Greenland’s Icecap Grew This Year

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

By Paul Homewood

Greenland’s icecap is melting away thanks to global warming, at least that is what we are told. According to the EU’s European State of the Climate 2025 Report, the ice sheet lost 139 Gt last year. They say that is equivalent to about 1.5 times the amount of ice stored in all the glaciers in the European Alps, and raised global mean sea level by 0.4 mm. (A gigatonne is one billion tonnes.) Since 1972, losses have amounted to 5,747 Gt. The rate of ice loss has increased by around five times since the 1980s and is expected to continue increasing beyond the end of the century.

These amounts sound terrifying, which is of course the object of the exercise – at least until you realise that at present rates it would take Greenland 27,000 years to melt away.

I am always suspicious when ‘scientists’ present trends since the 1970s, a time when the Earth had gone through three decades of cooling and there were genuine fears among both scientists and world leaders about the return of the Little Ice Age. I am even more suspicious when I discover that official data about the Greenland ice sheet is publicly available back to 1840.

In 2021, a peer-reviewed study calculated the annual changes in the ice sheet mass balance since 1840. (The heavy black line represents the net changes, which is of relevance to this discussion):

The graph confirms that the ice sheet has been losing mass since the 1980s. But crucially, we can see that the melting began around 1900. During the period 1920 to 1970, ice loss was running at similar levels to the last three decades – this is hardly surprising, as temperature records across Greenland show that it was just as ‘warm’ then as now. In between times, there was a sharp decline in temperatures in the 1970s and 80s.

In other words, this is not a new phenomenon, as we are expected to believe. It is part of a much longer process, which began long before so-called man-made global warming began.

Scientists have long established, with the help of ice cores and other evidence, that the 19th Century was probably the coldest era in Greenland since the Ice Age. During warm eras, such as the Middle Ages, Roman times and earlier millennia, the ice cap was smaller than it is now. Any reduction in the ice cap in the last century must be viewed as part of these longer-term cycles.

Ice mass data is still regularly published and provisional data is now available for the year ending August 2026 – Greenland ice data is normally presented by “hydro-year”, September to August.

Since the 2021 study, ice loss has continued to slow down and is back to 1920s levels. The 2025/26 season actually saw a small increase of 6 Gt in ice mass. Greenland never really had a summer this year. Whereas the summer melt usually begins in early June, cold, snowy weather persisted well into July. As a result, summer melt was around 200 Gt less than normal.

It is worth noting that the poor summer in Greenland was part of the wider jet stream setup, which brought our hot summer. While we had a summer dominated by high-pressure systems, the rainy weather stayed out in the Atlantic, battering Greenland.

6 Gt is of course a tiny amount, given the massive uncertainty in how these things are calculated. There is no way to directly measure ice cap changes; instead, the numbers are calculated from computer models fed with data such as precipitation and temperature. The experts accept that they can often be wrong by as much as 100 Gt.

Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that Greenland’s icecap is doing just fine. It is still much larger than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years and, if it is shrinking at all, it is doing so no faster than a century ago.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.8 20 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
42 Comments
September 7, 2026 6:27 pm

The Greenland Icecap dramatically melting (but it really isn’t) is but one of several scary but untrue global warming tales. Sea level rise was going to accelerate, but it didn’t. Summer Arctic sea ice was going to disappear, but it didn’t. Extreme weather was going to increase, but it didn’t. Glacier National Park was going to lose its glaciers, but it didn’t. There is not a single ‘climate science’ prediction about what was to have happened by now that has come true.
Yet ‘climate scientists’ continue to pretend we haven’t noticed their flubs.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 8, 2026 12:27 am

You are being too kind to alarmist climate scientists. A flub is a blunder but when all of the blunders are in the same direction, there is nothing accidental about their consistently wrong predictions. This shows deliberate bias.

Derg
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 8, 2026 2:25 am

Rud this is extreme ice and is not normal ice. This new ice is the result of the hottest July and August evah.

rtj1211
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 8, 2026 7:46 am

Actually, there has ben some fairly radical retreats of certain European Alpine glaciers, but they are not significant in terms of human survival. Go to Chamonix valley and compare to the 1960s and the change is quite striking. But European glacier ice totals are so minimal compared to the Antarctic, Greenland, the Arctic that they are just a bit of noise in the error bars…..

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 8, 2026 11:26 am

Almost the entire Greenland Ice Sheet—approximately 1.5 to 1.6 million square kilometers or over 90% of its total area—sits inside the Arctic Circle.

Hey, Al Gore, maybe you NOW want to issue an apology about your support of Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski, a oceanography researcher at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, for stating in December 2009 at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, that there was a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap would be completely ice-free during summer months within five to seven years.

Hmmm . . . 2009 + 7 years = December 2016 . . . yeah, my math tells me we passed that point some 9+ years ago . . . but there’s still ice up there today!

See the video clip of Gore himself spouting off at Copenhagen 2009,and then how he totally deflected taking responsibility for that statement in a TV interview in June 2017 at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxq4PmFV6yg

“The Web never forgets” . . . so embarassing for Mr. Gore.

Dr. Wieslaw Maslowski sure as hell hasn’t apologized for his unfounded alarmism, so I fully expect Gore to follow his lead, as he did previously. After all, it would an, ahem, inconvenient truth for him to admit his public foolishness.

Jeff Alberts
September 7, 2026 7:00 pm

I believe the graphs that Willis shows regarding Greenland’s ice are the most poignant. When you show a graph that displays ALL the ice mass there, the losses are imperceptible.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 7, 2026 7:22 pm

A study shows that the area of the icemass on Greenland, including all the Greenland archipelago islands, is only a tiny bit down from the extreme high of the LIA, and far higher than most of the last 8000 years.
.

comment image

Reply to  bnice2000
September 8, 2026 10:02 am

Your fake version of Briner et al. graph again! The colored additions are not part of the original, in particular there is no data from the last 75 years! Current area of the Greenland Ice sheet is ~1.7 10^12.

September 7, 2026 7:26 pm

Greenland SMB is way above the 1981-2010 average

comment image

September 7, 2026 7:31 pm

The link is to surface mass balance, not total mass balance. Just more nonsense for the tools who won’t understand

Mr.
Reply to  Eric Flesch
September 7, 2026 7:42 pm

As Jeff said above –

“When you show a graph that displays ALL the ice mass there, the losses are imperceptible.”

h/t Jeff and Willis.

Reply to  Eric Flesch
September 7, 2026 7:45 pm

Here is the total ice volume over the last 5000 years.

Current volume is only a little bit down from the peak in the LIA

comment image

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Eric Flesch
September 8, 2026 10:37 am

Guess what! There’s another surface below the surface! And another below that, and another, and another…

September 7, 2026 7:33 pm

The question is what is the trend of Greenland’s ice mass since atmospheric CO2 begsn to rise about 1900. The graph presented shows a substantial downward trend line . What does that trend imply?

Mr.
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 7, 2026 7:44 pm

Dunno, but I’m sure you’ll give us your opinion about it.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 7, 2026 8:06 pm

Mr. W. Beeton,
It’s so good to ‘hear’ from you again, Sir. I had become concerned that you may not return to WUWT. We share a common interest in Greenland’s ice-cap, as vs. its associated gridlocked sea-ice northward. Mary Shelley had something to say about that — the scenes of existential despair haunting Dr. Victor Frankenstein’s [eponymous] creature, as he leapt from iceberg to iceberg, luring his Creator (the eponymy again, darn that) to his certain death amidst the frozen wasteland. Procreation problems & extinction, what a tall tale of Nordic-Man’s Fate!
Dr Oswald Spengler, as channeled more recently by David P. Goldman (of Hong-Kong Asia Times & NYC) has had a lot to say about this, despite his uncredentialed status as a ‘Peer Reviewed Climate Scientist’.
No, not about arctic sea ice & such, but existential despair that they disseminate. Anyway anyways, since our recent exchange, I’ve had a chance to review his recent highly reviewed book: The Great Extinction of the Nations — ‘It’s not the end of the World; It’s just the end of You’. Especially Ch. 6 (Green Presentiments) and 7 (The Fraud of Primitive Authenticity).
TBC

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 7, 2026 8:35 pm

The trend implies Warren, that at the present rate of melting it will take 27,000 years to melt the Greenland ice sheet, but if the rate continues to increase, it might only take 20,000 years. Or 5,000. Don’t much care, anything that takes thousands of years to happen isn’t something to care about.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 7, 2026 9:04 pm

How dare you!! Isn’t that precisely what a petro-capitalist does—leave the humans of the year 22026 to their fate! If we don’t concern ourselves with their safety and well-being, who will??

MarkW
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 7, 2026 8:45 pm

Prior to around 1950, the rate of CO2 increase was too small to matter.

Beyond that, since the rate of increase in temperature was about the same as now, while the rate of CO2 increase was much smaller, that strongly supports the notion that whatever is causing the warming, it isn’t CO2.

cwright
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 8, 2026 2:14 am

It implies a couple of things. As noted below, there was not enough additional CO2 to effect the climate (if at all) until mid-century at the earliest. So clearly the ice mass fall around 1900 was natural and could not have been caused by CO2. The other thing implied by the trend is further evidence for the end of the Little Ice Age (which ended around 1850). So, a few decades after the end of the LIA it was probably inevitable that some ice loss would occur.

SxyxS
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 8, 2026 3:17 am

The trend implies that, despite all the tremendous, unprecedented, irreversible massive climate chaos emergency ice mass losses and glacier destruction all around the globe (and faster than expected and twice as fast as in the rest of the world)
the sea levels simply refuse to rise at an increased speed.
That’s why you need to rely on satellite data from 1000 km above with a margin of error of 3mm (which is about 2* the real annual sea level rise) to pretend that there is some.

As we were told during the hiatus(before it was cancelled) that Oceans absorbed all the heat;
Shouldn’t heat related expansion alone result in a massive increase in sea level rise(1500m average depth) , let alone the end of glaciers and Greenland being white?
Maybe you can use the anomaly of water to weasel your way out of this problem?
Would be funny to read.

Maybe molten glacier-h2o has a negative volume and compensates for the heat expansion –
or you simply identify the ice as water(trannies everywhere) and use the pronouns climate and consensus to fool people with irrelevant, natural longterm fluctuations.

And this leads us to the coolest Pinup Lady of WW2 – Glacier Girl.
The good old times before Lockheeds metaphysic revolution of transcending usury from pure banking to maintenance( F35)
Glacier Girl and some other planes went down in? – you guessed it – Greenland.
And got buried under 100 yards of ice and snow.
Let’s go full conspiracy theorist now and assume that those planes haven’t been some flying ice submarines.
How did they got so deep down the ice since atmospheric co2 has been rising and Greenlands ever ongoing ice loss?

There is only one answer -CO2 is dark matter.

A mysterious thing that does all the funny stuff you want to keep the official narrative alive.
And I’m not kidding – since co2 has started to rise the mass of matière obscure went from
less than 50%(Poincare) to currently 95 %(combined with dark energy – the cosmic methane).
And we will get into some real trouble once dark matter reaches 100% as reality will then cease to exist
– and I already passed the 100% after I inven…discovered Anti-Dark Matter(in a dual world we shall not ignore/discriminate the dark side of dark matter)
And Anti-Dark Matter called Anti-Co2 (and not a Club of Rome Agenda) caused the 1970ies Ice Age just as Co2 caused the warming emergency.

I also use Anti- Dark-Matter for cooking and to blame it for the redshift in my contracting Universe theory.

Kpar
Reply to  SxyxS
September 8, 2026 8:21 am

I hate to be a scold, but your comment “ a margin of error of 3mm (which is about 2*”
confuses me. I’m not sure what 2* is, but if it means inches, then that would be closer to 3cm. And even that would be incorrect, since an inch is 2.54 cm.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 8, 2026 7:45 am

What does that trend imply?

Nothing…absolutely nothing, except whatever fevered fantasy you prefer to read into it.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 8, 2026 8:44 am

It’s just a straight forward statement of fact, according to the data – the trend is downward. We’re definitely asked to draw our own conclusions. Nobody giving opinions that clearly represent data should be vilified.
Drawing my own conclusions, I can see from the graph that the overall trend is indeed downward. There is also a more recent but comparatively short upward trend. I find it difficult to understand how Greenland net losses or gains can be accurately measured, so I’m probably looking at the data/graph wondering how much of a pinch of salt should be taken….. Probably then, the more important question is around the issue that most of the measurements that are related to climate change are impossible for the average Joe Bloggs to determine for him or herself. We’re left basically having to determine for ourselves whether all measurements have been taken completely free of bias or completely free of systematic bias.
The fact that the graph does show the recent upward trend makes me believe, there’s probably not too much to worry about in terms of bias. Although I’m still perplexed as to how such massive quantities can be measured/estimated accurately.🧐

September 7, 2026 7:36 pm

It’s tragic how few people know that global sea levels were 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher during the previous interglacial (warm) period 125,000 years ago. Humans didn’t cause it. People who know that aren’t surprised that sea levels are slowly rising and glaciers melting during our current interglacial period. Humans aren’t causing it. Nature is way bigger than humanity. We are lucky to live in a serendipitously hospitable interglacial period where humans flourish. It beats the heck out of the frigid cold, limited growing season, and drastically reduced arable land when the the next glacial period arrives to cover much of the upper northern hemisphere with mile-thick glaciers (again) for 100,000 years. Perspective is priceless.

Reply to  stinkerp
September 7, 2026 7:48 pm

The coastal geology of eastern Australia shows sea levels were some 1.5m higher around 1500-2000 years ago.

Kpar
Reply to  bnice2000
September 8, 2026 8:30 am

There is a side issue, there. Are you accounting for changes in the height of the land?

abolition man
Reply to  stinkerp
September 7, 2026 11:58 pm

Some may think it tacky, but I have to ask; what time out of the last five periods of glacial advance (that’s about 500,000 years, or 500ka for the geologically adept) should be considered the Goldilocks zone, with the perfect amount of ice and the temperature just right!
And why are we celebrating the life of an obvious criminal? At a minimum isn’t Fraulein G guilty of B & E, or burglary (she did eat the porridge!) It’s just like the typical Marxist to ignore the crimes of their brethren in other sects of their cult religion! Next you’ll be trying to tell me that conditions were ideal during the Dark Ages or the Little Ice Age. Thanks, but I’m quite happy to be alive during the Modern Warm Period, period!

September 7, 2026 8:24 pm

We can focus on a single summer, or we can focus on Paul’s own red line, which shows that during the major early 20th century loss episode in the 1930s, the 10-year running mean fell to ~−220 Gt/yr.

During the most recent major loss episode in the 2010s, however, it plunged to roughly −260 Gt/yr (the lowest value on the entire graph).

Maybe he’d be better at deception if he didn’t make graphs that debunk his own claim:

“it is doing so no faster than a century ago.”

Reply to  Eldrosion
September 7, 2026 8:35 pm

Surface mass balance was lower in the 1930’s than around 2000.. and is now even higher.

And positive through much of the 1970s

comment image

Reply to  Eldrosion
September 7, 2026 8:42 pm

If you round off the ice loss divided by the total mass of the ice sheet and round off to three decimal places, the loss is zero. Now do you understand?

Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 7, 2026 11:24 pm

#1) Homewood is the one who invoked the rate of mass loss in this conversation, not me. He explicitly claimed that Greenland is losing ice “no faster than a century ago.” If he only wanted to discuss how small the annual loss is relative to Greenland’s total ice mass, he shouldn’t have made a claim about whether the rate has increased.

#2) Ice sheet mass loss accumulates over time. Rounding one year’s fractional loss to zero doesn’t make the cumulative loss zero. Sea level rise from these losses is the main issue.

Reply to  Eldrosion
September 7, 2026 11:43 pm

I do not give a sh*t what the author wrote, I give a sh*t about the facts, which you are trying to turn into a mountain while they are so small an ant would step right over them. You can quibble about the facts as presented as much as you wish, it still rounds off to, three decimal places… zero.Of course it is cumulative. Its still less than an ant can step over, and global sea level rise has been steady, not much change.But cheer lead as much as you wish for alarm and fear and anxiety, the people’s lives you destroy in the process are on you, not me.

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  davidmhoffer
September 8, 2026 12:08 am

A failure to distinguish between Surface Mass Balance (seasonal precipitation and melting) and Total Mass Balance, an error which has been pointed out on here before?

That is a very basic fact that means the article headline is not true.

So you want to be selective with the facts according to your beliefs/bias.

As has been said, if the gist of the article had been other – the insignificance of loss so far – fair enough. But it wasn’t.

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
September 8, 2026 12:33 am

Same argument. A tacit admission that the criticism is invalid because the effects are too small to measure combined with word spin to make them sound dangerous. Then, when called on it, the trolls go right back to parsing the exact wording anyway. That’s more interesting to them than applying reality to problem solving. The hallmark of fear mongers with the ethics of an alligator. What is WRONG with you people?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 8, 2026 7:21 am

Which static, never-changing planet do you live on?

DD More
September 7, 2026 9:39 pm

Again –
ABSTRACT: 
Greenland ice-core records provide an exceptionally clear picture of ice accumulation in center ‘bath tub’ Well-preserved annual layers can be counted confidently, with only 1% errors.

About half way down the data is

2\. Accumulation rate in central Greenland

Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
Column 2: Accumulation rate (m. ice/year)</b>

49,000 years and there are no negative numbers for Accumulation. Always gaining

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_accum_alley2000-noaa.txt

Kpar
Reply to  bnice2000
September 8, 2026 8:36 am

So… what was that they were saying about higher temps melting all the glaciers? Higher ocean/air temps promote rain and snow, causing increases in glacier growth.

Ah, what a tangled web we weave…

September 8, 2026 12:37 am

The graphic showing ice mass annual changes never shows a year with a positive change since 1840. Is this accurate? How do they know?

Michael Ketterer
September 8, 2026 8:18 am
Rational Keith
September 8, 2026 12:51 pm

Iceland looks like cluster of hoar frost in your illustration.