By Andy May
The following is from Cap Allon’s excellent post here. We are all used to the mainstream media distorting climate science data and analysis, but he has uncovered a case that is beyond the pale. Consider this post a follow up to Dave Middleton’s post earlier the month.
Read on in Cap Allon’s words:
MSM OBFUSCATION
[Greenland’s ‘healthy’ melt season, was obscured across the mainstream media.]
CNN wrote the following in July 20 article: “The amount of ice that melted in Greenland between July 15 and 17 was enough to fill 7.2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools or cover the entire state of West Virginia with a foot of water.”
They even have a quote from cLiMaTe ScIeNtIsT Ted Scambos: “The northern melt this past week is not normal, looking at 30 to 40 years of climate averages. But melting has been on the increase, and this event was a spike in melt.”
CNN is screaming about this period of melting (circled below):
I’ve already given you the data regarding the season as a whole.
The audacity of CNN to claim that the 2022 melt season was in anyway alarming is cherry-picking obfuscation at best and outright fraud at worst. Even the staunchest of AGW proponents must see this–the propaganda can’t be that blinding, surely?
‘TOTAL’ MASS BALANCE
The ‘Surface’ Mass Balance (SMB) is just one of three components when it comes to determining an ice sheet’s overall ‘health’ –its ‘Total’ Mass Balance (TMB)– with the others being the ‘Marine’ Mass Balance (MMB) and the “Basal’ Mass Balance (BMB).
In Greenland’s case, the MMB consists of the breaking off –or ‘calving’– of icebergs as well as the melting of glaciers that meet the warmer sea water. While the BMB, although largely unimpactful, refers to ice losses from the base of the ice sheet mainly caused by frictional effects and ground heat flux.
The components of the Total Mass Balance going back to 1987 are shown below — CNN pay close heed. The SMB is shown in blue, the MMB in green, the BMB in yellow and, most importantly, the TMB is marked in red.
This is the official data. Every news outlet has access to it. And what it unambiguously shows is, well, not a lot, certainly nothing to write home about, and most certainly nothing ‘catastrophic’.
The TMB (red line) did indeed decrease between 1996 to 2012; however, the trend has very clearly shifted since then, to one of overall growth. This is more clearly depicted in the next chart (which doesn’t yet include 2022’s higher reading):
Now, I’m not sat here scratching my head pondering why the MSM works so desperately hard to obfuscate. I’m not naive. Unalarming Greenland data does not serve the doom and gloom agenda and reporting on it honestly on would risk stopping the intravenous-dispensation of fear that requires constantly administering to the masses in order to be effective, in order to force through their controlled demolition of society–that now appears fully underway.
This is what the MSM are tasked with nowadays, perhaps it has always been the case — a population forever scared, always looking over their shoulder for the next ‘catastrophe’ that threatens to upend and ruin them are far easier to keep under the thumb, to marshal, to own, to control. It’s a travesty.
Read Cap Allon’s full post at his website electroverse.co here.
Read another view of the same data at carbonbrief.org here.
And remember, the data and the observations don’t change. When in doubt follow the data.
Most of Australia has a foot of water over it at present. And it is a much larger area than Arizona.
Expect to see sea levels falling at the present time. Australia is the only land mass that stores substantial liquid water but lots of solid water stored in Antarctica and Greenland.
What aboot Canada’s lakes?
The liquid water storage in other locations is generally more than Australia but does not fluctuate much from year-to-year. Water on land in Australia goes from flooded to desert over about 5 years.
Lake Eyre is 9700sq.km and gets to a depth of 6m. Then can disappear in a year or two.
Quite a lot of inland Australia looks like this at present:
It can take a year for water in the Darling River to reach the ocean or just evaporate.
The Queensland Sunshine Coast has this $50 million shutdown.
Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/wetfarm.jpg
Odd – almost as if the planners hadn’t heard of the in progress “climate emergency”.
The 2010-2011 7-mm drop in sea level was blamed on La Nina rains in Oz.
BTW, in 2008, BOM’s David Jones proclaimed drought was a
permanent condition in Oz.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-scientist-explains-the-mystery-of-recent-sea-level-drop/
https://realclimatescience.com/2022/10/fifteen-years-into-the-permanent-drought/
Sea level DROP?!? That was down the memory quick – 7mm in one single year while scientists piss themselves with fear over 1.8-3mm increase per year.
now do great lake ice coverage
Ice is the enemy. Let it all melt.
That I think would be best for the whole world – minus the coasts of course – but the rest of the world would return to its lush Cretaceous greeness, even the Sahara and Arabian deserts.
?? It’s October in the Northern Hemisphere. Most people call it Autumn. It doesn’t get below freezing until November in the Great Lakes areas. “When the gales of November come early” actually means something.
Monday through Wednesday of last week hosted a particularly windy storm at least on Northern Lake Michigan.
The Great Lakes, particularly Michigan, are all below average in temp for this time of year. Michigan and Erie are 3-4 degrees F on the cool side. Typically ice on Michigan doesn’t form to any great degree until January, when the surface and deeper water are done turning over, (39F on the surface). If the turnover is strong by mid December, and at this rate it will be, I’ll probably be able to walk to Green Bay by MLK Day.
According to the chart I looked at Lake Michigan is slightly above average (11ºC vs 10.5ºC)
Cap Allon said: “The TMB (red line) did indeed decrease between 1996 to 2012; however, the trend has very clearly shifted since then, to one of overall growth.”
Except…the red line in the graph isn’t TMB. It is TMB/yr. And it quite clearly has not shifted “to one of overall growth”. The last data point is -100 Gt/yr. That’s a negative number. Negative numbers mean that TMB declined. In other words, TMB did the opposite of grow; it shrunk.
Here is a graph of the actual TMB (not TMB/yr) directly from the source being cited [Mankoff et al. 2021].
Ya, looks really, really scary … but that’s out of how many gigatons? What percentage?
Get back to me in a few more years …
…
Taking the current quoted figure of 2,565,000GT and the 2021 figure of about 100GT/year, that works out at roughly 0.004%.
At the current rate, In another 10 years, it may be down to about 2,564,000 GT (only 99.96% remaining)
Of course, if we do a climate “scientist” style trick of projecting the most recent 10 year trend (loss decreasing by 35GT/year), then in 3 years time it will reach a low point of about 2,564,800 (only 99.99% left) and 7 years after that it will have increased to 2,565,600 GT (i.e. 100.02% of the current figure)
There’s one other factor to consider. Those figures are estimated from models and notoriously dodgy satellite measurement (the problems with using a satellite laser in different atmospheric conditions are too numerous to list here) and don’t take into account the measurement error range. As far as I’m aware the ice loss is still easily within that error range.
Look at the numbers really closely. See those last three zeros on the total! Just exactly what do they mean?
To me it means the uncertainty is at least ±500 GT! It is more likely to be ±1,000 GT. 100 GT is so far within either of the uncertainty intervals that it is meaningless. It is just as likely to be +500 as – 100.
Bottom line? If you can’t quote the total accurately to at least the hundreds digit, don’t tell people that you can measure change that accurately.
Why do climate scientists never qualify their measurements with a combined uncertainty or at least a standard deviation of the distribution being used?
Because, they ain’t scientists or engineers.
“Why do climate scientists never qualify their measurements with a combined uncertainty or at least a standard deviation of the distribution being used?”
They do, for example the NOAA Technical Report OAR ARC ; 21-04 Arctic Report Card 2021
Greenland Ice Sheet
T.A Moon et al
States the 2002-21 average loss as -264 ± 12 Gt yr–1 .
You are showing that they can measure to the units digit when looking at the loss/gain! Why doesn’t their total mass measurement, 2,565,000GT go down to the units digit?
Using this loss value, the total mass should be 2,564,736 ±12 GT. Thats a pretty precise measurement, equivalent to a length measurement with a precision of 10^-6 ± 10^-5 meters. That’s what the very best micrometers do.
I looked at the reference you gave and the only thing I could find was this.
Not sure what “indirectly” mean but I suspect it means using some assumptions to estimate the value. Also I could find no reference on converting gravitational readings to ice mass.
The point remains. If the ice loss can be measured to the units digit of GT, why can’t the mass of the whole ice be measured down to the 1GT value.
“Using this loss value, the total mass should be 2,564,736 ±12 GT. Thats a pretty precise measurement, equivalent to a length measurement with a precision of 10^-6 ± 10^-5 meters. That’s what the very best micrometers do.”
Apparently you’re unaware that the basis of the GRACE-FO measurement involves measuring the distance between two satellites of approximately 220km to a precision of ±1micron, I would say that’s ‘pretty precise’.
wait until people find out that the total amount of energy in a given fixed dimensional volume of air at a fixed location never actually changes immaterial of the temperature reading…
Because if they attempt to calculate the correct uncertainty, they would have to admit they are unable to make measurements that have any meaning. And they are paid to show disaster is coming.
The data Cap Allon used does include an uncertainty assessment. You’ll have to ask the article author why it was not discussed.
Was it uncertainty from measurements, or simply an SEM from a distribution?
The above graph is a blend of two separate data series.
There is a gap in the data from the end of the GRACE satellite mission in October 2017 and the start of the GRACE-FO mission launched in May 2018 that is not noted on the above graph.
That gap and the attempt to blend them may account for the curious step in the otherwise fairly smooth trend line.
Which is beside the point. BDGWX is correct in that Cap Allon does not know the
difference between mass loss per year and total mass. So when they state that Greenland is gaining ass they are just plain wrong.
They’re importing hookers from Copenhagen?
Lol.
Or donkeys.
Ah you notice that all the photo’s of Greenland are from the same side? I guess we know now that all the weight gain is round the back, so to speak.
Total mass and total area are far greater than they have been for for most of the last 8000 years.
Only the extreme cold of the LIA had more ice mass and area.
The recovery from that extreme high level has a long way to go to get back to Holocene norm.
You do realise that this is what the drop in Arctic sea ice since 1979 and the tiny amount of mass loss (gravity measured ignoring magma movements), is actually A RECOVERY to more normal levels., don’t you !
Highly beneficial too, because it allows more plant growth around the periphery of the ice….. nowhere near back to the Viking occupation era , though.
Animals eat grass, and plants.. not ice.
b.nice said: “Total mass and total area are far greater than they have been for for most of the last 8000 years.”
I don’t know about mass, but you’re own source below (Briner et al. 2016) suggests that area was far greater in the past as compared to today.
Um, no Andy. ‘Fraid not.
Nowhere do I see them “state that Greenland is gaining mass” (even without the “m”)! Please tells us where they state that.
They say “the trend has very clearly shifted since then, to one of overall growth.” . While poorly worded, that does not say that the mass is growing, just that the trend ( direction of movement of GT/year loss) is “growing”, i.e. less and less loss each year. If the trend continues to grow at the same rate as it has in the last 10 years, Annual TMB, will actually be increasing in about three years time.
iff ‘they’ were to state that Greenland is gaining ass, they would be plain wrong. So, izzak somewhat correct.
So, wrt to izzak logic, and bdgwx, when THEY state that Greenland is losing ass, they are just plain wrong.
I’m not following you. My logic is that a negative TMB/yr value represents a loss of ice mass. Are you saying you disagree or agree with that?
Address the uncertainty of all these measurements. It goes back to stating better precision than what was actually measured. As I said earlier, if you can’t measure and quote the total to the 100ths digit, then trying to assert that you can measure the gain or loss to that resolution is a joke. The uncertainty interval is at least ±500 GT and more likely to be at least ±1000 GT. That makes a discussion of a 100 GT change counting angels!
It is why error bars should be shown on any scientific depiction of what is occuring! Otherwise it leads to cliaming things that are truly unknown.
Published uncertainty is about ±15 GT
There’s no possible way the “uncertainty” could be less than ±3000Gt simply because “uncertainty” means the probable error in the actual measured total. Gotta be careful with words.
So why is there no possibility of such a ‘probable error in the actual measured total’. The basic measurement is of a distance between two satellites with a precision of ±1micron.
You do realize that knowing the distance between satellites TO within a micron DOES NOT mean the distance doesn’t vary by feet.
I found when researching sea level measurements by satellite that the accuracy is AVERAGED over a long period. It took some digging to find out how much orbits actually vary through a day or even a month.
You do realize that if a satellite is 1 meter higher and is repositioned 1 meter lower that the average is ZERO? Lots of things affect orbital height – gravity changes, solar winds, atmospheric height. In fact gravity changes are used to determine mass changes.
“You do realize that knowing the distance between satellites TO within a micron DOES NOT mean the distance doesn’t vary by feet.”
Of course that’s the whole point of the technique, to measure the separation of the two satellites with great precision and calculate the change in the local gravitational during the orbit. It’s not the change in height it’s the change in separation distance and it’s measured to a precision of microns even though the change is meters, that’s the precision in the measurement you were claiming wasn’t possible.
No the accuracy I was discussing was how you could acheive micron precision of measurements of the earth when using satellites. Dig into the Jason satellites and find their actual variance in orbital distance.
Also don’t lecture one on how distances are measured. To get micron level precision requires exchanging actual signal information so that timing differences can be recognized. You can’t tell that from just a pure carrier because you can’t know what cycle of a GHz you are dealing with. We had the same problem with implementing T-carrier systems in the telephone company.
There are no constant communications devices on the earth that can be used to calibrate a specific echo return with actual data stream. Therefore the precision is very different than the wavelength of the carrier wave used. Why do you think that sea level to millimeters is a joke?
Well I was discussing the accuracy of the GRACE measurements which are the subject of this thread, not some other measurements, do try to keep up.
If you believe that, then why isn’t the total something like 2,565,634GT ±15GT?
If you can’t measure the total any closer than the nearest 1,000GT, then you surely can’t measure uncertainty any either.
I suspect that figure is a SEM, Standard Error of the sample Mean, which IS NOT uncertainty of measurement.
The “uncertainty” is undoubtedly more like ±3500Gt while the error in the math is probably about ±600Gt and the margin of error is closer to ±1100Gt. Be careful which words you use when dealing with statistical probability.
It has nothing to do with statistical probability. It is measurement uncertainty.
Can you post a link to the publication where you are seeing the 3500 Gt, 600 Gt, and 1100 Gt figures?
Look at the resolution of what the total mass is! How do you get resolution units of 1 GT in change yet you can’t quote the total any closer than 1000 GT?
Here is a study.
https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/
It says:
Numbers are from a model, MAR, and aren’t true measured values. Keep in mind 5.6 GT even takes the measurement to the tenths digit. Pretty damn good precision/resolution. I wonder what the uncertainty is? It is not quoted but from the GT graph I would estimate ±1.5 to 1.8.
Let’s see 5.6/2,565,000=0.000218%. Now how about 5.6 •180=1008 for an annual figure. 1008/2565000=0.04% –> 2500 years. I won’t be around but in 2 1/2 millennia I would hope humans will have figured it all out! We certainly should have more than enough data collected. Heck, who knows we may be skipping into another glaciation by then and won’t have to worry about it!
It doesn’t say the trend is ‘towards’ growth, it states the trend has shifted “to one of overall growth” – that means the it went from losing mass to the current trend being growth.
I saw that too. It was poorly worded. But don’t get your nickers is a bunch. The place has probably been loosing mass since the current interglacial period started.
His point is that the previously increasing loss rate trend is reversing and is pointing toward zero, and that point is correct. Since the recent temperature rise (last 180 years or so) followed the little ice age’s unusual cold, we do not know if the rise is mainly due to natural recovery, due to human activity or a mix. The fact there was a rise and about half the rise occurred before CO2 had risen much would cause melting whatever the cause of the rise. His curve showing a trend back toward decreasing the rate in melting indicates the cause is not mainly due to increasing CO2 production.
That’s not what he said. He said and I quote “the trend has very clearly shifted since then, to one of overall growth”. The rate at which the Greenland ice sheet is shrinking has declined in recent years, but it has not shifted to growth.
For our american friends: 15 millimeters is 15/25.4 inches = 0.59 in cumulative sea kevel rise since 1980.
At that rate Manhattan will be under water in 234,000 years!
we can only hope
For our science illiterate friends, the margin of error on that is ±2.3mm or the meniscus variation of the measurement. As to the other errors, nothing stays in place year-on-year.
Greenland ice area is still only just down from the peak in the LIA. Far more area than for most of the last 8000 years
Absolutely NOTHING wrong with the Greenland ice sheet !
SERIOUS amounts of ice up there !!
It would be far more honest to plot the Y axis from 0 to 2 rather than 1.8 to 2 when illustrating overall change over the last 10K years.
It would actually be far more honest to show the graph as published rather than one with fake labels added to it that misrepresent the data.
Phil already address the fact that the graph was photoshopped with fake (and incorrect) labels. I’ll just add that it is standard practice to scale the y-axis so that it includes the min and max and perhaps a bit of slack space, but no more. If you scale it 0 to 2 like you did below it is harder to see the timing and magnitude of the change.
Like this:
+10
b.nice said: “Greenland ice area is still only just down from the peak in the LIA. Far more area than for most of the last 8000 years”
The Briner et al. 2016 paper is really good. Unfortunately it ends at 1950. But, it puts the current 1.6e12 m2 value from Moon et al. 2021 into perspective. The Greenland ice sheet area is at the lowest point it has been during the Holocene.
We’ve no monitoring of the variation in the height of the rock and gravel bed beneath the glacier tho… much of it just assumes that ground doesn’t move – just like the ‘sea level rise’ crap.
Do you think changes in topography and/or land area of Greenland can explain the changes in the ice sheet surface area?
BS.
I don’t think Briner et al. 2016 itself is BS. What is BS is photoshopping a graphic from it to mispresent the state of the Greenland ice sheet.
Yes, he should have written the rate of decrease is slowing.
I wondered the same – struggled to make sense of the statement on overall growth. Thanks for posting the source graph.
Sure, as the other replies note 100GT is a very small percentage of the total mass, but the statement in the article on overall growth in recent years appears incorrect given it references rate of change, not absolute mass.
Perhaps a corrected statement would be “total mass loss has decelerated in recent years”. This would still generally support the argument that media are not interested in the actual data as one would expect to see continued acceleration given the media hysteria.
bdgwx
Have you figured out from our previous discussion what is causing this big amount of ice to melt?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/17/new-study-claims-the-co2-increase-since-1850-can-account-for-only-half-of-modern-global-warming/#comment-3624069
and further down.
Where is your balance sheet?
For this discussion. The full line-by-line analysis of CO2 can be found in Myhre et al. 1998. There are newer analysis, but they aren’t significantly different. I refer you to this publication because it is the basis for the NOAA AGGI.
Those are models based on observation/ correlation. Correlation does not prove causation.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
You must do your own calculation like I showed you.
I’ve not seen you post a calculation or even description of your model.
I don’t recall discussing the GMB. We can do so now. Per the source cited in this article it is primarily due to an increase in the discharge beyond the grounding line and secondarily a reduction in the SMB. The prevailing hypothesis for these changes is the positive perturbation on the planetary energy imbalance that is causing the climate system to accumulate heat.
Ja. The change in the rate of melt can be due to the Gleissberg cycle. I have mentioned this in my reports. Click on my name.
Temperature of the gas means nothing in a gravitic controlled system, it does not reflect total energy in the system. The atmosphere has contracted since 1998.
The climate system has taken on 350 ZJ of energy since 1960.
Exactly what is storing the large amount of Joules. Is the atmosphere storing it?
Is it melting or sublimation?
From the article’s graph, TMB/yr will be positive in about 5 years – what will the alarmist mob have to cry about then?
If the UN or other world bodies were smart, they would try to INCREASE the Greenland melt – it would mean more rain especially in the Sahel.
It’s already a given that soot and dirt on snow and ice cause them to melt even when the ambient temperature is below freezing. The albedo effect. The higher the albedo, the more it reflects. The lower the albedo, the more it absorbs. So, to stop the melt get the snow guns out and cover the dirty layer. 😉
Annual changes to the huge amount of ice on Greenland may be smaller than likely errors in the measurements. I do not trust these numbers. Better to measure relative global sea level rise to determine if all ice on Earth is melting faster or slower than 100 years ago.
It is even quicker and easier to note that virtually every small Pacific island that we are commanded to panic about them drowning, has been measured as growing in area over the last 20 years or so.
Another yawneroo
Yaaah, but, but, did the sea sink, did the island rise, or has Earth gone crazy and changed a couple of kilometer of seafloor, making (less?) space for more water.
Heck, we can’t even agree yet on where all this water comes from. Is some god standing on a shore somewhere, letting go of some used beer?
Watched kettles never boil, and there is no defence against tragedy except mitigation.
Unfortunately, ‘mitigation’ in Doublespeak is completely homophonic with “Continuity of Government”.
Nope, probably just good old dust…the same stuff that puts old London a long way below present London….
What if the Maldives sink from the weight of all the new airports and resorts built there?
That won’t work simply because the ground moves as well. Its all floating on magma.
Crises sells newspapers, and TV watching. Nothing complex here. It’s called yellow journalism.
“The amount of ice that melted in Greenland between July 15 and 17 . . . “
________________________________________________________
If you click on DMI you will be taken to the Danish Meteorological Institutes’ Arctic Temperatures page where you will find a graph of Arctic temperatures through this year and past years all the way back to 1958. What stands out, is nearly all of the temperature variation occurs in the winter months. The summer melt season is remarkably stable at about 274K. What that says to the logical person is that any year to year variation in sea ice or the ice caps doesn’t have much to do with summer temperatures so other factors must be involved.
“The summer melt season is remarkably stable at about 274K. What that says to the logical person is that any year to year variation in sea ice or the ice caps doesn’t have much to do with summer temperatures”
No, it doesn’t say that. It says that the air temperature while ice is melting is held close to 273K regardless of the rate of inflow of heat, which is what determines rate of melt.
If you boil water on a stove, it will remain close to 373K while water remains. If you turn the gas up high, the water will boil away faster, but the temperature stays much the same.
If you turn the gas up high, the water will boil away faster, but the temperature stays much the same
___________________
And so the analogous gas stove is what?
Source of heat to make the phase change happen. There is one causing Arctic melt, and it probably shows up as warmer air somewhere. But it can’t be at the melting surface. There will be a temperature gradient associated with the flux, but the surface is at melting point.
Nick is right in principal. No idea if that really works for the whole continent of Greenland, but I suppose it could.
So there was more heat/warmer in Greenland than now, for most of the last 8000 years..
Ok .. thanks Nick.
You really should stop posting that fake graph with incorrect labelling.
That graph does not show the last 70+ years of ice loss. The current value per Moon et al. 2021 is 1.6e12 m2 which, if included in the graph, would appear as a straight line drop down well below the y-axis lower bound.
Source of heat to make the phase change happen. There is one causing Arctic melt, and it probably shows up as warmer air somewhere.
__________________________
Probably somewhere? How ’bout the sun, that shows up all day in the Arctic summer and is rather consistent.
Oh yes Nick, I’d forgotten about your ‘aliens with blowtorches’ theory. Very convenient.
Nick,
You are discussing the temp at the boundary.
What happens when ice melts at the top? A layer of water, right. The same thing happens as at sea. The top layer of water absorbs IR and evaporates thereby cooling the water to just above 273. Not much melting will be going on.
Your reasoning about what occurs at phase changes is faulty.
Actually it is you who has the faulty reasoning.
This is what happens:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-greenland-ice-sheet-world-largest.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-01035-9
quoting nature.com is like setting yourself on fire to treat a sunburn
Yes, why one earth would one reference a paper from one of the top 20 ranked science journals in the world!
WAS one of the top 20 ranked science journals in the world. Now publishes Woke drivel like “Racism in Science”.
Exactly what does water moving to the bottom have to do with the temperature just above the melted ice. You reference doesn’t address the point being made.
If IR only penetrates to ~15 microns in water, then melting ice will always have “skin”of water over it being evaporated by the IR. As heat is removed by evaporation it is cooled keeping the temperature just above the ice close to 273K.
That’s the point you don’t understand the physics of radiative heating and heat transfer at the surface. At about 0ºC the vapor pressure of water is about 6mbar, not much vaporization. When the water starts to absorb IR the water warms up and will conduct/convect heat to the underlying ice and melt some more of the ice. (Try looking at the water phase diagram sometime). Of course that water can flow down the slope of the ice and into moulins as discussed in the reference I gave you.
So the ocean IS heated by IR from CO2 by your assertion!
Let me point out that you can’t have a skin effect in the ocean where evaporation occurs yet not have one in the layer of water on a glacier.
You might want to look at how much near IR and SW heat H2O.
We’re not talking about the ocean we’re talking about the Greenland ice cover. As the ice surface melts water forms on the surface at 0ºC, that water warms up due to incoming radiation thereby increasing its density and sinks to the bottom of the layer where it heats the ice forming more cold water. In the meantime the cold water rises to the surface where it can be heated by the radiation.
And I suppose since warm water sinks so does hot air? Ho, ho, ho.
You obviously have some misconceptions.
Freshwater has a maximum density at 4ºC, so yes cold water over ice will increase its density when it warms. The misconceptions are all yours.
Limited by the TOA radiative imbalance. All the warming is limited to that.
That’s the interesting thing about latent heat uptake. The uptake continues without restoring TOA radiative balance since the temperature clamps at 0 C. Even a full melt out with an inevitable temperature rise beyond 0 C would not necessarily restore the TOA radiative balance immediately because of the albedo feedback. The balance would get restored eventually, but not until the amplifying effect of the reduced albedo plays out as well.
Oil spill from, in particular, arctic drilling.
JF
the geothermal underneath the ice…
“the geothermal underneath the ice…”
It’s been there since well, well, before the referenced time period. With no evidence of it changing enough to cause this trend. OTOH, plenty of indicators of other changes that might explain this reduction.
Typical Nick-picking misdirection. Rather than address the point about cherry-picking fraudulent reporting, … Look! A squirrel! Woof woof woof woof woof!
Again, sorry Andy. Nope.
griff? Your turn.
The phase change only occurs at the surface that absorbs heat from incident sunlight and air above freezing, not throughout 99+% of the Greenland ice pack mass that is well below the freezing point of 0 deg C at standard pressure and at sea level.
… was enough to fill 7.2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools or cover the entire state of West Virginia with a foot of water.
It is unconscionable that CNN would make such statements. Without a comparison to the average melt, or the percentage of total, the numbers are meaningless.
CNN is meaningless.
Journalists have always been innumerate.
Last I heard the West side Hwy in Manhattan is STILL well above water. They can misrepresent the melt at either or both poles as much as they want, but the over all SLR rate remains about the same. It will be catastrophic SLR that will move the sane people to begin to think there may actually be something to the claims of catastrophic climate change and not the constant stream of
https://youtu.be/aopdD9Cu-So
rah said: “Last I heard the West side Hwy in Manhattan is STILL well above water.”
https://youtu.be/WTRlSGKddJE?t=1107
Back peddling after the fact. They forgot to mention that Hansen himself predicted that Co2 would double. And one would naturally assume understood what rebound is and that is it occurring in Manhattan as it has been since the glaciers retreated.
I suppose that next you’ll have “proof” that Dr. Viner never said: “children just aren’t going to know what snow is”
And that the Maldives are actually sinking.
Riess asked James Hansen to speculate about what would happen if CO2 doubled for his book. Susan Hansen (no relation to James) trying to relay the content of his book to her readers is the one who said that the West Side Hwy would be underwater in 20 years. James Hansen never said that. Anyway, Tony Heller and Anthony Watts then amended Susan Hansen’s prediction to say that the West Side Hwy would be underwater by 2008 and then 2018 making elementary math mistakes along the way. I’ve not heard of Tony Heller or Anthony Watts back peddling from their predictions, posting retractions of what they predicted, or even just fixing their math mistakes. Either way their predictions turned out to be wrong. That’s on them; not James Hansen.
I should point out that Anthony Watts changed his prediction from 2008 to 2028. So we have 2008, 2018, and 2028 none of which came from James Hansen. And notice that Hansen’s prediction was 40 years after CO2 had already doubled which Watts obviously knew about since he posted a link to it. And why is Anthony Watts trying to pin his 1st failed prediction and likely to fail 2nd prediction on James Hansen anyway?
The West side highway described by Hansen no longer exists it has since been rebuilt. The new one floods fairly regularly.
A quick Google search confirms that the West Side Highway does indeed flood regularly – after heavy rain. Sea level rise has nothing to do with it.
It did during Sandy.
It’s called a Storm Surge for a reason, you clown.
Yes indeed it is, it’s a ‘surge’ in sea level due to a storm, as sea level rises flooding due to such surges increases in frequency. Also Jim Hansen was describing what would happen during a storm (note his reference to high winds and taped up windows). What he described happened in 2012 even though by then it was a different West side highway. Also his statement referred to what would happen in 2028 in the event of a doubling of CO2 which fortunately didn’t happen.
Storms are not increasing in frequency or intensity, you will be disappointed to hear.
But if frequency and intensity stay the same then the number of storm surge flooding events will increase if the sea level increases.
At the current rate of 1.8mm per year that won’t be for a long Time.
Bear in mind that land subsidence in that area is about 3mm/year and that the original prediction was for 40 years in the future.
I did some research on this. The area between 22nd and 34th as it is constructed today will be the first to flood at high tide right at about 1 meter of sea level rise. That is the expectation from even the IPCC SSP2-4.5 scenario which is only about 1.8x CO2. We can’t eliminate the possibility that the West Side Hwy could flood prior to achieving 2x CO2.
Bull puckey. The Precautionary Principle taken to extremes, just like CAGW!
What is southern California falls into the ocean tomorrow? Why aren’t we clearing out California right now, just in case?
Should we be building bunkers that can protect ALL government employees right now, just in case of a nuclear attack?
What if a large comet made of boron hits the sun and kills the nuclear reaction? Should we be moving underground as we speak and start installing nuclear reactors?
Showing some actual data and not “projection would go a long way in proving your catastrophic warning!
This government and their media lackeys are as predictable as sun rise and sun set on many fronts. Just watch. The same government and media that declared that the election in 2020 was “the most secure election in history” will be screaming “the Russians did it” after the 2022 midterm elections.
You are an optimist rah. I’m told that’s a good thing.
l on the other hand expect further proof that elections are getting more and more “secure” (from tampering by legal voters not voting “correctly”). Pretty soon they’ll be able to do elections without the inconvenience of voting.
Two words: most sophisticated voter fraud system in history!
Expansive and coordinated it was, but sophisticated? Not so much. shutting down counting and throwing poll observers out in the swing states was not sophisticated. Trucking in ballots in the middle of the night was not sophisticated.
IMO, the only places they can cheat effectively against the Red Tsunami that is coming in the swing states, are only those like PA where the left has a strong hold on the judiciary that have ruled to maintain the conditions that allow cheating on a massive scale.
When it get’s sophisticated is when there are not such obvious indications of cheating.
I guess you missed this.
(Via Politico) – Top Biden national security officials are tracking multiple threats to the nation’s election security infrastructure ahead of the midterms and are set to issue warnings, including in an internal intelligence bulletin this week, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The bulletin will lay out details of cyber threats posed by China and Russia, as well as other non-state actors, and potential physical threats to election officials in jurisdictions across the country, the people said. The warnings come as the midterm elections near and amid increasing reports of intimidation at ballot drop boxes. The people requested anonymity to talk freely about sensitive national security and election matters.
The internal administration concerns about election threats come days after a call was held between federal officials and local law enforcement personnel about the midterms, according to one of the people familiar with the matter. Those on the call discussed the potential for violence in response to the spread of false narratives regarding the election process. Officials said election workers, including those working at polling stations, are likely to face threats and harassment from extremists both online and offline, the person familiar with the matter said.
[…] Officials consider misinformation and disinformation the biggest threats to the midterms, given how easy it would be for malicious actors — whether domestic partisans or foreign intelligence operatives — to seize on delayed results or isolated voting-machine glitches to spread lies about the security of the process. (read more)
You are absolutely correct rah. What he actually said was:
Three words:
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-says-democrats-created-the-most-extensive-and-inclusive-voter-fraud-organization-in-american-history/
Focussing on selective data ranges which support whatever someone is looking for does raise the possibility of missing the broader context.
In the case of Greenland’s Surface Mass Balance, the focus tends to be on rate of loss.
However looking in the longer term reveals interesting context, in particular the extent of recovery.
Source: //journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/18/jcli-d-12-00518.1.xml
Paper: Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Balance Reconstruction. Part II: Surface Mass Balance (1840–2010)* Fig.4f
Which shows that through the 20th century there were at least two significant periods of reduced surface mass balance, but more importantly, the mass balance recovered on both occasions.
So yes loss happens, but then so does recovery.
makes me wonder what the TMB of a fir is year-on-year
Would be mighty interesting if there were more data (alas that is not possible for now, can only wait for the future to come), the effects of AMO on the TMB of Greenland Ice would be interesting to see. It looks like a little over half a wavelength of a cyclical signal, peaking in the early ’80s to a trough in ~2012, then reversing course again. You’d really want at least two full cycles to get a good picture, then there are other cycles with longer periods in the mix too. The alarmists always seem to want to extrapolate with a linear, polynomial or exponential projection. Doing so on a signal that represents half of a cyclical waveform is bound to lead you astray. If only they just lead themselves astray.
If it bleeds it leads. The MSM is entirely into keeping its readership/viewership as large as possible. This also works into the Democratic parties road to power. That is, keeping a scared populace that looks to government for problem solving and the media for news about who the bad guys are.
West Virginia is mountainous with highest elevation Spruce Knob (4863 ft; 1482 m). The “foot of water”, I think, should be referenced to a Flat West Virginia.
A “foot of water” over West Virginia sounds a lot more scary than an imperceptible rise in sea level 🙂
a foot of water would simply disappear into the caves
Data, schmata, truth is what they make up to get viewers/clicks
If my calculations are correct, the same amount of water that could cover West Virginia (if it were flat) with a foot of water would raise the oceans 0.002 inches.
Now, this did happen in only three days, so if that rate were what would we expect continually going forward, you could see an *entire inch* of sea level rise in just four years. But it’s not remotely typical, it’s a melting event from one of the few months where surface melt outweighs fresh snowfall. Per the carbonbrief article, Greenland lost 84 GT in the last year, causing 0.235 mm of sea rise. If you continue that rate, you could see an *entire inch* of sea level rise in just 108 years. At that rate, coastal cities would only have a millenium available to adapt to a full foot of extra sea level rise.
Of course, there’s always the hope among alarmists that Greenland mass balance loss would dramatically accelerate, but it isn’t happening right now. So why would CNN hype such a trivial amount of sea level rise? *Because they haven’t got anything worse to hype*.
The fact that sea level rise is mentioned so prominently among “climate change” impacts, despite its small scale, slow speed, and easy adaptation, shows how far from catastrophic global warming has actually been.
Greenland surface mass balance is looking pretty good this winter too.
honestly that chart looks more like there’s some effect on the measuring device when the temperature of the air goes above freezing
And equally warmer air reaching Antarctica increases the Antarctic ice-mass more than melt and calving. And as for sea level rise the Dutch meteorological institute fairly states that the past decades sea level rise on the Dutch shores has not accellerated and as for forecast they only refer to the IPCC projections, wisely not assuming any responsibility.