 4:36 am

Thanks for this post. I look at the DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute) surface mass balance, sea ice extent, and sea ice volume graphs every day. Maybe the integrity of these records of observed conditions will make the Danes Great again (apologies to the large dogs 🙂 ).

Bruce Cobb
May 28, 2021 4:43 am

The Climate Liars have seized upon Arctic ice, and lately, Antarctic ice as well, as a convenient proxie for what they like to call “global heating”, because they know that the average science-and-math deficient mush-for-brains will easily connect the dots and think “Manmade Global Heating”. Ice melts (and they conflate sublimation with this as well) they think, because of warming – I mean Heating. But the Climate Liars have a problem with ice because it hardly ever conforms the way the ideology says it should. So they have to come up with Climatesplainations after the fact.

May 28, 2021 5:29 am

Well, that explains why there is snow in north central Wisconsin this morning and the outdoor temps in my AO (way south of the snow) are holding in the low to mid-40s this morning.

It’s all part of a plot, y’see: the plot is to throw off all the science guys and go back to ice sheets, and make us all revert to caveman lifestyles. And the Warmunists will say it’s all caused by globull warming. If only we could get them to see what we see… /s

Mr Julian Forbes-Laird
May 28, 2021 5:36 am

Earth.nullschool is also an app now

Nick Schroeder
May 28, 2021 6:47 am
“Analysis of gravity data from GRACE satellites indicates that the Greenland ice sheet lost approximately 2,900 Gt (0.1% of its total mass) between March 2002 and September 2012. The mean mass loss rate for 2008–2012 was 367 Gt/year.

In the TEN YEARS between 2002 and 2012 Greenland “lost” 2,900 Gt which represented –
(0.1% of its total mass) (Yep, read the fine print.)


Are you effing kidding me? The uncertainty must be 10 times that much.
Who measures this crap and thinks the numbers have substance???
Probably those barely 20 millennials with their participation/entitlement PhDs.

Every year Greenland “loses” 500 to 600 Gt during the summer and gains it all back in the winter.

Jeff corbin
May 28, 2021 7:55 am

Joe Bastardi’s prediction in 2009 ( could have been in 2010) that the winters of 2011,2012, 2013 would be colder than average due to the rapidly declining ice out interval the year or two after the end of the 100 year solar minimum of the 23rd cycle. So we are very close to the same point in the solar cycle… ..early new cycle (25th) after another 100 year solar minimum. So, it would be interesting to hear what Joe has to say about the expanding ice that is happening now in Greenland reported today….and the prospect’s for our next 3-4 Northern hemisphere winters. Those were cold winters in PA 2011-2013… 6 day period of continuous subzero temps…. snow on the ground 2012 from 1/8-3/14/2012, extensive late season snow cover in North America and SnowBall England and growing concerns about the Alberta Wheat crops. Since then, winter has been rather mild in SE PA. A bitter cold winter would be excellent to cull out some of the pests in my garden.

I am no expert, but I wonder if the science around the impact of geothermal/magmatic heating of sea water, ( and land) has been understated simply because of issues related to macro and micro confusion…,(driven by grant politics). One submarine plume can melt some ice enough for a satellite to detect it and alert the climate propagandists fly out there with cameras and give us powerful before and after ice pictures. (Or just mine those sat photos and send us what you cherry picked for fun) If it is entertaining and alarming science assume a charlatan is paying for it. The current science of submarine geothermal heat…just from a layman’s eyeball, appears to based on calculated theoretical numbers not observation. In the age of Satellites, you think we would have some real numbers. In the age of science fact as entertainment, scaring people is fun and profitable. Whatever happened to the idea of continuous monitoring of gravitational variance…. it could have provided useful data that could have brought an to the ice wars. Heat and G-variance are interesting variables.

May 28, 2021 8:17 am

Surface mass balance is not the whole truth for Greenland’s ice sheet gaining or losing mass. SMB excludes loss of mass of ice to the sea from the edges of the ice sheet.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
May 28, 2021 9:14 am

I thought SMB accounted for calving?

And contrary to what the alarmists like to portray the calving of icebergs is more often a sign of increased pressure at the high dome or cap in the center of the island pushing ice to the sea at a greater rate than it is of melting.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
May 28, 2021 9:26 am

Of course Donald, but what is your point?

southeastern Greenland seems to be at the epicenter of Greenland’s changes in mass. That region is most likely to gain SMB due to the moisture transport from a shifting Icelandic Low. It is also the region most susceptible to changes in the poleward flow of warm waters that causes basal melting of glaciers via the Gulf Stream where the North Atlantic Current veers westward diverting warm water into the Irminger Current and the base of regional glaciers. That flow varies with the phases of the North Atlantic Oscillation

