From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Hottest Year Update:
Greenland’s Ice Sheet has been perfectly normal this last 12 months, with the Surface Mass Balancing increasing in size at the normal rate:
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
As usual, please read DMI’s explanatory note, to the effect that SMB does not include calving losses:
The Greenland Ice Sheet evolves throughout the year as weather conditions change. Precipitation increases the mass of the ice sheet, whilst greater warmth leads to melting, which causes it to lose mass. The term surface mass balance is used to describe the isolated gain and loss of mass of the surface of the ice sheet – excluding the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater.
I hope to shortly update the full data, including calving, once DMI publish it.
But it is SMB which is the real driver of what is happening on the icesheet. A warmer climate would normally be expected to reduce SMB, but this is clearly not happening.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wrong. The primary mechanism of ice loss in Greenland is calving. As far as I can remember SMB (ie. surface ice accumulating vs surface ice melting) can even be positive and higher than before while Greenland is still losing ice mass. Just as with the Antarctica the real problems come mostly from below. Seawater is warmer, so shelf ice is decreasing or gone. Shelf ice acts as a “plug”, slowing down glaciers. When it’s gone, glaciers speed up, acting as ice conveyors, decreasing the ice mass directly. Icebergs are lost ice. Furthermore, the volume of surface melt water is increasing, and it acts as a lubricant for glaciers when it seeps through, further speeding them up. And then you have soon more exposed land territories with lower albedo, and more ice free sea, again with lower albedo, so there are positive feedbacks (however weak they are now).
This is not just some “models” (as per usual denier attempt at dismissing anything). It’s actually measured (satellites). Ironically cc 20 years ago models predicted less loss than what was measured, and when they investigated it they discovered the lubrication effect of melt water.
“”as per usual denier “”
Have you said your green prayers today?
Atheists find you neo-religious types more than bizarre.
Pls decide then. Science is automatically identified with the left here. The left is automatically identified with the commies, and commies are atheists. I’m confused 😉
I referred to your religiosity – faith, belief etc.
Science has nothing to do with belief. That should clear things up for you.
I don’t have religiosity.
Well, it’s kinda fun that actually there’s belief in science. It’s not religious, of course, and it’s backed up with evidence, but there’s. Quite a lot of the so called fundamental laws are based solely on observations (ie. they are not the result of a mathematical proof process in the framework of a theory). They are based on the belief that if it has been so, it will be so in the future, too. Like the Law of Energy Conservation. These fundamental laws appear, in turn, as the axioms in the various theories of Physics. You know, axioms are what we assert, but not prove (in the mathematical sense).
Anyway, I have noticed that most people usually find it hard to understand this, especially deniers.
Seems like nyolci is menstruating this morning.
Just as I thought, you couldn’t understand the above.
Sorry, I thought you misspelled the “séance” part of your witch hunt.
anyone who vomits up the term “denier” isn’t worth debating
You must’ve had your share in some very big defeats in debates with normal people 🙂
“I don’t have religiosity.”
Why do you use religious language? Like I said, more than bizarre.
I don’t use religious language.
And you’re so self unaware.
I already pointed it out
Denier: One who does not accept the church doctrine.
Denier is just like you, an ordinary moron.
Coming from a wanker that’s funny
I had some sympathy with you before you made that comment. You seemed to be making plausible observations which could, at least, be debated in a rational manner, clear of personal abuse but all you got in response was personal abuse. I suppose something just snapped and you decided to retaliate in kind. But a lot of the comments to comments like your original comment are rather like Pavlov’s dogs. Put up something on this website which people don’t like and they start salivating and issuing abusive comments. It’s very regrettable.
No. I just always answer in kind. As a matter of policy. That’s it. Pls read what I answer to. They always abuse.
Believing in unproven theories is a kind of religion- like believing in an unproven God. Not much difference.
?
such as the entire climate emergency BS, which some places, like the state government of Wokeachusetts, sings like an opera singer with a tooth ache
That’s not unproven.
Careful what you say about believing in unproven theories. Galileo is the patron saint of those who try to establish some sort of conflict between faith and reason but his theory was not proven during his lifetime. So at the time he propounded his theory, it was an unproven theory.
But Galileo’s unproven theory wasn’t going to cost the people of his time untold trillions of dollars like the unproven climate emergency.
So you suggest to dismiss a scientific theory based on your (very likely wrong) belief of that being more expensive than business as u.?
You have obviously never done a cost benefit analysis or a Net Present Value study or you would understand.
So you suggest to dismiss a scientific theory based on your (very likely wrong and industry propaganda driven) belief that if true its consequences will be more expensive than BaU? Congratulations!
As I thought, you have never done a cost benefit analysis. Tell us why nuclear has more costs and less benefits that windmills and solar.
I’ve told you 100 times: bsing won’t get you far.
I don’t know how on earth you get that impression that I think nuclear has more costs and less benefits than whatever else. I think nuclear is a perfect option. We have to get rid of fossils asap.
You are confusing science with scientism. They are not the same thing.
No. This is just an observation. Whenever someone points out what science says each and every denier starts to scream “commie”
What an idiotic comment.
Great comment!
“… I’m confused…”
Something we can agree on.
“Wrong. The primary mechanism of ice loss in Greenland is calving.”
So far so good.
“Just as with the Antarctica the real problem blah… blah… blah”
There isn’t any problem.
“Seawater is warmer, so shelf ice is decreasing or gone. Shelf ice acts as a “plug”,
slowing down glaciers. When it’s gone, glaciers speed up, acting as ice conveyors,
decreasing the ice mass directly. ”
You are implying that this is a new phenomenon. How do you this hasn’t been going on right along?
Furthermore, the volume of surface melt water is increasing, and it acts as a lubricant
for glaciers when it seeps through … they discovered the lubrication effect of melt water.
They didn’t discover anything, the ice lubrication effect has always been known and it’s not new as you seem to imply. A short Google search on “How do ice skates work?” Turns up the explanation:
“The pressure from the skater’s weight on the narrow blades of the skate reduces the melting point of the ice, creating a thin layer of liquid water. This layer lubricates the skate and allows it to glide”
Works the same for glaciers and ice caps.
I don’t imply anything.
The fact that it’s now clearly non-equilibrium is new.
Oh, I see 😉 This is not what they discovered, of course. They didn’t know the extent of this, didn’t know how different amount of water would affect speed. This is what they discovered ( == observed, measured, modeled). It turned out that more water would significantly speed up glaciers.
“I don’t imply anything.”
You don’t say anything either..
Just more of your mind-numbed ignorant waffle.
Glaciers are rivers of ice.. didn’t you know that !
And Greenland ice area is FAR higher than it has been for nearly all the last 8000+ years.
No it does NOT turn out that more water would significantly speed up glaciers. The glacial speeds that glaciers move do NOT create the mythical water layer that you warmunists claim.
Let’s put it this way … if such lubrication actually existed, then how do glaciers carve and wear down rock? We know they do … that’s how glacial valleys were and are formed. If there was no ice-rock contact due to your claimed layer of water that so lubricates the ice, that could not happen. Obviously there IS direct ice-rock contact, because there is no layer of water at the bottoms of glaciers.
Scientists claim that (or similar, I can’t remember the exact wording). Your ex cathedra bsing won’t change that.
+10
“The fact that it’s now clearly non-equilibrium is new.”
