Greenland is blowing away all records for ice gain this year. They have gained almost 200 billion tons of snow and ice over the past two months, which is more than 50% above normal. The surface of the ice gained more than 200 billion tons during the previous 12 months.
Meanwhile, the New York Times is running a huge spread claiming that Greenland is melting down.
Five hundred billion tons of snow falls on Greenland every year. All of that has to return to the sea by either melt or glacier calving. Otherwise the ice would be piled up to the top of the atmosphere. Anti-science hacks at the New York Times take pictures of that essential process, and attribute it to “climate change”
New York Times writers don’t understand the first thing about science or the scientific process, and have no business writing about it.
You need to add the AGW trademark linear trend line for a minor section of a long term cyclic system. The trend would predict about 750 Gt for the peak this year.
If that would happen, the excuses and prevaricating of the alarmist crowd will be epic.
Hey Crashx! Using that linear trend, why assume that there will even be peak? Maybe this trend will just extend on and on and on… Using the AGW trend extension technique, I predict that the accumulation will reach136,000 Gt by the end of this century.
Love it! You know those feedbacks can be a bitch….
Great Idea, you’re much better at this than I am.
It’s much worse then we thought!
Hard times coming for England, illegals will be able to cross the channel by feet.
No they won’t the polar bears will get ’em 🙂 xx
I read through the article and then the comments from other readers. Very little skepticism or critical thinking involved – only what fits the narrative.
Exactly. Moron alert. Well put!
6 feet of ice gain per year from 1942 to 1988. How’s that for critical thinking?
You read the article, but have nothing to contradict it.
That’s because you are a brain-washed moron.
Glaciers are slowing up:
We have an emerging consensus! Steven Goddard and popular Real Science alarmist commenter mogur2013 agree that the New York Times has no business writing about climate science.
Here Mogur says that the Times’ Coral Davenport, Josh Haner, Larry Buchanan and Derek Watkins can’t be trusted:
The New York Times sells news, it does not verify the veracity of their sources.
Not even alarmists trust these people anymore.
Your poor readers are going out into the world looking like idiots because they don’t have the capacity to realize you are misleading them.
Congratulations on your use of Message Force Multipliers, I guess.
Notice they don’t attack the material you present with their own or with facts and figures or explanations. They attack YOU and disparage the intelligence of the posters here in genera! And that is all it takes to know who they are.
They are part of a PROPAGANDA TEAM whether they know it or not.
so. absolutely nothing to contradict the real data shown..
You show the moronic desperation of someone who’s religion is cracking.
To shed even more light on the growth, last year the SMB also finished above the median (if I remember correctly). So if we were viewing a 2 year baseline (starting Oct-2014) the departure from the median value would be even more pronounced.
Looking at 2014-2015 in the chart I may be remembering wrong and my argument is exactly backwards.
The sooner they admit the coming mini ice age the more lives we will be able to save. People are going to be pissed when they find out the truth.
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner, founder of CNN and the UN Foundation
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Ex Senator Timothy Wirth, President of Ted Turner’s UN Foundation.
So who is Tim Wirth? Tim Wirth organized the 1988 Senate hearing at which James Hansen addressed global warming. Wirth led the U.S. negotiating team at the Kyoto Summit. He is now president of the United Nations Foundation. These are his words about how he scammed Congress:
How do they plan to wipe out so many people? Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is the executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a Congressional advisory board. He tells us how it can be done.
Click to access CHRG-113hhrg89763.pdf
Wiping out the electrical grid (plus sensitive electronics***) will KILL 90% of the US Population according to the above report. Yet this is EXACTLY what the US government is planning to do only they are going to do it in slow motion over the next 30 years or so by wiping out CO2 producing electrical generation.
*** A power spike (think wind power) blew the transformer out on the street. It set fire to my surge protector and fried the computers, microwave, freezer and frig and one of the house circuits. This is what the EU is now suffering but you will never see it mentioned in the news.. Poland is installing phase-shifters on transmission links between Poland and Germany designed to give the Polish grid operator the power to block excess renewables output from Germany entering the Polish grid. The Czech Republic is also doing this.
ChiefIO as always goes into the technical nitty gritty on the equipment and the problem it solves with lots of good comments by his technically competent readers.
A deep freeze cometh to regions beyond the Arctic circle. From North America, Europe & Asia,
records are tumbling down with the Snow. Greenland is a tell tale indicator for what’s to come,
in this Northern Winter…
My response is a set of contextual facts re Greenland ice sheet.
What is clever (and insidious) about the article is that claims are stated as facts, and therefore require no evidence. “Greenland is Melting Away” has become an assumption to be believed because these scientists are such heroic people.
One of the alarmist’s most persisitent and ridiculous liesl that Greeland is melting.
“lies is that Greenland is melting.” Sorry about that!
The elephant in the room is a historical fault in the human being to enter bouts of mass hysteria. Witch burning, Islamic mass hysteria, catholic mass hysteria and some more bizarre bouts. Google mass hysteria to learn more. In Ireland we even had moving statues.
“Catholic mass hysteria” – Some atheists still can’t get over Lourdes and Fatima, and have to resort to drive-by snide comments. Hey, everybody google up what happened and happens at Lourdes and Fatima, and then look up the great contributions Catholics, even Catholic priests, have made to the cause of science – start with Fr. George LeMaitre and the Big Bang Theory.
Ah yes , the Big Bang theory , which starts with a miracle and then the scientists take it from there….
Todays astronomy is another science which is good at juggling with formula’s and equations till they come up with the ‘right’ answer , when their theory and predictions
are confronted with contradicting evidence.
That’s a significant change considering the trend in mass anomaly derived from GRACE data 2002-2014 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2684427
Did anyone actually read the article ? This year’s increase only slightly escapes the noise, however the loses during the summer are significantly greater for 2014-15. The author clearly states his results “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”
I’m all for learning something new and was genuinely hoping your article had some truth to it. Unfortunately not. It appears extremists on both sides are as ignorant and lazy as each other.
While this article clearly indicates Greenland is losing ice mass, you all might want to read about possible mass gains in Antarctica.
The GRACE claims of ice loss were just shown by NASA to be garbage in Antarctica. Worthless for Greenland too. Do try to keep up.
So a couple of measurements of snowfall on the high area in a very small region would of course dump CryoSat and GRACE measurements of the whole ice sheet.
Getting sillier all the time you folks.
Better pull out of that sinking ship – Exxon will be judged.
GO WITCH HUNTS!!! GO GO GO!!!!
Looks like the return to the Dark Ages where science is dead and mankind returns to slavery has began.
Two trees were enough to create the hockey stick which refuted all the previous work on the temperature record and got rid of the MWP and MIA in the first place and YOU claim we’re silly?
Well, the tree rings actually created only the proxy data to generate the handle of the hockey stick. Remember that they combined that with other other data to generate the rightmost part of the stick.
I understand that but scabbing the instrument record onto the Manns Tree ring BS in order to gain the desired result because the tree rings did not agree with the instrument record was not my point. My point was that the rings from a few trees are claimed to wipe out all the previous work and historic observations to portray a climate that was far more stable than it was according to the preponderance of work done previously.
Don’t blame it all on those two trees. The algorithm Mikey used will even make random numbers confess to being hockey fans.
Click to access mcintyre_02.pdf
Pretty much any data set entered produces a hockey stick.
And of course you also have the basic statistical problems of sampling, and averaging. You start with a point cloud of proxy measurements. In most cases, the maximum possible resolution of that data is annual. The first thing you do is throw out the outliers. Then you graph the data, using a least mean squares regression, which necessarily reduces the amplitude, greatly. Then you draw a smoothed decadal average of that graph, once again greatly reducing amplitude. Then you add in the graphs of a dozen or so other proxies, all produced with the same amplitude minimizing averages, and again throw out the outliers. Then you run another least mean squares fit on it. Then you combine that with the graphs produced by other scientists, and average the whole thing yet again. Then you scream, “SEE! SEE! TODAY’S TEMPERATURE IS HIGHER THAN ANYTHING IN OUR 1,000 YEAR RECORD!” Of course, probably 40% of the original data was also higher than any point in that 1,000 year record. But it was all smoothed out of existence. It’s little different from averaging all the numbers from 1 to 100, then saying 57 is an unprecedented anomaly.
Yea Ted your right. But the premise that one study using so few samples of a proxy set that had already been proven to be less than reliable because the rings are effected by the water they get as much if not more than by temperature, was one that only the most naive would accept in the first place! I don’t know squat about statistics and have no formal science background. Really know nothing about statistics other than it is possible with enough manipulation to get any answer one wants. But it doesn’t take knowledge of statistics or any higher mathematical functions nor climate science to to see through Manns BS. It only takes a little reading and common sense and critical thought. And that is even before one learns that Mann refuses to even appear at a forum where his methods and results will be questioned.
“The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”
So do the math. At an alleged loss of 200 GT/year:
1. What will be the contribution to annual sea level rise?
2. How long will it take for Greenland’s glaciers to fully melt?
Simple linear math and no vague references to cascading positive feedbacks, please.
Interesting. Anyone have any idea how the NH ice responded to the El Nino of 1998?
It’s not that surprising that most greenland still has freezing temperatures all winter long. So this is about precipitation. What is surprising, is that last year, your graphic shows that the precipitation and ice accumulation was higher than average all winter long, and yet by the end of the summer the accumulation was well below average.
Do you understand what your graphic implies ? (other than that it’s still cold in greeland in the winter and winter precipitation has been running high)
Looks like: more precipitation. Looks like AGW. Like the 400 Gt/year of ice melt on the balance would be.
True. Looks like more precipitation, looks like AGW. Looks like less precipitation, looks like AGW. Looks like same precipitation, looks like AGW.
On the balance, that’s how it would be and we must do something against it.
Looks like: more precipitation. Looks like THE START OF AN ICE AGE!
MORE snow ice = glacier build up = start of ice sheet build up.
Glaciation starts in Hudson Bay
August 13, 2015: 2nd highest ice coverage for Hudson Bay since 1971 at mid-August – only 1992 higher
The sea ice on 25 July 2015. (Note the location of the Great Lakes and think of the record ice the last couple of winters and the 6F below normal summer water temperature.)
The Great Lakes obliterated all records for springtime ice last year, and this year.
On March 1, 2014 the Great Lakes were approaching 100% Ice Cover – For The First Time On Record, only Lake Ontario was the only major holdout
By March 26, 2014 the Great Lakes broke all records.
March 3, 2015: Great Lakes ice cover over 88%, more than last year
And on 14th October 2014, Water temperature of the Great Lakes is over 6 degrees colder than normal
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then
throws the milk away
GREEN ENERGY COMPANY
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by
your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption
for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy
You sell them and retire on the income
BUREAUCRATISM actually made me laugh out loud.
I tried to figure a way to tie selling cow credits to the definition for a Green Energy Company but my brain is just too tired.
I figure we all could use a laugh.
Gail , I love the analogy ; there is a lighter side along with some truisms…