By Vijay Jayaraj
September 13, 2021
The mainstream media is hell-bent on instilling climate fear among the masses. This means that they can never get over their obsession with weather events in the Arctic, which is one of their favorite subjects for projecting a climate catastrophe.
The Greenland Ice Sheet has been of great interest to climate alarmists. Any small change in ice sheet mass is promoted in the media as a product of man-made climate change. Last week, media outlets across the globe claimed that there has been rain for the first time at the Greenland summit.
“Rain fell at the normally snowy summit of Greenland for the first time on record,” read CNN’s headlines. Others went a step further and declared it a sign of climate doomsday. “Rain On Greenland Ice Sheet, Possibly A First, Signals Climate Change Risk,” read another headline.
Unfortunately, for the mainstream media, climate history nearly always comes back to haunt their claims of unprecedented events. Records reveal that this is not the first rainfall in Greenland, and certainly not the first on the Greenland summit peak, which stands at around 10,000 feet.
Records Show Past Rain Events in Greenland
A 1975 report prepared for National Science Foundation (NSF) by Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, at the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory documented the summer climate at Greenland ice sheet. It showed at least two rainfall events have occurred, once in 1933 at 8,840 feet and again in 1950 at a much higher altitude. The 1950 rainfall event was above 9,500 feet and very close to the Greenland summit peak, thus contradicting mainstream media claims of unprecedented rainfall at the summit.
The NSF report states, “According to Hogue (1964) heavy rainfall seldom occurs above 6,000 ft on the Greenland ice sheet. However, at Watkins (75°N, 48°W, and elevation 8,840 ft) rain was reported to have occurred in July 1933. Hogue also notes that in the Centrale-Eismitte area, drizzle and rain were each reported once in a three-year period, on 20 and 21 June 1950, respectively.”
The site of the previous rainfall event, Centrale-Eismitte, is close to the 9,800-feet mark where the current rainfall event occurred. It would be a pure lie — or gross ignorance — to claim that rainfall at such an altitude has never occurred before at Greenland.
Headlines That Portray an Incomplete Reality
Besides misleading the public on the “first-time rain event,” these media outlets have also concealed the reality of the situation in Greenland, especially in 2021.
This year, Greenland’s surface mass balance (SMB) was higher than the 30-year average during many days of the year. SMB is the net balance between the accumulation and ablation on a glacier’s surface, typically denoted by mass gain and mass loss.
Data on Greenland’s SMB is available at Polar Portal, where Danish research institutions display the results of their monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the sea ice in the Arctic.
SMB data for 2021 show that there has been no significant melting and there was also a surprising gain in the SMB during the summer months, which is usually the melting season.
During July and August, the total accumulation of SMB (as measured in gigatons) was higher than the 30-year average (1981-2010). This can be attributed to the unexpected gain in SMB during the summer months.
So not only has the media lied to the public about the “never-before” rainfall event, it has also withheld the truth about the above-average SMB that was witnessed during the past 50 days.
This endless parade of lies about Greenland and the Arctic will likely continue. Even above-average snow accumulations will be kept out of the news and one-time warm weather events (especially during the melt season) will be used as “proof” for global warming. Vijay Jayaraj is a Contributing Writer to the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Va., and holds a master of science degree in environmental science from the University of East Anglia, England. He resides in Bengaluru, India.
They LIE because they can’t use the truth to support their climate crusade.
If they couldn’t rely on lies, Marxism would never have made it out of the reading rooms of the British Museum.
Describes Bernie Sanders
The insinuation by the author of this article is that the ice mass of Greenland is increasing. The problem…SMB is not the total ice mass balance. It excludes the discharge past the grounding line. 2020-21 will likely end with Greenland losing mass again and possibly by a significant amount contrary to the general tone of the article. Refer to King 2018, Mouginot 2019, Mankoff 2019, among others for more information. Do you feel this article is being honest with the WUWT audience?
Please post your source for the total ice mass balance.
Or, post a source for the ice calving losses for this year.
One of the primary controls on calving is the temperature of the Arctic ocean. The arctic sea ice losses during the melt season have been MUCH LOWER than average starting around the 7/21/21.
I therefore expect that the temperature of the arctic ocean has probably been lower than average YTD for 2021. The likely result would be LESS calving of the Greenland glaciers past the grounding line.
By my math, higher SMB and reduced calving should result in an increase in the total ice mass balance for Greenland this year. I cannot find any current data from GRACE-FO to independently evaluate this claim.
I agree with your assertion that the increase in SMB does not reflect the total ice mass balance for Greenland.
However, I fail to see anything in the WUWT article that is not honest. Would you consider your insinuation about the honesty of WUWT to be “honest” since you presented zero data that rebut any of the commentary in the article?
I did post my sources. See above. Per Mouginot 2019 and Mankoff 2019 the grounding line discharge (D) is easily exceeds 400 Gt/yr and is closer to 480+ Gt/yr post 2005. Even using the lower bound on the uncertainty range 2020-21 we can confidently say that Greenland lost mass in 2020-21 even though the discharge numbers aren’t in yet.
To answer your question…if it were me I would definitely make it clear that SMB is not the total mass balance. I would not want that +400 Gt/yr SMB figure to be in any way misinterpreted as the total mass balance. And I would make it clear that the total mass balance is a product of another component that is consistently higher than 400 Gt/yr but in the opposite direction so that no one could possibly mistake that graph as an actual mass gain especially of that magnitude.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/Grace_combine_Sm_EN_20190800.png
Polar Portal doesn’t agree with you, did you bother to look at the two charts in the post?
Meanwhile rain in Greenland is a rare event but has happened long ago yet the media made it seem more proof of climate change (which isn’t for Greenland) by leaving out the 50 years ago rain events.
