90% Of The Greenland Ice Sheet Has Gained Mass Since September

Climate experts say that Greenland is melting down, but 90% of the ice sheet has gained mass since September. Experts define meltdown as “any lie necessary to keep the global warming scam alive”

ScreenHunter_2551 Jul. 17 12.14

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

About stevengoddard

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

31 Responses to 90% Of The Greenland Ice Sheet Has Gained Mass Since September

  1. cfgj says:

    Melting is going to catch up I think…

    • Andy DC says:

      There is not going to be any meaningful melting of the mile plus thick Greenland ice sheet anytime during your lifetime. It melts along the the edges each summer, then rapidly refreezes once you get into Autumn. That yearly pattern is not changing anytime soon, regardless of what propaganda you buy into.

      • cfgj says:

        It has lost 1000+ cubic kilometres of ice in the past decades. And yes, compared to the total amount this is still peanuts.

        • Latitude says:

          Since you’re so well informed…..exactly when does your “past decades” start?

          …you do realize it can’t be static…and in order to gain, it has to lose first

        • Billy Liar says:

          cfgj,

          why hasn’t the Barnes ice cap on Baffin Island disappeared. It is so much smaller than the Greenland ice cap but it’s still there 20,000 years after the end of the last glaciation. Does CO2 pick on Greenland and leave the Barnes ice cap alone?

    • gator69 says:

      You don’t think, you parott, you troll, and you run away when facts don’t support your belief system.

      • cfgj says:

        Sunny?

        • cfgj says:

          Sorry wrong comment. I’m very well informed about the mass-balance of the Greenland ice-sheet, way better than anyone reading just blogs could be.

        • gator69 says:

          No, you think you are well informed, because you believe everything the alarmists print. I have already schooled you several times about the methodologies used to “determine” ice mass, something you obviously are not that well informed about, or I would not have had to correct you.

        • Billy Liar says:

          cfgj, you must be Jason Box and I claim my $5.

  2. No it isn’t. The forecast is for below freezing temperatures over 90% of the ice sheet the next two weeks.

  3. cfgj says:

    No Gator, I’m well informed because I talk to the scientists face-to-face and follow the science. That has nothing to do with “alarmism”, or US internal politics.

    • gator69 says:

      If you talk to the scientists and folllow the science, how is it you did not know that GRACE is not measuring ice?

      Nice try dunce.

      • cfgj says:

        Yes following GRACE quite closely too. Greenland has been losing mass – fact.

        • gator69 says:

          Your fact and data free posts are childish dunce. So let me school you once again.

          The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001.

          http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495

          Increases offsetting losses:

          …“The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning.

          Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves.

          In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.”

          http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495

          GRACE is an error ridden platform, that never had proper calibration, and whose data is then run through models, until the grantologists get their desired results.

          What’s a TRF error? That stands for Terrestrial Reference Frame, which is basically saying that errors in determining the benchmark are messing up the survey. In land based geodesy terms, say if somebody messed with the USGS benchmark elevation data from Mt. Diablo California on a regular basis, and the elevation of that benchmark kept changing in the data set, then all measurements referencing that benchmark would be off as well.

          In the case of radio altimetry from space, such measurements are extremely dependent on errors related to how radio signals are propagated through the ionosphere. Things like Faraday rotation, refraction, and other propagation issues can skew the signal during transit, and if not properly corrected for, especially over the long-term, it can introduce a spurious signal in all sorts of data derived from it. In fact, the mission summary shows that it will affect satellite derived data for sea level, ice loss, and ice volume in GRACE gravity measurements.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/

          And the Earth’s gravitational field is not uniform, or constant. GRACE measure gravity, and not ice or water.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/20/graces-warts-new-peer-reviewed-paper-suggests-errors-and-adjustments-may-be-large/

          Time to start listening to us, and stop talking to grantologists.

    • AndyG55 says:

      roflmao..

      Even if you are not just *anking, do you really think these guys with their shiny toys are going to come out and say that those toys really aren’t very accurate..?

      Oh wait, they have said so !!!

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/

      • gator69 says:

        Yes, that is one of the links I provided the dunce, and more than a couple of times now. But you cannot educate dunces.

  4. cfgj says:

    WUWT is a shitty source for satellite-related stuff. I checked out the TRF-issue at the time and it’s an order of magnitude or more smaller than the measured signal.

    • gator69 says:

      The paper was peer reviewed, nice try dunce.

      • cfgj says:

        You don’t seem to be aware of the magnitude of the TRF-uncertainty and the magnitude of the height-change signal over ice sheets. Your bad.

        • gator69 says:

          You don’t seem to be able to back your claims with data, and you are not qualified to refute a peer reviewed paper, dunce.

    • gator69 says:

      And thanks again for a fact and data free post, dunce.

      • cfgj says:

        Just check what is the TRF-related uncertainty is, you can find the info in the paper referred by WUWT. Signal over ice-sheets is from centimeters to hundreds of meters.

        • gator69 says:

          I am familiar with the paper dunce, that is why I posted the link. The information I detailed absolutely refutes your claim of “fact”.

          Grow up child, you are all mouth.

  5. Who cares if it’s sunny cf? Are you saying the sunlight causes sublimation? It can’t, because if there were much sublimation there would be no annual layers to count when they do GISP2 and GRIP studies.

    • bit chilly says:

      the big problem with the arctic sea ice crew is they actually believe the crap in some papers,written by desk jockeys that have never been to the arctic over the actual picture they post on their own forum. they seem to think high pressure and sunny skies are bad for the ice ,yet every clear sky pictures show frozen high albedo snow/ice.

      the cloudy pictures tend to show the opposite in the same areas,go figure. yes the temps up there are highish this year, they tend to forget that whether it is water or air, anything heading north is only going to do one thing, get cooler.

      we are watching the planet getting rid of huge amounts of heat at the arctic this summer, will be interesting to watch this coming northern hemisphere winter.

  6. cfgj says:

    The TRF uncertainty is millimeters and therefore 1 to 4 orders of magnitude too small to affect altimetric measurements of ice sheet surface height change.

    • gator69 says:

      That is your assertion (which goes against the opinion of the peer reviewed paper), and does not even begin to address the other issues. Your claim of “fact” is BS, and you know it.

      You are all mouth child.

      • cfgj says:

        I’ll try to explain this s l o w l y so you have a change to get it too: the TRF-uncertainly is of the order of a fraction of a millimeter per year (see 1st and last slide on WUWT) and is therefore way too small to affect measurements of ice loss, which is frequently meters or even 100+ meters. If you do not get this you are clearly out of your depth. Leave the satellite-related stuff to me ok?

        • gator69 says:

          Once again dunce, that is only one issue with GRACE measurements, and in a peer reviewed paper was shown to be a problem. GRACE does not measure ice dunce, it measures gravity.

          I have a Remote Sensing degree, and am in my sweet spot, dunce.

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