All so called equilibriums in nature are temporary.
Perhaps. It’s gone now in Greenland. And we even know why it’s happening.
there never was much of an equilibrium there- the ice there is quite variable- over time scales of centuries- mostly for unknown reasons
so you must think it’s collapsing! OMG, run for the hills!
he/she/ or it is in panic mode!
I don’t think it’s collapsing. There’s mass loss. I know you’re unable understand the difference.
So there is a mass loss. So what? Nature is constantly changing. It doesn’t mean humans are causing damage to the planet. I know you don’t grasp that simple fact.
But it doesn’t exclude that either. And in this specific case we have excellent evidence for human origins.
There is SOME evidence that humans might be causing SOME changes to the climate- seems reasonable with 8 billion people who have altered landscapes at large scale, clearing forests, draining wetlands, producing all sorts of chemicals, burning vast amounts of fossil fuels. Nobody is saying the planet is like it was 5,000 years ago. But to say it’s severe damage that necessitates spending hundreds of trillions of dollars to rapidly change our entire civilization is nuts. Meanwhile, the people pushing this cult haven’t the guts to fly to China and India and demand that THEY decarbonize.
And it’s already quantified, see the IPCC reports.
You apparently like to pull out figures from your axx. Like hundreds of trillions. BTW annual investment into fossils according to the OECD is around 1 trillion. Kinda shocking if this is the “cheap” option. And “rapidly change our entire civilization” is more resembling what you like to describe as “doomerism” or wtf. BTW fossil companies and all their propaganda machine (like WUWT) have done everything to postpone any structural change, so this “rapid” is kinda more and more becoming a reality.
“And it’s already quantified, see the IPCC reports.”
Nonsense- they give ESTIMATES with giant error bars. They only roughly try to estimate the ECS ’cause nobody knows what it is. Listen, you bonehead, others have already given up on you and I will too- if you think the IPCC has quantified to what extent humans are the cause of SOME changes to the climate. You don’t think it’s going to cost hundreds of trillions to “save the planet” with ruinables? Actually, no amount is going to alter the climate. Enough- wasted too much time with you.
That is quantification in science.
Nope.
IPCC summary is a political report.
There is a rule. If a science report is at odds with the political summary, the science report changes to match. Mandatory.
Actually it does not work for glaciers and icecaps Steve. An ice skate is a straightedge device only inches long that moves at relatively high speeds measured in tens of miles per hour. A glacier sitting on top of Greenland which contains vast areas of mountains and valleys with thousands of feet of terrain elevation variance is not a straightedge device only a few inches long
Glaciers move at only a few feet per day at most (a relatively fast moving glacier has a max velocity of only 4 times 10 to the minus 5th MPH or less)
Frictional forces are directly proportional to the velocity of the object or parcel that is moving. So a very slow moving object, even if well lubricated, still generates only negligible friction forces that the lubricant can help overcome.
Let’s take a rather practical example. Have you ever seen, or walked upon a ramp, such as they use on rental moving trucks, or on the brows (often called “gangways”) leading from ship to dock? They are made of materials that can be rather slick especially if wet, such as metal or wood. So what keeps people and things from just sliding down? It is the surface features that greatly overwhelm the inherent slickness of the material that prevents sliding … in the form of raised metal or wood transverse ridges … or coatings made of non-slip material that is more or less sand embedded in the otherwise slick surface.
Friction is also proportional to the relative size of the surface variance … which is why rotating machines that operate at very high RPM must be finished to mirror-like surfaces and made of special alloys that have effectively little to no surface pitting or variation.
Imagine what happens if one dumps sand or silt or volcanic ash into the oil pan of a vehicle engine or transmission, or into the air intake.
Another example are the transverse indentations in portland cement concrete pavements used on relatively steep grades, like tall bridge approaches. These striations overwhelm and defeat the slickening property of rainwater on such surface slopes.
Gravitationally-induced movement down hill across a “micro-slickened” surface, such as minutely thick water layer, requires that the moving mass or object also overcome the “macro surface” which is made up of rocks that are not uniformly smooth and slick. Even where glacially-carved rocks are visible today where glaciers used to exist, the surface variations being overcome are measured only in millimeters or centimeters .. not hundreds to thousands of meters of terrain elevation variance.
While a glacier can overcome even hard rock surface features and wear them down eventually, that is only over timescales of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. The observed increase in calving is only over very short timescale of individual years.
Glaciers never “race” downhill. They move at “glacial” speeds. Whatever lubricational effect that water exerts on them at such extremely slow velocities is negligible compared to the buildup of glacial mass as measured by the Hydraulic Grade Line.
Thanks for all of that. Yes, the lubrication factor is probably bullshit. Even if it were true, adding more water wouldn’t make it anymore slippery.
Denny put up a nice map that shows that most of Greenland’s ice if it were to slide, lubricated or not, would slide toward the center.
Presumably what happens is that the water finds its way through dips and cracks, while the ice grinds the rock everywhere else. Glaciers may be slow, but they grind enough rock to make water downstream of a glacier very distinctive.
Having water at the bottom side of a glacier seems impractical. Surface melts, the water sinks and refreezes. That is how packed snow transforms into ice.
That’s one possible way among others. Most outlet glaciers in Greenland have water at their bottom.
Good god… This is grade “A” Dunning-Kruger.
You post a lot of inane comments that convinces many that you are an empty vessel.
Friction in the classical treatment is independent of velocity (except for the static – nonstatic thing, two different coefficients for 0 and any other speed), and directly proportional to the force in the normal direction. Of course world is not classical etc. But his statement is just pure Dunning-Kruger.
google is not a valid reference. When I google “how do ice skates work” I get this article:
“Theory of ice-skating”: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020746215000335
And this shows how your explanation falls short.
Anyone following the link above needs to add the “h” to “ttps…” to make it work,
Or just follow this LINK
Besides that, they really do get into it.
I followed your link (putting back the missing h in https) and got “Almost frictionless skating on ice relies on a thin layer of melted water insulating mechanically the blade of the skate from ice.” and analysis.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0020746215000335
(not exactly the same link but it must be the one you meant)
The majority of the greenland ice sheet sits in a depression, with no route to escape, meaning it can only reduce by melting and run-off across the surface. Peripheral ice-shelves and the glaciers that can travel to the coast to calve represent a tiny fraction of the total ice and will never have any meaningful impact on it.
First of all, I simply don’t believe you. I don’t even claim you’re wrong but I’ve learnt that one should never take an assertion from a denier at face value. Secondly, I’m not a climate scientist, I just read them. You should do that, too. So I would like to know what they think about this. Furthermore, to my amateurish understanding even if the above is true it doesn’t mean ice can’t calve. Most of the ice volume (regardless of how deeply it sits on bedrock) is above sea level.
Perhaps you should focus on the data supporting this report?
Only what we measure is real. And it is not quite what it says here, which I post on separately and briefly, because the whole stratigraphy of the ice sheet has been determined by a NASA radar survey some years ago.
The data actually agrees with what I say, see https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31156 Quite obviously most the ice sheet is affected by loss, it’s not a “tiny fraction”
The report says ‘Greenland shed approximately 270 gigatons of ice per year, causing global sea level to rise by 0.03 inches (0.8 millimeters) per year.’
That’s 8 centimetres per century.
According to the chart in the article the gain was around 350 Giga Tonnes leaving a net gain of about 80.
270 Gt is the net loss, not the calving loss.
So, all in all, you don’t dispute the relevant science, right? You just try to downplay it.
The page you reference notes: “In general, higher-elevation areas near the center of Greenland experienced little to no change, while lower-elevation and coastal areas experienced over 20 feet (6 meters) of ice mass loss (expressed in equivalent-water-height; dark red) over this 21-year period.” However 20 feet in 21 years pales in comparison with the fact that a P-38 fighter that made an emergency landing on a Greenland glacier in 1942 was found and recovered in 1992 buried under 268 feet of ice. 268 feet of accumulation in 50 years vs 20 feet of loss in 21 years? Not going to sweat the 20 feet. Period of observation for Grace data is way too short to worry.
Maybe. The total mass loss is still there.
Where is your statement of resource for saying the essay is wrong?
The quick search gave me https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31156
You had to search for a resource? You just admitted you weren’t quoting from a scientific source but your opinion.
Dude, I’ve got file after file on my disk. I’ve got a bibliography of 300 references about measurements uncertainty.
You are a joke!
Jim, not again. This comprehension problem of yours is getting out of hand. I claimed I wasn’t a climate scientist. This doesn’t mean that I didn’t (or couldn’t) cite them, you idiot.
There you go again, the last resort of the childlike playground argument.
Oh, another person with comprehension problems.
You are the resident bore here, maybe if you stop being jerk all the time and just provide credible counterpoints would get you better replies.
The fact that you had to do a Google search prior to posting a link is illustrative of the lack of depth of your research.
A real researcher creates a reference catalog of papers and web sites that is immediately available for discussing a subject. It means one has spent time reading and learning what is important in making decisions about scientific issues. You fail miserably in deciding what assertions are true or false because of your inability to research and understand what is being claimed.
I’m not a researcher.
I don’t make decisions in scientific issues outside my narrow field. I leave it to the respective experts. You should do that too, otherwise Dunning-Kruger’s curse will reach you.
Everyone already knows this because you never post supporting information.
That makes you low information troll.
If non-researchers never post supporting information, how come all those denier dumbfokks like you are always posting so many references? (Mostly to stuff from similar cranks 😉 if you know what I mean)If I never post supporting information, how come you even reacted to one of my posted pieces of supporting information in https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/09/02/greenland-icecap-carries-on-as-normal/#comment-3963169 ?
NYOLCI
This is a topographical map of Greenland.
Tell NASA https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31156 BTW one of the most volume loss affected territories are in the middle west where the ice sits in a depression.
A surface topography map is not the correct way to understand Greenland. The underlying rock geology is bowl shaped. Only the ice sheet fringes lie outside the bowl edges. Only those can calve. DMI estimates that about half the annual ice sheet loss is calving, the other half is surface melt inside the bowl. Most recent decade estimates are about total -280GT/year, which equates to about 0.6mm/yr of sea level rise. One of 3 parts of the closure equation.
Rud
The chart in the article shows a net gain of 350 Gtonnes not counting the losses you highlight. That means a gain of ~70Gt.
So does that 350Gt mean a reduction in sea-level of 7.5mm or a net decrease of 1.5mm?
Neither. The USGS estimates that 1 GT of ice sheet calving loss (remember it floats) equals about 0.01 mm of sea level rise. Just basic physics.
“Most of the ice volume (regardless of how deeply it sits on bedrock) is above sea level.”
___________________________________________________________________
Quite true, but most of it still sits in a depression, see the graphic cross section below. So your claim
“Furthermore, the volume of surface melt water is increasing,
and it acts as a lubricant for glaciers when it seeps through,
further speeding them up.”
means that the ice would have to flow uphill. The reality is the old ice at the bottom of the depression doesn’t move.
See above, doesn’t seem to hinder loss.
Well, ice certainly can flow on ice. It doesn’t need the bedrock for that.
Cognitive dissonance level 10
On your side
But you take the assertions of climate alarmists at face value. Why?
There’s a something everyone everywhere should remember
Nullius in verba
Particularly true of politicians* and scientists paid by politicians
*Kier Starmer and Ed Milliband
I don’t. I take the assertions of climate scientists at face value. And because they are the experts. That’s why.
“Well, there’s your problem!”
Try to find a university offering a degree in Climate Science.
There are no climate scientist. They are climatologists.
Sort of like calling a garbage collector a “Sanitation Engineer.”
You need a BS not talking BS to get into
https://www.philnat.unibe.ch/studies/study_programs/master_s_in_climate_sciences/index_eng.html
What was that about belief and your religion?
””I simply don’t believe you””
””I simply don’t believe you””
And you believe this was a religious statement? Expressing disbelief about an assertion from a cretin?
C’mon, you’re just here to troll the believers in science and engineering – no “deniers” here. Unlike you, we actually comprehend science and engineering.
We’ve all learned not to take alarmists at face value, but it is mostly because they lie or believe lies they’ve heard. It sounds like you should do some reading. Everything I’ve read about Greenland supports Archer.
Huh, that shows a very bad level of comprehension. Get yourself together.
No, I think you have no ability to comprehend the written word, you just babble gibberish.
LOL, it has been long known that Greenland is a giant bowl as shown here, using 3-D imaging:
Here’s What the inside of Greenland Looks Like, in 3d
LINK
Your ignorance is deliberate since this has been known for many years.
Take a bowl and full it to the edge with honey. Now put more in the middle. Does the form of the bowl constrain the flow of the honey?
I was talking about the BOTTOM as my link shows it is below sea level thus part of the glacier can’t move to sea.
And another part can move. The part that is above sea level.
Sea level is not the determining factor. The topography surrounding a glacier is the determining factor. Only a glacier that actually has a portion that is in the sea is affected by the sea.
Sea level is not the determining factor.
Sorry, I meant the level of the “the topography surrounding a glacier”. The whole Greenland ice sheet is currently higher than that. I don’t know the volume ratio that is higher, you, the chief researcher, surely have the references, but I’m kinda sure that’s much.
Archer, ice flow is not constrained by the topography of the glacier (or icesheet) bed but rather by the slope / grade of the ice surface. Glaciology 101.
If a glacier is 1 km high AND entirely surrounded by topography that is 2 km high, the grades are immaterial.
But it’s not.
Yep, but in Greenland the ‘glacier’ is approx. 3km high. It is your turn…
Unless you are saying that the glacier overflows the top of the surrounding topography and thereby melting water runs down the other side of the bowl, it really doesn’t matter. I don’t recall seeing any waterfalls from melting glaciers, maybe you have some photos?
The glacier is higher than the surrounding topography, you idiot.
I’ve seen waterfalls from a melting glacier in Switzerland with my eyes, so the phenomenon does exist. Before you start bsing about “this is Greenland”, there the major cause of loss is calving, not melting.
Glaciers flow similar to water, but rather slower.
Wer do you think is the ice of Jostedalsbreen originating from?
Your turn, again.
Please inform yourself before typing an answer.
Wer should have been Where
Why should glaciers flow over the top of the surrounding topography, ice takes the lowest point, like water
OMG
Waterfalls from (arctic) glaciers?
https://youtu.be/A_5Nd3vAG9k?si=moo0gCQWQJ6D91c_
Does this guy think a new physical process was just discovered?
No. Furthermore, these are not my thoughts. See eg. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31156
Yes. I see. You have no thoughts. Just agenda.
Which is, coincidentally, NASA’s agenda 🙂
A political agenda set by the administration
I thought NASA’s agenda was space travel. Anything else is political BS.
NASA’s mission does include space travel, but it also includes satellites and orbital sensors.
However, NASA’s budget is controlled by Congress and the President. One does not bit the hand that feeds it, which is also the case for a lot of these misnamed “climate scientists.”
Where’s your data that proves your mere assertion that calving controls ice mass? Oh, you don’t have any, ok.
Your assertion is easily disproved without even using any measurements due to both geometry and physics:
Geometry – calving by definition can only occur at the edges where land meets ocean. The area of the edges is tiny compared to the area of the interior. Also, the thickness of the Greenland ice cap is vastly greater in the interior (measured in thousands of feet), whereas the typical iceberg which forms with calving is only a few hundred feet from top to bottom). Given that ice mass is determined by ice volume (area times depth), the SMB represents vastly more ice mass than calving.
Hydraulics – the movement of water as a liquid or as a semi-solid plastic mass on the surface of Earth is a function of gravity as determined by the “hydraulic grade line”. HGL is a function of the slope of the water or ice surface relative to its discharge point – in this case, the ocean surface. The mass velocity of movement is directly proportional to the slope of the HGL – the steeper, the faster. With a fixed elevation bottom surface profile under the ice sheet, the only way to steepen the HGL is if the thickness of the ice sheet upstream increases.
So you warmunists are sadly ignorant whenever you claim the increased calving means a melting glacier. The fact is exactly the opposite is occurring – the ice getting thicker is the only means by which calving accelerates.
And don’t give us any of your silly excuse that melting glaciers make the ice-earth boundary more slippery. First of all, any meltwater on top due to atmospheric temperatures above 0 deg C is purely a boundary effect that does not transmit through thousands of feet of ice sheet well below 0 deg C. And even if any liquid water existed at the ice-earth boundary, the frictional reduction it provides is infinitesimal compared to the friction from moving across landforms like mountain and valley terrain that is predominant in Greenland.
More calving = more ice mass
Eg. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31156 BTW they say almost verbatim what I say, and I hadn’t seen this page before. I just repeated what I’d read for years about this.
Yes, I have. See above.
Oh, an actual expert 😉
Well, tell Steve Case about this, see above 🙂 I think this is a denier-on-denier thing now. Nothing is more entertaining when you contradict each other. Seriously, the “frictional reduction” turned out to be a bit more than infinitesimal, and that’s coming from real experts.
Ice loss or gain in Antarctica and Greenland is a function of snow fall decades or centuries ago and the calving of icebergs into the sea. Temperature doesn’t have anything to do with it.
Oh, the resident expert 🙂 Yes, temperature has some effects. Even the SMB is sometimes strongly affected by the direct warming. But the indirect effect comes from the warming sea beneath the ice.
Surface Mass Balance if that’s what SMB stands for is mainly a function of sunshine, air temperature not so much. It’s way below freezing in Greenland nearly everywhere nearly all the time.
If you live where winter is cold, you can watch icicles form as the sun melts the snow on the roof, and the runoff forms icicles as soon as it drips over the eves into the cold shadows.
That’s why I wrote “sometimes”. Like 2 years ago: https://www.livescience.com/greenland-massive-melting-event
Surface Mass Balance is the difference between precipitation and runoff, it is not the same as total mass balance.
Greenland ice area is just a small amount down from the area it was during the Little Ice Age
FAR bigger than it has been for most of the last 8000+ years
As you’ve been told before this is incorrect, the total ice area of Greenland is ~1.7 million sq km. (below all the points on your graph)
As you have been told before, Briner includes the Canadian Archipelago region
Why continue to be so deliberately ignorant ?
No it does not. Also it’s a modeled result with the most recent data being 75 years ago, and your version has fake data added to it (the red text).
The Canadian Archipelago Region you refer to is part of the Laurentide Ice Sheet not the Greenland Ice Sheet and Briner also plots that in his paper in the same figure that you copied the above graph from (Fig 2).
Clearly Briner’s value does not include the C.A. region and the one being “deliberately ignorant” is you.
https://www.glyfac.buffalo.edu/Faculty/briner/buf/pubs/Briner_et_al_2016a.pdf
In a more recent paper Briner states that “These results showed that the largest pre-industrial rates of ice mass loss (up to 6,000 gigatons/century) occurred in the early Holocene and were similar to the contemporary (CE2000–2018) rate of around 6,100 gigatons/ century.”
“the results suggest that the rate of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet this century will exceed the highest Holocene mass loss rates by a factor of about four. The amount of ice loss in southwestern Greenland this century would reverse the previous 4,000 years of cumulative ice growth.”
https://www.glyfac.buffalo.edu/Faculty/briner/buf/pubs/Briner_2022.pdf
A graph of the Greenland total ice mass since 1900, looks like this.
“Just as with the Antarctica the real
problemsnatural occurrences come mostly from below.”Well you got that correct.. TOTALLY by accident.
Antarctic sections that are melting even a small amount are those above volcanic regions.
Just like Greenland.
Show us some data that SMB is decreasing.
Your whole premise is built upon the fact that the Greenland Ice Sheet is one big glacier. That is not the case. The Ice Sheet is made up of several glaciers. Some of those glaciers sit in a location where sea water can erode them, other have protection from sea water due to geography.
Read this paper. Seafloor map shows why Greenland’s glaciers melt at different rates (sciencenews.org)
In the end, you complain about no resource for saying you are mistaken. Funny how that works for you also. I don’t see any graphs or datasets in any of your posts. The old saying goes, “What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander”. Explain why you show nothing to explain your “Wrong.”
I didn’t claim SMB was decreasing. I claimed Greenland’s mass volume is decreasing (and this is measured). And it can decrease even if SMB is increasing. Again, Curse of the Gormans, lack of comprehension.
And this process has gained speed.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31156 Hope you can see now.
I didn’t complain, and I didn’t complain about no resource (wtf this was supposed to mean…) in particular.
What is a mass volume? Do some more reading.
Bad wording. Total mass.
Again, Curse of the Gormans, lack of comprehension.
From you reference:
Let’s see, that’s about 16 mm over 20 years – OMG, we’re all going to drown by 2100! Oh, sorry, about ~2 1/2 inches in 2100. LOL!
Then:
Tell us again how anthropogenic CO2 warms the oceans. Only this time, don’t use a debunked study as a reference.
Maybe you should check your comprehension!
BTW, at -100 gigatons/year it will take thousands of years to melt the ice sheet. What would the temp need to be to melt the ice sheet by 2100?
So you concluded that the total mass was indeed decreasing, right? Thx. Now you try to bs around the significance of this, right? Good luck.
It’s been explained to you numberless times… Yep, the Course of the Gormans… So CO2 absorbs some of the long wave radiation from the surface (including the oceanic surface). It gains kinetic energy, and the overall effect is that the atmosphere gets warmer. The net (outgoing minus incoming) heat loss due to radiation is decreasing at the surface. This is it.
A body radiates at its own temperature. Radiation from a colder body (atmosphere) can not raise the temperature of a warmer body (ocean). The warm body may cool at a slower rate, but, it still cools.
