Once Formed, Ice Must Never Melt Again

Greenland receives several trillion tons of snow every year, which all has to return to the sea as rivers of ice – known as glaciers. But climate alarmists don’t want this to happen, so they stand at the periphery and wring their hands when they see these rivers of ice moving.

ScreenHunter_418 Jun. 11 06.01

Twitter / billmckibben: Quite a large, actually a truly …

The concept of equilibrium is a foreign one to academic climate experts.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

75 Responses to Once Formed, Ice Must Never Melt Again

  1. Robertv says:

    Glaciers – Rivers of Ice – Father Bernard Hubbard, the “Glacier Priest” discusses glaciers, their formation and flow,

  2. ralphcramdo says:

    I read a article from Forbes, I believe, which said scientists were worried (of course) about the snow falling in Greenland not being pure white and it COULD cause it to melt faster.

  3. philjourdan says:

    The man who invents non-melting ice will become rich!

  4. Jason Calley says:

    Ten cubic kilometers?! Wow, that really IS a big chunk of ice! If, for some reason, no new ice ever formed in Greenland, and it started losing that much ice every single day — day in, day out, 365 days a year — we would only have about eight millennia before it was all gone!


  5. GeologyJim says:

    Academic climate experts are also clueless about cycles

  6. Justa Joe says:

    McKitten is supposedly a smart guy so he knows what he’s trying to imply is BS, but he also knows that his big “freakin'” chunk of ice makes for good climate agit-prop, which can scare those prone to be scared about such things.

    Also whats with the blue language from the self styled eco-crowd? Maybe the only way to get through to this bunch is to talk like, Climate Change that $h1t Fugazy, yo.

  7. Crashex says:

    That Glacier advanced all winter, back to the same place it was in May 2013. This change simply keeps the front ~where it was for June 2013. As the fastest moving glacier on Greenland it MUST shed ice at its front faster than all other glaciers or it would advance out into the sea.

  8. Sleepalot says:

    What happened to Manhatten – I thought that was the measure for iceburgs?

  9. Fanney by name, Fanny by nature.

  10. I didn’t know land calved.

  11. A cubic kilometer is a small mountain. Assuming a triangle shape, the mountain would be 1.5 kilometers wide at the base and 1.33 kilometers tall to be a cubic kilometer. That’s not even 4,500 feet of relief over the landscape.

    McKibben must live on the East Coast where 4,500 feet is considered a mountain.

  12. matayaya says:

    While you all are off chasing aging red herrings, new science keeps pouring in. In case you are interested. skepticalscience.com/earths-ice-cover-in-serious-decline.html

    • John Cook also believes that East Antarctica is losing ice at -35C

      • matayaya says:

        So no one here will be looking that the links to those three recently released studies on ice. Just because you dislike me doesn’t mean you have to be so incurious. John Cook had nothing to do with manning the satellite, collecting the data or writing the report so don’t make it about him. Cut your nose off to spite your face.

        • Interpreting gravity anomaly data is something far beyond the pay grade of climate scientists and John Cook

        • matayaya says:

          Instead of fighting 4 year old battles with personal enemies, you might want to spent some time keeping up with current Antarctic research. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/full

        • tom0mason says:

          If the data in those links are relavent and worthy then it will be elsewhere on the interweb away from the sinking hole of dross that is the SS site. Fortunately SS has never, ever come up with anything worth looking at, certainly nothing truthful, so yes links to it can be dismissed as just more steaming pre-fossilized coprolite.

        • hey matayayaya you might want to have a glance at this http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/that-west-antarctic-melting-couldnt-be-caused-by-volcanoes-could-it/ before you give yourself and those close to you an aneurysm.

        • matayaya says:

          That’s progress at least. Now we won’t have to see the stories about the Antarctic land ice growing. I guess it will be a good thing to spend the time to chase down this thought-bubble, not even the status of a hypothesis, and put it to rest. Then you all can get back to the sun and all the other anything-but-carbon stories.

        • philjourdan says:

          mata – no one here is “all but”. You are the only “all but”. Everyone here looks at ALL factors. Including CO2. We just do not get hysterical when the negative feedbacks over whelm the positive ones and we get no warming for 18 years, but with an increase of CO2.

          Correlation does not mean causation, but lack of correlation does indicate NO causation. You have a lack of correlation.

        • matayaya says:

          The rate of increase may have slowed the past 18 years but 2000 to 2010 was still the warmest decade globally in 120 years of record keeping. Yea, I know, you don’t accept the formal records.
          The atmosphere temperature you refer to is less than 10 percent of the heat in the climate system, so all eyes should be on the ocean. The energy coming in and going out at the top of the atmosphere tells you how much energy is in the total system. Focusing on how that energy that energy gets churned around within the system is not the most direct way to know how much energy is in the system.
          Go ahead, dismiss away.

        • philjourdan says:

          Idiot alert! Mata, if you climb a hill for an hour, and then rest for an hour, you will be at the highest average elevation for the second hour of the total time!

          Here’s a clue for you. WARM is not WARMING. One is a noun. The other is a verb. No one has said it has not WARMED (past tense of warming). The statement is it has not WARMED (not slowed, NOT WARMED) in the past 17+ years.

          Stop with the non sequiturs.

        • Onward climate soldier.

        • philjourdan says:

          Awfully egotistical aren’t you?

          I do not know you, so I do not LIKE you or dislike you. I can only read what you write – unsupported opinions and outright lies.

          As for Cook, the same thing. He is a proven liar. And both Steve and others (WUWT, Suyts) have linked to the ice coverage which shows that RECORDS are being set for the MOST ice (Since Satellite data started).

          So put your ego aside, and get some facts!

    • Gamecock says:


      Might get some melting next week . . . late June.

    • Gail Combs says:

      As usual The SS is full of bovine feces. Over all the earth is GAINING ice cover. It is only if you look at a very short tine period you get any decrease (during the end of the last century) and that too is no longer the case with record ice in the Antarctic and a recovering Arctic.

      There has been a general cooling trend throughout the NH over the past 4,000 years. It is not steady when you look at it over a period of a few hundred years, but over the course of thousands of years it is very steady. This is one more study that shows the same thing.

      Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700-5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity [growth in glaciers] is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP.

      In other words most of the glaciers in the study likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years.

      There are plenty of other studies that say the same. Due to the decrease in solar energy (9%) thanks to the Milancovitch cycle the earth is over all cooler and gaining ice since the Holocene optimum. The Holocene (sea level) highstand was about 1.5 meters higher then than at present which also shows an increase in ice cover.

    • philjourdan says:

      Quoting nazi sites is not going to get you any debating points.

      Ice extent is up over the planet.

      • matayaya says:

        Ok Phil, let me jump on this sea ice thing a moment. That is one of Steve’s biggest red herrings. When I hear sea ice, I think we are really speaking of Antarctic sea ice. It’s bad when Arctic sea shrinks and good when it expands, we agree on that. We can disagree for now on what the Arctic is actually doing, so be it.
        But Antarctic sea ice extent is where you “skeptics” and the rest of us part ways. You all obsess on the 1 percent increase in extent as some sort of vindication that global warming does not exist while we on the otherhand are focused on a warming ocean weakening the deep ocean footings of Antarctic glaciers.
        1 percent increase in sea ice extent is interesting, but hardly the most important thing going on. Many things could explain it, even global warming, but we just don’t know yet. Some say the ozone hole over the Antarctic lets the cold of space in to the lower atmosphere creating stronger polar winds that churn the ice outward opening up new exposed ocean surface for freezing. The churning could also contribute to separating the salt out of the newly forming thin ice leaving fresher, more freeze prone water on the surface. Point being, sea ice extent is sort of like a snow storm or even a heavy rainfall. Just because a thin coat of seasonal sea ice appears and grows a little is not proof that the earth is cooling. Antarctic sea ice is a function of the atmosphere which is less than 10 percent of the climate system. Focusing on sea ice extent ignores the 90 percent of the climate system that is the ocean. The ocean is warming. The ocean is where the focus should be, not a small increase in seasonal sea ice extent.

