Greenland Ice Cap Sees 2nd Year Of Above Average Growth

Written by Paul Homewood

accumulatedsmb

http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/#

It appears that the melt season has just about finished on the Greenland ice cap, and for the second year running ice accumulation has been way above normal.

accumulatedsmb1

https://web.archive.org/web/20170908203852/http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

Nearly all of the country has seen this accumulation:

image

Meanwhile climate alarmists continue to ignore the facts:

image

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/great-greenland-meltdown

Read more at notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com

Comments (2)

  • Avatar

    Dr Pete Sudbury

    |

    That made sense, and quotes the original articles…until you read the small print.
    For a reason almost guaranteed to confuse us all, the “surface mass balance” they describe is between accumulating and melting on the ice sheet itself, and doesn’t include calving of icebergs from the edges of the sheet, which is a major route by which ice is lost. Taking that into account, the last paragraph says [my observation in square brackets]:
    “…Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to [it would be better to say “subtracts from”] the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr…”
    So it looks like a positive balance is normal, even when the ice sheet is shrinking overall. So climate realists would note that the Greenland ice cap is losing the equivalent of 200 cubic kilometres of water per year.
    Have a great day!

  • Avatar

    Alan Stewart

    |

    Good reply Peter,
    It begets a need for a bit more understanding. As I understand it calving is absolutely normal and the only criteria is the total balance within the AGW furour. My memory says that the majority of the loss is on the West (?) side caused not by air temps but water temps driven by seabed volcanic activity. Correct???

    But the most important part or question realtes to the figure 200Gt. A figure the Guardian and other MSM loves. Yes, 200Gt will keep my Sour Mash chilled forever but what is the value as a comparison to the total mass?? I assume it will have many zeros after the decimal point possiblly making it statisticaly insignificant???
    Curious and Cheers all

Comments are closed