Lastly, you have studiously ignored what occurs as to the rate of evaporation when presented with additional energy being absorbed. Radiation is not the be all, end all of heat transfer.
Yes. At last. So the net flux decreases. The current value is 0.5 W/m2. This is, in effect, warming the surface. And a new equilibrium will form with higher temperature, where a higher flux will be in balance again. X decades later.
A wrong conclusion.
Look at SB at its simplist.
Does Tₕ increase when you add T𝒸 to the equation? Explain how Tₕ gets warmer.
You really need to study thermodynamics and Planck specifically.
Basically, the surface of the ocean remains at whatever it temperature is.
You are hilarious. You’ve been told already that this equation is wrong. Someone even notified the site where you copied this from. The right equation is:
Inet = sTenviron^4 – sTinternal^4
It’s evident that you don’t get this at all. First of all there’s always a Tenviron. It has just changed. For the surface of the Earth the equation is
I = – sTs^4 + sTl^4 + S
Ts is the surface temperature, Tl is the temperature of the lower atmosphere (the body of air that is “visible” for the surface) and S is the radiation from the Sun. The latter two rolled into one gives you the effect of Tenviron.
Okay, assume we are in equilibrium. It means there’s no imbalance, I = 0. Now if the atmosphere becomes less transparent to infrared due to CO2 buildup, Tl will increase. In other words, I becomes positive. There are other heat transport mechanism, too, and those transport more heat but the imbalance (that is actually observable, ie. measurable, and calculated as well) is 0.5 W/m^2. This is not much but it means there’s heat trapped in the system. It means Ts is slowly increasing. In the long run, after all the feedbacks will have had their effects, I = 0 will again be true, with a higher Tl, Ts. S will be essentially the same (depends on multiple factors like clouds etc, our best understanding is that it will be the same or a bit higher).
God I hope so. I would really like to hear from them. I made a mistake typing it from memory that you didn’t even pick up on. You should be aware that it wasn’t cut and pasted, it was typed from memory instilled from study.
The equation should be:
Iₙₑₜ = σ(Tₕ⁴ – T𝒸⁴)
Your equation:
Where Ts is surface temperature and TI is atmosphere temperature and a is the sun’s radiation.
You do understand that “s” must have the dimension as the Boltzmann constant in order to arrive at an Inet = W/m². That is:
W/⋅m²⋅K⁴
Show us where you found the sun’s radiation expresses in
I see you didn’t provide any cite for your equation.
Here are some sites you might want to study
Read this section:
Net Radiation Loss Rate
at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Read this section:
HEAT RADIATION
at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
No problem.
This is the short wave radiation to which the atmosphere is mostly transparent. It’s around 280 W/m2 at the surface (from memory). I didn’t bother expressing it in the s*Tx^4 format, it’s immaterial to our discussion if we are only interested in Tl and Ts.
To be honest I was sure that you would do everything you can to sneak out actually responding in substance. You picked out a term that is just a variable hiding a very high, measured value, and bs about it. But if you like to, I express it with the following way:
I = – sTs^4 + sTl^4 + 280
You didn’t answer the point I made.
“You do understand that “s” must have the dimension as the Boltzmann constant in order to arrive at an Inet = W/m². “
Provide the dimensions of “s” in your equation. All you say is the “s” is the sun’s radiation. Have you never done any dimensional analysis to make sure the dimensional calculations arrive at the correct label?
What is the dimensional notation for “s”?
“s” stands for sigma, you idiot, I just can’t write it easily. I denoted the Suns radiation with capital “S”. If these things caused a major short circuit in your brain, I’m sorry. This is the “revised” formula now, without either “s” or “S”:
Inet = – σTs^4 + σTl^4 + 280
Could you, at last, react in substance?
BTW
σ is not the Boltzmann-constant, this is the Stefan-Bolzmann constant. The Boltzmann-constant is a different thing, that’s the “k” in pV=NkT.
Show a reference for what you are proposing.
It makes no sense from a thermodynamic standpoint. It appears as if you are trying to show a three body problem. You can not solve a multi body radiation problem with a simple equation like that. Where did you learn thermodynamics ?
The “– σTs^4″ temperature nomenclature designates the surface being cooler than the atmosphere and the sun? You indicate that Ts is the surface temperature. The normal reasoning is that the sun’s insolation causes the surface temperature. That means the equation for the two bodies, i.e., a virtual sun and the surface would be:
280 = σΤ⁴
T = (280/σ)¹/⁴ = 265K
I = σ(265 – Ts⁴)
That means the surface is colder, which would be correct. The problem is then assessing the flow between the surface and atmosphere. What is the temperature of the atmosphere?
Think about this quote from Planck’s Theory of Heat Radiation before you answer and why you can’t use the equation you have proposed.
I’m not proposing anything. https://beacon.berkeley.edu/education/greenhouseeffect/
Gee, you’re an idiot. This equation is about a body and its environment. Its relevant environment as per radiation is the “visible” atmosphere (visible for radiation) and the sun. The atmosphere for our purposes is just immediately adjacent to the surface. The sun’s effect is known to be 280W/m2 (or so). You were bsing about the atmosphere, that’s why the equation looks like what it looks like.
No. This is simply the thermal radiation of the earth. The Earth is losing this amount of energy per second per square meter. This is why it’s negative. This amount only depends on the temperature, it is completely independent of the environment, as per Physics.
Jesus Fokkin Christ… Sun is the ultimate source of energy, yes (more or less. We have the internal heat source of the Earth, and we have nuclear fission. But here the only significant term is the Sun). But at the current time we are interested in flows (that’s why W), so for our purposes Earth is at Ts, the (lower) atmosphere is at Tl. We are interested in how this plays out. So for the surface we have non-zero incoming flow of energy. Ts and Tl are very slowly increasing.
Your source does not include the equation you are proposing. Try another source.
This equation appears to be of your own invention and is sadly lacking in proper thermodynamic practice.
I have you a quote from Planck’s thesis. I suggest you study it and post a refutation.
My source doesn’t include it ‘cos this is an easy equation 🙂 Everyone understands it. Except for morons. You’re a moron. The source has a paragraph starting with “When there are greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere”. That’s where the Tl term gets introduced. Now this is not even freshman level, this is high school. Good god…
This equation is just the concrete application of the general equation. The total incoming radiation is separated into two ‘cos we only have two sources, the Sun and the lower atmosphere. This is it. And you’re unable to understand it. Good god…
Are you in grade school or is your AI failing you?
Grade school rhetoric is all you have. “You’re stupid”! “Nyah Nyah”!
I give sources and you give as hominems. 🤡
No, sadly you have a basic lack of – I don’t even know what. You can’t use any of the knowledge you learnt or find in a textbook if its application is a bit different than the example present. You cannot get right even the simplest thing. This above is a good example. BTW you wrote:
This is not even Thermodynamics. Okay, these are mostly arbitrary things and blablabla, but anyway, this is again a simple thing you got wrong.
Some of my favorite sites.
You will, obviously, be able to supply copious citations (/ references / links / …) to what is usually called “supporting evidence” for that bald assertion … won’t you ?
.
“The mass of the Greenland ice sheet has rapidly declined in the last several years due to surface melting and iceberg calving.”
Zero indication of which, if any, “cause” is predominant.
“This supports other observations that warming ocean waters around Greenland play a key role in contemporary ice mass loss.”
Where, exactly, is the “almost verbatim” quote on that NASA webpage that “The primary mechanism of ice loss in Greenland is calving” ?
So, we can agree that SMB is not that important, right? For the rest, I can’t remember where I read them. It was a Danish page, where they said SMB was positive (ie. w/o calving ice volume would build up). The primary reason is increased precipitation, so paradoxically melt water volume also increased.
No.
We can’t.
.
NB : See also my response to “Michael Ketterer” just “below” this post.
You start with a post that assumes that all 8 billion other people on Earth :
1) “Just know” absolutely everything you “have read” in your lifetime, and
2) Can correct for the deficiencies in your memory, e.g. that “we” can convert
“The primary mechanism of ice loss in Greenland is calving”
to
“The SMB reduction comes from a combination of calving plus glacier tongue melting”
on the fly.
.
The issue is posters making bald assertions without citations (/ references / links / …).
Note that on many occasions I have been guilty of this in the past, and will no doubt fall victim to it (many) times in the future as well.
We are all only human, subject to fatigue and “bad hair days”.
Next time when asked, politely, for citations, please at least consider simply making the effort to “dig them out” of the Internet instead of using every rhetorical trick at your disposal to avoid doing so.
+100
Comprehension, comrade, comprehension. This is not “SMB” reduction. Actually your source states that SMB is positive. This is total mass reduction. Please try to understand even your references, before you start your bsing session.
Point.
The initial bald assertion was about “(total) ice loss”.
I made a mistake in my follow-up posts.
.
My first post asked for citations / references or links.
The only one you have provided so far is to a NASA page that does not reproduce your initial claim “almost verbatim”.
It was “Michael Ketterer” who performed that task, and showed that your initial claim was incomplete, i.e. missing the “… and glacial tongue melting” suffix.
.
From one of your replies to “Archer” :
Even before this article, I had already learned that one should never take an assertion from “the poster with the user name nyolci” … or from anyone else for that matter, Nullius in verba and all that … at face value.
Your reaction to people asking for “supporting evidence ?” is more revealing than you realise.
Incomplete and correct.
I have had run-ins with the disagreeable little troll nyolci in the past. We were arguing about whether the Greenland Vikings cultivated barley during the MWP. The troll refused to accept the finding of actual barley grains in the permafrost as evidence.
And you lost every time 🙂
I didn’t refuse. Barley was marginal and, BTW, individual findings don’t necessarily imply barley cultivation, you need more for that, archeologists know that, like grindstones, yoke marks, structures that can be granaries. Based on these, if there was cultivation, it was marginal. What they discovered was much more in line with widespread cattle and sheep. The analysis of bones showed that marine food had a large and increasing share in their diet, reaching 70% or more in late findings.
Oops, and if you listened you would notice that Mark was in the wrong. His pompous posts doesn’t suggest that but he admits that at the top (credits to him for that).
You claimed that barley had never been grown in Greenland. When I posted evidence to the contrary you then claimed that it was “marginal”. Goalpost-moving.
I bet you can’t post any evidence that barley was marginal.
I’m not sure whether I claimed that. People extremely often misunderstand fairly simple sentences here.
https://www.science.org/content/article/why-did-greenland-s-vikings-disappear https://crosssection.gns.wisc.edu/2019/11/11/subsistence-change-for-the-norse-vikings-at-brattahlid-greenland/ This is just quick search, “farming” seems to be equivalent to pastures and grass. I’ve read tons of articles (just curiosity), and in some of them they reconstructed the Norse economy in Greenland. I can’t find them readily. Animal husbandry and hunting was far the dominant, according to literally all the evidence (eg. middens, isotopic analysis of bones, the fields themselves, erosion marks, etc.). It doesn’t mean that they didn’t experiment with agriculture. Finding barley is not a good evidence, it can be imported, or cultivated but then marginal.
Thanks so much for posting a completely irrelevant article.
You really are a mendacious little troll.
The aim of the project Norse Farming in Greenland: Agriculture on the edge was to determine whether the Norse farmers actually cultivated crops in Greenland during colonisation in the Viking age and the medieval period. This was investigated by analysing macrofossils extracted from soil samples of middens, combined with phosphate analyses of the area around Norse farmsteads. In three field seasons 450 kg of soil was sampled from 12 Norse farmsteads together with samples for phosphate analysis covering an area of 12 ha from two farmsteads. The soil samples contained numerous seeds from wild plants giving information about the local vegetation. Charred grains and threshing waste of barley was found in samples from four sites, strongly indicating that barley was cultivated in Greenland by the Norse farmers. The phosphate analyses showed no sign of any deliberate manuring of the infields as high concentrations of phosphate were only found around the houses and pens.
From: Norse agriculture in Greenland? Farming in a remote medieval landscape
April 2016X:237-245DOI:10.1484/M.RURALIA-EB.5.110468
Authors:
Peter Steen Henriksen
The National Museum of Denmark
Do you have any info about its extent? Whether it was marginal? Whether there was actually cultivation (“Strongly indicating” means the evidence is very good but still not entirely conclusive). Please come back when you’ve determined these.
You were the one who first denied the existence of barley cultivation in Greenland and then asserted it was marginal. The onus is therefore on you to provide evidence.
And I’ve provided already, see above. You can find information about their diet in those articles.
Your article discusses the bones found in Viking middens, NOT cereal cultivation. It is therfore completely irrelevant.
Try reading articles first before posting them as evidence.
They discuss quite general nutritional facts.
Just read the greenland season report from those folks which provide the graph in Paul Homewwod’s report.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/PolarPortal/season_report/polarportal_saesonrapport_2023_EN.pdf
And it says this ….
“Polar Portal Season Report 2023 For the 27th year in a row, Greenland’s Ice Sheet lost more mass during the course of the melting season than it gained during the winter, whilst the extent of the sea ice also continued to decline. During the 2022-2023 season, there was a particularly high rate of melting in July, whilst the spring and early summer saw higher levels of precipitation in the form of both rain and snow. Although the Greenlandic summer was cold and wet – compared to North America and Europe – this was not enough to prevent Greenland’s Ice Sheet from once again losing mass (196 billion tonnes) during the period from the beginning of September 2022 until the end of August 2023. “
Tell us how many years (centuries) it will take at 200 gt/year to melt even half of the current ice sheet. If you get the correct answer, you’re going to look foolish.
So we can conclude that Greenland’s ice mass is decreasing, right? Despite positive SMB.
“Tell us how many years (centuries) it will take at 200 gt/year to melt even half of the current ice sheet. ”
Can’t answer the question. I am not surprised!
And this year’s rate of melting was even higher than last year’s.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4112.0;attach=418693;image
Thanks for that.
The relevant passage appears to be :
Contrary to nyolci’s use of the word “primary”, it would appear that recent Greenland SMB reductions have come from “Calving + Glacier tongue melting“, if the net “Snowfall – Melting” annual numbers are always positive.
PS : Note that while “nyolci” responded to my post as well, they limited themselves to non sequiturs … and yet again provided zero actual citations …
That’s not “SMB reduction”. That’s total mass reduction. SMB is not just positive, it actually got larger due to the increase in precipitation (that is one of the effects of global warming).
That is indeed correct, my bad.
The initial bald assertion was about “(total) ice loss”.
I made a mistake in my follow-up posts.
.
My first post asked for citations / references or links.
The only one you have provided so far is to a NASA page that does not reproduce your initial claim “almost verbatim”.
It was “Michael Ketterer” who performed that task, and showed that your initial claim was incomplete, i.e. missing the “… and glacial tongue melting” suffix.
.
From one of your replies to “Archer” :
Even before this article I had already learned that one should never take an assertion from “the poster with the user name nyolci” … or from anyone else for that matter, Nullius in verba and all that … at face value.
Your reaction to people simply asking for “supporting evidence ?” is more revealing than you realise.
Read the fokkin science, dumbaxx. This is my reaction. There are tons of easily digestible stuff out there written by actual scientists, not by some dumbfokks and conmen from think-tanks. Even the faq of realclimate is a good source for quickly looking up things. I always tell you these. I was (obviously) correct here, as I’m always, so you’re better off following my advice.
And you are probably genuinely baffled as to why you get so many downvotes.
.
[ … blinks … ]
Does some version of Poe’s Law apply here ?
An exchange higher up this comments section :
At some level even you are aware that you are not infallible.
I’m not at all baffled. This is expected. Sometimes I’m baffled for getting upvotes. This is very rare.
You talk about bad wording? Pls keep in mind that I’m not a native speaker of English. I don’t even live in an English speaking country. This happens.
If you have read and understand the easily digestible stuff, then you should include it in support of your assertions. Making assertions as if they originate from your own thoughts is unethical. If you are parroting information from others original work, you should include its origin.
realclimate.org is a good starting point.
Then you should use it to support your assertions.
Is this supposed to be a riposte? Good god…
“Just as with the Antarctica the real problems come mostly from below.”
Damn right. What do you propose we do about it?
https://joannenova.com.au/2017/08/antarctica-91-volcanoes-coincidentally-found-under-glaciers-warming-due-to-climate-change/
Net zero.
…. and you call other people morons.
https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2024/06/Arxiv-Netzero.pdf?x45936
Yep, especially you.
Well, just so you know who you’re talking to, I have a Ph.D. in carbon chemistry that I got when I was 23, I have over 200 peer-reviewed publications, 50 or more of them in the top tier and so many issued global patents I’ve lost count. A company I founded and just got funded as CSO will take out more CO2 from the atmosphere than you, your family and everyone you know and their families will ever do by being a set of keyboard warrior morons.
Your turn to post your scientific credentials. Feel free to include all your severe pathological delusions.
Then why do you behave like a moron? Seriously.
Making you look like the idiot that you are is not behaving like a moron. That’s just another of the delusions that you use to deny your own cognitive dissonance. Relax though, it will soon be over. We’re nearing the end already.
As a cognitive dissonance denier, I think that makes you an oxymoron too.
I don’t have cognitive dissonance. What I find strange though is that you with your PhD in a scientific field believe this not even well served crap that can be found in denier pages. You’re the one who is supposed to understand science, even if it’s another field. At least the broad strokes. But no, you fail immediately.
You have a classic case mate. You simultaneously believe that you are on some high horse above major Professors of climate science, acknowledged experts even, but you cannot provide any evidence of any scientific credentials for yourself. Did your Mom get you a chemistry set for Christmas when you were 12? Well my degree ain’t in psychiatry so maybe it’s some monumental delusions you suffer from. Fueled by this thing called “deniers”. Are deniers in the room with you right now?
Why don’t you go do something your tribe are good at and glue your head to a freeway or something.
I didn’t believe anything. I just read the paper.
It’s ironic that whenever I refer someone to science, you deniers scream that it is “appeal to authority”. Anyway, these guys claim this (ie. ECS is their strange value), and climate science claims that (ECS has a much higher range). This is an obvious discrepancy. Who should I believe here? BTW their methodology is strange, like the way they dismiss any observational ECS estimate. Bad news, we already have good historical estimates. Again, this is discrepancy. There are multiple other problems with their work, like this. I think it’s better if we stick to science, this paper seems to be nonsense despite the credentials of its authors.
WTF does this have to do with our debate? For that matter I got a microscope, a hobby telescope, and electrical circuitry tools at various young ages. Do I have the right to talk to you now? Are you really this idiotic?
Ice is disappearing while it is increasing. Just you wait. TIPPING POINT. Reeeeeeeeee
This is why science is hard for ordinary people.
It’s clearly beyond you.
The fairly disgusting term “denier” originated in this field as a means of shutting down opinions expressed by climate realists. Even before this “cancel culture” started to wane, trying to shut down comment at this site was and is (as you’re seeing today) a wasted use of your nitwitty word. I am, however, curious as to your current definition of a “denier”. Is your phony high horse any shorter now? For example, have you read Lindzen, Happer and van Wijngaarden (2024)? Do you consider these quite eminent experts in the field to be “deniers”? If so, why?
Here it is:
https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2024/06/Arxiv-Netzero.pdf?x45936
This is the polite term. Most of you are just morons, some of you knowingly lie.
Really, You think Lindzen, Happer and van Wijngaarden are lying morons, or are you just saying that in the hope that people pointing out their paper to you will just go away? They won’t, and neither will their paper.
…. and thank you for showing your juvenile hostility. Nice to know my comment hit the target.
No. I think they are just morons w/o any further qualification.
What is it that makes you think endowed Chairs and Professors of Meteorology at MIT and Princeton respectively are morons. Is it their knowledge of atmospheric radiation physics, their mathematics, or what?
You started this, and I’m here all week to help you with your issues. You’ve got to be cruel to be kind.
They use an ECS of 0.75 as a “physically reasonable value”. Because it “is a straightforward, feedback-free estimate that comes from the basic physics of radiation transfer”. These people are either morons or liars for doing that. The observed warming is above 1C already and we are far from doubling. And why “feedback free”? In a paper that was surely to be used as a tool by deniers? Etc.
If you were a scientist, you would know how to subtract out a baseline.
If you were a scientist, you wouldn’t hide from my question about your scientific background (which we all know is zero by the way).
You might be able to get away with telling your Mom’s knitting circle what you read in the Guardian. Soon, even they’ll be patting you on the head and saying “there. there, dear. Have those horrid Princeton radiation physicists been making you cry again”.
Can you then explain it to me? How 0.75 is a correct value when the observational value is already 1.2, and we are not even halfway through (okay, this is logarithmic, but you get what I wanna say, right?)?
I don’t hide anything. It’s just irrelevant, just as your degree. Neither of us is a climate scientist. I have an MSc in Electrical Engineering, with a few publications.
Subtract out the baseline. All will become clear.
There is no observational value. Just because people say there is doesn’t make it true.
There is no empirical observational value of any change in any global climate parameter as CO2 has gone from 280ppm to 426ppm that can be attributed to the CO2 rise, by the scientific method. If you come up with one, you’ll be the first. But carry on chanting the memes, ass-kisser …….
What does this have to do with the ECS value they claim?
Actually there is. Scientists claim cc 1.2K of warming, and I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I’d rather believe them, and not some cranks.
ECS equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Another fabricated nonsense expression spoken only to look impressive.
Climate is a long term average of weather.
The earth energy system never achieves equilibrium. It can’t if solely due to the planet rotating.
Sensitivity is normally determined by partial differentiation of the equations .
Tell philincalifornia this. He referenced a paper that ends all papers, at least this is apparently what he thinks. Lo and behold, that paper is about ECS. A low one.
Maybe she will move on and befriend Gretta.
Your mom? If so, your basement days are gonna be over one way or another.
Poor nikky.. if only he/she/it could raise itself to the level of complete moron.
Still a long way to go. !
Is it that silly Australian woman who used to come on here with the same blather? She tried on, laughably the Dunning-Kruger effect line, while failing to own a mirror to look at. The Hamas are lovely people cause maybe wasn’t for her, so she came back for another severe mental beating. Well she came to the right place.
“Shelf ice acts as a “plug”, slowing down glaciers. When it’s gone, glaciers speed up, acting as ice conveyors, decreasing the ice mass directly. Icebergs are lost ice.”
So, should we conclude Greenland will soon be as green as Ireland?
Purple.
Sell tickets so we can all go and watch.
Recycle time.
“When glaciers calve, alarmist have cow.
That explains all the bellowing!”
” Furthermore, the volume of surface melt water is increasing, and it acts as a lubricant for glaciers when it seeps through, further speeding them up.”
It can’t be just water. It must be fossil fuels.
“Peak Oil” has created “Fossil Fuel Springs” under the ice that is acting a lubricant?
Further research is requited. Send me my grant money.
(Since I blamed fossil fuels and cut out the “Climate Change” middleman, shouldn’t my grant be a shoe in?)
I think you’ve just had a wet and oily dream.
😎
If I actually got any of the “takers” to send me money, I’d donate it to WUWT where it would do some real good.
You could say, the crisis is there is no crisis.
“”The construction of a crisis
Let me be clear what my position is: “crisis” is a label, a claim of iurgency employed to characterize a set of contingencies that, taken together are assumed to pose an immediate and serious threat. Any crisis, regardless of the immediacy and urgency of the threat, is not a corporeal thing. It is not an object that can be placed under a microscope, manipulated, examined, and experimented on.
Typically, claims of urgency emanate from leaders; not just heads of state(s) but also medical and social experts, economists, and community activists, among many others. “”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1742715020927111
2011/12 really got them going, though. Al Gore probably wet himself.
“”We expected that sooner or later we would go below 2007,” he said. “But even this year, it’s a little surprising. We didn’t just streak by the record, we blew right past it over two weeks ago. It’s really pretty surprising.” – Walt Meier
…
“These observations are concerning as they point to the continuing increase in the rate at which global climate change is impacting on ice on this planet in all its forms from sea ice to glaciers and ice sheets”
“When I was beginning my career we used to use the phrase “at glacier speed” to mean something changing very slowly, but that is no longer the case. Glaciologists have had to come to terms with the fact that ice can respond much faster to climate change than we ever thought possible. Certainly, the loss of ice on our planet is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence for global climate change and it is impossible to argue that they have a political agenda.” – Lonnie Thompson.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/sep/14/sea-ice-climate-change?page=with:block-505356c7c0e3eb823e694739
The above spoke to Suzanne Goldenburg of The Guardian and….
“”Readers may recall the smear job done by Guardian reporter Suzanne Goldenberg to Tom Harris at Carleton University in Ottawa which I covered in detail.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/09/editiorial-the-guardian-doesnt-give-a-damn-about-accurate-reporting-nor-its-own-editorial-code/
The [liberal/woke] left isn’t interested in truth, scientific or otherwise; it is busy with its narratives.
As I said above, the crisis is there is no crisis. Have you seen António Guterres lately?
If you believe the DMI ice thickness data, Arctic sea ice has record low volume for them.
Although the extent is comparable to lower recent years, a vast area of it is extremely thin/sparse.
The alarmists almost got the headline they have been longing for this year.
“”If you believe “”
Get thee to church.
When does floating ice breaking from a glacier, The Petermann Glacier for example, not longer count as part of the total mass? Or any floating ice for that matter.
Story tip: Green activism is polluting kids’ films
“”Leonardo DiCaprio’s new cartoon is thinly veiled eco-propaganda. No wonder the public hated it.
Leonardo DiCaprio’s production company, released a new animated film called Ozi: Voice of the Forest. The film follows a young, topknot-sporting orangutan who battles against an evil corporation hellbent on destroying her rainforest home. Ozi fights back by learning how to use a tablet and becoming an online influencer. Needless to say, it’s an agonising watch. Even the Guardian gives it two stars.
…
It turns out audiences didn’t exactly love it, either. Ozi made an average of just £221 per cinema on its opening weekend.
…
DiCaprio himself is one of the worst offenders. He values the convenience of a private jet, but never seems to publicly address the obvious conflict between his green activism and his outsized carbon footprint. Emails published by Wikileaks in 2015 revealed DiCaprio once made a whopping six private jet trips in six weeks. The following year, he managed to clock up 8,000 miles on a private jet flying across the Atlantic to accept an award for his environmental activism. The irony is apparently lost on him””.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/09/02/green-activism-is-polluting-kids-films/#google_vignette
£221? What’s that 20 to 30 people?
The “Return of Captain Planet”? (With a few revisions.)
That film sounds truly ghastly.
There is a problem here, not as regards ice loss which seems quite normal, but as regards the formation rate with time and general knowledge. According the ice cores and well known radar stratigraphy of the whole ice sheet by NASA some years back, the maximum thickness of the current ice sheet occurred during the warmest part of this Holocene, growth during the last long glacial phase was less than/slower than the short warm Holocene, and the whole thing nearly melted altogether during the last Eemian interglacial at 4 deg warmer, only 130Ka BP. Only one cycle ago of the Ten cycles of this 100Ka periodic ice age cycle. The earlier 1.8Ma of the ice age was at a 41Ka period, so did not get as cold.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JF003215/abstract;jsessionid=8DDDF0F4C5C6CD46340F48049FA64116.f01t04
So that Greenland ice formation is a demonstrably non linear and even bipolar effect with temperature. Because that’s what the observations say.
I suggest the primary driver is not how the few glacial rivers forming icebergs flow and change the way the drag their sorry arses over the well smoothed rocks on a film of water under pressure, physics 101, but rather that it is driven by the net mass accumulation effect of summer rainfall and winter snowfall, both oceanic precipitation, as snow or rain. Warm rain being the death of ice, of course. Latent heat has ultimate control… sorry, the Sun rules. And solar energy varies, due to many factors, barycentric motions of the whole solar system, Milankovitch orbital cycles, albedo change, waddayagot? Nothing to see here.
And there was almost NO ICE to see here, at all, when there were Hippos in Honiton, Lions in London, Hefalumps in Harrow, Tigers in Tiverton and Water buffalo in Westminster, only 130Ka BP.
No ice on most of Greenland. Hope that helps with a few facts.
THis may be as story tip, as it appears few have studied the measured reality before writing what they believe in preference to what is known to be the case, provable by observation?
The Vikings are patiently awaiting…..the return of Green to the southern tip of Greenland…..so they can settle there again.
There is no climate crisis, CO2 is not the control knob for our climate, wind and solar are not a substitute for fossil fuel and nuclear, wind and solar are not green, sustainable, affordable, dispatchable, recyclable and they are short lived. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators, build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators and remove all wind and solar from the grid.