        • Focusing on sea ice extent ignores the 90 percent of the climate system that is the ocean. The ocean is warming. The ocean is where the focus should be, not a small increase in seasonal sea ice extent.

          She says, as she posts comment after comment about her inability to do basic maths. Why don’t you tell us where the ocean is warming, & where we are measuring that warming. Oh, wait, you can’t because there aren’t any long-term thermometer records below the Argo floats (which show no warming at all).

        • philjourdan says:

          Actually we do not agree. You see it as a catastrophe. I see it as the normal changes in the climate (the Skate was not using ice skates back in the 50s).

          That you “assume” Antarctica is your problem. The fact that sea ice is not declining is your Achilles heel. It just blew away your argument.

          Here’s a helpful suggestion. Stop assuming you know anything about any of us. It is evident you are having problems with your own knowledge of anything about climate.

    • The best matayoyo can possibly manage is a link to a weblog by a cartoonist? Must be tough for the innumerate alarmist kooks out there.

  13. Researchers at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics have punctured one of the main arguments of global warming activists, that the large scale melting of an Antarctic glacier is caused by man made global warming.

    1200 WOAI’s Michael Board reports researcher Duncan Young says the Thwaites Glacier is indeed melting, but it is not melting due to global warming, but do to the fact that an active volcano exists directly under the glacier.

    Read more: http://www.woai.com/articles/woai-local-news-sponsored-by-five-star-cleaners-119078/university-of-texas-research-demolishes-main-12450202#ixzz34MFKmrx7

    • Matt L. says:

      Obviously the missing heat that disappeared into the ocean now reemerges as volcanic eruptions.

    • matayaya says:

      Hannity’s mug at the top of the article hardly helps the credibility of this recycled, debunked many times, claim. Isn’t he still looking for WMDs in Iraq? The map of the in-active volcanos show dots hundreds of kilometers across. The heat of an active volcano would have a more localized effect. Keep ignoring the warming ocean.

      • philjourdan says:

        Did not take you long to bring up Boosh!

        yea, 100k kurds fell over from myocardial infarctions all at the same time. And all those Iranians? Just methane from their farts, right?

        I would say you were being stupid, but given your total lack of any coherent argument, that would be insulting the stupid.

  14. Gamecock says:

    It seems then that a calving glacier is a healthy glacier.

    If you like that sort of thing. You can’t fish in a river of ice.

  15. Billy Liar says:

    Ooooooh! That’s gonna make a dent in the 500 cubic kilometres (water equivalent) that have accumulated on Greenland since 1 September last year. Since, on average, it melts off about 100 km³, call me when it’s calved off a bit more of the other 390 km³ it needs to get rid of in order not to be piling up into an even bigger ice cap.


  16. gofer says:

    Surely they cant be this stupid. New ice pushes out the old. Calving is part of growing glaciers when it gets to a cliff, gravity takes over. SHEESH.

    • Gail Combs says:

      They do not care if it is stupid as long as it grabs headlines and scares the Sheeple. matayaya is an example of how well the propaganda works.

    • matayaya says:

      So any studies suggesting that a warming ocean lapping up against those glaciers might be concerning should just be ignored.

      • geran says:

        Not ignored, just laughed at, when they are funny. Kind of like laughing at those folks who think they are “saving the planet” by not wearing shoes.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Even the EPA, not known for it’s honesty, shows no increase in SS temp since the 1997/98 super El Nino GRAPH

        Notice the 1930/1940s had similar SS temp compared to the temp of the last few decades.

        That isn’t even getting into the 60 year NAO and PDO cycles that effect the ocean temperatures impinging on the Arctic sea.

        Here is another Graph showing the AMO. Note high points at the 1930/1940s and the current decades.

        And the relationship of AMO and NAO GRAPH

        This chart of currents shows the NAO is the major influence in the Arctic: GRAPH

        And finally the rate of change in Arctic Ice vs the AMO GRAPH

        Matayaya, do you really think we are not paying attention to what is actually happening???

        • matayaya says:

          That is the conundrum Gail. We live on the same planet in the same country, yet we see different realities. You can nitpick over a glass being half full while, I suppose, I nitpick over it being half empty. Interesting how you can be skeptical about the vast body of scientific evidence and not in the slightest skeptical about a misreading of a paper. I guess at this point, as far as the “debate” goes, we are all in a wait and see mode for nature to bat last.
          From my vantage any way, I see lots of people, businesses and governments that have moved on from the “debate” to lets’ do something. You “skeptics” are viewed as an anchor holding things back from going as quickly as they could, but the ship is never the less moving forward in spite of your efforts.
          For example, you mentioned cow manure yesterday in a very un-lady like way. Here is a dairy that turns it into usable methane. http://science.kqed.org/quest/2013/08/29/harnessing-the-hidden-power-of-cow-manure/

        • philjourdan says:

          What evidence mata? That the planet has warmed? Who is denying that? But like all alarmists, you forget to connect the dots.

          There is a lot of evidence the planet has warmed (even without the manufactured adjustments). There is ZERO evidence that man made CO2 is the cause. There is not even a smoking gun yet!

          The wonder is how you can even think to talk about a subject you are completely ignorant on!

        • matayaya says:

          It is not just me that thinks it’s man made. You have to ignore or not even be aware of all the established science out there to be where you are. Where are you, in a cave?

        • philjourdan says:

          “Thinks” mata? I thought you were talking about facts. My mistake. But that at least shows you capable of thinking.

          Now get down to facts. A little harder to come by in any religion.

        • Gail Combs says:

          I suggest you read what geologist William McClenney has to say before you get on the “We have to do something NOW” wagon.

          William like I is older with no children. We have “No Dog in this fight” except for a concern that the serfs do not get end up starved to death intentionally. That is the current set-up our politicians are putting together.

          I do not trust the motives of Politicians or the Corporations that “own them”
          Enron, joined by BP, invented the [US] global warming industry. I know because I was in the room. This was during my storied three-week or so stint as Director of Federal Government Relations for Enron in the spring of 1997..

          My comment on the corporate money behind CAGW.

          A more neutral topic is food which is where my distrust of mega-corporations started:
          Corporations are still making a killing from hunger

          Want Food Security? Bring Back a National Grain Reserve

          World Bank report on land grabbing: beyond the smoke and mirrors

          My comment on the background of the grab for control of the World Food supply.

          When you look at what is happening today you would do well to remember what Henry Kissenger said.

          “If you control the oil, you control entire nations. If you control the food, you control the people. If you control the money, your control the entire world.”
          And so we have
          “A Financial Crisis”
          “A world Food Crisis” (2008)

          and the Global Warming “Crisis”

        • matayaya says:

          Gail, climate scientist take all that into consideration but still get back to the elephant in the room of physics 101 of ever increasing amounts of carbon being dumped into the confined space of the sky and ocean by an ever increasing energy hungry humanity. These exotic, anything but carbon, natural causes never see your skepticism; yet you are always skeptical of that big old elephant you have to walk around every time you enter the room.
          Dismiss the human impact if you must. You all are a noisy but small group. Most people believe humans are the cause and believe humans can do something about it. There are also many conflicted people that aren’t sure and don’t follow the issue very closely and that you all are effective at keeping them confused, effectively delaying the inevitable.
          By the way, its is interesting to see you all within your already small group not agreeing on whether the climate system is warming up or cooling down. I see the same people arguing it either way, depending on which way the wind is blowing that day.

        • I don’t see any legitimate evidence that the planet is warmer than it was in 1940.

        • _Jim says:

          re: matayaya June 14, 2014 at 3:09 pm
          climate scientist take all that into consideration but still get back to the elephant in the room of physics 101 of ever increasing amounts of carbon being dumped into the confined space of …

          ” increasing amounts of carbon ”

          On the basis of the above inanity, you are hereby proclaimed today’s flaming idiot.

          Wear the awarded dunce cap proudly.


        • philjourdan says:

          Beat me to it. Yea, all them diamonds are wrecking the world! 😉

      • Gail Combs says:

        More on the NAO:

        ….In general terms, NAO is calculated as the difference of normalised surface pressure between a station close to the subtropical high area, usually Ponta Delgada in Azores, Lisbon or Gibraltar, and a station close to the Icelandic low area, typically Reykjavik, Iceland. The NAO is apparent in meteorological data throughout the depth of the troposphere. It has been suggested that the NAO is a regional manifestation of the above mentioned more general Arctic Oscillation (Thompson and Wallace 1998).

        When the NAO is in its positive phase, the subtropical high-pressure centre is stronger than usual and the Icelandic low-pressure centre is deeper. The positive phase is associated with stronger-than-average westerlies across mid-latitudes, warm and wet winters in Northern Europe, dry winters in Southern Europe, cold and dry winters in Northern Canada and Western Greenland, and mild and wet winter conditions in Eastern USA. The negative phase is associated with the opposite anomalies.

        In certain years both Europe and Greenland experience extraordinary warm or cold winters. Warm winters on both sides of the North Atlantic are typically associated with higher than normal pressures over the Atlantic south of 55oN and a broad region of lower than normal pressures throughout the Arctic, resulting in strong westerly flow onto Europe and an absence of strong meridional flow anywhere from the Polar Regions (van Loon and Rogers 1978). Low surface pressures in the Arctic are usually accompanied by an increased number of cyclonic disturbances that lead to increased cloudiness and mean wind speed, and thus break up the shallow winter surface temperature inversions established during cold spells (see above). In contrast, cold winters on both sides of the North Atlantic are remarkable for the associated low standard deviation of the monthly mean sea level pressure north of 55oN within the region, implying very small cyclonic activity (van Loon and Madden 1983), and a higher frequency of shallow winter surface temperature inversions.

        Much interest has been attached to variations in NAO since 1990, and global climate models have forecasted high, positive NAO values to characterise the 21st century. The NAO index has, however, since 2000 shown an overall falling trend, but with variations. NAO data may be downloaded by clicking here….

        (Go to the site for the clickable links embedded in the text.)

        • matayaya says:

          I try to follow all these “anything but carbon” arguments, but just can’t get past the idea of 7 billion, soon to be 9 billion people on this planet spewing ever increasing amounts of carbon into a limited, contained climate system not being the elephant in the room.

        • philjourdan says:

          Mata, no one is denying that more carbon dioxide is being spewed. You are barking up the wrong tree. As far as I see, no one except you is trying to come up with an “anything but carbon” argument. The simple facts remain. Carbon Dioxide has increased 10% in the past 18 years. Temperatures have not. Higher levels of CO2 have had documented benefits, notably better plant growth.

          Your problem is in thinking CO2 is a pollutant. It is an essential gas for life on this planet.

        • CO2 makes up 0.00004 mole fraction of the atmosphere and increasing CO2 has almost nothing to do with the climate. You are interjecting superstition into your though process.

  17. geran says:

    matayaya says:
    June 12, 2014 at 5:18 pm
    That is the conundrum Gail. We live on the same planet in the same country, yet we see different realities.
    That is not a conundrum. Gail thinks for herself, you do not.

    Try to lay off the kool-aid, and think for yourself. If you fail to force yourself to think, after time, you lose your ability to think.

    Use it or lose it.

  18. matayaya says:

    Steve, someone described the effect of CO2 like this. There are 3 outfielders in baseball than can run around and catch only a certain amount of flyballs. Increase that to 4 or maybe 5 outfielders, and you catch about all of them. Add 50 and it would make no difference in how many you catch, except that it would take a lot longer for it to dissipate out of the system.

    • squid2112 says:

      Except that those outfielders also do this at the speed of light. It would take a whole lot of outfielders to “take a lot longer for it to dissipate out of the system”. I dare say, more outfielders that is physically possible in this universe.

      • matayaya says:

        So squid, what’s your take on the paleo record where there is an obvious tandem between temperature and CO2? Even where there is a lag of hundreds if not thousands of years, the tandem is obvious. The tandem of the past 120 years is extremely obvious.

        • philjourdan says:

          AH! So mata thinks that Co2 is really Thiotimoline! That is the only substance ever found that cause comes after effect!

          And he wonders why no one else is buying his insanity.

    • geran says:

      “Steve, someone described the effect of CO2 like this…”
      That “someone” got it wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s