CO2 isn’t causing these rare rain events and isn’t responsible for the cyclic ice changes either.
“by leaving out the 50 years ago rain events.”
They were at locations 670ft below Summit station.
Equivalent to a temp ~ 1.5C higher than would be the case at Summit with an expected saturated LR of around 500ft/C (at 10000ft).
Correction
~1.3C
Ooh we are panicking aren’t, we I like that.
correction, don’t know if rain also fell at the summit.
I absolutely looked at the charts in the post. The one concerning the mass balance is quite clearly labeled as SMB.
And the Polar Portal site does agree with me. It even says it right there on the very page that Jayraj got the image.
I’ll even post a screenshot so there is no doubt.
And from the same Polar Portal site you can see the total mass balance at least up to 2019. I’ve linked to here for convenience.
And Mankoff has a publication in the peer review process that will have the total mass balance updated through 2021 and should be available shortly.
I’ll ask the question again…Do you feel this article is being honest with the WUWT audience?
Sigh, It is clear you are deflecting because I was talking about THIS years chart data as the chart clearly shows the 2020-2021 season on it, you go into the past to make an argument I didn’t offer at all.
From the post you didn’t read well:
Try sticking to the current year as this article plainly points out that shows this summers melt season was well below the 30 year average.
It specifically talks about the 2020-2021 season.
I’m not the one deflecting here. The article posted this chart.
And there is no mention in the article whatsoever that the +400 Gt SMB figure is not the mass balance of Greenland for 2020/21. I made it pretty clear in my comment on 9/13 7:22pm that my question was regarding that specific point. I asked the question because you used the word LIE in all caps in your comment and I wanted to get your perspective on how honest you thought the article was.
I said what I would have done if I were the author. I would have made this point clear. What would you have done?
You stated this:
The Author stated this:
======
Bolding mine
He specifically talked about TWO MONTHS, not the entire year.
He did this to show that despite a single day of rain on Greenland there is more mass gain than usual this summer which the media completely left out and and you also did.
Not a word about total SMB numbers as he wasn’t claiming there was an increase for the YEAR, he was showing that despite the Rain day, there was actually above average snowfall and below average melting in the short summer season.
That was the main point of the article, you want to claim he is talking about the entire year which is false.
You stated this:
He never said it was as made clear by his own words:
Stop with your dishonest deflections. You are making “FOG” comments.
You made it clear that you completely missed the point of the article.
You said: He did this to show that despite a single day of rain on Greenland there is more mass gain than usual this summer which the media completely left out and and you also did.
There wasn’t a mass gain. Greenland lost mass this summer. That is my point. But you don’t know that because the chart only shows SMB.
And I’m not focused on any particular period whether it be a few days, a few months or the 2020/21 year. Again…my point is that Greenland is not gaining ice mass. It is losing ice mass. You just can’t tell from the contents of the article.
LOL, you really can’t read well since neither myself or the author said it was true over all mass gain for the year or for the two summer months itself, once again from the Author:
Black bolding mine
Nowhere does he says there is a net increase for the year or for the summer at all, just more gain than usual for the two months as the chart clearly shows.
I agreed with Pillage Idiot when he replied with this statement:
I haven’t once disputed that reality why can’t you understand the difference?
Stop being an ankle biter!
How many people reading this article took away the belief that Greenland has been gaining ice mass over the last year, this summer, the last 50 days, or on September 12th when the SMB spiked high due to Larry?
“He did this to show that despite a single day of rain on Greenland”
It was three days, and 7 billion tonnes of water. Both the rain and the subsequent melt spike broke records. But do keep trying.
“Satellite observations of Greenland surface melt go back to 1979. In that time, there have been just 10 years in which the area of surface melt exceeded 800,000 kilometers. The greatest area of melt observed on Greenland was in 2012—in early July, closer the height of summer, when daylight lasts longer. The mid-August melt spike in 2021 was unprecedented, higher than any event in the last three weeks of August in the 42-year record of surface melt. It was only the second time on record (after 2012) when a melt spike exceeding 800,000 square kilometers happened more than once in a single melt season, and it happened during a period of time when the Sun is closer to the horizon.”
NOAA
“The Media Is Lying About Greenland”
Well, let us see what the media actually said about the rainfall event:
CNN: “For the first time on record, precipitation on Saturday at the summit of Greenland — roughly two miles above sea level — fell as rain and not snow.
Temperatures at the Greenland summit over the weekend rose above freezing for the third time in less than a decade. The warm air fueled an extreme rain event that dumped 7 billion tons of water on the ice sheet, enough to fill the Reflecting Pool at the National Mall in Washington, DC, nearly 250,000 times.
It was the heaviest rainfall on the ice sheet since record keeping began in 1950, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center,”
Follow the link to the NSIDC and they are quite specific
“On August 14, 2021, rain was observed at the highest point on the Greenland Ice Sheet for several hours, and air temperatures remained above freezing for about nine hours. This was the third time in less than a decade, and the latest date in the year on record, that the National Science Foundation’s Summit Station had above-freezing temperatures and wet snow. There is no previous report of rainfall at this location (72.58°N 38.46°W), which reaches 3,216 meters (10,551 feet) in elevation.”
Vijay Jarajaz describes these reports as lying because he has found an account from 1975 that details ‘in the Centrale-Eismitte area, drizzle and rain were each reported once in a three-year period, on 20 and 21 June 1950, respectively.”.
He describes Eismitte as being ‘above 9,500 feet and very close to the Greenland summit peak’ and he describes this peak as being at ‘around 10,000ft’. There was a weather station at Eismitte for just one year in the 1930s. It’s location is 200km away from the Summit station where the recent rainfall was observed and its typical maximum summer temperatures several degrees warmer than at the summit. In summary there’s an eyewitness account of previous rain but from an area 200km away and some 700ft lower than the recent unprecedented rainfall. The statements by CNN and NSIDC are 100% true.