In 2014 I wrote in Will Greenland Begin Accumulating Ice in 2015 and Beyond

“Based on NOAA’s 2014 Arctic Report Card, the past 2 decades of ice loss in Greenland has slowed dramatically in 2013-2014. In contrast to Velicogna’s (2014) previously published average mass loss of 280 +/-58 gigatons/year using GRACE satellite data, or the maximum loss of 570 gigatons in 2012-2013, there was only an insignificant loss of 6 gigatons from June 2013 to June 2014, or mere 1% of the previous year’s loss. A loss of 360 gigatons translates into a 1 millimeter rise in sea level, therefore the 2013-2014 sea level rise should be 1.3 mm less than the year before. And based on historical analyses, Greenland will likely begin gaining mass in the coming years”

“If the previous pulse of warm water has been the driving force for retreating Greenland glaciers and melting Barents Sea ice, then that reduced inflow predicts Greenland’s glaciers should soon stabilize while Barents Sea ice begins to recover.”

There is also a similar analysis regards the effect of warm Atlantic water inflow on heating the Arctic and lost sea ice in the 2021 paper Nordic Seas Heat Loss, Atlantic Inflow, and Arctic Sea Ice cover over the last century

The AW loses heat to the atmosphere as it travels poleward, mostly in the Nordic Seas, where ~60% of the Arctic Ocean total heat loss resides. Nordic Seas heat loss variability is large, but the long-term positive trend is small. The Barents Sea heat loss is ~30% of the total, but has larger consistently positive trends, related to AW heat transport and sea ice loss. The Arctic seas farther north see only ~10% of the total heat loss, but show a consistently large increase in heat loss as well as decrease in sea ice since 1900. The AW inflow, the cooling of this water mass as it travels poleward, and the dense outflow have thus all increased since 1900

irminger plus temperatures.png
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
May 28, 2021 10:51 am

“Surface mass balance is not the whole truth for Greenland’s ice sheet”

The “whole truth” is that there is absolutely nothing unusual happening Greenland’s ice sheet or the Arctic. Nothing has happened or is happening that has not happened before CO2 was an issue. Not a single dire prediction from the alarmists has come to pass or even seems probable to occur in the foreseeable future. And THAT is the “whole truth”.

May 28, 2021 9:12 am

And so mums the word for the alarmists and their press.

May 28, 2021 10:21 am

Some while back I read articles about two studies, both reported here on WUWT, probably two or three years apart. The first used satellite imagery to show that extensive forest fires in Scandinavia and eastward, in 2012, deposited large amounts of ash on Greenland, causing the extreme 2012 melting. The second used satellite imagery to show that a major portion of the Sahara dust that normally goes to the Amazon was diverted north bu unusual winds where it eventually landed on Greenland, causing the extreme 2012 melting. It sounds like everyone is grasping at straws and speculating as necessary to still their too fast beating hearts.

Steve Z
May 28, 2021 11:16 am

A late-season nor’easter just hit the southeast coast of Greenland. It happens often in New England, but earlier in the year (up through early April).

Even if this is a short-term event, it could be a symptom of a negative feedback if the part of the Atlantic Ocean immediately east of Greenland starts melting earlier in spring or freezing later in autumn.

If this occurs, there would be a sharp temperature gradient between the relatively warm open water and the cold air mass over the high ice cap of inland Greenland, and storms would tend to track just off the east coast of Greenland (as they do during winter off the New England coast). If there is a lot of open water, northeast winds around the storms would bring lots of moisture and heavy snowfall in eastern Greenland, particularly in autumn when there is no sunshine to warm the land mass. Melting of the sea ice along the east coast of Greenland could actually result in an increase in mass of the Greenland ice cap.

May 28, 2021 11:35 am

“We show, using satellite data and climate model output, that the abrupt reduction in surface mass balance since about 1995”

I beg to differ. If you look at daily gains ans losses, there are about 10 months gain and 2 months losses.

Mean 1981-2010 looks to be ~2 gigaton gain, losses certainly looks to be less than 2.5 gigaton per day.

10/12*365*2-2/12*365*2.5 yields average gain 465 gigaton per year for 1981-2010….

For 2011-2012, it is well understood that numbers aren’t the same each year. 2011-2012 was an anomalous flicker, nothing more.

“Decreasing cloud cover drives the recent mass loss on the Greenland Ice Sheet”

I fail to understand how that would be mechanically possible. Decreasing cloud cover do indeed increase short-wave insolation but also increase long-wave radiation (cooling) and SIGNIFICANTLY decrease convection to prevent warm air rising and cold air sinking.

You’ll feel that on your body any old winter, how crisp the air is when there are no clouds as compared to how relatively warm it is when there is a blanket to prevent radiation as well as convection(clouds) above.


June 1, 2021 6:15 am

And then, just like that, global warming stopped

%d bloggers like this: