Greenland's ice sheet just lost 11 billion tons of ice -- in

[Phil Allison]

Winfield Hill wrote:

Martin Riddle wrote...

Winfield Hill wrote:

My eyebrows went up when the temp at the north pole went
above 65F recently. This after the temps at the north
pole were higher than here in Boston, at various times
during the winter. How can you not be alarmed at that?
And the ice cover thickness and extent scene is very bad.

Are you sure that was the arctic North pole, and not
North Pole Alaska where summer temps are on average of
65 in the summer?


Yes, Martin, I'm sorry to report that was the true
north pole in both cases.

** You will need to post a cite for that.

There is no weather station at the North Pole, the nearest regular site is 400 miles away in Greenland.

The highest estimated temp on record is 55F (13C) - during a freak storm in summer.

I checked the Wiki and various links supplied.


..... Phil

 

[Winfield Hill]

Martin Riddle wrote...

Winfield Hill wrote:

My eyebrows went up when the temp at the north pole went
above 65F recently. This after the temps at the north
pole were higher than here in Boston, at various times
during the winter. How can you not be alarmed at that?
And the ice cover thickness and extent scene is very bad.

Are you sure that was the arctic North pole, and not
North Pole Alaska where summer temps are on average of
65 in the summer?

Yes, Martin, I'm sorry to report that was the true
north pole in both cases. You can go to the north
pole at some times of the year, take off your parka
and change to short sleeves or even a T-shirt.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 10:29:19 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On 2 Aug 2019 16:20:38 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote...

On 2019-08-03 00:44, Martin Riddle wrote:

Well, it has gained over a trillion tons of ice in the last 2 years,
and of course they didnt mention it. Going for the shock factor I
guess

https://climatechangedispatch.com/greenland-gains-massive-amounts-of-ice-second-year-in-a-row/

I hate it when they do that. 11 billion tons is equivalent to
about 6mm of ice. Nothing spectacular to lose that much in one
summer day. But they have a point to make, haven't they?

Apparently it's been going on for 4 months (a very early
start, 6mm * 120 days is 0.7m) and now picking up steam.
But it looks like the alarm bells are coming from the
researchers, who are in a better place than the rest of
us to be alarmed or not.

My eyebrows went up when the temp at the north pole went
above 65F recently. This after the temps at the north
pole were higher than here in Boston, at various times
during the winter. How can you not be alarmed at that?
And the ice cover thickness and extent scene is very bad.

As we keep installing instruments, many of them badly sited and badly
maintained, of course we will keep setting records.

John Larkin is particularly susceptible to the denialist nonsense posted on Anthony Watts' propaganda website.

Anthony Watts has a bee in his bonnet about Stevenson boxes, which haven't been front line meteorological instruments for some time now. People who've been trained in the science know better.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Riddle]

On 2 Aug 2019 16:20:38 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote...

On 2019-08-03 00:44, Martin Riddle wrote:

Well, it has gained over a trillion tons of ice in the last 2 years,
and of course they didnt mention it. Going for the shock factor I
guess

https://climatechangedispatch.com/greenland-gains-massive-amounts-of-ice-second-year-in-a-row/

I hate it when they do that. 11 billion tons is equivalent to
about 6mm of ice. Nothing spectacular to lose that much in one
summer day. But they have a point to make, haven't they?

Apparently it's been going on for 4 months (a very early
start, 6mm * 120 days is 0.7m) and now picking up steam.
But it looks like the alarm bells are coming from the
researchers, who are in a better place than the rest of
us to be alarmed or not.

My eyebrows went up when the temp at the north pole went
above 65F recently. This after the temps at the north
pole were higher than here in Boston, at various times
during the winter. How can you not be alarmed at that?
And the ice cover thickness and extent scene is very bad.

Are you sure that was the arctic North pole, and not North Pole Alaska
wher summer temps are on average of 65 in the summer?


Cheers

 

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
news:gae9ke9rhlpe0pc6okkljoh7a1pd0orsv2@4ax.com:

So I can ski all year.

At -100°C with 100mph winds virtually everywhere, and not much on
topography either. Doesn't sound like fun. If it would even be
possible at all.

We will not fare well if we end up in another ice age, and if that
happens, the Earth will likely stay frozen that way.

 

[Martin Riddle]

On 2 Aug 2019 17:58:04 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Martin Riddle wrote...

Winfield Hill wrote:

My eyebrows went up when the temp at the north pole went
above 65F recently. This after the temps at the north
pole were higher than here in Boston, at various times
during the winter. How can you not be alarmed at that?
And the ice cover thickness and extent scene is very bad.

Are you sure that was the arctic North pole, and not
North Pole Alaska where summer temps are on average of
65 in the summer?

Yes, Martin, I'm sorry to report that was the true
north pole in both cases. You can go to the north
pole at some times of the year, take off your parka
and change to short sleeves or even a T-shirt.

Thanks, No worries, apparently it was just a 3 day heat wave and
temperatures are returing to normal. The yearly melt is on course,
then the ice rebuilds in the winter. Thats the part they dont tell us.

Cheers

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/08/02 5:58 p.m., Winfield Hill wrote:

Martin Riddle wrote...

Winfield Hill wrote:

My eyebrows went up when the temp at the north pole went
above 65F recently. This after the temps at the north
pole were higher than here in Boston, at various times
during the winter. How can you not be alarmed at that?
And the ice cover thickness and extent scene is very bad.

Are you sure that was the arctic North pole, and not
North Pole Alaska where summer temps are on average of
65 in the summer?

Yes, Martin, I'm sorry to report that was the true
north pole in both cases. You can go to the north
pole at some times of the year, take off your parka
and change to short sleeves or even a T-shirt.

You would have to be wearing your flotation suit...no land mass above
the water line at the North Pole.

"The North Pole is at the center of the Northern Hemisphere. While the
South Pole lies on a continental land mass, the North Pole is located in
the middle of the Arctic Ocean amid waters that are almost permanently
covered with constantly shifting sea ice."

Wikipedia...

John

 

[Steve Wilson]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 01:36:28 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
news:gae9ke9rhlpe0pc6okkljoh7a1pd0orsv2@4ax.com:

So I can ski all year.

At -100°C with 100mph winds virtually everywhere, and not much on
topography either. Doesn't sound like fun. If it would even be
possible at all.

We will not fare well if we end up in another ice age, and if that
happens, the Earth will likely stay frozen that way.

We're currently late into a warm interglacial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

The usual state of Earth is ice age.

But that can change quickly:

https://tinyurl.com/yxh9r26s

https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-
are-they-and-what-causes-them/

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 11:54:20 AM UTC+10, Martin Riddle wrote:

On 2 Aug 2019 17:58:04 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

Martin Riddle wrote...

Winfield Hill wrote:

My eyebrows went up when the temp at the north pole went
above 65F recently. This after the temps at the north
pole were higher than here in Boston, at various times
during the winter. How can you not be alarmed at that?
And the ice cover thickness and extent scene is very bad.

Are you sure that was the arctic North pole, and not
North Pole Alaska where summer temps are on average of
65 in the summer?

Yes, Martin, I'm sorry to report that was the true
north pole in both cases. You can go to the north
pole at some times of the year, take off your parka
and change to short sleeves or even a T-shirt.

Thanks, No worries, apparently it was just a 3 day heat wave and
temperatures are returning to normal. The yearly melt is on course,
then the ice rebuilds in the winter. That's the part they don't tell us.

Probably because it doesn't happen to be true. The ice rebuilds to some extent every winter, but there's been a steady loss of ice mass from year to year.

https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/33/greenland-ice-loss-2002-2016/

The GRACE satellites measure the actual mass.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/08/02 5:36 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 10:03:07 AM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/08/02 4:20 p.m., Winfield Hill wrote:
Jeroen Belleman wrote...

On 2019-08-03 00:44, Martin Riddle wrote:

Well, it has gained over a trillion tons of ice in the last 2 years,
and of course they didnt mention it. Going for the shock factor I
guess

https://climatechangedispatch.com/greenland-gains-massive-amounts-of-ice-second-year-in-a-row/

I hate it when they do that. 11 billion tons is equivalent to
about 6mm of ice. Nothing spectacular to lose that much in one
summer day. But they have a point to make, haven't they?

Apparently it's been going on for 4 months (a very early
start, 6mm * 120 days is 0.7m) and now picking up steam.
But it looks like the alarm bells are coming from the
researchers, who are in a better place than the rest of
us to be alarmed or not.

My eyebrows went up when the temp at the north pole went
above 65F recently. This after the temps at the north
pole were higher than here in Boston, at various times
during the winter. How can you not be alarmed at that?
And the ice cover thickness and extent scene is very bad.



Yes, but no one researches into previous massive melts such as around
900AD. There is Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska that is melting and
exposing a forest - which was in existence about 1000 years ago. How
long does it take to grow a forest?

Anybody growing sustainable timber knows that it take anything from about forty to a couple of hundred years, depending on the trees involved, the soil they are growing in and amount of water the trees can get at.

Does no one ask these questions?

https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

Why should they bother? Local climate variations happen as the ocean currents move around. The Multidecadal Atlantic oscillation (discovered in 1993) explains that kind of local effect, and there may be even slower oscillations that we haven't noticed yet.

I wrote to the glaciologist (Ms Conner) a few years ago asking about the
forest and she said she only studies glaciers.

That's what the label says.

Actually there is a deeper study going on, National Geographic appears
to be funding research into these ancient forests.

https://openexplorer.nationalgeographic.com/expedition/ghostsofancientforests

They are talking about how these forests grew during the MWP and may
help predict how the current warming trend will evolve. Still
preliminary, but this bears watching (sorry about the pun!).

It isn't all doom and gloom which is nice to see!

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 01:36:28 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
news:gae9ke9rhlpe0pc6okkljoh7a1pd0orsv2@4ax.com:

So I can ski all year.



At -100°C with 100mph winds virtually everywhere, and not much on
topography either. Doesn't sound like fun. If it would even be
possible at all.

We will not fare well if we end up in another ice age, and if that
happens, the Earth will likely stay frozen that way.

We're currently late into a warm interglacial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

The usual state of Earth is ice age.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 1:21:59 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 01:36:28 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
news:gae9ke9rhlpe0pc6okkljoh7a1pd0orsv2@4ax.com:

So I can ski all year

At -100°C with 100mph winds virtually everywhere, and not much on
topography either. Doesn't sound like fun. If it would even be
possible at all.

We will not fare well if we end up in another ice age, and if that
happens, the Earth will likely stay frozen that way.

We're currently late into a warm interglacial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

The usual state of Earth is ice age.

It has been for the last 2.58 million years. The 260 million years before that were ice-free.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

We actually understand how the planet flips between ice ages and interglacials, and as long as the atmospheric CO2 levels stay above the typical interglacial 270ppm we are unlikely to flip back.

Eventually continental drift will move the continents away from where they can form big enough ice sheets to sustain an ice age, but we'll have probably worked out easier ways of stopping the flip to an ice age before then.

Digging up lots of fossil carbon and burning it as fuel is an effective preventive device, but we'll eventually run out of easily accessible fossil carbon.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 9:26:00 PM UTC-4, Bert Hickman wrote:

Rick C wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 6:59:30 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2019-08-03 00:44, Martin Riddle wrote:
On 2 Aug 2019 12:06:18 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/world/greenland-ice-sheet-11-billion-intl/index.html

Wel, it has gained over a trillion tons of ice in the last 2 years,
and of course they didnt mention it. Going for the shock factor I
guess

https://climatechangedispatch.com/greenland-gains-massive-amounts-of-ice-second-year-in-a-row/

Cheers


I hate it when they do that. 11 billion tons is equivalent to
about 6mm of ice. Nothing spectacular to lose that much in one
summer day. But they have a point to make, haven't they?

Really? 11 billion tons of ice in one day is nothing unusual? What is the typical number?


Some interesting commentary...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7wrRmJ8n5w

Kinda weird. He uses the extremists as his examples and specifically discredits their cherry picking of the data while cherry picking his own data. He also does nothing to present a rational balanced viewpoint, rather only addresses what he calls the "alarmists". Ok, it's not surprising that alarmists have extreme views. So what about the actual issue?

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 1:27:11 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:

On 2019/08/02 5:36 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 10:03:07 AM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/08/02 4:20 p.m., Winfield Hill wrote:
Jeroen Belleman wrote...

On 2019-08-03 00:44, Martin Riddle wrote:

Well, it has gained over a trillion tons of ice in the last 2 years,
and of course they didnt mention it. Going for the shock factor I
guess

https://climatechangedispatch.com/greenland-gains-massive-amounts-of-ice-second-year-in-a-row/

I hate it when they do that. 11 billion tons is equivalent to
about 6mm of ice. Nothing spectacular to lose that much in one
summer day. But they have a point to make, haven't they?

Apparently it's been going on for 4 months (a very early
start, 6mm * 120 days is 0.7m) and now picking up steam.
But it looks like the alarm bells are coming from the
researchers, who are in a better place than the rest of
us to be alarmed or not.

My eyebrows went up when the temp at the north pole went
above 65F recently. This after the temps at the north
pole were higher than here in Boston, at various times
during the winter. How can you not be alarmed at that?
And the ice cover thickness and extent scene is very bad.



Yes, but no one researches into previous massive melts such as around
900AD. There is Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska that is melting and
exposing a forest - which was in existence about 1000 years ago. How
long does it take to grow a forest?

Anybody growing sustainable timber knows that it take anything from about forty to a couple of hundred years, depending on the trees involved, the soil they are growing in and amount of water the trees can get at.

Does no one ask these questions?

https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

Why should they bother? Local climate variations happen as the ocean currents move around. The Multidecadal Atlantic oscillation (discovered in 1993) explains that kind of local effect, and there may be even slower oscillations that we haven't noticed yet.

I wrote to the glaciologist (Ms Conner) a few years ago asking about the
forest and she said she only studies glaciers.

That's what the label says.


Actually there is a deeper study going on, National Geographic appears
to be funding research into these ancient forests.

https://openexplorer.nationalgeographic.com/expedition/ghostsofancientforests

They are talking about how these forests grew during the MWP and may
help predict how the current warming trend will evolve. Still
preliminary, but this bears watching (sorry about the pun!).

It isn't all doom and gloom which is nice to see!

The forest grew in a particular place and the medieval warm period was also local rather than global. You do need to find out a bit more about what's going on before you turn up your optimism.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 8:52:05 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 9:26:00 PM UTC-4, Bert Hickman wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 6:59:30 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2019-08-03 00:44, Martin Riddle wrote:
On 2 Aug 2019 12:06:18 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/world/greenland-ice-sheet-11-billion-intl/index.html

Wel, it has gained over a trillion tons of ice in the last 2 years,
and of course they didnt mention it. Going for the shock factor I
guess

https://climatechangedispatch.com/greenland-gains-massive-amounts-of-ice-second-year-in-a-row/

Cheers


I hate it when they do that. 11 billion tons is equivalent to
about 6mm of ice. Nothing spectacular to lose that much in one
summer day. But they have a point to make, haven't they?

Really? 11 billion tons of ice in one day is nothing unusual? What is the typical number?


Some interesting commentary...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7wrRmJ8n5w

Kinda weird. He uses the extremists as his examples and specifically discredits their cherry picking of the data while cherry picking his own data. He also does nothing to present a rational balanced viewpoint, rather only addresses what he calls the "alarmists". Ok, it's not surprising that alarmists have extreme views. So what about the actual issue?

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

The Earth has been going thru major climatic changes during its entire history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet):

In a 2013 study published in Nature, 133 researchers analyzed a Greenland ice core from the Eemian interglacial. They concluded that GIS (Greenland Ice Sheet) had been 8 degrees C warmer than today. Resulting in a thickness decrease of the northwest Greenland ice sheet by 400 ± 250 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 ± 300 metres lower than at present.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 3:28:26 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 8:52:05 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 9:26:00 PM UTC-4, Bert Hickman wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 6:59:30 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2019-08-03 00:44, Martin Riddle wrote:
On 2 Aug 2019 12:06:18 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/world/greenland-ice-sheet-11-billion-intl/index.html

Wel, it has gained over a trillion tons of ice in the last 2 years,
and of course they didnt mention it. Going for the shock factor I
guess

https://climatechangedispatch.com/greenland-gains-massive-amounts-of-ice-second-year-in-a-row/

Cheers


I hate it when they do that. 11 billion tons is equivalent to
about 6mm of ice. Nothing spectacular to lose that much in one
summer day. But they have a point to make, haven't they?

Really? 11 billion tons of ice in one day is nothing unusual? What is the typical number?


Some interesting commentary...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7wrRmJ8n5w

Kinda weird. He uses the extremists as his examples and specifically discredits their cherry picking of the data while cherry picking his own data. He also does nothing to present a rational balanced viewpoint, rather only addresses what he calls the "alarmists". Ok, it's not surprising that alarmists have extreme views. So what about the actual issue?

The Earth has been going thru major climatic changes during its entire history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet):

In a 2013 study published in Nature, 133 researchers analyzed a Greenland ice core from the Eemian interglacial. They concluded that GIS (Greenland Ice Sheet) had been 8 degrees C warmer than today. Resulting in a thickness decrease of the northwest Greenland ice sheet by 400 ± 250 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 ± 300 metres lower than at present.

So what?

The last 2.58 million years of alternating ice ages and interglacials isn't the Earth's "entire history". There hadn't been any ices ages for the previous 260 million years, and there was the Eocene-Paleocene Thermal Maximum some 56 million year ago (which also seems to have reflected a rather sudden injection of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Current CO2 levels are about 50% higher than seen in previous interglacials, so what we are seeing is the warming process, not a static condition that you can s try to match up with the condition reached in a prolonged warm period in a previous interglacial.

You do need to keep in mind that we've got the current ice age because the continents have drifted into an arrangement that is compatible with ice ages.

They are still moving, so no ice-age nor interglacial is going to be exactly like the last one, and we'll eventually stop having ices again for another hundred million-odd years.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On 2 Aug 2019 12:06:18 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/world/greenland-ice-sheet-11-billion-intl/index.html

Some back of the envelope estimates:

The Greenland area is about 2 000 000 km˛ or 2E6 km˛ and assuming 1 km
average ice thickness there are about 2E6 kmł of ice.

The CNN article talks about melting 11 billion (11E9) tonnes/day this
summer, which is about 12 kmł of ice/day, In 4 months this is 1440
kmł which is 0.07 % of total ice. This number is too small.

Dividing the 11E9 tons with total area gives 5500 tonnes/km˛ or 5.5
kg/m˛ which in 120 days is 660 kg/m˛or 6.6 kg/dm˛ or 6.6 liters or 66
cm of ice sheet.

Of course some or all is restored during the winter thanks to snow
fall.


Lakes in the Arctic often have at least 1 m (100 cm) of ice each
winter and melts in the summer. Even compared to this, the CNN figures
are on the low side and then they try to generate alarmist
propaganda.

 

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 16:15:32 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 6:59:30 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2019-08-03 00:44, Martin Riddle wrote:
On 2 Aug 2019 12:06:18 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/world/greenland-ice-sheet-11-billion-intl/index.html

Wel, it has gained over a trillion tons of ice in the last 2 years,
and of course they didnt mention it. Going for the shock factor I
guess

https://climatechangedispatch.com/greenland-gains-massive-amounts-of-ice-second-year-in-a-row/

Cheers


I hate it when they do that. 11 billion tons is equivalent to
about 6mm of ice. Nothing spectacular to lose that much in one
summer day. But they have a point to make, haven't they?

Really? 11 billion tons of ice in one day is nothing unusual? What is the typical number?

Artic lakes may have more than 1 m of ice durig the winter, some
shallow lakes are frozen to the bottom. Still in the spring and early
summer this melts away in less than 4 months, so at least 10-15
mm/day.

 

On 2 Aug 2019 16:20:38 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote...

On 2019-08-03 00:44, Martin Riddle wrote:

Well, it has gained over a trillion tons of ice in the last 2 years,
and of course they didnt mention it. Going for the shock factor I
guess

https://climatechangedispatch.com/greenland-gains-massive-amounts-of-ice-second-year-in-a-row/

I hate it when they do that. 11 billion tons is equivalent to
about 6mm of ice. Nothing spectacular to lose that much in one
summer day. But they have a point to make, haven't they?

Apparently it's been going on for 4 months (a very early
start, 6mm * 120 days is 0.7m) and now picking up steam.
But it looks like the alarm bells are coming from the
researchers, who are in a better place than the rest of
us to be alarmed or not.

My eyebrows went up when the temp at the north pole went
above 65F recently. This after the temps at the north
pole were higher than here in Boston, at various times
during the winter. How can you not be alarmed at that?

Please remember that during midsummer the sun at 90N is at 23.5
degrees above the horizon for 24 h/day. This might have some warming
effect

In northern Greenland at 80N the sun was at 33 degrees during noon and
13 degrees above the horizon in the middle of the night.

At 70N in Northern Europe (above the Arctic Circle) the temperature
was +30 C for several days last week. A few years ago, with +30 C in
most northerly Europe and clouds in the rest of Europe, for some days,
the northern areas were the warmest place in Europe for a few days.

> And the ice cover thickness and extent scene is very bad.

So what, the sea will freeze every winter, just like the Baltic Sea or
the Great Lakes.

 

On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 17:02:58 -0700, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>
wrote:

On 2019/08/02 4:20 p.m., Winfield Hill wrote:
Jeroen Belleman wrote...

On 2019-08-03 00:44, Martin Riddle wrote:

Well, it has gained over a trillion tons of ice in the last 2 years,
and of course they didnt mention it. Going for the shock factor I
guess

https://climatechangedispatch.com/greenland-gains-massive-amounts-of-ice-second-year-in-a-row/

I hate it when they do that. 11 billion tons is equivalent to
about 6mm of ice. Nothing spectacular to lose that much in one
summer day. But they have a point to make, haven't they?

Apparently it's been going on for 4 months (a very early
start, 6mm * 120 days is 0.7m) and now picking up steam.
But it looks like the alarm bells are coming from the
researchers, who are in a better place than the rest of
us to be alarmed or not.

My eyebrows went up when the temp at the north pole went
above 65F recently. This after the temps at the north
pole were higher than here in Boston, at various times
during the winter. How can you not be alarmed at that?
And the ice cover thickness and extent scene is very bad.



Yes, but no one researches into previous massive melts such as around
900AD. There is Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska that is melting and
exposing a forest - which was in existence about 1000 years ago. How
long does it take to grow a forest? Does no one ask these questions?

https://www.livescience.com/39819-ancient-forest-thaws.html

During that period vikings had a colony in western Greenland and they
had agriculture. So the warm period was not limited to Alaska.

I wrote to the glaciologist (Ms Conner) a few years ago asking about the
forest and she said she only studies glaciers.

John :-#(#