Why “Zombie Ice” and other claims of Greenland ice melt raising sea levels are just modeled hokum

From the check your Chinese soot before you check your CO2 driven climate model department.

One of the dumbest climate claims this week is “Zombie Ice” from the ever alarmed and almost always wrong Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press.

He of course just made up the term “Zombie Ice” to grab headlines. It doesn’t exist in the science study.

Other headlines such as this one in the Washington Post are less ridiculous.

On Monday, August 29, 2022, The Washington Post (WaPo) made a claim that melting ice on the Greenland ice sheet would raise global sea level by one foot by the year 2050 or possibly 2100. This is false, and easily disproven.

One of the favorite scare stories that has continued to circulate about effects of climate change is the never-ending alarm over future sea level rise. Back in 1989, when today’s catch-all phrase of “climate change” was known as “global warming,” there was this prediction from the United Nations (UN) covered in an Associated Press story.

“A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

That claim voiced by the UN official was based on computer models projecting future sea levels. Obviously, the models were wrong, because that claim never happened. Today, 22 years past the due date, not one country, not even a city, has been “wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels.”

Today, we have the same old scare story; computer models designed and interpreted by humans who fully believe what they programmed, are used to make a scare story in major media.

First, let’s look at the claim in the headline: Greenland ice sheet set to raise sea levels by nearly a foot, study finds

Sounds dire, doesn’t it? Surely some low-level places built right next to the sea would be flooded if that happened.

In the body of the story, they say this, bolds mine:

Human-driven climate change has set in motion massive ice losses in Greenland that couldn’t be halted even if the world stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, according to a new study published Monday.

The findings in Nature Climate Change project that it is now inevitable that 3.3 percent of the Greenland ice sheet will melt — equal to 110 trillion tons of ice, the researchers said. That will trigger nearly a foot of global sea-level rise.

The predictions are more dire than other forecasts, though they use different assumptions. While the study did not specify a time frame for the melting and sea-level rise, the authors suggested much of it can play out between now and the year 2100.

There is no time frame specified for the one foot of claimed rise? How can peer-reviewed climate science be so imprecise?

110 trillion tons of ice?  That sounds unimaginably large, and most people can’t even begin to understand the magnitude of that. For most people, the number alone is scary.

First let’s tackle the big scary “110 trillion tons of ice” number that will supposedly be melted. In our companion website, Climate at a Glance (CAAG) we have already debunked this issue in Climate at a Glance: Greenland Ice Melt.

The key point to consider is this: When recent ice loss is compared to the full Greenland ice sheet, the loss is so small that it is almost undetectable.

Over the past couple of decades, claims of ice melt in Greenland have been used to bolster fears of runaway sea-level rise. For example, NASA scientists said the following about the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets:

“The two regions have lost 6.4 trillion tons of ice in three decades; unabated, this rate of melting could cause flooding that affects hundreds of millions of people by 2100.”

Although several trillion tons of ice sounds like massive ice loss, it amounts to less than 1 percent of Greenland’s total ice mass. As shown in Figure 1, the total ice loss each year is nearly undetectable, coming in at just 0.005 percent of the Greenland ice sheet.

Figure 1. A comparison of presentations of satellite data capturing Greenland’s ice mass loss. The image on the right shows changes in Greenland’s ice mass relative to Greenland’s total ice mass. Sources: The data plotted in these graphs are from the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-Comparison Exercise, a joint exercise by NASA and the European Space Agency.4 Graphs originally by Willis Eschenbach. Adapted and annotated by Anthony Watts.

As you can see, even if the 3% number projected by the computer model for some time in the future were to actually come true, it is still miniscule compared to all of the ice in Greenland.

But, there are two very important real-world things that are not covered in the new study. The first is weather patterns, and the second is black carbon soot.

Weather patterns, not climate change, determine if ice will melt in Greenland or not. In July 2021 alarm was raised about a one-day weather event in Greenland during the summer when cloud cover lifted and the sun came out, melting the surface layer.

Greenland: Enough Ice Melted on Single Day to Cover Florida in Two Inches of Water, claimed The Guardian. It was yet another climate scare-story, and what they didn’t tell you was that the very next day, all that melted water re-froze when the clouds returned. The water never made it to the ocean.

The new study cited by WaPo simply doesn’t factor in weather patterns, but assumes a simple linear causation from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warming the planet enough to cause enough melt to raise sea-level by a foot sometime in the future, maybe by 2050, maybe by 2100 – they aren’t sure as both dates were used in the article.

The other factor not considered is black carbon soot being deposited on the Greenland ice sheet. Both forest fires and increased industrialization factor into that soot. The black carbon soot absorbs more sunlight, thus increasing heat retention from sunlight, and enhances melting. Another peer reviewed study says Asia’s booming coal based economy is a primary cause of the soot being deposited in the Arctic, including Greenland. They say:

Snow and sea ice are two of the most reflective surfaces occurring naturally on planet Earth. Light absorbing aerosols, such as wind blown black carbon, that stick to these pristine surfaces can make them less reflective, thus converting more sunlight into heat. The added heat leads to increased surface temperatures and is detrimental to the Arctic climate.

Note in the Figure 1 graph how the ice melt really doesn’t start until around the year 2001. If climate change was really the cause, you would be seeing ice melt all the way back to 1980, because global carbon dioxide levels have been steadily increasing and supposedly warming the planet since then. What really happened around the year 2001 becomes abundantly clear in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Source: Our World in Data, China energy mix. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-region?stackMode=absolute&country=~CHN

Figure 2 shows China’s use of coal really took off around 2001, and as most anyone knows, coal produces significant amounts of soot when burned, which is why it has been dubbed as a “dirty fuel.” It doesn’t take a PhD in climate science to notice the clear correlation between China’s coal use, soot production, and Greenland ice melt post 2001.

The new study cited by WaPo misses that completely. What will happen in the future if China uses less coal and produces less soot?

Finally, let’s run the numbers so far and without the aid of billion-dollar supercomputers, we can make our own simple math model for projecting sea level rise into the future. From Climate at a Glance: Sea Level Rise we have these numbers:

Global sea level has been rising since at least the mid-1800s, and data show there has been only minor recent acceleration. NASA satellite instruments, with readings dating back to 1993, show global sea level rising at a pace of merely 1.2 inches per decade, even post 2001 with the additional melt from Greenland.

So, if we choose 2050 as the end date for the purported 1 foot of sea level rise the math works out to be:

2050-2022= 28 years. We’ll round that to three decades.
3 decades x 1.2”/decade = 3.6” by 2050

Or for the year 2100 we have:

2100-2022= 78 years. We’ll round that to eight decades.
8 decades x 1.2”/decade = 9.6” by 2100

No matter what end date you choose, you still can’t get to 1 foot of sea level rise cited by the study. And since the study can’t even put a date in place for that, nor do they consider soot, weather patterns, or changes to energy production, especially in China, the study is little more than an exercise in guessing wrapped up in a peer-reviewed paper to give sort of sense of credulity for unquestioning reporters.

And here is something the zombie, er, one-track-mind reporters like Seth Borenstein and Chris Mooney won’t tell you. “The Greenland ice sheet gained a record-breaking 7 gigatons of snow/ice yesterday, the most during any summer month since the early-1980s. Journos are selective, they’ll report on a day of record melt, but you can bet your hard-earned dollar this won’t make any major headlines.” (h/t Chris Martz on Twitter)

Looking back to the impossible, irresponsible, and falsified sea-level claim made in 1989, the present day articles from WaPo and AP reminds me of the greatest quote from Yogi Berra ever: ‘It’s Deja Vu All Over Again’

Note: Some parts of this essay originally appeared on Climate Realism – Anthony

4.7 53 votes
Article Rating
91 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Redge
Reply to  Anthony Watts
August 30, 2022 10:27 am

Shouldn’t that be:

Now we await something stupid: Griff

?

Reply to  Anthony Watts
August 30, 2022 12:47 pm

10 yard penalty for mentioning the Grifter

griff
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 30, 2022 12:51 pm

You’ll have to rephrase that with a cricket metaphor

M Courtney
Reply to  griff
August 30, 2022 2:37 pm

Aiming at the man, not the wicket, is a bodyline ball.
But if you go out to bat you need to be ready for that.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
August 30, 2022 5:58 pm

A 5 run penalty for the batter deliberately wasting time.

Redge
Reply to  griff
August 30, 2022 10:21 pm

Cricket?

How about this quote from Adam Gilchrist:

A wise man learns by the mistakes of others, a fool by own.

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2022 7:35 am

You’re out for a duck!!

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2022 9:43 am

Phil Tuffnel Batting
Tests ODI FC LA
100s/50s 0/0 0/0 0/1 0/0

For non-cricket lovers
Tests= Internationals 5 days
ODI = Internationals 1 day
FC = First Class, professional cricket
LA = Limited Over matches

griff
Reply to  Anthony Watts
August 30, 2022 12:52 pm

Let’s shift the focus: The current cumulated melt over Svalbard, from June 1 to July 31, is 1.5 times larger than the previous record from 2018, an event having a 1 in 3.5 million chance (a ‘5 sigma deviation from the mean’) if climate were completely random.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  griff
August 30, 2022 1:35 pm

Can you show us your calculations or at least some data?

EdH
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
August 30, 2022 2:30 pm

Yeah, that doesn’t pass the smell test.  Even if we had an accurate enough record going back 200 years (unlikely), then if a completely random climate I would have expected something closer to 1 in 200 that any given year had the highest melt for that period. Not even 3 sigma, let alone 5. Sufficiently accurate records probably don’t go back anywhere near that long so I would guess a lot closer to 1 sigma.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  griff
August 30, 2022 2:11 pm

Griff, how long is your record?

atticman
Reply to  David Kamakaris
August 30, 2022 2:13 pm

Long enough to send one to sleep before it finishes…

Don
Reply to  David Kamakaris
August 30, 2022 3:16 pm

I’ve never heard it called a record before !

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Don
August 30, 2022 3:48 pm

Griff is still trying to figure out what a record is since I first asked him almost 10 years ago

Richard Page
Reply to  Anthony Watts
August 30, 2022 6:13 pm

Griffy appears to be referencing a recent NASA story that a researcher in Liege used satellite data and previous models to estimate that this years mass loss is higher than usual. Naturally failing to mention that Svalbard glaciers typically flip-flop between a few years of estimated mass loss and a few years of estimated mass gain in the 34 year period of observation to date.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Richard Page
August 31, 2022 4:36 am

and the sat records are NOT very long or very perfect?

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Anthony Watts
August 30, 2022 6:40 pm

Anthony,

Can’t say for certain, but this might be Griff’s reference article judging from the looks of it. Is this right Griff? If so, why didn’t you post it?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/150165/summer-melting-in-svalbard

Redge
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 30, 2022 10:23 pm

Griff doesn’t have a clue what the source is for anything he posts. It’s all provided by his handlers

Loydo
Reply to  Anthony Watts
August 30, 2022 9:27 pm

“no references, no data, no calcs. Nothing but another unsubstantiated random opinion”

Chinese (anything but CO2) soot, 1 day of SMB and ad hom smear some Wapo hack? Rich. Revealing.

Back to the science.
From the paper’s conclusion:

Newly emerging processes are driving rapid ice sheet response: tidewater glacier acceleration and destabilization by submarine melting49,50,51; loss of floating ice shelves52; accelerating interior motion from increased melt and rainfall53; enhanced basal thawing due to hydraulically released latent heat and viscous warming54; amplified surface melt run-off due to bio-albedo darkening55; and impermeable firn layers56 amplified by ice sheet surface hypsometry32,33. Given the breadth and potency of those processes, we contend that known physical mechanisms can deliver most of the committed ice volume loss from Greenland’s disequilibrium with its recent climate within this century. Nevertheless, we underscore that a SLR of at least 274 ± 68 mm is already committed, regardless of future climate warming scenarios.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01441-2

Some background about lead author Jason Box, listed as one of twelve researchers.

Professor in glaciology at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. For 10 years (2002-2012) he worked at Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, eventually a tenured physical climatology and geography associate professor in the department of geography. He has made more than 20 expeditions to Greenland since 1994 and authored more than 60 peer-reviewed publications focused on ice climate interactions.

Don’t take it on his authority, read the publication and judge for yourself.
Chinese soot ffs.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2022 7:31 am

griff answer this please.

Why did the open season at the coalport in Spitsbergen (Svalbard) go from 3 months of the year before 1920 to over 7 months of the year in the late 1930s?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Anthony Watts
August 31, 2022 9:48 am

Not in his Troll job description

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  griff
August 31, 2022 9:46 am

That is the politicians answer,
“Prime Minister what is your government doing about the economy and cost of living?”
Bunter “These are difficult times but look what we’ve achieved, we got Brexit done”

Tom
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2022 2:20 am

Remember the photo Greenpeace and nature published of the two photos taken 103 years apart from a boat with the glaciers in the only photo and gone in the Greenpeace photo 103 years later?? The problem is many glaciers on Svalbard behave very differently from other glaciers worldwide. They advance massively for some years and then quickly retreat – and then remain quiescent for fifty to a hundred years – before they once again start to advance.

Gary Hall
Reply to  Anthony Watts
August 31, 2022 7:27 am

“He of course just made up the term “Zombie Ice” to grab headlines”
Don’t know who made up the term, “heat storm”, [high pressure ridge]  but the Los Angeles Times latched onto it.

Larry Hamlin
Reply to  Anthony Watts
September 1, 2022 7:21 pm

The 2021-2022 SMB gain was 471 Gt which is nearly 20% higher than the last melt season. This amount of SMB is the 10 highest since 1986. This large gain is very likely to decrease overall ice loss in 2021-2022 to significantly below the prior year. Apparently “Zombie ice” is decreasing Greenlands ice loss.

Tom Abbott
August 30, 2022 10:07 am

I’m glad you addressed this. I must have seen 10 different articles over the last couple of days promoting this sea level rise claim.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 30, 2022 11:17 am

Ditto.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 30, 2022 2:41 pm

The big ‘tell’ with dangerous sealevel rise, ocean ‘acidification” horrors, methane hell, NOx, new temperate zone ozone holes (the kitchen sink number of them is part of the tell), is that climateers are terrified the odds favor cooling for 30yrs (Gavin’s admission that models are running away too hot, something he knew more than10 yrs ago).

Like the ‘Pavlov’s dog’ analogy, Climateers were very powerfully
conditioned by the “18yr Dreaded Pause”. It caused what became known as The “Climate Blues” a dozen years ago and a slough of climate scientists fell ill with this career ending psychological disorder (think 10yrs of university and 10- 20yrs of practice on something that might not be real!).

The list of bad things, notably not mentioning CO2 or Warming, is a whole lot of desperation.

KcTaz
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 30, 2022 4:45 pm

Now is a good time to repost this gem.
Tribulations of a Climate Activist: Farhana Yamin in Search and Dissent
https://bit.ly/3O34seL
4/8/22
Gary Pearse
April 9, 2022 8:38 pm
The suicide and the Ms Yamin’s descent recalls what was popularly known as the “Climate Blues” after the “Climategate Affair”, where an unknown insider at the U of East Anglia released thousands of emails between international climate scientists revealing gross and pervasive, unseemly scientific research tactics, altering and destroying data to support a globalist political objective, etc..
The fallout included an epidemic of the career-ending, Climate Blues among many scientists of a certain age. They rationalized that it was because they were researching and staring into the face of planetary destruction in the near future and nobody would listen to them (actually they were stars with the world at their feet before CG). In more normal times, this would be recognized as a common neurosis known as psychological denial.
Imagine you’ve spent 8 years studying to get your PhD (likely several years before this were bent on this noble calling) and 15 to 20 years into your career when suddenly the heroes of climate science turn out to be dishonest hucksters. You are really staring into a wasted life and nightmare career. The persistent doubts you struggle to suppress eventually will make you sick if you can’t deal with them. Sufferers probably don’t have the strongest constitutions.
There is more of this to come.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/09/tribulations-of-a-climate-activist-farhana-yamin-in-search-and-dissent/

n.n
August 30, 2022 10:13 am

Also mechanical stressors, unrelated to thermal dynamics, that cause calving, resulting in seasonal and irregular ebb and flow in the ice sheet, accumulation, and extent.

Len Werner
August 30, 2022 10:20 am

I just don’t understand. What ever–EVER–makes anyone with a supposed scientific mind think that if the Greenland ice sheet melts that it couldn’t have melted on its own? Do these people believe that nothing existed before they did?

For Dog’s sake go look at some rocks. The oldest rock I’ve personally collected and dated was over 900 million years old–way before this graph starts. Look at the changes in climate since then, and please plot on that graph first when humans evolved, and then when you were born. Get some perspective of the natural world.

(Sorry for the frustration. And ‘you’ doesn’t refer to readers here. Well, maybe a couple.)

https://www.climate.gov/media/11332

Gryunt Monglaar
Reply to  Len Werner
August 31, 2022 2:26 am

Do these people believe that nothing existed before they did?”

Yes, and if something does have the temerity to predate their blessed arrival upon our squalid earthly plane, it’s bad and wrong and must be deleted.

Richard Page
Reply to  Gryunt Monglaar
August 31, 2022 6:42 am

Agreed – they have trashed what better people have done before them and are more and more relying on data or models from the most recent 20 or 30 odd years. This is a product of their Mickey Mouse education – if they were in any way serious scientists then they would have taken a proper, robust degree.

Ron Long
August 30, 2022 10:21 am

“Zombie Ice”? I saw that movie once, laughable instead of scary. Not even worth popcorn.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Ron Long
August 30, 2022 11:06 am

I remember during the winters in upstate NY that the wheel wells of every car in town had these huge build-ups of some combination of ice, road grit and salt. These would periodically fall off, sometimes attached to fully rusted sections of a car’s rocker panels, and accumulate along the road side until spring. Even though they were as black as coal, they frequently survived well beyond the eventual thaw of snow and ice, so maybe that’s what they mean by ‘zombie ice’.

FrankD
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 30, 2022 12:13 pm

When I was a kid in MN we called these ‘car pies’

Ron Long
Reply to  FrankD
August 30, 2022 3:02 pm

When I was a kid in Oregon we called squashed animals on the highway “road pizza”.

Willie
Reply to  FrankD
August 30, 2022 9:02 pm

In Wisconsin they are known as “fenderbergs”.

4E Douglas
August 30, 2022 10:31 am

“Zombie ice” the result of “flippy floppy” ice? Love this scientific jargon. Clearly I am in awe. S/

Paul S
Reply to  4E Douglas
August 30, 2022 10:40 am

But seriously, what is Zombie ice supposed to be. How is it different from regular ice? I missed this in the articles

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Paul S
August 30, 2022 11:21 am

Zombie ice steals the minds of warmunists, turning them into zombies. Seth Borenstein is a good example.

Reply to  4E Douglas
August 31, 2022 12:11 am

Well, do you have more understandable terms than “flippy floppy” when trying to talk sense into these puerile climastrologists? If you do, please share, so far everything we say just washes off of them, like whisky over a Pelosi’s tongue.

MarkW
August 30, 2022 10:32 am

 coal produces significant amounts of soot when burned,

That’s only true if the coal is burned in old fashioned boilers. In modern boilers with proper exhaust scrubbing, the amount of soot released is pretty close to zero.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  MarkW
August 30, 2022 1:46 pm

True for power plants. But coal is used in China for commercial and residential heating, where that isn’t possible. Hence the dirty air images from China in winter.

KcTaz
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 30, 2022 4:50 pm

Is China finally using scrubbers on its coal plants to reduce pollution?If they are,I hadn’t heard that.

Editor
August 30, 2022 10:42 am

Greenland’s ice cap has been slowly melting back to MWP levels, since the LIA ended, which was the coldest epoch since the Ice Age proper.

Temperatures in Greenland now are at similar levels to the 1930s and 40s:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/06/12/greenland-temperatures-2021/

In between timees, the 1960s to 90s were much colder – the period which ice cap comparisons are being made with.

The temperature cycles closely follow the AMO.

In short there is non cause for alarm

Last edited 30 days ago by Paul Homewood
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Paul Homewood
August 30, 2022 3:41 pm

“Temperatures in Greenland now are at similar levels to the 1930s and 40s”

Yes, The Early Twentieth Century was just as warm as today in Greenland, too. Most unmodified, regional temperature charts from around the world, show the same Early Twentieth Century warming.

Hockey Stick charts of the world don’t show the Early Twentieth Century warming. And we all know why. It is a deception that is used to sell the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.

Bastardized Hockey Stick charts are a tool meant to fool you. And it has worked quite well against the uninformed, who don’t know any better.

Then we have a large number of alarmists who are familiar with both types of charts, and yet they pretend the bogus Hockey Stick charts are legitimate representations of reality, when the written temperature record completely refutes the Hockey Stick profile.

So these guys should know better than to accept the Hockey Stick chart as being real, but act like they don’t. Why is that? I suppose it is a different answer for each person. But not a good answer if they don’t see the fraud right in front of their faces. They know better. But refuse to admit it. That’s our alarmists for you.

“The temperature cycles closely follow the AMO.”

The U.S. regional surface temperature chart profile closely follows the AMO profile.

Last edited 30 days ago by Tom Abbott
Hoyt Clagwell
August 30, 2022 10:46 am

The Washington Post is a prime example of “Zombie Journalism”.
Unthinking, stumbling, journalists with one thought in their nearly empty heads, “ALARM……ALARM!”

CD in Wisconsin
August 30, 2022 10:53 am

I still say that mass media outlets like the AP and WaPo who are pushing the climate scare narrative need to (ahem) “voluntarily” be taken off the grid. They can run their operations with solar panels on the roofs of their buildings.

I’m sure they would feel very good about themselves for playing their part in fighting the “climate crisis.”

KcTaz
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 30, 2022 4:55 pm

Well, that just goes to show you that to every problem, there is a silver lining. Thanks for the silver lining. The world would be vastly improved if the WaPo ceased to exist.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  KcTaz
August 30, 2022 6:49 pm

…..or was only able to operate when the sun is shining.

PCman999
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
September 4, 2022 10:25 pm

That would be a great comfort, knowing that evenings will be free of climate propaganda indoctrinations and other wokisms.

Rud Istvan
August 30, 2022 11:12 am

Some fun ‘zombie ice’ factoids drawn from essay PseudoPrecision in ebook Blowing Smoke. A metric gigaton of ice, when melted, is almost exactly one cubic kilometer of water. It will raise sea level by about 2.78 microns given the known ocean surface area. A foot is 304800 microns. So they are predicting a melt by somewhen this century of 109640 cubic km~~gigatons.

Now the observed Greenland ice sheet melt from 1990-2010 was estimated to be 213+/-132 gigatons/year. (Less 1990-2000, more 2000-2010). So at the observed global warming melt rate over two of the past three decades, the foot of sea level rise will ‘only’ take 515 years. The zombie melt model is ‘off’ reality by about 10x.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 30, 2022 1:59 pm

213+/-132 gigatons/year

It seems that climatology has the widest margins of uncertainty of any science employing measurements. Yet, there never seems to be embarrassment among the practitioners. And, their stated uncertainties are usually one sigma, while some disciplines (like physics) often employ six sigma uncertainties, and are very small as a percentage, unlike climatology.

Steve Z
August 30, 2022 11:13 am

From the graph in Figure 1, Greenland lost about 1800 GT of ice in about 20 years. Since 1 tonne of water has a volume of about 1 m3, 1800 GT (1.8 trillion tonnes) would have a volume of about 1.8 trillion m3.

That sounds like a lot of water, but the area of the earth’s oceans is about 361 million km2 = 3.61(10^14) m2. The sea level rise due to melting 1.8 trillion tonnes of ice would be
1.8(10^12) m3 / 3.61(10^14) m2 = 0.005 meter, or about 5 mm or 0.2 inches (in 20 years), or an average of 0.25 mm (0.01 inch) per year. If this trend continued through 2100, sea level would rise by about one inch.

Would a child alive today even notice the difference as an elderly person in 2100? Probably not, so why worry about it?

Drake
Reply to  Steve Z
August 30, 2022 1:06 pm

Their chosen livelihood is wholly dependent on others worrying about it.

That is why they start the scare tactics on children.

John P Vaughn
Reply to  Steve Z
August 30, 2022 1:08 pm

Greenland is 2.166 mkm2, earth water surface area is 361,800 mkm2 (million kilometers square) per google search. Raising surface water 1 foot would require 167,036 feet of ice melt (361,800 divided by 2.166) from Greenland. Appears to be a big hole.

Gary Pearse
August 30, 2022 11:18 am

“Light absorbing aerosols, such as wind blown black carbon, that stick to these pristine surfaces can make them less reflective, ”

Double counting! This soot from burning fossil fuels, will also have been calculated as anthropo CO2 emissions. I’ve been to China a few times and a day out and about Beijing, Chengdu or Shanghai blackened the inside collar of your shirt. Coal flue gas rises high in the atmosphere for broad distribution.

Black collars were probably mostly from incomplete fuel burning in scooters and motorcycles, even cars. Both sources probably melt ice of mountain glaciers, too. In the 1970s, soot believed to have come from China was found in Tagish Lake, Yukon and elsewhere

fretslider
August 30, 2022 11:58 am

Summer seems to be over – jumpers at the ready, now. No kidding.

Surely it’s clear; the journals have lost the scientific plot and peer review is little more than a joke

The media has a narrative to tell, things like integrity, honesty and objectivity get in the way of a good scare

Last edited 30 days ago by fretslider
John Garrett
August 30, 2022 12:08 pm

Borenstein really and truly is a moron.

I cannot understand how he looks in the mirror.

We know that the Associated Press has admitted accepting bribes in exchange for producing and distributing climate propaganda— but what he does is beyond the pale.

John Garrett
August 30, 2022 12:13 pm

By the way, a couple of pigs just flew past my window:

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/30/1119904819/nuclear-power-environmentalists-california-germany-japan

(NPR) Why even environmentalists are supporting nuclear power today
Resistance to nuclear power is starting to ebb around the world with support from a surprising group: environmentalists.

This change of heart spans the globe, and is being prompted by climate change, unreliable electrical grids and fears about national security in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
In California, the state’s last remaining power plant — Diablo Canyon, situated on the Pacific Coast between San Francisco and Los Angeles — long scheduled to be scrapped, may now remain open. Governor Gavin Newsom, a longtime opponent of the plant, is seeking to extend its lifespan through at least 2029.

It’s a remarkable turnaround in a state where anti-nuclear activists and progressive Democratic lawmakers have fought with great success to rid the state of nuclear power.

Last week, Japan’s prime minister said the country is restarting idled nuclear plants and considering building new ones. This is a sharp reversal for the country that largely abandoned nuclear after the tsunami-led disaster at the Fukushima plant in 2011.

Germany pulled the plug on nuclear after Fukushima, too. But this summer there’s been an intense debate in Germany over whether to restart three plants in response to the country’s severe energy crisis prompted by the Russia-Ukraine war…

(more)

Last edited 30 days ago by John Garrett
Gryunt Monglaar
Reply to  John Garrett
August 31, 2022 2:31 am

“Change of heart”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is prompted by the utter terror of the blackouts the Prisoners of San Andreas will suffer if Diablo Canyon is taken offline. It ain’t philosophy, it’s sphincter-clinching desperation

August 30, 2022 1:13 pm

Is Zombie Ice the same as the Rotten Ice?

Andrew

Cam_S
August 30, 2022 1:16 pm

SSP585

In the study’s references, look at number 47 carefully.

Bamber, J. L., Oppenheimer, M., Kopp, R. E., Aspinall, W. P. & Cooke, R. M. Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise from structured expert judgment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 11195–11200 (2019).

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1817205116

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Cam_S
August 30, 2022 1:53 pm

Good catch.
‘Structured expert judgement’. Only experts can get climate grants. And they can only get climate grants if they adhere to the climate religion. This is how their judgement is structured. Follow the money.

taxed
August 30, 2022 1:16 pm

What also maybe linked to the increase in coal dust is the sudden and sharp decline in the Eurasian snow extent from May to August since the end of the 1990’s.
lts like the climate flicked a switch as there is such a difference between before and after this date.

taxed
Reply to  taxed
August 30, 2022 1:43 pm

Soot rather then coal dust

Renee
August 30, 2022 1:31 pm

Interestingly polar portal is down…
http://polarportal.dk/index.html

Reply to  Renee
August 31, 2022 4:39 am

They will be back within some hours.
Isn’t the first time that they are down.

Peta of Newark
August 30, 2022 1:33 pm

Soot has got to be one of the most multi-edged climate swords there ever was. Apart from the GHGE itself – being capable of anything at any time at any place

Because soot, wherever it goes will work to reduce Albedo ## and thus increaser the absorption of solar radiation/energy

(Does it maybe explain the strange colour of that little weather station we saw in a recent thread – did that little thang just need a wash and not a new coat of paint?)

So if soot lands on your house, car, field of cabbages or any nearby forest, it would, as Albedo Theory goes, work to cause a temperature rise. When the sun is up
Maybe at night its high emissivity would cause things to get colder than they otherwise might?
(Not easy these swords things are they?)

But especially while still airborne it will absorb solar energy.
Warmists will rant/rave to say that that is like volcano smut and would cause Global Cooling.

But: What. Do. You. Mean. By. ‘Globe‘ in that statement?
Do you mean the land, the sea or the air or some average or sum of all three?

BUT BUT BUT,thermometers and Sputniks are measuring the air (and some in the water I suppose)
So airborne soot will warm the air (atmosphere) and that is what everyone is measuring.
They are not measuring the actual soil/dirt/plants.
What happens then?
Airborne soot warms the air and would by implication cool the soil/dirt/plants

Soot that had settled would no lnger be warming the air but would be warming whatever it landed upon

And all that would depend on prevailing winds and weather patterns.
Is that why some places are warming and others seemingly cooling?
(Swords are now giving me brain-ache).

## It gets worse
Soot would not always work to reduce Albedo.
Soot is = Biochar and depending on the soil/dirt where it landed would have a fertilising effect on the plants.
And especially now as most agricultural plants are grown in nice neat rows with bare soil between them, the fertilising soot would cause the plants to cover over more of that bare (ultra low Albedo) soil than they would – or do it more quickly during their growing season
And because greenery has Albedo of 0.4 instead of bare soil Albedo 0.1, the sooot in the soil would raise Albedo and have a cooling effect.

Much worser.
When soot is being created and released, pretty well by definition so will be masses of Sulphur and Nitrogen Oxides.
And they, as Scandinavian foresters will attest from the time of British Acid Rain, has a VERY potent fertilising effect.
Again, this will raise Albedo – unless it causes what was = sandy desert to become green – then it will lower Albedo.
(Oh dear, this is getting = Migraine)

Then then then, what effect would a solution of Nitrous/Nitric and Sulphurous/Sulphuric acids (Acid Rain) have on (Greenland) ice?

Would that acid behave as a de-icing agent and cause faster melting…
<wanders away muttering and searching for Ibuprofen>

mkelly
August 30, 2022 1:53 pm

Why can’t alarmists understand that the snow/ice on Greenland came from the oceans.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  mkelly
August 30, 2022 5:56 pm

Exactly what I was thinking. Most or all the ice and snow at the poles was produced from ocean water evaporation, was it not? Is it not just basically a cycle?

M Courtney
August 30, 2022 2:35 pm

Nature Climate Change:
A journal that always reports on model findings rather than putting observations first. It’s beliefs about the future prioritised over testable reality.

This is a theology journal, not a physical science journal.

And to discuss this journal we need to use theological terms. As models are made by man we should begin with Idolatry.

Larry Hamlin
August 30, 2022 4:04 pm

The latest report covering the 1986 to 2021 Greenland ice melt season (1 September 2020 to 31 August 2021) notes the following:
“A “positive” SMB – where the ice sheet gains more snow than it loses in ice – is the only means by which the Greenland ice sheet can gain ice. However, it also loses ice by other processes, such as the “calving” – or breaking off – of icebergs, melting underwater at the front of glaciers where they meet the ocean, and to a small extent by “basal melting” underneath the ice sheet as the ice slides over the ground.
Combining these losses with the SMB gives a “total mass balance” for the year.
Using satellites, we can measure the speed at which ice flows through control points – places around the edges of the ice sheet where we know the thickness and shape of the ice. Combined with data on how thick the ice is, we can estimate quite well the amount of ice being lost by the process of calving and submarine melting.” 
“This method shows that the year 2020-21 had the highest loss of ice to calving and ocean melt since at least 1986 when the satellite records began.” 
“Although this year was not a record ice loss year in Greenland, when we also account for calving, it was still the 25th year in a row where the ice sheet lost more ice than it gained.
The total mass balance for 2020-21 is a loss of around 166Gt of ice from Greenland – close to the average ice lost each year for the period 1986-2021.
This means that, from 1 September 1986 to 31 August 2021, we calculate the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost approximately 5,500Gt of ice. This is equivalent to 1.5cm of global average sea level rise.
A quick comparison of the 2020-2021 versus the 2021-2022 Greenland ice melt season results shown below clearly suggests that the most recent season will a higher SMB gain than occurred in the prior season particularly with the 7 gigaton addition at the very end of the 2022 period.
The 1.5 cm (0.6 inches) global sea level rise gain noted in the report for the 36 year ice loss period between 1986 to 2021 related to the total Greenland ice mass loss of 5.5 trillion tons of ice during this 36 year period demonstrates how insignificant a concern these rates of ice mass loss are on a global scale. 
Furthermore the 5.5 trillion ton total ice mass loss during this most recent 36 year period represents 2 ten-thousandths of a percent (0.0002%) of Greenlands total ice mass.
Equating this 36 year rate of Greenland ice loss for the remainder of the century to year 2100 yields an increase in global sea level rise of only 1.3 inches. 
This Borenstein article is more of his incompetent scientifically unsupported climate alarmist propaganda.
   

Screen Shot 2022-08-30 at 3.16.30 PM.jpeg
Walter
August 30, 2022 4:26 pm

Jeez that massive gain is incredible. The only argument against skeptical climate scientists is that they’re funded by fossil fuel companies (as if that’s such a bad thing). Correct me if I’m wrong but does an abundant amount of ice in the Arctic make the NH winter colder? I’m excited for winter this year.

Jon Le Sage
August 30, 2022 5:01 pm

I’ve been going to the same beach for the past 70 years. There has been no noticeable sea level rise during that time period..Period. In fact I’ve been frequenting several different beaches over the past 70 years and there has been no noticeable sea level rise. Just a simple observation.. And yes…. I surf…

Bob
August 30, 2022 6:25 pm

Nice report Anthony.

Roger Knights
August 30, 2022 6:39 pm

“What will happen in the future if China uses less coal and produces less soot?”

Or if they convert their dirty old coal plants to new, higher efficiency, cleaner ones–which they are doing.

Louis
August 30, 2022 7:31 pm

Maybe this doesn’t need to be pointed out, but this statement says that nations will be wiped off the face of the earth if the trend is not reversed by 2000.

It could very well be true because there’s no time associated with it. Maybe in 2 billion years that trend will finally get Tuvalu.

“A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

Richard Page
Reply to  Louis
August 31, 2022 6:49 am

Trend is more useful to the climate alarmists as it can go up or down whilst, with some creative statistics, the trend can be maintained no matter what.

John Hultquist
August 30, 2022 7:43 pm

The Greenland ice sheet gained a record-breaking 7 gigatons of snow/ice yesterday, …”

At this rate, before long, the Greenland icecap will be hanging out over Newfoundland like a flyrod …
H/T Mark Twain

Birdog357
August 30, 2022 8:21 pm

The only thing I have to say about sea level rise is: go find a military map made in the 40s of any of the atolls we invaded during WW2. Then compare it to google earth today…

Mark BLR
August 31, 2022 3:23 am

… just modeled hokum

The parts of the study that “jumped out” to me on first reading :

The high-melt year of 2012 was driven by a persistent negative extreme in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO index = −1.6) …

Conversely, summer 2018 was dominated by an extreme positive NAO (index = +1.5) …

The respectively high and low-melt years of 2012 and 2018 are useful to represent future extremes that are becoming the hallmark of Arctic amplified climate change [25–27]. Indeed, Greenland climate variability is observed to be increasing [28,29], yet it is not well captured by global climate models [30].

The last time I checked the NAO came under the “natural variability” banner, not the “anthropogenic climate change” one.

Table 1 of the paper provides the “eustatic SLR commitment” by region and scenario.

Included in the “All” line are :

Perpetual 2000–2019 (mm SLR) : 274 ± 68 [ the “1 foot” of most media headlines ? ]

Perpetual 2012 (mm SLR) : 782 ± 135

Perpetual 2018 (mm SLR) : −168 ± 63

Care to guess which “future extreme” some media outlets are focusing on ?

Last edited 30 days ago by Mark BLR
Prjindigo
August 31, 2022 7:24 am

Aaaanyway. All glaciers are already displacing their mass in magma anyway so when they melt they largely won’t change sea level upwards over the long term.

TheeditorwindowisremovingspacesasItypethem,soIcopypastedtheaboveintothisbox.TheBforBolditsagiantsquarefillingthechatcolumn.

Mark Clark
August 31, 2022 4:00 pm

To make matters worse Mike Allen on Axios reported that the sea level rise would be 10.6 FEET.

Larry Hamlin
September 1, 2022 9:00 pm

The year 2021-2022 DMI Greenland ice mass loss was 84Gt compared to 166Gt in 2020-2021 which is a reduction of nearly 50% less ice mass loss than last years. This reduction in total mass balance loss was achieved by an increase in SMB increase from 396Gt to 471Gt between these two latest melt years. Any day now there should be news media accounts of this latest Greenland lower annual melt season result.

%d bloggers like this: