Skip to content

Latest Fake Claims About Greenland Ice Loss

January 22, 2019
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Philip Bratby

 

It’s worse than we thought, says the Guardian:

 

image

Greenland is melting faster than scientists previously thought, with the pace of ice loss increasing four-fold since 2003, new research has found.

Enormous glaciers in Greenland are depositing ever larger chunks of ice into the Atlantic ocean, where it melts. But scientists have found that the largest ice loss in the decade from 2003 actually occurred in the southwest region of the island, which is largely glacier-free.

This suggests surface ice is simply melting as global temperatures rise, causing gushing rivers of meltwater to flow into the ocean and push up sea levels. South-west Greenland, not previously thought of as a source of woe for coastal cities, is set to “become a major future contributor to sea level rise,” the research states.

“We knew we had one big problem with increasing rates of ice discharge by some large outlet glaciers,” said Michael Bevis, lead author of the paper and a professor of geodynamics at Ohio State University. “But now we recognize a second serious problem: increasingly, large amounts of ice mass are going to leave as meltwater, as rivers that flow into the sea.

The research provides fresh evidence of the dangers posed to vulnerable coastal places as diverse as Miami, Shanghai, Bangladesh and various Pacific islands as climate change shrinks the world’s land-based ice.

“The only thing we can do is adapt and mitigate further global warming – it’s too late for there to be no effect,” Bevis said. “This is going to cause additional sea level rise. We are watching the ice sheet hit a tipping point.

“We’re going to see faster and faster sea level rise for the foreseeable future. Once you hit that tipping point, the only question is: How severe does it get?”

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, used data from Nasa’s gravity recovery and climate experiment (known as Grace) and GPS stations scattered across Greenland to analyze changes in ice mass.

This showed that Greenland lost around 280bn tons of ice per year between 2002 and 2016, enough to raise the worldwide sea level by 0.03 inches annually. If all of Greenland’s vast ice sheet, 3km thick in places, was to melt, global sea levels would rise by seven meters, or more than 20ft, drowning most coastal settlements.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/21/greenland-ice-melting-faster-than-scientists-previously-thought-study

When the long term numbers are not scary enough, concentrate on one year’s weather instead!

I will explain.

Science Daily has more detail on the Bevis paper here. For some reason, it does not appear on the PNAS site yet.

Science Daily elaborate on the “faster than 2003” claim:

 Bevis’ team used data from GRACE and from GPS stations scattered around Greenland’s coast to identify changes in ice mass. The patterns they found show an alarming trend — by 2012, ice was being lost at nearly four times the rate that prevailed in 2003.

Bevis said a natural weather phenomenon — the North Atlantic Oscillation, which brings warmer air to West Greenland, as well as clearer skies and more solar radiation — was building on man-made climate change to cause unprecedented levels of melting and runoff. Global atmospheric warming enhances summertime melting, especially in the southwest. The North Atlantic Oscillation is a natural — if erratic — cycle that causes ice to melt under normal circumstances. When combined with man-made global warming, though, the effects are supercharged.

"These oscillations have been happening forever," Bevis said. "So why only now are they causing this massive melt? It’s because the atmosphere is, at its baseline, warmer. The transient warming driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation was riding on top of more sustained, global warming."

But what happened in 2012?

Due to that weather event, the NAO, Greenland experienced an unusually mild year, with in particular a sunny summer.

 image_thumb12

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/07/01/greenland-temperatures-in-2017/

 

Unsurprisingly, therefore, the Surface Mass Balance of the Greenland ice sheet shrank slightly, due to both reduced snowfall and ice melt:

 

accumulatedsmb

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

accumulatedsmb

 https://web.archive.org/web/20170831040633/http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

 

However, that was the exception. Last year, for instance, the SMB grew much more than the long term mean, as it did the year before.

Bevis’ claim that ice loss in 2012 was greater than in 2003 is based on one year’s weather, and not the long term trend.

It is worth emphasising here that the SMB reflects both snowfall and ice melt, but not calving of glaciers. It is, of course, ice melt that Bevis is mainly concerned about here.

 

As we can see from the above temperature chart for SW Greenland, with the exception of 2012, temperatures since 2003 are little different to the 1920s to 40s, the last time the AMO was in warm phase, as it presently is.

There is simply no evidence at all of Greenland’s climate getting any warmer over the long term.

As for the lurid threats of multi meter sea level rise, according to DMI loss of ice from the Greenland ice sheet (from all causes) since 2003 has accounted for about 0.65mm a year of global sea level rise, little more than 2 inches per century.

 

Bevis asks:

“These oscillations have been happening forever. So why only now are they causing this massive melt?

Because we have only been monitoring the melt for the last decade or two!

We know that global sea level rise was just as great in the early to mid 20thC, and there is therefore no evidence whatsoever that melting of the Greenland ice sheet was not just as great back then.

Advertisements
25 Comments
  1. January 22, 2019 2:20 pm

    Never mind the quality – it’s the scary propaganda that counts.

    It was the same on BBC News this lunchtime, with reports from Davos on climate change (Prince somebody or other to be interviewed by Attenborough). And then a BBC reporter in the Sahel telling us how bad climate change was there (based on a few weather anecdotes). Real experts all of them. Experts at propaganda that is.

    • dennisambler permalink
      January 22, 2019 11:46 pm

      What an evening for global warming. Started with Prince William interviewing David Attenborough on the 6 pm news, 10pm BBC news the Sahel story again, so I turned over to ITV and they had ISIS are the result of global warming. Turned over to France 24 to see how the yellow vests were doing and they were running the Greenland melting story. Wow, it never ends.

  2. Coeur de Lion permalink
    January 22, 2019 2:26 pm

    Lying as usual

  3. Phoenix44 permalink
    January 22, 2019 2:55 pm

    The election of Trump really did scare the scaremongers. Electing somebody who doesn’t “believe” could lead to a mass rejection of the hairshirt economics and overacrhing control. And so we have a doubling and tripling of the scare stories, all designed to remind us not to stray and not to think for ourselves.

  4. Sonja Christiansen permalink
    January 22, 2019 3:02 pm

    we had a lecture here in Hull by D Attenborough supporter and friend Dough Allan who. after an interesting lecture finished off with 10 mins propaganda scaring us with sea level rise due to ice melting, then advertising renewable energy and electric cars. What is going on ? Are we being diverting from mounting political problems, many related to growing inequalities , most not at the international but at national levels. Am not keen on the lying explanion, If only it were that simple/

  5. January 22, 2019 3:04 pm

    Leaked official Guardian Policy?: (email, believed recovered from a waste paper basket)

    Whether the weather be climate,
    Or whether the weather be not,
    We’ll panic the weather
    Whatever the weather
    Whether you like it or not.

  6. Jack Broughton permalink
    January 22, 2019 3:44 pm

    There is good science,
    there is bad science; and,
    there is climate science.

    This sort of half-baked and incomplete report ought never to be submitted for publication or considered either. This is a sign of the massive growth of fringe-“Science” journals and their willingness to publish work of low quality to fill their pages. When I used to act as a referee of technical papers (over 20 years ago) the standards were almost too demanding: most offerings were sent back at least once..

    This junk-science is a godsend to the press who love “Scientists say”.

  7. Emrys Jones permalink
    January 22, 2019 3:47 pm

    Since Viner took over at the Groan has been kind enough to give us a marker to indicate when an article is worth reading.

    Fact based and stands up to analysis – comments allowed

    Contentious rubbish full of falsehoods and fantasy – no comments

    “Facts are sacred”, but only when we allow comments.

    BTW, a thank you to Paul. I saw the article and I was hoping someone would flatten it.

    • January 23, 2019 11:13 pm

      now you have to send a letter to the editor, but you may end up on George’s hit list

  8. Athelstan permalink
    January 22, 2019 3:52 pm

    Never mind the disappearing poley bears in the Arctic, it’s the climate crocks you really should ignore.

  9. Curious George permalink
    January 22, 2019 3:54 pm

    “Raise the worldwide sea level by 0.03 inches annually. If all of Greenland’s vast ice sheet, 3km thick in places, was to melt, global sea levels would rise by seven meters, or more than 20ft, drowning most coastal settlements.”

    OK, how long would it take? 30 years for 1 inch, 360 years for one foot, 3600 years for 10 feet, halfway to the Doom. Whom will you vote for in 5619 elections?

  10. Jon Scott permalink
    January 22, 2019 4:07 pm

    Was the co author called Buthead by any chance?

  11. Ian permalink
    January 22, 2019 4:38 pm

    Good timing, relative to the previous article. Should we be worried about the sea level falling instead?

  12. January 22, 2019 4:48 pm

    If all of Greenland’s vast ice sheet, 3km thick in places, was to melt, global sea levels would rise by seven meters, or more than 20ft

    When they have to pad out their alarmist propaganda with this one, you know they’re just trying to stir up fear. Ice can’t melt in temps a long way below zero. And where do they think the water contained in Antarctic snow comes from?

    A [2015] 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.

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

  13. ellyssen permalink
    January 22, 2019 11:35 pm

    CNN pushed this out a few days ago. I find it astonishing and shameful that much of our peer reviewed science has devolved to this state of untruth that peers support, yet are demolished by other scientists not asked for peer review.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 23, 2019 1:57 pm

      Peer review is badly understood and does not act as guarantee of a good paper. It is not a thorough check but a read through. Hiding the data etc prevents a thorough check which would show the paper to be flawed – look how hard Steve McIntyre fought to get Mann’s Hookey Stick data, method and code. In climate science it is usually Pal Review by your mates who you have probably co-authored with in the past. In the Senate review of the Hookey Stick, Dr Wegman pointed out the dendro / paleo community was small and isolated and did not talk to statistics experts who would have panned Mann’s junk paper.

  14. January 23, 2019 9:18 am

    “For some reason, it does not appear on the PNAS site yet.”
    .. Dingaling : when the story is published first in the media before the paper is out, that is a sign its purpose is PR.
    .. That is shortcutting the proper process , whereby a paper comes out an peers often find errors with it straight away.

  15. bobn permalink
    January 23, 2019 12:24 pm

    It may all be completely false since the study ‘used data from Nasa’s gravity recovery and climate experiment (known as Grace) and GPS stations’. Grace is still a very questionable data source (it has been criticised for conclusions that Antarctic ice is shrinking due to the land rising). It takes gravity measurements (not ice observations) and then various ‘adjustments are applied! Largely to factor in theoretical (not observed) rising earth surfaces. These ‘adjustments’ are all subjective and hypothetical. It is likely that if the science paper ever becomes available it will prove to be based on ‘modelling’ and supposition and not observation.

  16. Jeff permalink
    January 23, 2019 6:39 pm

    Would be the first time in literature that one causal relationship would’ve been made between the NAO magnitude (or any other teleconnections…) and human-made global warming…

Trackbacks

  1. Latest Fake Claims About Greenland Ice Loss | Global Climate

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: