"Fingerprint" of Greenland ice melt seen in satellite sea level data

[jc456]

That’s their plan. Zero emission electrical generation by 2050.

we're not going to have electricity?

 

[flacaltenn]

Both continent specific ice ages of today, Greenland and Antarctica, grow ice on top every year. That is what ice cores capture, the climate data from every year.

Every year a new ice core layer is manufactured, and every year the fraud says that is "melting."

Depends on the competing rates dont it? You gotta grow as much as lose in a year or decade to stay even.

Antarctica is actually a desert. Ice formation rate is VERY low, but the surface temperatures are nowhere near melts. Greenland OTHand gets lots of precipt, and it also gets considerable days above freezing at the edges.

 

[flacaltenn]

When, exactly, since the dawn of satellite observations, has Greenland gained ice?

3 things to be aware of -- from that paper.

1) Most of the "ice melt" REFREEZES in a matter of days. Plenty of papers on that showing large pooling of water during spring/summer, which re-freeze in the fall. So the number of days ABOVE freezing is an inexact proxy for ice melt. You can be 0.1degC ABOVE freezing of 100 days or 1DegC above for 10 days and get the same result.

2) There's a summary map showing the MAJOR ice losses -- ALL of them in Coastal areas. (Figure 3). Coastal areas are almost at sea level. Most of Greenland has lots of elevation. Would have better to color code the ENTIRE continent in Figure 3 -- but the authors choose NOT to do that.

3) The albedo loss is ALSO -- almost EXCLUSIVELY near the shorelines at sea level as well. Figure 4.

To answer your question ABOVE -- everything in the paper is BASED on 1981 and beyond. So the answer to your question is ANYTIME Greenland Ice mass Loss is BELOW that MEAN value. And since the ice was RELATIVELY STABLE until the late 90s -- that's A LOT of time period. Only LOOKS disastrous to make you pee. That's why they did Fig1 - and ONLY FULLY GRAPHED the TWO WORST YEARS. What you need to FOCUS ON is the shaded blue areas with interdecile data. THere are about 33% of GAINS in the 40 year period that ONLY GOES BACK TO 1981 and about 66% ABOVE.

 

[EMH]

Depends on the competing rates dont it? You gotta grow as much as lose in a year or decade to stay even.

Antarctica is actually a desert. Ice formation rate is VERY low, but the surface temperatures are nowhere near melts. Greenland OTHand gets lots of precipt, and it also gets considerable days above freezing at the edges.

Mostly correct.

The only time humans observe liquid water on AA is when a tectonic event happens usually on AA peninsula. AA has 70 million year old Dino fossils. One thing about continent specific ice ages, they rip up land and carry it to ocean and dump it there. AA and Greenland surface sub ice is mostly below sea level now, but was not pre ice age.

Greenland is way out of the arctic circle on the south tip and that is where it melts during summer. The top of Greenland is still in the "glacier manufacturing zone above a specific lattitude" and is continuing to manufacture. Greenland ice pushes N to S obviously. Tectonic direction of Greenland is currently a tug of war between two growing oceans, Arctic and Atlantic. Atlantic growth will push it further north for another 10-30 million years. Arctic growth pushes it south.

 

[EMH]

For the record, AA ice has grown every year (and they simply cannot stop lying and fudging that) and there is no way to deny that the bulk of greenland's ice thickens every year... That new annual ice core level is continuing to be "manufactured"

 

[flacaltenn]

For the record, AA ice has grown every year (and they simply cannot stop lying and fudging that) and there is no way to deny that the bulk of greenland's ice thickens every year... That new annual ice core level is continuing to be "manufactured"

AA ice grows so slowly -- it isnt worth measuring yearly. You know what the avg yearly precipt IS towards to INTERIOR???

In FACT -- the biggest FRAUD in the entire GW circus train is using the AntArctic (VOSTOK) Ice cores and downplaying the Greenland (GISP) Ice cores with much more time and resolution. You cant SEE a diff in "temperature proxies" in AA cores LESS THAN about 400 years. But you can see LARGE temp swings in Greenland cores over 100 years because of the precipt differences.

 

[EMH]

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

www.nasa.gov

 

[EMH]

AA ice grows by frost. It really does not snow much.

But when you are a giant continent occupying a polar circle on Earth, you manufacture ice, and you do not stop until you move off the pole....

Notice in that article the truth of the fiction "ocean rise" as truth regarding ocean level forces fraud to lie about islands near PROF

 

[EMH]

Make sure you understand the difference between data and fudge.

Their big color charts are fudge.

They hate RAW DATA.

 

[Crick]

3 things to be aware of -- from that paper.

The only thing I used that paper for was the data that showed Greenland had been consistently melting during the entire satellite era. But I'm happy to entertain your distraction.

1) Most of the "ice melt" REFREEZES in a matter of days. Plenty of papers on that showing large pooling of water during spring/summer, which re-freeze in the fall. So the number of days ABOVE freezing is an inexact proxy for ice melt. You can be 0.1degC ABOVE freezing of 100 days or 1DegC above for 10 days and get the same result.

Ice does not move to the coasts and drain away. Meltwater does. No one has suggested that Greenland is melting 365 days a year. This would then be another strawman.

2) There's a summary map showing the MAJOR ice losses -- ALL of them in Coastal areas. (Figure 3). Coastal areas are almost at sea level.

Where it is warmest. Kinda makes sense.

Most of Greenland has lots of elevation. Would have better to color code the ENTIRE continent in Figure 3 -- but the authors choose NOT to do that.

Oh those awful authors. I hope you're not trying to criticize them personally. Billy Bob will all over you like white on rice.

3) The albedo loss is ALSO -- almost EXCLUSIVELY near the shorelines at sea level as well. Figure 4.

Figures. Of course, as more and more of the underlying rock gets exposed by the warming temperatures and continuing melt, that will move inland.

To answer your question ABOVE -- everything in the paper is BASED on 1981 and beyond. So the answer to your question is ANYTIME Greenland Ice mass Loss is BELOW that MEAN value. And since the ice was RELATIVELY STABLE until the late 90s -- that's A LOT of time period. Only LOOKS disastrous to make you pee. That's why they did Fig1 - and ONLY FULLY GRAPHED the TWO WORST YEARS. What you need to FOCUS ON is the shaded blue areas with interdecile data. THere are about 33% of GAINS in the 40 year period that ONLY GOES BACK TO 1981 and about 66% ABOVE.

What YOU need to focus on is the fact that Greenland has suffered net ice mass loss every year since data were collected. That there is a seasonal variation superimposed on the long term decline is really irrelevant. As shown here:

 

[flacaltenn]

The only thing I used that paper for was the data that showed Greenland had been consistently melting during the entire satellite era. But I'm happy to entertain your distraction.

That's good in a way. 1981 was the START of ANY accurate measurements of GW and GW phenomenon. I'm not griping about that. I'm pointing out that they BURIED the data by highlighting just the 2 WORST years of that record as FULL graphed years, The other 37 or 38 years are just part of the "mean and and interdecile" data all lumped together.

Ice does not move to the coasts and drain away. Meltwater does. No one has suggested that Greenland is melting 365 days a year. This would then be another strawman.

Who said it did? Just the normal temperature lapse from sea level to 1000 feet is many times LARGER than the GW anomaly realized during that time period. So both ALBEDO loss and Ice Loss is LARGER at the coasts. AND it's a very narrow band of land. So which is it? The alarmists are talking about 7 meter sea level rise if Greenland melts -- but most studies including this one are detecting the MAJORITY EFFECTS at sea level.

Oh those awful authors. I hope you're not trying to criticize them personally. Billy Bob will all over you like white on rice.

Yeah -- shame on me for pointing out the MORE INFORMATIVE way of presenting the WHOLE truth. It's what I would have done -- if ALL that data was in front of me.

Figures. Of course, as more and more of the underlying rock gets exposed by the warming temperatures and continuing melt, that will move inland.

Like I SAID -- just the normal atmos temp lapse rate to 1000 ft elevation is MANY TIMES the ENTIRE GW temp anomaly. 5.4 DEGF per 1000 ft VERSUS the anomaly change in your lifetime of about 1.1DegF.

What YOU need to focus on is the fact that Greenland has suffered net ice mass loss every year since data were collected. That there is a seasonal variation superimposed on the long term decline is really irrelevant. As shown here:

That's NOT what this study is showing in there graph there. Mass LOSS didn't occur in any suspicious amounts til the mid - 90s. That's 12 or 14 years INTO THE GRAPH you're misinterpreting. The authors even copped to that in the Abstract.

On a positive note -- I'll EVEN QUOTE the biased Climate.gov site. Which uses the most USEFUL measurement of GW driving ice melt -- which is #of Ice melt days. EVEN THO -- as I said -- ONE day about freezing COULD BE 0.001DegC above freezing or 1.000DegC above which gives a melt result diff of a THOUSAND TIMES DIFFERENCE.

Seems like the ice melt in 2021 was about THREE TIMES LOWER than the satellite era AVERAGE of 280Gtons. QUICK WRITE A PAPER -- the TREND IS DECREASING !!! LOL..

2021 Arctic Report Card: Greenland ice loss below average in 2021 despite late-season melt spike

Greenland has lost ice mass every year since 1998. Losses in 2021 would have added about 0.2 millimeters to global sea level.

www.climate.gov

According to Arctic Report Card: Update for 2021, the Greenland Ice Sheet lost a total of 85±16 billion metric tons of ice mass between September 1, 2020 and August 31, 2021, based on observations from the GRACE-FO satellite. The loss was substantially less than the 2002–2021 average of 264±12 gigatons of ice per year. The smaller ice losses came despite several extensive melt events that occurred unusually late in the summer.

 

[flacaltenn]

The only time humans observe liquid water on AA is when a tectonic event happens usually on AA peninsula.

Nope -- I've seen the vids of lakes the size of Erie at altitude during April to Sept. Dont think any tectonics were involved and it happens every MELT season. MOST of it melts -- freezes again many TIMES during that period.

 

[abu afak]

Seems like the ice melt in 2021 was about THREE TIMES LOWER than the satellite era AVERAGE of 280Gtons. QUICK WRITE A PAPER -- the TREND IS DECREASING !!! LOL..

2021 Arctic Report Card: Greenland ice loss below average in 2021 despite late-season melt spike

Greenland has lost ice mass every year since 1998. Losses in 2021 would have added about 0.2 millimeters to global sea level.

www.climate.gov

According to Arctic Report Card: Update for 2021, the Greenland Ice Sheet lost a total of 85±16 billion metric tons of ice mass between September 1, 2020 and August 31, 2021, based on observations from the GRACE-FO satellite. The loss was substantially less than the 2002–2021 average of 264±12 gigatons of ice per year. The smaller ice losses came despite several extensive melt events that occurred unusually late in the summer.

So you acknowledge satellite measurements for Greenland Ice Only (not Temp anywhere), and only for one anomalous year/locale for Ice! The rest is consistent with AGW.

Great stuff!
Ever heard of the Anecdote Fallacy?
Breathtaking illogic and unwitting Self-impeachment for past, present, and future stats.
`

 

[flacaltenn]

So you acknowledge satellite measurements for Greenland Ice Only (not Temp anywhere), and only for one anomalous year/locale for Ice! The rest is consistent with AGW.

Great stuff!
Ever heard of the Anecdote Fallacy?
Breathtaking illogic and unwitting Self-impeachment for past, present, and future stats.
`

I guess you only recognize sarcasm when its yours. LOL Even when I enlarged the font and added "QUICK -- Write a paper"? Because after all the 50 year satellite record of ANYTHING -- is nothing to the timescales of climate anyways.

 

[ReinyDays]

This might be embarrassing to some .. but I must insist that "water seeks her own level" ... a direct effect of continental ice melt is mean sea level rise ... and this is measured at 3.5 mm/yr ... yea, not much, therefore we can assume there's very little ice melting off these continental ice fields ...

Most sources claim that thermal expansion will cause the greatest amount of mean sea level rise, not ice melt ... further, any melt-water that does enter the ocean will enter at 0ºC, thus cooling the sea water ... ha ha ... the energy used to melt ice cannot again be used to raise temperatures ... and this is all in the context of on-going evaporation ... with only 2 W/m^2 ...

The good news is we have millions of years for this to change climate ... but not billions of years ... we haven't been burning enough tires, now have we? ...

 

[EMH]

Nope -- I've seen the vids of lakes the size of Erie at altitude during April to Sept. Dont think any tectonics were involved and it happens every MELT season. MOST of it melts -- freezes again many TIMES during that period.

You also saw Biden get a shot... And you are just as certain it was MFV not water...

The "vids" are likely of southern Greenland in July.


Any idea what the temp of the AA ice is 500 feet down????

Try -200F

Froze the foot off an arrogant lesbian hiker 20 years ago...

 

[EMH]

This might be embarrassing to some .. but I must insist that "water seeks her own level" ... a direct effect of continental ice melt is mean sea level rise ... and this is measured at 3.5 mm/yr ... yea, not much, therefore we can assume there's very little ice melting off these continental ice fields ...

Most sources claim that thermal expansion will cause the greatest amount of mean sea level rise, not ice melt ... further, any melt-water that does enter the ocean will enter at 0ºC, thus cooling the sea water ... ha ha ... the energy used to melt ice cannot again be used to raise temperatures ... and this is all in the context of on-going evaporation ... with only 2 W/m^2 ...

The good news is we have millions of years for this to change climate ... but not billions of years ... we haven't been burning enough tires, now have we? ...

To show "evidence" of ocean rise, the fraud singles out islands next to PROF...

Which are sinking because they are headed under the earth's crust.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any idea what the temp of the AA ice is 500 feet down????

Try -200F

Link?

 

[EMH]

Link?

When the Russians started drilling for lake Vostok, they had terrible problems. The project started and stopped multiple times. The first time the Russians used a drill bit which failed around 500 feet because the lubricant froze.

Temp needed to do that -200F

So then they started blasting hyper heated water, and that caused other problems...


Unable to find that stat in 5 minutes. The article I've cited before may have been taken down.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When the Russians started drilling for lake Vostok, they had terrible problems. The project started and stopped multiple times. The first time the Russians used a drill bit which failed around 500 feet because the lubricant froze.

Temp needed to do that -200F

So then they started blasting hyper heated water, and that caused other problems...


Unable to find that stat in 5 minutes. The article I've cited before may have been taken down.

Or, they don't know what they're doing......