Even if you accept Jarajaz’s absurd characterisation of 200km distance and 700ft elevation as ‘very close’, and the historic report of rain on one day as accurate, there’s the question of scale, as the media reports stated, the summit rainfall was part of an extreme 3-day rainfall event that spread along the southeast coast and dropped some 7 billion tonnes of water onto the ice sheet. We are not talking ‘drizzle’.
Another fog comment made, the Author called it a lie because of the language the MEDIA makes, and that YOU ignored the evidence that it has rained before in other decades.
Media language you overlook:
From the CNN article you didn’t read:
The same Scambos who thinks a SINGLE WEATHER event is proof of rapid warming in Greenland.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
That is what I dislike about what he does is make stupid statements and see people like YOU fall for it, it is DUMB as hell!
He is embodies the Pseudoscientist paradigm I have come to despise as he says “unprecedented” while the database is only 71 years long in an interglacial period that is only around 15,000 years long.
Can he prove it didn’t rain in the 1800’s, 1700’s or earlier centuries?
Scambos promotes his climate scam easily for folks like you to swallow so easily and uncritically.
“Another fog comment made, the Author called it a lie because of the language the MEDIA makes, and that YOU ignored the evidence that it has rained before in other decades.”
Both untrue. He specifically claimed the media were lying about the rainfall at the summit being unprecedented.
“, climate history nearly always comes back to haunt their claims of unprecedented events. Records reveal that this is not the first rainfall in Greenland, and certainly not the first on the Greenland summit peak, which stands at around 10,000 feet. “
But nobody claimed it has never rained in Greenland before, the Summit station where the rain was observed is nearer 11,000 feet elevation than 10,000 and the two examples of previous rainfall he quotes were not at the summit, unless you believe 700ft elevation and 200km distance are insignificant.
It is not distraction to point out the author is flat wrong. Nor that he is a good deal less honest than those he accuses of lying.
Yep they have been fogging the last two days particularly the arctic article, one minute its sea ice then its the main mass refusing to acknowledge temperature graphs and basic calving science.
Here’s the temperature graphic you posted in the other blog post. How much of Greenland’s ice shelves do you think are exposed to above freezing sea water here?
Your “basic calving science” comes with the hypothesis 1) that it is too cold to effect the ice shelves 2) that discharge rates have not increased and 3) that calving today is caused by mass buildup. The problem…1) your own graphic says that the vast majority of Greenland’s ice shelves are exposed to sea water that is above the freezing point 2) discharge rates have been increasing (see Mouginot 2019 and Mankoff 2019) and 3) Greenland is losing mass; it’s not building up. And yet discharge rates continue to increase.
Have you worked out what the black line means yet?
That is the 0C isotherm.
And you should know that the OCI is not a fixed line it changes daily, I also asked you to check the latest temperature graph ,which you did not, here it is,
You’ll notice sea ice has extended, you’ll also need to be aware a yellow area is not a plus temperature reading it is a count up from a minus 10 green area so its anywhere between -9 to zero.
I’m not sure what sea ice has to do with any of this. We’re discussing the discharge past the grounding line of Greenland’s ice shelves. How much of Greenland’s ice shelves would you say are exposed to sea water above freezing?
BTW…yellow looks like it is around +7C according to the scale at the bottom. And because the black line is the sea ice edge it should provide a reasonable proxy for the -2C isotherm; not 0C as I incorrectly said above.
Nope. That is the sea ice extent. It says on the bottom of the page.
I read The Guardian’s article with the ‘first time event’ headline, and even some of their commenters were calling them out on it.
You know you’ve jumped the shark when even your best fans are calling you a bullshitter.
and the Guardian would censor any comments that attacked the narrative. Greenland, is getting greener, again! Oh the horror!
So you can stop melting, freezing, sublimating, evaporation via legislation can ya?
I’m not sure what this has to do with my comment above. Besides, I don’t participate in political discussions so I’ll have to respectfully bow out of this line of discussion regardless.
Most, probably nearly all claims the media makes about “Climate Change” have happened before or have been on going for centuries.
Now, someone remind me, why is the place called “Greenland”, & not
“f$*k me it’s freezing my doodahs off” land. The Vikings colonised the place, raised crops there, it was warmer over a thousand years ago for this to be able to happen, it is historical fact!!!
Those places known to have been farmed by the Vikings are still locked in permafrost. You can’t farm permafrost.
That’s true, I understand that the graves of those brave Viking souls are under the permafrost & had to be chiselled out for studying!!!
The ‘Vikings colonized Iceland and were colonizing Greenland.
They named the place Greenland to increase the attractiveness of the place to Vikings back in the homeland so they could get additional colonizers.
Here I thought it was always a bad idea to cause Vikings to get angry with someone.
Is there a source document for that assertion about the name, or is it just another lie from the alarmists to obscure the truth that Greenland used to have warmer weather?
It is really hillarious if you think about it. Perhaps they just didn’t identify places with ice on them, what would they call such places? There is nowhere on earth called Iceland after all.
Media prints lies to support an agenda?
I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!
Why is that? After all, they are “the usual suspects.”
And we don’t have to spend much effort rounding them up!
What was that movie from the old days, about a newspaper, & in one scene the editor tells a couple of reporters to get out & find some news, & if they couldn’t find any, create some??? Some things never change, at least where the meeedja is concerned!!!
The north Atlantic has something to say and it’s comparable to Treebeard’s pace. The lies from the towers of media babel will come due.
What do you think the AMOC is doing right now and what effect do you think it has on the NASST?
The CAGW crowd, and their mainstream media enablers, lie a lot, but it is easy to tell when they are lying, their lips move.
Media is lying.
Could have stopped there.
If you don’t look at a long enough period , how, do you differentiate a trend from a cycle ?
Cycles have been banned in the Climate Crusades.
There could be a natural cycle emerging, regardless of CO2 emissions.
Nice point. Example, sea level rise. There is a lunar ~18 year cycle (I forget its name). So you need a minimum of two full cycles to tell anything. Most tide gauge experts say 60-65 years, or just under 3 cycles to resolve the endpoint problems.
Tide gauges have made al least one oscillation over the past 60-70 years. Here’s a graph of running thirty year rates from a selection of tide gauges around the world that show that for the decades leading up to 1950 the rate of sea level rise was comparable to today. Decades leading up to the ’70s the rate was much lower:
I think European Celtic people used a lunar calendar. With years of varying length to keep things in sync with the solar year. The Coligny calendar is a bronze plate over 2000 years old found in France in the 19th century and accurate to 1 day in 50 years apparently. Gardeners in France use the lunar calendar for planting and harvesting and lunar gardening guides are widely available every solar year!
From Wiki Metonic cycle, in chronology, a period of 19 years in which there are 235 lunations, or synodic months, after which the Moon’s phases recur on the same days of the solar year, or year of the seasons. The cycle was discovered by Meton (fl. 432 bc), an Athenian astronomer.
Greenland was supposed to be getting five Feet of new snow from hurricane Larry . don’t look for it on the BBC .
There’s your problem. The BBC.
Well above average for the last couple of days.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
Many years ago while living in Munich I decided to take a July weekend motorcycle jaunt across the Austrian Gross Glockner massif down into Italy. Had to turn back because it was snowing heavily at altitude—inches of asphalt road accumulation not good for motorcycles.
Following year my wife and I were on our 3 week (hey, that’s Europe) Scandinavian motorcycle camping vacation and hit light snow on the gravel road at the Norwegian mountain pass that leads down to Bergen, where we had to hole up for two days because of bad weather. Not a two up problem with little accumulation on gravel.
Never thought either weather event was a sign of the then feared global cooling.
So don’t think a bit of rain at the Greenland Summit now is a sign of the. Ow feared global warming. Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get.
On Sunday Greenland’s SMB gain was unprecedented! for this time of year.
The instrument record is barely 200 years long, so records are going to be broken.
That’s what the climate alarmists always say. “Why, the instrument record is barely 140 years long, so heat records are going to be broken”
But we KNOW that Vikings lived happily on Greenland during the MWP and only left because things got cold again! IMO, historical records carry as much weight as modern instrument readings. Especially as there really are not all that many weather stations on Greenland or other parts of the planet in remote areas.
As are Holocene grown plants and trees beneath allegedly retreating glaciers.
Monday wasn’t bad either.
Greenland’s SMB through Monday . . .
As the saying goes:”There is nothing new under the sun.”
According to Kobashi, the average temperature at Summit Station over the past 4,000 years has been −30.7 °C. The average temperature since 2008 has been about −30 °C.
I downloaded the Kobashi et al., 2017 climate reconstruction from NOAA and plotted it to evaluate the context of recent climate change in central Greenalnd.
Looks like there may have been a lot of summer rain at Summit Station over the past 8,000 years.
And the past 6,000 years.
And probably even during the 20th Century… before Al Gore invented Gorebal Warming.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/05/the-irrelevance-of-greenlands-ice-mass-loss-in-five-easy-charts/
Hi David
Thanks for the data link.
On your first chart – notice that the two highest temperatures were 2012, 2016 and 2019. All were very low Arctic sea ice area minimums, with 2012 the lowest.
This site gives a view of heat transported into the Arctic region.
Regards
Notice that the “three”
“Looks like there may have been a lot of summer rain at Summit Station over the past 8,000 years.”
Undoubtedly David
Because of this …..
And how about we consider rather more that just one bore-hole “…. to evaluate the context of recent climate change in central Greenland.”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeHvFb_U4AA2DiJ?format=png
“Greenland temperature reconstruction from Vinther et al. (2009) using proxy data from six ice cores. Data spans the past 12,000 years with a resolution of 20 years. Observational temperature data from Berkeley Earth is shown at the end in black, with a 20-year smooth applied to match the proxy resolution. Proxy records and observations are aligned over the 1880-1960 period.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
Not quite so straight forward is it?
And highlights the false, over simplified conclusions that can be reached when looking (cherry-picking) just one proxy at a single location and extrapolating an entire regions (and the whole of Earth’s climate in the case of the Alley graph) climate over thousands of years.
Additionally …..
“However, at Watkins (75°N, 48°W, and elevation 8,840 ft) rain was reported to have occurred in July 1933. Hogue also notes that in the Centrale-Eismitte area, drizzle and rain were each reported once in a three-year period, on 20 and 21 June 1950, respectively”
“It showed at least two rainfall events have occurred, once in 1933 at 8,840 feet and again in 1950 at a much higher altitude. The 1950 rainfall event was above 9,500 feet and very close to the Greenland summit peak, thus contradicting mainstream media claims of unprecedented rainfall at the summit.”
Actually no it doesn’t ….
“The name “Eismitte” means Ice-Center in German, and the campsite was located 402 kilometers (250 mi) from the coast at an estimated altitude of 3,010 meters (9,875 feet).”
“Summit Camp, also Summit Station, is a year-round staffed research station near the apex of the Greenland ice sheet. The station is located at 3,216 metres (10,551 ft) above sea level.”
So that’s a difference 206m or 676ft
Which gives a SALR (at 10000ft) of ~ 500ft/C
Which makes Summit station in the same situation (likely to be) ~1.5C colder.
Need I say, that in a situation close to the melting/freezing point, that makes more than enough difference between solid/wet.
Ever been skiing?
“Looks like there may have been a lot of summer rain at Summit Station over the past 8,000 years.”
Undoubtedly David
Because of this …..
And how about we consider rather more that just one bore-hole core “…. to evaluate the context of recent climate change in central Greenland.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
Not quite so straight forward is it?
And highlights the false, over simplified conclusions reached when looking at just one proxy at a single location.
Additionally …..
“However, at Watkins (75°N, 48°W, and elevation 8,840 ft) rain was reported to have occurred in July 1933. Hogue also notes that in the Centrale-Eismitte area, drizzle and rain were each reported once in a three-year period, on 20 and 21 June 1950, respectively”
“It showed at least two rainfall events have occurred, once in 1933 at 8,840 feet and again in 1950 at a much higher altitude. The 1950 rainfall event was above 9,500 feet and very close to the Greenland summit peak, thus contradicting mainstream media claims of unprecedented rainfall at the summit.”
Actually no it doesn’t ….
“The name “Eismitte” means Ice-Center in German, and the campsite was located 402 kilometers (250 mi) from the coast at an estimated altitude of 3,010 meters (9,875 feet).”
“Summit Camp, also Summit Station, is a year-round staffed research station near the apex of the Greenland ice sheet. The station is located at 3,216 metres (10,551 ft) above sea level.”
So that’s a difference 206m or 676ft
Which gives a SALR (at 10000ft) of ~ 500ft/C
Which makes Summit station in the same situation (likely to be) 1.3C colder.
Using a bogus University of Chicago model?
Typical. In alarmist world, models trump observations.
I guess they can’t wait for the palm trees to appear there.
In their defense, if they believe what they say, then it’s not a lie.
If enough people believe the lie, it becomes a fact. Disputing it is futile.
Everyone believing a lie does not make it a fact, but you’re right abut the futility of arguing.
So what, an Executive Order has just changed how viruses have behaved forever? Amazing! If an EO has that much power why isn’t it being used to institute world peace? /S
A simple statement of fact upsets the monkeys…
To which I would add, never assume malice when stupidity and incompetence provide an ample explanation.
Projection again.
You apparently missed the SunMod’s admonition against insults.
A lie is always a lie, no matter what they believe. Beliefs are personal, lies are antifactual.
A lie is a deliberate act. If you believe something is true, because you have been fooled, and you pass that something to someone else as being true, you have not lied to that person, you have told them the truth as you see it. You have inadvertently misled that person.
A falsehood is always a falsehood, but a lie is a deliberate act of deception on the part of the liar. If it is not a deliberate act of deception, then it’s not a lie.
Courtesy of Merriam Webster:
Purposely misleading others about the meaning of the word “lie” is a lie.
The act of lying is not completely reliant on the liar’s belief.
Nor does it change the fact that a lie itself is independent of a person’s belief. It does not change that what was/is said or written is still a lie; i.e. a falsehood that deceives.
It’s not a lie if you actually tell it to a vegetarian.
Belief turns lies into truth?
Nope!
The real issue is not being pedantic about the definition. Its whether you can correct the person with reason – put forward by one person armed with facts.
The MSM is the Marxist propaganda arm fomenting fear and division.
“The MSM is the Marxist propaganda arm fomenting fear and division.”
“The MSM is the Intellectual Marxist propaganda arm fomenting fear and division.” There fixed!!!
“This means that they can never get over their obsession with weather events in the Arctic, which is one of their favorite subjects for projecting a climate catastrophe.“
Probably because it’s harder for real live people to get there, observe reality, and call out their lies.
I’ve asked a number of CAGW proponents in the UK if they have noticed a warming in their local climate over the last twenty years. No one has. I then ask them if they trust the MSM or the evidence of their own senses. Amazingly, most of them trust the former over the latter.
Progressives are trained from birth to trust those in authority.
They have a local temperature record, presumably.
Even if it did rain, so what? What does that prove? More intense summer precipitation? A precursor of more precipitation generally, leading to a larger ice sheet? Basically, they don’t know sheet.
If we didn’t live in an Ice Age, there wouldn’t be all this ice which might melt – though
it isn’t melting.
I think we should live on ocean whether the ice melts or not.
It seems the worst thing about a lot ice melting is all that freshwater being dumped into the salty ocean. Quite a waste of water.
The bad part is not people living on the beach and expensive beach homes getting flooded.
I think they have warned. I assume they are adults, what else needs to be said.
They could say, “We thought the news was lying like they always do!!”
Of course the media is lying. But you are living on beach.
Al Gore lives on beach.
That media is lying is not the issue. Living on beach is dangerous for number of reasons.
And probably most of media lives on the beach.
In terms of legal questions, if people living in Greenland have all their ice fall in the water, can they be sued. Isn’t that an issue?
We should encourage people to live in Antarctica so if their ice falls in the water, they can be sued also.
But the defense could be that the people shouldn’t have been living on the beach- we living in Ice Age, and a lot ice forms, and sometimes it melts.
The problem with all these lies is they wear you down with the time you have to waste untangling them and by then the damage has already been done and few care to correct the record. The 97% consensus fallacy that is still doing the rounds despite being debunked many times.
Though the media has been been shouting the sky is falling for so long that few pay attention, their only function is to reaffirm the faith of the true believers.
A one sentence lie often takes a two paragraph explanation as to why it is wrong.
Look at how many times griff has repeated his various lies. Is it any wonder why people stop trying to refute him and just resort to insults?
If you are truly deluded and delusional,are they still lies?
The Cult of Calamitous Climate has been 100% wrong for over 30 years now.
The probability of this being accident is very low.
Chicken Little of Fairy Tale fame was absolutely convinced the Sky was falling..Was he a liar?
I read our Presstitutes as Fools,who are so easily Gulled they don’t even need paid to spread panic.
At one time in civil society,a slap with the open hand was considered a sensible response and wake up call for a person engaging in panicked hysteria.
Pointing and laughing was considered cruel.
Too bad,when it comes to the media,so aptly coined fake newz,I shall point and snicker.
They have become the entertainment .
Correction: if Trump had not completely screwed the pooch on COVID, which by the way originated in Italy, not China, he possibly could have squeaked by in 2020, but most likely not. More Americans hate Trump than like him, bottom line.
What a deluded oaf you are Duane, (Snipped the gratuitous insult)
(You and a few others above are off topic which is about GREENLAND) SUNMOD
Covid was a product of Fauci the killer and his cohorts doing gain of function research. It was released, the question is who did it. Fauci Co took out over 5000 patents on the virus and “cure”. Check the report by Dr David Martin which the MSM will not release.
So many lies, no measurable intelligence. Definitely a socialist.
If Trump screwed the pooch as you so desperately want to believe, why is Biden having so much trouble with the delta variant?
Trump did nothing wrong with regards to COVID.
If COVID originated in Italy, why are all the earliest cases in China?
Yes we know that you hate Trump, and most likely everyone who is willing to spend time with you hates Trump as well. That’s not evidence that most people also hate Trump.
(Stop the completely off topic comments people!, already deleted many comments that completely abandoned the Greenland Article) SUNMOD
Probably the remnants of hurricane Larry which bumped directly into Greenland after raising hell in Newfoundland
First it was global warming , then conveniently called climate change which any weather event can be attributed to .
Sea rise was gonna happen because the Arctic would disappear , didn’t happen so now its the Antarctic or Greenland or any other diminishing glacier on Earth .
Pacific islands have not sunk but they need money just in case they do .
The only consistent agreement with all these climate wormists is give us more money .
Their first disappointment was when they learned sea ice melting doesn’t raise sea level at all. Not even a smidgen. The Arctic is virtually all sea ice.
That was when they started wailing about Antarctica and Greenland.
Greenland is bowl shaped.
Glacier’s exiting Greenland courtesy of ice flow is not because of melting. It is a natural process.
Nor do glaciers’ sea ice calving raise the sea level, as that ice is already included in the sea level.
So, they spend an inordinate amount of time claiming imminent glacier collapse due to something unknown and intensely speculated.
Except, the continent Antarctica’s temperature has not increased to above freezing.
Glacier ice flow is glacier ice flow, not a sign of imminent collapse.
Every few years, alarmists blow trumpets as they herald another research paper dependent upon models to forecast imminent doom from Greenland or Antarctica.
Which is why they are trying a full court press claiming rain in Greenland is a sign of doom.
No connection at all to any facts regarding rain in Greenland or imminent doom.
Which is typical for alarmists. They desperately want their beliefs proven, no matter hw it harms the world or the people in it.
Leaving alarmists whining about the remnants of extra-tropical Larry causing brief rainy weather where the warm extra-tropical storm passed.
It is weather and not unusual. Unless out are an alarmist desperately seeking proof of doom in a world where all of their models are failures and non of the doom predictions or signs of CO₂ warming have occurred.
And yes, no matter how immense the silly climate funding trough is, it is never enough for all of the parasites feeding off the money flow.
(Off topic name calling) SUNMOD
The higher of those 2 locations is Eismitte, given in the report as 9,840 ft elevation. The summit itself, where the recent rainfall was reported, is 10,530 ft elevation; so some ~700 ft higher up than the locations referred to in the 1975 report. How is CNN “lying” when it says this was the first time rain was recorded at the summit?
It’s not Final …. see my posted reply to David Middleton above.
It’s not appeared yet.
Will post again if necessary
It’s not necessary
Because CNN told us that Benghazi was started by an internet video.
The Summit station was established in 1989.
CNN wrote “For the first time on record, precipitation on Saturday at the summit of Greenland — roughly two miles above sea level — fell as rain and not snow….It was the heaviest rainfall on the ice sheet since record keeping began in 1950,” so they are incorrectly suggesting that its a rare event for the summit region because it was never recorded exactly at the summit before, in 32 years of records.
What’s the weather like on your planet?
Melting has been very low. In fact only 70% of normal melting.
Started below and ended above average.
Melting area has been high but melting low. It shows how temperature is an important factor.
At the other end of the temperature scale https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58494641
Methinks the whistleblower behind the Climate Gate releases a decade ago might be found in Bengalu?
When the climate alarmists come out with their over hyped the first time ever stories I ask a simple question when given the chance.
I ask them what about the June 1248 AD rain on Greenland’s peak?
The look of amazement is always worth asking the question. The usual exchange of how do you know about that, goes on?. Followed by my simple observation, if the journo doesn’t know about June 1248 AD, how can he or she claim, this event, is the first time ever it happened, event?
They diidn’t say it was the first time it had happened. They said it was the first time it was recorded. Even the CNN headline makes that clear.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-58549373 more propaganda
I look at the Weather Channel radar every day…Snow falls somewhere on Greenland nearly every day…On Sunday, September 12, Ex-hurricane Larry dumped 10 Gigatons of snow and ice…It had snowed in the days before and still is today September 14…
Sorry Rory, for all his good points Trump was an utterly useless president and not fit to govern any country let alone the USA. Your claims of vote rigging put you on a par with the climate alarmist crowd
And the demented child-sniffing toad who is currently installed in the White House is fit to govern the the USA? Whoever is pulling his strings and writing his speeches is not fit either!
Simon?
No kidding we love these policies now 😉
Oh, really? Then why is Trump ahead of Biden in the opinion polls?
A recent poll also shows that the majority of Americans now think Biden should be impeached.
Chris
(Deleted 21 completely off topic comments that were about COVID, Marxism and Trump election, the topic is this: The Media Is Lying About Greenland and Climate Change
Stay on topic!) SUNMOD
Science isn’t lying about Greenland conditions:
‘On August 14, 2021, rain was observed at the highest point on the Greenland Ice Sheet for several hours, and air temperatures remained above freezing for about nine hours. This was the third time in less than a decade, and the latest date in the year on record, that the National Science Foundation’s Summit Station had above-freezing temperatures and wet snow. There is no previous report of rainfall at this location (72.58°N 38.46°W), which reaches 3,216 meters (10,551 feet) in elevation. Earlier melt events in the instrumental record occurred in 1995, 2012, and 2019; prior to those events, melting is inferred from ice cores to have been absent since an event in the late 1800s. The cause of the melting event that took place from August 14 to 16, 2021, was similar to the events that occurred this late July, where a strong low pressure center over Baffin Island and high air pressure southeast of Greenland conspired to push warm air and moisture rapidly from the south.’
Greenland Ice Sheet Today | Surface Melt Data presented by NSIDC
You make a big deal about a rare WEATHER event that has happened long ago and probably in every century in the past.
You say this:
Which is based on a few decades of limited data, what about the last 15,000 years of the interglacial period?
You run on very little evidence to make absurd claims, it is a problem you always have shown.
The long ago past doesn’t matter unless it can be utilized to produce a hockey stick graph
The point of the article from the headline onwards is an accusation that the media lied about the rainfall event.
Turns out they did not.
No he said they were lying my omission of previous rainfall events of the 1930’s and 1950’s while the media were making these headlines that YOU ignored:
In the CNN article is this stupid mouthful from Scambos:
Yeah a SINGLE WEATHER event gets his bullshit rolling.
Meanwhile the other events from the 1930;s and 1950;s was completely ignored because that would greatly dilute the propaganda message they are trying to mislead the public with.
Reading the article in full and think objectively.
“Meanwhile the other events from the 1930;s and 1950;s was completely ignored because that would greatly dilute the propaganda message they are trying to mislead the public with.”
No. they were not mentioned because they did not happen at the Summit. Not even close.
You are being pedantic, what part of ”very close to the Greenland summit peak” don’t you get.
Irony. A post accusing others of lying describes a location 200kms distant and 700ft lower than the summit as ‘very close’.
The elevation offset alone is sufficient to make Eismitte more than a degree warmer.
Stuff that has happened before, cannot be proof that this time it was caused by CO2.
It is worth considering whether greater calving of the shelf glacier is a sign of warming, or conversely a significant increase in shelf ice mass?
This data shows that most of the loss of ice occurs along the edge of the ice sheet, where independent observations also indicate that the ice is thinning, that the glacier fronts are retreating in fjords and on land, and that there is a greater degree of melting from the surface of the ice.
High on the central region of the ice sheet, however, the GRACE satellites show that there is a small increase in the mass of the ice. Other measurements suggest that this is due to a small increase in precipitation/snowfall.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/
The map shows the degree to which the Greenland Ice Sheet has become either thicker or thinner during the three-year period from January 2017 until December 2019. It is evident that near many of the large outlet glaciers, the ice sheet has thinned by several metres each year, but we do also see that large parts of the ice sheet have thickened due to precipitation during the three years.
In this map we see a thickening at the front of Jakobshavn Isbræ; a signal that has been confirmed by air-borne measurements (Khazendar et al., 2019)
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/CS2_uk_HD_large.jpg
Jakobshavn Isbrae has been the single largest source of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet over the last 20 years. During that time, it has been retreating, accelerating and thinning. Here we use airborne altimetry and satellite imagery to show that since 2016 Jakobshavn has been re-advancing, slowing and thickening. We link these changes to concurrent cooling of ocean waters in Disko Bay that spill over into Ilulissat Icefjord. Ocean temperatures in the bay’s upper 250 m have cooled to levels not seen since the mid 1980s. Observations and modelling trace the origins of this cooling to anomalous wintertime heat loss in the boundary current that circulates around the southern half of Greenland. Longer time series of ocean temperature, subglacial discharge and glacier variability strongly suggest that ocean-induced melting at the front has continued to influence glacier dynamics after the disintegration of its floating tongue in 2003. We conclude that projections of Jakobshavn’s future contribution to sea-level rise that are based on glacier geometry are insufficient, and that accounting for external forcing is indispensable.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3
“Ocean temperatures in the bay’s upper 250 m have cooled to levels not seen since the mid 1980s.”
Interesting.
I bet some alarmists are getting nervous.
Jakobshavn Glacier in west Greenland viewed by the Copernicus Sentinel-2 mission on 29 April 2019. In recent years, Greenland has been losing more ice through this glacier than from anywhere else on this huge ice sheet. Various types of satellite data have been used to understand and monitor the glacier’s flow over the last 20 years. This revealed that the glacier was flowing at its fastest and losing the most ice in 2012–13. In places, the main trunk of the glacier was deflating by 10 m a year as it adjusted dynamically to ice loss and melting. However, information from satellites such as ESA’s CryoSat and the Copernicus Sentinel-1 mission show that between 2013 and 2017, the region drained by the glacier stopped shrinking in height and started to thicken. The overall effect is that Jakobshavn is now flowing more slowly, thickening, and advancing toward the ocean instead of retreating farther inland.
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2019/05/Jakobshavn_Glacier
Here you can see Disko Bay, into which the glacier flows. The fjords into which Greenland’s glaciers flow can be as deep as 1 km.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/images/MODIS/Disko/20210913TERR.jpg
Oh Duane, you are a world-class nutter if you believe what you just wrote. Despite all the MSM reportage about overwhelmed hospitals and tractor-trailers full of bodies it hasn’t really happened. Instead of believing everything you hear on the telly, get out and investigate on your own, like I did! Or are you still sheltering in place, terrified of catching an illness that the majority of people fully recover from in a few days with some sensible treatments?
So………..because there was recorded rainfall in the 30’s….and again in the…50’s or was it once in the 70’s………….THAT and the statistics on this last year in comparison to a 30 year running average… y’all are loosing your mind over media …lies? For smart people you seem desperate for confirmation of your own bias(es).
Alleged objective scientist Scambos stated from CNN article:
Was he lying by omission of older rain fall events or just too lazy to do a simple research to find them?
In any case he makes that stupid statement over a SINGLE Weather event that happened recently to call it “unprecedented”, yet the Author you are mocking manage in a few minutes of search to find other rain fall events on Greenland of many decades ago which means Scambos is wrong in saying it was unprecedented, you sure you want to continue to ignore the obvious Media propaganda angle here?
Your ‘precedents’ are secondhand eyewitness accounts of rain or drizzle that lasted one day each and occurred at least 700ft below and 200km distant from the Summit. This was a 3 day event that dropped 7 billion tonnes of water and encompassed the Summit. No, this has not happened before in the record.
Never disputed that it rained in those places, what I keep pointing out that it isn’t unprecedented as the media and Scambos claims. It also rained in other decades too which the media and scambos failed to mention but the Author posted it showing the falsehood claims of the media and Scambos statements.
What is Scambos excuse for making his false statement that it was “unprecedented” when all he has is a 71 year record on a low population and before the 1970’s satellite free coverage of the region. They may have been a few other missed rainfalls 0ver 70 years ago, who knows?
It is well known that there have been missed tropical storms and Hurricanes too in the early part of last century and in the 1800’s too because there were no satellite data and few people and irregular ships in the Atlantic to see them.
What about the previous 15,000 years?
Meanwhile Greenland Ice field mass loss is negligible by percentage…….
No one here is going to fall for this climate wailing bullcrap they push.
“Never disputed that it rained in those places, what I keep pointing out that it isn’t unprecedented as the media and Scambos claims.“
Nobody claimed rainfall in Greenland is unprecedented.
It’s a good thing I’m not the pedantic type.
Who exactly are you addressing, Alan?
What bias are you referring to?
The alarmists claim increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are causing the Earth to experience unprecedented weather.
So whenever the alarmist point to some weather event as proof that the Earth is experiencing unprecedented weather, the skeptics come along and say, “Not so fast!”, and then point out similiar weather conditions in the past, when CO2 was not a significant factor. The point being that we are not experiencing unprecedented weather today and CO2 is not the determining factor *because* we are not experiencing unprecedented weather today.
Summit is actually close to 10,600 feet elevation. And clearly you’ve never been there called it a “peak” LOL
They still believe that Jews are at least part of the problem.
From the article: “The NSF report states, “According to Hogue (1964) heavy rainfall seldom occurs above 6,000 ft on the Greenland ice sheet. However, at Watkins (75°N, 48°W, and elevation 8,840 ft) rain was reported to have occurred in July 1933. Hogue also notes that in the Centrale-Eismitte area, drizzle and rain were each reported once in a three-year period, on 20 and 21 June 1950, respectively.”
Both 1933 and 1950 were during warm periods equal to the warmth of today.
When looking in the 2020 report of the polarportal, you may be surprised:
http://polarportal.dk/en/news/2020-season-report/
Figure 2 shows the SMB and TMB of Greenlands icecap.
The Total Mass Balance was at the deepest point in 2012 and since then the mass loss is becoming smaller and smaller. There was no mass loss in 2017 und 2018. In 2019 the mass loss was again high, followed by a small mass loss in 2020.
The trend for 2021 isn’t shown, but there were small losses.
There is a positive trend in greenlands mass loss since 2012.
An other data source for Greenlands SMB:
https://www.climato.uliege.be/cms/c_5652668/fr/climato-greenland
The trend of 2021 ist missing here. Why?
The data through 2021 isn’t available yet. It probably won’t be available until December. But notice how the discharge is a very consistent 500 Gt/yr. We know SMB was 400 Gt during the 2020/21 season which means the TMB will likely come in around -100 Gt.
LinkedIn blocked my post because they said it was against its community standards. I am appealing the block.
Greenland as a whole has not lost much ice over the past three years.
This map shows the extent to which the Greenland ice sheet became thicker or thinner over the three-year period from January 2017 to December 2019. It is clear that near many of the large outflow glaciers, the ice sheet thinned by several meters each year, but we also see that large parts of the ice sheet thickened due to precipitation during these three years.
On the other hand, ice mass increased during the 2020-2021 season as snowfall increased above the 1981-2010 average (gray solid line in lower graph).
The graphic above shows that the cause of melting coastal glaciers must be the subsurface sea temperature, not the air temperature.
Just add to this it will taken between 7000 and 10000 years for Greenland to melt.
I wonder if this is anything to do with Contrails and the accumalation of high clouds. Minnis wrote about the effect in 2004. I have a copy of that paper if anyone would like it. COVID has caused a magnificent experiment to be undertaken with the cessation of air traffic.
From the abstract of Minnis et al. 2004: “Using results from a general circulation model simulation of contrails, the cirrus trends over the United States are estimated to cause a tropospheric warming of 0.28–0.38C decade21, a range that includes the observed tropospheric temperature trend of 0.278C decade21 between 1975 and 1994. The magnitude of the estimated surface temperature change and the seasonal variations of the estimated temperature trends are also in good agreement with the corresponding observations.”
It seems to me that perhaps Greenland would be the most sensitive land mass to contrails as the flights were very dense over there.
Minnis was a genuine scientist and head of Atmospheric Sciences at NASA, nothing to do with GISS as far as I know.
Minnis, P., Ayers, J.K., Palikonda, R. and Phan, D., 2004. Contrails, cirrus trends, and climate. Journal of Climate, 17(8), pp.1671-1685.