By Kenneth Richard on 27. December 2021
The cryosphere is failing to cooperate with the anthropogenic global warming narrative that says rising greenhouse gas emissions should be catastrophically melting Arctic ice.
Scientists (O’Regan et al., 2021) report Ryder Glacier in north Greenland has advanced 2,881 m from 1948-2015 given its advancing rate of 43 m/yr-1. Its modern ice extent is about 50 km greater than 6,300 years ago.
Nearby, the ~60 km-tongued Petermann Glacier, didn’t even exist during the Roman Warm Period. As the chart on the bottom right of the image below shows, there was no ice in this region for all but a few centuries of the Holocene prior to 2,000 years ago. Petermann’s Little Ice Age size was similar to its modern condition.
Image Source: O’Regan et al., 2021
Another glaciologist (Winker, 2021) asserts there is “no evidence” that Jostedalsbreen, a southern Norway glacier, even existed during the first several thousand years of the Holocene, or when CO2 hovered near 260 ppm. The glacier reached its maximum advanced phase during the Little Ice Age, which had CO2 concentrations in the 275 to 280 ppm range.
“The ‘Holocene Thermal Maximum’ or ‘Hypsithermal’ at Jostedalsbreen provides no evidence for any substantial glacial activity and can be characterised as a prolongated period of near (possibly even complete) glacier disappearance… By contrast, the highest glacial input is dated to 600 and 200 cal. a BP indicating the local ‘Little Ice Age’-maximum.”
Interestingly, after wasting away rapidly during the 1930s and 1940s, the glacier stabilized. From the 1950s to 1980s, there was a “slight overall advance” in ice extent. This corresponds to a similar melt pattern for the Nigardsbreen glacier.
Image Source: Winker, 2021
Several months ago we highlighted another new study documenting a much warmer-than-today Early and Middle Holocene in East Greenland. Ice caps were “absent” or far less extensive than they are presently during this period.
What may be surprising is that carbon-dated plant remains buried under retreating glaciers in East Greenland affirm these locations were not covered in glaciers as recently as 400 to 500 years ago, or during the Little Ice Age cold period.
Image Source: Medford et al., 2021
The authors even acknowledge there were occasionally brief “cold stages” during the Holocene when Greenland’s glacier extent advanced to today’s levels.
“…Renland Ice Cap briefly reach[ed] extents during cold phases that may have been similar to today.”
Of course, this affirms that modern temperatures and ice volumes fall within the range of a “cold stage” too.
So, once again, there is no evidence to support the alarmist claims that modern glacier extents are unprecedented or even unusual relative to the last 10,000 years – including the last few centuries.
Europeans can easily picture how wide of the mark alarmists are when the North Sea is examined over the recent 20,000 years.
Nearly all ice sheet, then dry land and now as it is. No need to make it up…_
https://www.dw.com/en/doggerland-how-did-the-atlantis-of-the-north-sea-sink/a-55960379
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379117310612
I can’t remember the source, but I do recall reading an article stating people who lived by the shores of Doggerland would have seen the waters rising by up to 1m per year.
We see them rise by 1 m a day. Dutch coast high tide sea levels may vary by 3 meter between lowest and highest within a year.
Yes, I know Alex but this was when Doggerland wasn’t the North Sea
Redge
Yes but Doggerland actually being the famed “Atlantis” means their technology was much more advanced than ours so they were capable of dealing with such things and they had advanced warning as well because they too were emitting CO2 at even a greater rate then we and since they were so advanced there climatologist could not have possibly missed the connection.
Yes, I watched the documentary back in the 70s with Bobby Ewing playing the part of the Atlantean saving us from ourselves
Or was that the guy who caused global warming?
BBC reporting that ‘Global Warming’ has arrived in California overnight. At this rate glaciers will be coming down to SF bay in no time/ sc
Once the Covid Stasi are put in their place and I can travel again as a freeborn, I’m fully expecting to be able to go on a ski holiday in Acapulco. If the alarmists are making things up I’ll thump ’em.
Black runs and Marguerites, yee har…_
Also in Japan, on the BBC.
It’s “Global Raining” in California right now.
I don’t know if it’s going to be a 1000-year flood or not yet. I guess Griff will let us know.
Coming shortly after Griff, low IQ talking heads in the media spouting:
“See, California’s push for green energy policies is obviously working . . . we just received a long spell of rain to relieve out “historic” drought, didn’t we?”
Some much needed snow is accumulating in the Colorado Rockies, about a meters worth in the past week.
We need much much more than 1m of snowpack
Wolf Creek is a nice exception with 83″ of base at the summit and 75″ depth at midway.
https://wolfcreekski.com/snow-report-page/
I was at Winter Park on Saturday and conditions were excellent with more open than the week prior.
With the recent series of rain storms moving across California, the most recent news is total mountain snowpack in the state is now about 150% of normal.
More rain fronts are coming.
The atmospheric river is pumping moisture into the West Coast.
I read today about a claimed new phenomenon called an “Atmospheric Lake” Apparently, they are detached circulations containing large amount of mositure and are situated near the equator, at least so far.
The article I read didn’t try to connect the Atmospheric Lakes to Climate Change, but it’s probably just a matter of time, since the alarmists attribute everything that happens in the atmosphere to CO2.
And it isn’t a pack either as fresh snow is ~90% air. – so 1m ~= 10cm (4in)
It is from several snows over the last few weeks, so it is in fact a snowpack. The layering is causing avalanches. I’m only at 6600′ with a foot on the ground with 1.5″+ of water in it. A fresh foot of snow is about an inch of water
I do not believe scientists claim that glacier retreat is unprecedented. Only climate activists make such claims. It is not even possible to make such a scientific claim. It lacks precision.It is good practice in journalism to include a reference when rebuking a claim.
sorry I misread the article. It only rebukes a “narrative”. Narratives in general are pretty useless.
Narratives are the foundation of all scientific communication – theories are simply facts and educated guesswork that support a narrative – there are always other interpretations of the data which are less favored narratives… It is not possible to dismiss narratives without dismissing science itself…
I see both Alexander’s and your points. However, it is possible to dismiss certain narratives without dismissing science, since there are narratives based in fact and there are misleading narratives promoted by various groups. There are sound theories and there are crackpot theories.
Most of us have sense enough to recognize and dismiss narratives that shouldn’t have been considered scientifically in the first place.
Virtually all of the CAGW fanatics who stumble across reports like this will dismiss the study. The only proof for them will be thick glacial ice over their house, which is slowly coming for them. Fanatics don’t want data to replace feelings, and they feel like this is Donald Trumps’ fault, or …… (fill in other conservative).
One important finding to note is that the so-called global temperature has fluctuated widely over the last 10,000 years. The climate only stabilized in areas where, for a period, it was more desireable, and then it changed.
Mankind may have had some inputs, it is patently obvious that people have not been changing the climate radically. The current 1degC in temperature barely counts as a blip.
No, they will just say it is a local phenomenon, not at all a global event…
Your comment is spot-on. Reason, logic, evidence – today’s leftists have been brainwashed into dismissing all such concepts as “eurocentric white male tools of oppression” – or some similar jibberish.
Good thing about the climate scare is that we get to know a lot more about our planet, interesting stuff.
We also get to learn how stupid, scientifically illiterate and gullible most of our relatives, friends and neighbors are.
Like Ron Long said above they have no desire to replace their feelings with facts and data.
Trying to convince them otherwise is a salutary lesson in “How To Lose Friends And Alienate People”.
Gosh! No griff fact check?
In the Italian alps glacial retreat has uncovered WWI positions and artefacts
It’s the soot on top of the glaciers that causes them to melt even when the ambient temperature is below freezing.
Yep all that soot 10,000 years ago.
Sure, sure. And what happens when just one winter’s worth of snowfall atop any of those glaciers buries all that soot under a couple of feet (or more) of fresh, clean, highly reflective snow?
And please don’t argue that the annual deposition of soot (averaged over all glaciers) makes any difference at all in the melting rate of glaciers. Before you dare to go there, please re-read the above article . . . completely.
Soot cannot increase albedo on the surface of a glacier in winter when fresh snows repeatedly cover the surface. Soot only matters in summer, if ever in a given location, when the ice is more likely to melt or sublimate anyway.
Soot decreases albedo, I think you meant.
Griff? anywhere? Arctic sea ice at its highest level for this date in the last 15 years any comment? Griff? are you out there, oh of course you are “out there” but I mean any comment?
we have more Arctic sea ice today, or the same as, until you go back to 2003…
click the years for yourself on the charctic graph….
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Last 15 years, was what I said and that really 18 so thanks
Sea ice extend data for Dec 27th in 2014, 2004 are higher than 2021-21-27
2004 is 17 years ago, 2014 depends on the data set you look at but for all intensive purpose they are identical.
Doesn’t really make difference anyway I only brought it up because Griff is always the first one to say the “3rd lowest in the last 10 years” or what ever nonsense time period he wants, since the is nothing unusual about Arctic sea ice levels unless you cherry pick the late 70s as the norm, which is what Griff and his dopy ilk do.
Personally I hope the glaciers keep melting, when they start growing is the real problem.
From the article: “Interestingly, after wasting away rapidly during the 1930s and 1940s,”
There’s that 1930’s warmth again. The warmth the alarmists want to erase from history. But, it still keeps showing up here and there.
When backed into a corner, alarmists will shriek that it was only here, not there, strictly localized.
That’s true, the alarmists do that all the time.
They don’t have an answer when you point out that the same warmth as occurred in the U.S., is “localized” in every part of the globe that had temperature measurements. All the unmodified, regional surface temperature charts show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, and those charts are from every part of the world.
Then along comes Michael Mann and Phil Jones and they try to erase all those hot temperatures from the past and turn them into cool temperatures, so they can then claim today is the hottest time in 1,000 years, and it’s all CO2’s fault. The only real fault lies with the Temperature Data Mannipulators who have completely distorted the temperature record for political/personal purposes.
Hahaha….it cracks me up when the Simonesque clowns come on here with their hockey sticks graphs. I ask them about the warmth of the 30’s…”look at the graph it was colder” 🤔
“The Graph” is the only thing they have.
The Graph = The Mann/Jones Bogus Hockey Stick “temperature” chart.
If we tear up the Bogus Hockey Stick chart, there is no more CO2 crisis, because the only place the CO2 crisis exists is in the Temperature Data Mannipulator’s computers.
Mr. Mann . . . calling for Michael Mann . . . Mr. Michael Mann . . . please pick up the house telephone.
We know who the culprit is. 🙂
It’s important to make sure that everybody knows all of these fundamental glaciology concepts were known with some confidence back in 1982 – my professor at Beloit College – Professor Stenstrom – at the time had expertis in glaciology even though he was teaching geology 101, so he included tidbits like this one: the glaciers in glacier national Park mostly did not exist over the vast majority of this modern interglacial, that’s over 10,000 years of history… glaciers in glacier national Park are recent visitors that burst into existence during the 500 year little Ice Age, so the simple fact that they are melting corresponds with the simple fact that it is no longer the Little Ice Age which ended around 1850…
There was more objectivity back then that I think most of us who were around then, miss today. One could ponder questions without having to consider whether the questions would be anathema to one political narrative or the other.
I place at least some blame on Al Gore and followers of Rachel Carson.
anyone traveling in Grand Tetons Nat’l Park can read the signs at the pullouts and learn that those glaciers didn’t exist in 1800.
From the article: “From the 1950s to 1980s, there was a “slight overall advance” in ice extent.”
That would be because the temperatures were cooling from the 1940’s to the 1980’s. Remember “The Ice Age Cometh” in the 1970’s?
The temperatures cooled by 2.0C during this time in North America. And CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were increasing during this time. So, CO2 was increasing, and the temperatures were cooling. A lot! Just the opposite of what alarmists claim should have been happening if CO2 is the temperature control knob of the atmosphere. So, it appears CO2 is *not* the temperature control knob of the atmosphere.
First they blamed aerosols. Then they rewrote history.
“Its the aerosols whut dunnit” has been replaced by dicking around with clouds in the CMIP6 models to get even higher ECSs. Its gotten so bad that the UN IPCC CliSciFi AR6 had to exclude a bunch of the high-end models, whereas AR5 just arbitrarily reduced the close-in predictions of all of them; its “expert opinion” doncha know.
The key takeaway from this information is that glaciers come and glaciers go, all the time, constantly, yet Gaia never dies as the warmunists keep telling us is on the verge of happening, killing us all 10 years from now omigod.
When glaciers advance, the tiniest proportion of life on the planet that benefits from bigger glaciers benefits … while the vast majority of lifeforms on this planet are hurt by advancing glaciers (other than bacteria, what can possibly live on the underside of a glacier?)
The principle is simple – cool is bad, warm is good. We should be wishing fervently that global warming will be the norm for the future of our civilization, because global cooling is what will kill off our civilization, which never ever existed during any glaciation era.
Truth and facts don’t scare people , only confuse them .
Politicians , bureau’s , activists and extremists use fear to gain control , hence no debate of any alternative version of ‘their science is settled’ fearmongering .
Just checked NSIDC and SHAZAM Arctic is still covered with ice and snow. Bet Antarctic is, too. Glaciers come and go, it is what they do. Sublimation, science in action.
l think the lack of glacier advancement in east Greenland during the early LIA. Gives important clues as to the cause of the climate cooling in europe during the LIA.
It suggests that the cause of the cooling was due to increased amounts of northern blocking over the North Atlantic. Which were forcing more of the milder Atlantic air up into Greenland rather then flowing across over to europe. While at the same time drawing down greater amounts of cold air from the Arctic and Arctic Russia. The weather records of the cold winter weather during the LIA supports this idea.
I think you might be on to something.
Similar weather happened during the heatwaves of the 1930’s, in the U.S., where both record warmth and record cold were recorded.
The scenario could be a high-pressure system hovering over the western third of the United States keeping those underneath it warmer, while at the same time bringing cold canadian/artic air down into the eastern third of the U.S along the east side of the high-pressure system. Warm temperatures on one side of the nation, and cold temperatures on the other side.
The “year without a summer” during the LIA. Certainly suggests classic Omega blocking over the northern Atlantic, causing colder air and low pressure to settle over europe.
That’s a good point, and most probably correct.
Here are additional published papers saying similar which I have collected in recent years at a forum.
Little to No Summer ice in the Arctic
” More Evidence: Glaciers Existing Today Were Absent For Nearly All Of The Last 10,000 Years ”
Is the article impluing that there was an unprecedented increase in glacier size in the last 10,000 years????
The climate was not stable and constant? How strange!
Did anybody in CliSciFi have the courage to tell Mikey Mann?
Seattle hit with rare snow fall (children won’t know what snow is) in the news.
glaciers today are rapidly receding, with the decrease at a more rapid rate than last century and with a recent increase in speed of retreat.
what matters is the effect of that now and in the near future – it will impact water supply and (less importantly) tourism. It already is. There weren’t large cities dependent on water supplies originating from glacial sources 10,000 years ago.
and this is also a clear sign of a warming planet.
So there you are! Yes the planet is warming and…what’s the cause? Therein lies the rub because the models you are enthralled with can’t explain the warming of the 30s-40s or the cooling of the 50s-70s. That darned null hypothesis keeps screwing up your narrative.
Ahhh . . . there he is!
As usual, flat out assertions with no linked reference to support his spurious claims.
By the way, Griff, regarding your comment: “There weren’t large cities dependent on water supplies originating from glacial sources 10,000 years ago.” Well, Earth exited its last glacial period only some 12,000 years ago, so the basic fact is that there weren’t any large cities (by today’s standards) anywhere on Earth 10,000 years ago, period.
Lest I be called out for calling the kettle black, here’s a factual reference for you:
“But the earliest region for urbanization was the Middle East, with ancient Mesopotamia. About 10,000 years ago, soon after farming began there, the site of Jericho in present-day West Bank featured massive stone walls, enclosing a settlement of an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 residents.”—source: https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/which-ancient-city-is-considered-the-oldest-in-the-world
A few ancient cities dating back to that period that are now under water by tens and even more than a hundred feet, having been swallowed by seas thousands of years ago. Some on the list below meet these criteria.
https://www.thetravel.com/underwater-cities-that-look-straight-out-of-aquaman/
Scissor, sorry, but your linked article doesn’t qualify as listing 25 cities “dating back to that period” (i.e., about 10,000 years ago). Also, I do not know what you mean by the statement “Some on the list below meet these criteria.” . . . does that include using water originating from melting glaciers?
First off, only 19 of 25 listed underwater cities could qualify as being “ancient” in context, which I define here as being more that 5,000 years old.
Second, no population numbers were cited in the linked article for the remaining “ancient” 19 underwater cities before they became submerged.
Griff they rely on the glaciers melting.
The whole “water from glaciers” is a red herring. If things go as the alarmists want, meaning colder, then glaciers will be advancing, and there will be NO water from them.
I live in Australia, griff. We have a few large cities but don’t have any glaciers.
Oz is the driest continent on the planet (apart from Antarctica) and even though the feral Greens don’t like dams, we’ve mostly figured out the water supply issue.
Tourism? . . crikey, it’ll be back to normal when the planes can fly again.
If you’re coming to visit, just watch out for the drop bears.
Don’t fall into the marmite bogs.
I can hear the global warming alarmists cries right now:
“But … but … but … the areas covered by these glacial studies are just a tiny, tiny fraction of Earth’s area . . . they just cannot be meaningful!”
“there is no evidence to support the alarmist claims that modern glacier extents are unprecedented or even unusual “…
It WAS unprecedented – on the higher side of of it.
Scanning previous comments I see no mention of neoglaciation, the inception of the next glacial stadial. We live in the Ice Ages. The Holocene is temporary. The Neocryocene cometh, and has been coming for ~5,000 years. There were continental ice sheets, then they melted, and now they’re returning. The evidence is plain to see. If CO2 can delay the cold, great. Warmer Is Better.
Yes, I constantly point that out in other forums.
The ice age is still here, we just have nice weather for the moment
I honestly don’t know if our CO2 causes a measurable rise in temperature, but I do know that barring something major happening to the earths orbital mechanics we are definitely going back into mile high glaciers (1.62km here in canada)
That’s a real potential for a doomsday, a change in orbit is. Could make glaciation seem like a solvable problem, in comparison.
Test your climate knowledge, take the CO2 Coalition quiz https://co2coalition.org/climate-quiz/
Their question: “The melting of Arctic ice is causing sea levels to rise.”
Their answer: “Melting of floating ice does not cause sea levels to rise”
Real answer: The melting of Arctic ice DOES cause sea level rise. Greenland alone has lost 5000 Gt of ice sitting above sea ice level contributing about 15mm to sea level rise since 1980 [1]. Their answer and experiment with the glass of water and ice cubes did not factor in non-floating ice above the water level. How are we supposed to take their quiz seriously when they failed to address something so obvious that most laypeople fully understand?
“Melting of FLOATING ice does not cause sea levels to rise”.
You write, “Their answer and experiment with the glass of water and ice cubes did not factor in NON-FLOATING ice above the water level.”
How are we supposed to take you seriously when you fail to address something so obvious that most laypeople fully understand?
BTW, 5000Gt of ice equates to about a thousandth of the total ice on Greenland, but that doesn’t sound so scary.
I stand by what I said. The melting of non-floating ice above the water level contributes to sea level rise. The melting of floating ice has no significant effect either way because the ice-to-water volume ratio is about 0.9 and because the volume is insignificant relative to non-floating ice. Therefore “The melting of Arctic ice is causing sea levels to rise.” is a true statement despite what co2coalition says. You and co2coalition can challenge this fact as much as you like and you’ll both still be wrong. And to answer you question…I did address the obvious. It was co2coalition that failed to do so. Don’t pin co2coalition’s incompetence on me. And you should take the statement “The melting of Arctic ice is causing sea levels to rise.” seriously because it is a true statement that you can easily prove yourself with a simple experiment.
It seems the Arctic isn’t melting after all.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
All those predictions of an ice-free Arctic by 2020 have been falsified.
Mr. Al Gore declared in December 2008 in Munich, that the Arctic would be ice-free in 2013. Seemingly he has not aligned with the climate, and in December 2013 the extent of the Arctic ice was larger than in December 2008. The “price” for the “genial” forecast from Al Gore was 180 T€ in cash. Hm, I could tell even bigger nonsense very easily only for 90€ (50% reduction).
Al Gore is not an Arctic sea ice expert or climate scientists or even a scientist at all. His predictions are propaganda and probably politically motivated since ya know…he’s a politician. As such you shouldn’t be basing your position on the climate based on his opinion or anyone’s opinion really. You should be basing it on what the science and abundance of evidence actually says. And the science and abundance of evidence never said that Arctic sea ice would be practically ice-free in the summer by 2013, 2016, or any of the other predictions Al Gore made up.
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle!
Gore cited Wadhams and Maslowski. They aren’t “experts”?
In 2012 Wadham’s predicted declines “will lead to an ice-free summer Arctic in less than 30 years.” I’m aware of The Guardian article from 2012 in which Wadham’s said 2016 (even though he only month’s earlier said 30 years). Note that this interview occurred 3 years after Al Gore made his own prediction so Gore could not have possibly been referring to Wadhams non peer reviewed prediction which was not only inconsistent with the abundance of evidence but not even consistent with his own research.. And Maslowski made no prediction at all. The 2016 figure Gore referred to is contained in that publication, but as you can see that wasn’t Maslowski’s prediction as Gore claimed. Maslowski was being critical of that prediction. Gore misrepresented Maslowski’s work. This is why I keep advising over and over again to stop listening to Gore and the likes and start listening to the science and the abundance of evidence. Oh…and melting Arctic ice still causes sea level rise regardless of what Gore, Wadhams, Maslowski, etc. say or how any of their statements were interpreted or misinterpreted.
Thanks for confirming that Wadhams did indeed predict an imminent ice-free Arctic. Isn’t he an “expert”?
Yes he is. It just goes to show that experts make bad predictions too especially when they don’t get their predictions peer reviewed. Do you agree though that it is unlikely that Gore used Wadham’s as his source? Do you agree that making predictions contrary to the abundance of evidence is a dangerous thing? And more importantly do you agree that melting Arctic ice does indeed cause sea level rise?
An “expert” whose prediction is utterly wrong like Wadhams is worthless.
First…that is sea ice only. Second…it too is declining. Third…the IPCC predicts that the first practically sea ice-free summer in the Arctic won’t happen until about 2050. This is actually the most aggressive Arctic sea ice prediction that the IPCC has published to date. Fourth…Arctic ice (all of it including both sea and land ice) is declining. That makes co2coalition’s quiz patently false. I promise you…the law of conservation of mass is an unassailable physical law of reality. When you add mass to the ocean sea level will rise just like it is doing so now. It doesn’t matter if you, co2coalition, or whoever else disagrees with that. It’s still a fact.
Funny you should start your graph in 1979, the year Arctic ice extent was at its highest in the 20th Century. To my eyes it looks as if the decline stopped in 2012.
One day, maybe thousands of years hence, the Arctic will be seasonally ice-free, just as it was during the Holocene.
First…it’s not my graph. Second…it’s not showing extent; it’s showing volume. Third…it starts in 1979 because that’s the limit of the satellite record. Fourth…I’ll refer you to Walsh et al. 2016 for Arctic sea ice extent from 1850 and Kinnard et al. 2011 for Arctic sea ice extent over the last 1450 years.
From Walsh et al. 2016: The synthesis procedure includes interpolation to a uniform grid and an analog-based estimation of ice concentrations in areas of no data.
In other words, made-up fairy stories.
Interpolation does not mean made-up fairy stories. In fact, it is the opposite. By not interpolating sparsely populated grid cells you are assuming there is no ice at all in those cells which is even worse. Remember ships rarely encroach into the ice pack like what the USS Jeanette did from 1879 to 1881 so in most cases only the ice perimeter is measured. Do you think sea ice normally forms into a ring several miles wide with wide open waters in the center like what they once thought in the 1800’s or do you think the ice is mostly homogenous within the extent boundary like what satellites show today?
Still made-up fairy stories. I use real, physical evidence only in my work, but then I’m not a Climate “Scientist”
Do you really think Arctic sea ice formed into a ring only a few miles wide with open waters in the center prior to 1979?
Do you really think that ice above the water line does not contribute to sea level rise when it melts?
“about 15mm to sea level rise since 1980” wow you mean a little more than 1/2 an inch in 32 years, I am betting that you weren’t even born that long ago. Exactly how did you measure that 1/64 of an inch at a time?
I didn’t measure it. Mouginot et al. 2019 did. And they used the law of conservation of mass to do. They didn’t even need to cite the physical principals of their calculation because it is common knowledge. When you add 1000 Gt of ice to the ocean you raise sea level by about 2.8 mm.
But the ice floating in the sea will not be added additionaly to the sea: It has already been added to it before…
Sea ice is about 25e3 km^3 whereas land ice on Greenland alone is at least 2500e3 km^3 or 100x the amount. Sea ice is essentially irrelevant when discussing “Arctic ice”. co2coalition makes a mistake so fundamental that humans understood it for thousands of years. Even elementary age children would intuitively understand that when you add the water content from ice whether melted or not it will raise sea level.
Dear colleagues, please, could you help me with some ideas: What would be not really OK with the statements in the following article:
“Global Glacier Mass Loss During the GRACE Satellite Mission (2002-2016)
Bert Wouters1,2*, Alex S. Gardner3 and Geir Moholdt4”
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00096/full
Background: In discusson with German climate alarmists this article will be cited as a “decisive argument” to support the CAGW theory: “The arctic glaciers will disappear soon due to the man made climate change”. As a first point it seems, that the article would be an excellent example for cherry picking. However, what would be the main factual critics against the results and the applied methodology? Thank you for your support, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
The article says the short period of observations hampers their ability to make any conclusions about acceleration of mass loss. Also, there appears to be no discussion the percentage of ice loss.
“due to the man made climate change” – nothing in the study supports the use of or connection to this phrase
The margin of error is so large that fully half the years of the study could have had a net gain of ice globally
Well said. So many Climate “Scientists” subtract one huge number with enormous error bars from another huge number also with enormous error bars and think the resulting number is meaningful.
I do not trust any glacier study that was produced by anybody other than a feminist glaciologist.
Male glaciologists just can’t get a break!
They’re given the cold shoulder.
+42
The word some is missing in the headline.
Read this:
https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Solomina_QSR_2015.pdf
At the very top of a Google of this particular glacier ….
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00043-0
“The processes controlling advance and retreat of outlet glaciers in fjords draining the Greenland Ice Sheet remain poorly known, undermining assessments of their dynamics and associated sea-level rise in a warming climate. Mass loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet has increased six-fold over the last four decades, with discharge and melt from outlet glaciers comprising key components of this loss. Here we acquired oceanographic data and multibeam bathymetry in the previously uncharted Sherard Osborn Fjord in northwest Greenland where Ryder Glacier drains into the Arctic Ocean. Our data show that warmer subsurface water of Atlantic origin enters the fjord, but Ryder Glacier’s floating tongue at its present location is partly protected from the inflow by a bathymetriOc sill located in the innermost fjord. This reduces under-ice melting of the glacier, providing insight into Ryder Glacier’s dynamics and its vulnerability to inflow of Atlantic warmer water.”
I have lived on the same salt water canal for 45 years, yes we have had flooding with moon tides but the water never goes over the bulkhead during normal moon tides. 45 years with no increase in water level so why the hysteria over global warming? People getting rich over this false claim that’s why. Look at Al Gore`s predicting NYC will be under water by 2020, demented liberal press never mentioned just how wrong the moron is.
Is Kennth Richard not able to read the graph he posted to support his phony headline:
The graph posted in the notrickszone (aka low tricks zone) report is showing glacial activities in at the Jostedalsbreen site for close to 9000 years out of the last 11000 years of the Holocene.
Most funny: the vast majority here is not realizing this. OMG
I have a growing collection of papers on interglacial temperatures in addition to the well known Polar ice cores that may be of interest. The IPCC manipulating the data to say no change for 2,000 years to 1850 is obviously deceitful on the basis of these and so may more papers, never mind written history, and archeology appearing from under glaciers. Now what does that tell you? 19 papers here: here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xffozx2nfpy3sia/Interglacial%20climate%20papers.zip?dl=0