JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Climate Change causes more snow and ice on Greenland

Right now, the hottest year ever appears to be causing an extra 4 billion tons a day or so of frozen stuff on Greenland.

Thanks to Patrick Moore, @EcoSenseNow, who tweeted: “Holy Shomoly, look what’s going down on Greenland. Ice World” after Richard Cowley posted the DMI link.

Greenland, Surface Mass Balance, Ice, snow, 2016.

Top: The total daily contribution to the surface mass balance from the entire ice sheet (blue line, Gt/day). Bottom: The accumulated surface mass balance from September 1st to now (blue line, Gt) and the season 2011-12 (red) which had very high summer melt in Greenland. For comparison, the mean curve from the period 1990-2013 is shown (dark grey). The same calendar day in each of the 24 years (in the period 1990-2013) will have its own value. These differences from year to year are illustrated by the light grey band. For each calendar day, however, the lowest and highest values of the 24 years have been left out.

Source: Danish Climate Centre.

Over the last decade the Greenland Ice Sheet may have been losing 200Gt per year, but evidently, this winter it’s making some of that back. The Danish Climate Centre describes the graph:

The figure [above] shows the total daily contribution from all points on the ice sheet (top) and the same accumulated from September 1st to now (bottom). The blue curves show this season’s surface mass balance in gigatons (Gt; 1 Gt is one billion tons and corresponds to 1 cubic kilometer of water), and for comparison the mean curves from the historical model run are shown with two standard deviations on either side. 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 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.

Looks like there is a lot of snow in the southeast. Obviously climate models will show that climate change contributed to this.

Greenland, Map, Surface Mass Balance, 2016

Map of the accumulated surface mass balance (in mm water equivalent) from September 1st to now.

In other news, climate change is also causing extreme cold in Canada this weekend. Thoughts go to our good friends there. Spots on Nullschool show parts of Canada at minus 30 C.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.5/10 (81 votes cast)
Climate Change causes more snow and ice on Greenland, 8.5 out of 10 based on 81 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/j95d7jv

99 comments to Climate Change causes more snow and ice on Greenland

  • #
    Peter C

    I am skeptical about the accuracy of the Greenland Ice mass estimates. It could be more, it could be less or maybe the Greenland Ice mass has stayed about the same.

    113

    • #
      Climateskeptic

      So you have no independent information but doubt the science, what a surprise.

      528

      • #
        bobl

        I am sceptical too, because in order to snow down an EXTRA 100 GT per day of new ice mass one has to first evaporate 100GT of water and raise it to 10000m, and according to my calculations the cost to do that over an area equivalent to Greenland is an EXTRA 1262 Watts per square metre.

        A rational person does have to suggest that that won’t be caused by 0.6W per square metre unbalanced back radiation from CO2. Given the magnitude of the energy requirement one also has to be highly suspicious that this is even possible at all. The only way for this to happen would be a coincidental concentration of precipitation over Greenland sourced from the normal evaporation over the rest of the northern hemisphere meaning that if it’s “Wetter” in Greenland it will have to be drier elsewhere and the precipitation is not in fact “EXTRA” at all.

        61

        • #
          bobl

          OOPS and Admission the article says 4 GT a day, so that requires “Just” 50 Watts per square metre extra on average. Still IMPOSSIBLE for that to be global warming, it’s just weather, IE Where mother nature has decided to dump the water – not EXTRA water..

          82

          • #
            Mark D.

            Bobl, could it be extra water (lets say unusual) and using an unusual amount of extra energy and thereby causing a trend of global cooling?

            You could say Gaia is “storing fat”.

            60

            • #
              bobl

              Yes, but I wouldn’t think so if it was EXTRA then you could be pretty certain it was causing cooling though.

              This is a common problem with all the preciptation related alarmism, to cause extra precipitation you have to FIRST cause more evaporation. Evaporation is central to cooling the earth but it’s tough to do. Water takes 2257 Joules per gram to evaporate. It takes 4.1 joules per gram to heat every 1 Degree between it’s average rest state (15 deg C) and it’s vaporisation point (100C) it takes 100 Joules to raise a gram of it to 10 Km up so it can rain down.

              It’s even worse when they claim mass balance change (Ice is moving from A to B ) then you need to melt it as well which costs another 333 Joules per gram.

              Furthermore when ice melts it cools the air layer above it to near 0C (cold air falls), the warmer air above that has to warm the cool layer to be able to warm more ice this is an insulating effect that greatly reduces the rate of melting.

              Finally you must account for the fact that the air needs to be warmer than the ice to do that, the energy can’t be ALL absorbed by ice, because then there’s no energy to sustain the higher air temperature to cause the melting. (This is a causality paradox). This means that the ice can never absorb “All” the warming energy – only part of it Just like a windmill can never remove all the energy of the wind (Because that implies that the air piles up at the back of the windmill creating a high pressure zone that would cause an airflow opposing the wind – nothing is ever free in nature)

              The Energy thresholds in water melting/evaporation are so bad that back radiation (if it even exists) can’t power it meaning that the balance between back-radiation and precipitation are almost always nett Cooling, the energy cost of the effect claimed is greater than the energy available from the source (CO2 “Back radiation”) and therefore the relationship is demonstrably non causal.

              82

              • #
                bobl

                Yessss! One Green thumb and TWO Red, That’s 21 points in a few minutes! Keep em coming science fans…

                61

              • #
                Mark D.

                Thank you bobl, for those wonderful numbers. I’ve been contemplating the same stuff and I always end up thinking that there is no way to model this stuff. On a global scale there are at all times too many variables.

                30

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Those red thumbs are what you get for bringing science into Climatescience™ .

                31

      • #
        Mike

        In my case, i am an environment skeptic that predate climate skeptics by a long shot.

        Talking about the weather as though it is a paramount environmental issue, and putting so much energy into proves beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that my environmental skepticism is well founded.

        If those who fund climate science had any integrity, they would divest some of these exponential funds into saving native forests and research how to prevent further losses. If it really was about the environment, there would be funding for mapping what is left of biologically diverse areas of native forest, for all including biologists, plant specialists, water quality specialist and so on. and more importantly, there would be funding and awareness that Australia is being turned into a giant plantation forest filled with cloned gums and pines, AKA Carbon Sinks by the climate pseudo environment cult.

        110

        • #
          Mike

          Then we could have Water Quality Scientists agreeing that we should have a water quality tax to map out the most polluted areas, Biological Scientists arguing that we should tax the extinction of native forests/etc which happens incrementally and can never ever be repopulated and thus the environment debate would be diverse instead of miopic/pathological focusing on a single molecule called CO2.

          I need to change my avatar to Environment Skeptic

          And thanks for all the fish and letting me have the opportunity to have a friday night rant. :)

          70

      • #
        John Smith

        Please define and describe “independent information”.
        I’d like to get me some of that.

        51

      • #
        sophocles

        Go read up about an aircraft now known as Glacier Girl.

        It was put down in an emergency landing in 1942 along with others in Bad Weather on the Greenland Ice pack in 1942. It was rediscovered in 1988, nearly 80 m below the surface. That’s accretion at the rate of about 1.6m per year.

        Greenland is melting, yeah right.

        62

    • #
      AndyG55

      Changes in Greenland’s ice volume are best illustrated in this graph

      https://s19.postimg.org/gqw3xcigj/Greenland_Ice_Sheet_Briner.jpg

      Recent losses before the big gains in the last 2-3 years, are tiny and absolutely irrelevant in relation to any real history.

      “Over the last decade the Greenland Ice Sheet may have been losing 200Gt per year” Measured by GRACE, which was proven monumentally WRONG over the Antarctic. (Zwally 2015?… couldn’t be bothered hunting)

      GRACE measures gravity changes, and both the Arctic and Antarctic are active volcanic/magma movement zones. That make GRACE basically useless for measuring ice mass.

      205

      • #
        Rud Istvan

        GRACE wasn’t wrong. The modeled GIA adjustment used to estimate themAntarctic ice was. When diff GPS actual GIA was obtained in 2013, recalculated GRACE showed only a very slight loss. Zwally’s 2015 IceSat paper shows a slight gain. Net is that Antarctica has not resently been contributing to SLR

        82

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        AndyG55.

        Based on your cartoon, the ice sheet area increased by around 6% in 4,000 years.

        No mention of the mass of the ice, a link to the original study might have an estimate for that.

        27

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        AndyG55.

        I think the red label 1900-2015 is a fake. Age (ka) is years before present BP which starts at 1950 and goes backwards.

        213

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Greenland Ice mass has stayed about the same”

      Totally correct.

      The changes + or – are a tiny, basically immeasurable, fraction of the immense mass of the Greenland ice sheet.

      If you graphed the ice mas on a zero vertical axis. you would get a dead flat, dead straight line.

      Just like you do with temperature.

      205

    • #
      Climateskeptic

      More invented blog graph, without any proper references or sources, I’m ROLMHO.
      They dont just rely GRACE, all the independent altimetery data is consistent with GRACE.
      Read something other than blogs and get an education.
      http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2016/ArtMID/5022/ArticleID/277/Greenland-Ice-Sheet

      628

      • #
        AndyG55

        The changes + or – are a tiny, basically immeasurable, fraction of the immense mass of the Greenland ice sheet.

        If you graphed the ice mas on a zero vertical axis. you would get a dead flat, dead straight line.

        Just like you do with temperature.

        Read.. and for once TRY to comprehend !~!

        225

      • #
        el gordo

        CS I read Skeptical Science.

        ‘Although there have been some gains at high altitudes, significant ice losses are occurring at low altitudes (Wouters 2008) along the coastline where glaciers are calving ice into the oceans far quicker than ice is being accumulated at the top of the ice sheet (Rignot and Kanagaratnam 2006).

        ‘In conclusion Greenland is losing ice extensively along its margins where fast flowing ice streams are pushing more ice into the ocean than is gained in the center of the ice sheet.’

        61

      • #
        AndyG55

        Come on CS.. What is the total Greenland mass.. and what is the change over the last century.

        Please provide on a graph with no zero fudging.

        You can do it.. a bright child like you. !!

        NOT !!!

        146

      • #
        el gordo

        CS here is CarbonBrief, they refer to it as a ‘cold cap’.

        ‘Although melt rates stayed relatively high over the summer, especially in the west, the area that experienced melting was relatively small. Melting was suppressed somewhat in June, July and August because of a persistent cap of cold air that sat over the ice sheet.

        ‘Contrast this with the record year of 2012, for example, when clear skies and warm moist air moving over the ice sheet assisted the melt season, leading to melting over a very large area.

        ‘The same did not happen this year. In fact, the cold air at higher levels was so fixed that temperatures at the summit on 31 July set a new cold record for that month, a chilly -31.1C.’

        112

      • #
        el gordo

        CS its important to keep Greenland in perspective.

        ‘Greenland’s Ice Sheet has a larger ice extent now than it has had for most of the last 7,500 years; only the Little Ice Age period (~1300-1900 A.D.) had more ice mass. And both regions (Canadian Arctic and Greenland) are still 1 to 2°C colder now than they were just a few thousand years ago.’

        - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.GonOfRky.dpuf

        173

        • #
          AndyG55

          Historical perspective absolutely DESTROYS the AGW meme.

          Alarmista avoid it like it was the plague.

          154

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Buggar Greenland. Global warming is so severe that they are forecasting snow in Tasmania tonight. Three weeks into summer. Greenland could tip, like Guam, and Tassie might sink from the weight.
          And it’s all due to the fairy tale that is AGW.

          73

      • #
        Robert R

        Maybe the increase in ice cover over Greenland in recent years is the reason why sea levels have not risen as predicted and why South Pacific island nations may actually be increasing in size as apparently some studies have shown……… laugh out loud…….I thought, how funny and unexpected!!

        164

        • #
          Robert R

          Hey folks, I was looking at the big beautiful almost full moon tonight and I was thinking how when it is big and close like that, how it can raise the sea level on the side of the Earth closest to it. This reminded me of what global warming was meant to do and I suddenly wondered if such a big round moon lighting up the night sky like that, could cause global warming too. Ooo I better not suggest this, it might start a thought bubble at the climateriat.

          82

      • #
        el gordo

        CS the loss of mass balance over recent times may have something to do with geothermal flux and not CO2.

        http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n5/full/ngeo2689.html?WT.feed_name=subjects_hydrology

        61

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Read something other than blogs”

        Read something other than from one the proven leaders of the AGW scam, NOAA..

        And get over your brain-washing.

        135

      • #
        Mike

        ▶It has been a chilly Dec so far in Victoria Au IMO

        ▶Ukraine and Russia hit by extreme cold snap and heavy snow …
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Picture Galleries › World news
        2 days ago – Cold weather has killed 37 people in Ukraine so far this month as temperatures reached minus 23 Celsius in parts of the former Soviet republic.

        ▶Arctic blast marches eastward, bringing record low temperatures
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article…/Arctic-air-upper-Midwest-east-week-wears-on.html
        3 days ago – An arctic weather system is bringing record low temperatures to the Northern Plains, Midwest and Northeast this week. As you can see in the map above, …

        ▶The coldest air since the infamous “Polar Vortex” – CNN.com
        http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/weather/weather-polar-plunge
        4 days ago – (CNN) Record-breaking wintry temperatures are gripping the eastern two-thirds of the country, signaling that this could be one of the coldest seasons in years.

        ▶Next story US News Media Hides Record Cold Temperatures & All …
        https://investmentwatchblog.com/us-news-media-hides-record-cold-temperatures-all-ti
        3 days ago – With -40C temperatures last week the province of Alberta eclipsed its all time electrical usage record by almost 2%, while at the same time -20F below normal …

        ▶US News Media Hides Record Cold Temperatures & All … – YouTube
        Video for record cold temperatures
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWHXDSAryr4
        3 days ago – Uploaded by Adapt 2030
        With -40C temperatures last week the province of Alberta eclipsed its all time electrical usage record by …

        143

      • #
        RB.

        “It is therefore not possible to estimate the component of present-day mass balance changes without first removing the GIA signal.”
        A drop of 3500Gt might seem a huge amount but there is over 2.5 million Gt of ice there so that’s about 1/10th of a percent change. It could be entirely an artifice from an NOAA that is completely untrustworthy by now. If it were more reliable than a blog, there would have been mass sackings after the 2015 Karl paper.

        30

      • #
        el gordo

        This warm anomaly off east Greenland is interesting, some kind of natural variable.

        http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

        20

    • #
      gnome

      I couldn’t agree more. I constantly come back to my old question for the warmists “what’s so good about ice?”

      There’s so much irrelevant guff spread by the warmists, and the sceptics allow them to get away with it by trying to inject mere truth into the discussion when it should be ignored by polite sceptics, and ridiculed by the rest of us. Ice quantities, CO2 emissions by celebrities, ocean pH, it’s all just nothing. No serious scientist concerned with climate could take any interest in any of it – it’s just too minor to mean anything.

      132

      • #
        ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

        Exactly Gnome. Ice is essentially useless water. At the same time, Warmists bleat something about albedo, but most of the year the Sun is too low in the Arctic/Antarctic sky for albedo to factor much.

        It’s like their bed-wetting over cows, which are somehow bad for the atmosphere because “Man” has something to do with them. Not only do they ignore every African wildebeest, giraffe and zebra, but also every other farting, ruminating and gas-producing vegetarian/carnivorous animal/bird/insect/fungus on the planet.

        Much ado about nothing.

        131

        • #
          Mike

          Your making me hungry. I might go out and find some moss to make a moss burger….maybe i might be able to find some tasty lichen as well ….

          80

      • #
        John

        What’s so good about Ice?
        It is v good in Scotch whiskey.

        70

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Or Kentucky Bourbon!

          20

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Except the Scots don’t make whiskey. Only the Irish, Japanese, North Americans. Scots make real whisky.

          40

        • #
          PeterPetrum

          There is no such thing as “Scotch Whiskey”. There is Irish Whiskey, rye whiskey but it is Scotch Whisky, with no E.

          And apart from that, no self respecting Scotsman would put ice into a decent malt whisky; a couple of drops of water perhaps, but no ice.

          10

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            I remember reading an article by a head blender for one of the big distiller who claimed that a little water was often needed to “bring out the bouquet” not that he used that term. Not all whiskies needed it, and he suggested experimenting with CAREFUL additions of pure water. He listed a number of malts, in his opinion this one needing 3%, another 5%, several 10% and even one 15% which he considered excessive for any other whisky, but there are now so many ‘elderly’ whiskies available that there are probably more in that category now.
            For fun try http://www.gncellar.com/ Lisbon’s (and Portugal’s) best drinks shop, and enter Macallan or merely whisky. This is the English version of their web site.

            10

          • #
            Mark D.

            Peter I think it is that no self respecting Scotsman would waste the ice. It has very little to do with the drink. Hell, he wouldn’t waste the glass either.

            :)

            10

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      But according to AGW threory, whatever it is, be it more, less, or the same, it must be WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT.

      81

  • #
    Kenneth Richard

    According to NSIDC, the average yearly Greenland Ice Sheet surface mass loss has rapidly decelerated in recent years.

    Average loss for 2002-2015: 238 Gt/yr

    2013-’14: -6 Gt
    2014-’15: -186 Gt
    2015-’16: -191 Gt

    Average rate of yearly loss for the most recent 3 years: -127 Gt, a 47% deceleration from the 2002-2015 yearly average.

    https://epic.awi.de/37384/1/ArcticReportCard_full_report.pdf
    http://www.ecanadanow.com/noaa-report-indicates-that-while-arctic-air-is-rising-rate-of-ice-melt-is-negligible/
    “A negligible ice mass loss of 6 Gt between June 2013 and June 2014, in contrast to the largest annual loss (474 Gt) observed in the GRACE record in 2012, indicates a slowing of the rate of ice loss.”

    —–
    https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:196257
    “Ice mass loss of 186 Gt over the entire ice sheet between April 2014 and April 2015 was 22% below the average mass loss of 238 Gt for the 2002- 2015 period.”

    “The net area loss from marine-terminating glaciers during 2014-2015 was 16.5 km². This was the lowest annual net area loss of the period of observations (1999-2015) and 7.7 times lower than the annual average area change trend of -127 km².”
    —–

    ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2016.pdf
    “Between April 2015 and April 2016 (the most recent period of available data) there was a net ice melt loss of 191 Gt.” (pg. 33)

    —–
    According to Shepherd et al., 2012, the Greenland Ice Sheet contributed lost about -142 Gt/yr during 1992-2011:

    “Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheet of Greenland changed in mass by –142 ± 49 gigatonnes year.”

    Calculating the effects of -142 Gt/yr on sea levels, the rate of sea level contribution from the Greenland Ice Sheet over that period (1992-2011) amounted to 0.4 mm/yr, or 4 cm (1 1/2 inches) per century of sea level rise if Greenland keeps contributing to sea levels at the same pace as it did 1992-2011.
    —–
    Over about the same period (1992-2008), NASA has found that Antarctica’s contribution to sea levels was net negative, at -0.23 mm/yr, due to net gains in East Antarctica exceeding the losses elsewhere on the continent.

    “Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away.”
    —–

    In sum, the sea level rise contribution from both polar ice sheets combined is about a cm or two per century. Remember that next time you read headlines that scream “5 Trillion Tons of Ice Lost Since 2002″. Remember what “5 Trillion Tons of Ice Lost” actually means in terms of sea level rise equivalent.

    141

  • #
    Graham Richards

    On a recent visit to our Red Centre we across a tour guide at Uluru who mentioned tourists that were really miffed that the Red Centre is now green. The Red Centre appears to have gone walk about due to small increases in rainfall and, dare I say it, increased plant food in the form of CO 2

    153

    • #
      gnome

      I spend time in the red parts of eastern Australia, and to me, it looks even more spectacular when the base and the tops of the dunes are green and the slopes are just as red and the skies as blue as they ever were.

      131

  • #

    One needs to put the melt rate in context of previous estimates and sea level rise.
    A few years ago all the estimates were of the polar ice cap melt accelerating and Greenland losing much more ice than Antarctica. Now it turns out that there is no acceleration in recent years – consistent with there being no warming.
    The average loss is 200Gt per year. As it takes about 360Gt of water to raise sea levels by a millimetre that means Greenland ice melt has been contributing one sixth of the alleged sea level rise of 3.2mm per annum.
    You can check figures from IPCC ARE WG1 SPM 2013. More extreme and earlier eestimates include Velicogna 2009.

    61

    • #

      200Gt may seem vast. It is 200 cubic kilometres of water, or more than 20 times the water of Loch Ness. Yet that lake is so vast it has managed to hide a family of monsters for decades. :)
      An indication of how vast the ice mass is, At 200Gt a year, the Greenland ice cap would take 14000 years to melt. At that rate it would add .050-.060 metres per century to sea levels. But if Kenneth Richard #2 is correct about deceleration, this could be an exaggeration.

      71

  • #
    AndyG55

    Bob on “deplorable makes a salient point…

    “Predicted low temp for Aberdeen, SD Saturday morning is 30 below, (without the wind).
    That low temp would have been 31 or 32 below before mankind caused all this weather weirding. If we spend a trillion dollars maybe we can get back to that sweet spot of 31 or 32 below. May I count on you? If you are on board, send your check to me, made out to cash…………….. LOL…. I will invest the money in ice cubes…. REALLY!!!”

    Appell, CS, and the other child-minded HYPOCRITICAL trolls…..

    …. why aren’t you in Siberia if you are SCARED of 1ºC warming !!!

    Let me guess…….

    Granny’s basement.. or a latte sipping, inner-city ghetto is FAR warmer. !!!

    133

  • #
    tom0mason

    Yep, there has been a relatively small blob of warm water off the coast of Greenland, coupled with the local weather conditions for the last couple of months has ensured plenty of moisture laden air hit a cold land.

    The current positive AO is reflective of mixed pressure/geopotential height anomalies in the Arctic but mostly positive pressure/geopotential height anomalies across the mid-latitudes of the North Atlantic sector. The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is currently neutral because of positive height anomalies near Iceland and Greenland. However, the NAO is also predicted to remain mostly positive over the next two weeks.

    And see “Figure 14. The latest weekly-mean global SST anomalies (ending 08 December 2016). Data from NOAA OI High-Resolution dataset. The tropical Pacific shows La Niña SST structure with cool waters near the equator in the eastern and central tropical Pacific. Warmer than normal waters also extend into the subtropical North Pacific and near Alaska with cooler than normal waters from Northern Japan to British Columbia. Well above normal waters extend across the subpolar North Atlantic near Greenland and north of Iceland.

    From — https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation

    If you wish to see the month roll out click on the link …
    https://www.windytv.com/?2016-11-16-18,60.233,-42.937,3 then hit the play button at the bottom left and watch the month unfold.

    41

  • #
    ROM

    Before climate science, ignorance was bliss!

    Then came the Ozone Hole and lavish amounts of tax payers dollars were there by the truckload courtesy of the politicians and climate science activists with their misinformation and unsupportable claims and unprovable predictions and just plain straight out lies if and when it added a few more thousands of dollars to their grants.

    The “Ozone Hole” problem was unfortunately solved a bit too rapidly for most new selfie characterised climate scientists and the even more dubious and unsavoury climate activists through the Montreal Protocol where a fairly innocuous, cheap, safe and ubiquitous CFC was replaced by a somewhat more carcinogenic and far less efficient and far more expensive Du Pont product that very fortuitously Du Pont had just completed the development and testing of the new CFC type product.
    A product which was very fortunately available just in time to replace that dreadful old cheap and universal CFC product so as to “save the planet” from all that Ozone poisoning from the Ozone Hole or whatever the politicians and that symbol of universal distortion and twisting of the truth, the MSM could be convinced to swallow.

    And so the Ozone Hole problem was solved and thousands of new selfie described “climate scientists” had to find a new source of tax payer funded largesse, preferably a source that was ongoing in its largesse and munificent to the greatest degree possible over the widest field possible with that tax payer funded largesse.

    And so those thousands of newly minted climate scientists now well versed in the manipulation, invention, adjusting of data along with considerable expertise in the disposal and disappearing of non conforming data found themselves a new and even more munificent source of tax payer funded largesse in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming through our sinfulness in daring to burn coal and thereby releasing all that entirely natural CO2 that was tied up in that hundreds of millions of years old coal to keep our selves warm and cool and to create the machines and medicines and food that allows seven and half billions of humanity to live far richer lives despite the endless wars and strife, in every way than even the 3.5 billions of humanity who lived only some half a century ago in the 1960′s.

    For all of those three decades past it has been just a give and give and give of the tax payers dollars to every shady and not at all salubrious self styled climate scientist and climate modellers with their stupid little sets of numerical chicken bones that “predicted” a global catastrophe , in fact a whole truck load of catastrophes whose “predictions” were predicted to occur at least a couple of scores of times at least since the Ozone hole imbroglio.
    Predictions of global climate catastrophes piled on predictions of global climate catastrophes piled on______________”

    A rather strange piece of grossly distorted psychology practiced by the climate science catastrophe predictors there, because if their predictions actually came true to an even minor degree, the economic chaos would be such that they would no longer be able to lavishly suck on the tax payer’s publicly funded teat and they might actually have to go out and “Work”!
    Shock!, horror!, god forbid! such as at shovelling some dirt or similar so as to make enough money to feed themselves.
    The horror of the thought of having to some real actual work is just too much to contemplate for those ivory towered academic climate alarmism promoters and creators.

    Of course all of those predictions of an imminent climate catastrophe pale into insignificance when President Elect, “Drain the Swamp” Trump comes into the equation.
    Draining the climate alarmist science’s malodorous and miasmatic swamp will indeed no doubt lead to many deep dwelling very long term fat cat denizens of the aforesaid swamp having severe cases of heart attacks at the very thought that their tax payer funded sustenance is going to be cutoff forthwith and perhaps they might have to “Work” for a living.

    Of course any swamp needs a constant inflow of water to maintain it as a swamp so it becomes very easy to put a dam across the major inflow of a swamp and just let it sit there until it has dried right out and the nasty standover big wheel bully denizens of the swamp are gone to wherever swamp denizens go when they pass from this world.

    Of course there were a few hiccups such as the “science is settled” meme which was almost universally used prior to and following Copenhagen to beat the skeptics around the head with great gusto by the anthropogenic climate catastrophe believers.
    Since the science was so settled as we were endlessly instructed, according to all those self styled and self promoting climate scientists, there was obviously no need for any more climate scientists or in fact for any climate scientists at all as the science of the climate was settled according to those same scientists.

    The realisation by 300 CSIRO climate scientists that due to the “science being settled” they were therefore no longer needed or required came as something of a shock to the climate alarmist science industry.
    They clearly hadn’t thought that one through and as many a Skeptic may have noted, “the science is settled” meme for some reason [ sarc ] seems to have lost all currency amongst the Alarmist climate science industry.

    The increasing stench and increasingly malodorous miasma emanating from the swamp of Climate Science alarmism might still have a few swampy crocodile tears left to be extracted from the MSM although the public might now be a far harder nut to crack for the dwellers of the malodorous miasmatic climate alarmism swamp using their climate alarmism chicken bone derived, er! climate model derived “predictions”.

    However the very aptly named Jerry”Moonbeam” Brown, Governor of California may have come riding to the rescue brandishing his formidable ability to develop a major tax payer funded cock up from a minor contretemps.
    “Moon beam” Brown has just signed into Californian law a requirement that stops cows and other ruminants from farting as the methane from the aforesaid farts will destroy the climate and he is dead set as Governor to save the planet all over again.

    So with California’s entrepreneurial up your’s digital economy, soon we might see the development to tax payer funded of course, fart meters being installed on cows and other ruminants with a filter down effect to the commuter system where remote cameras and digital fart identifiers with varying levels of methane emissions will be used to set the fines for the farters in crowded transit systems.

    Now that CO2 has lost its luster with the public and even the MSM let alone the President elect of the USA, Methane being even more potent as a greenhouse gas in the hoped for public’s perspective than CO2, it might just possibly fill the bill to keep the dwellers of that increasingly malodorous , miasmaticly overpowering crap filled waters of the climate alarmist science swamp in the manner to which they have become very accustomed too.

    I doubt that as the tax paying funders of the denizens of that increasingly malodorous and miasmatic swamp are about ready to drain that particular swamp and smilingly watch at the thrashing death throes of what has become one of the most society destroying chapters of so called science that humanity has seen in the last thousand years.

    193

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      ROM:
      Methane has been the backup scare for many years, and no doubt will be deployed in the last battle, as funds dry up and the end is in sight. Only this week I was told by a visiting Canadienne that the tundra was full of methane and when it melted the temperature would jump alarmingly. Then there are the deep ocean stores of methane, although they have mostly dropped off the scare list once the Japanese Government decided to explore for them and pipe the ga ashore and burn it. (Bit like the CSIRO mob suddenly realising a problem with the science).
      The scare relies on public ignorance of the short lifetime of methane in nature.

      80

    • #
      sophocles

      ROM:

      Before climate science, ignorance was bliss!

      You should find out about the in-fighting, the verbal warfare, the disbelief, the denial (continents can’t move, rock is rigid), etc etc about plate tectonics as it was being worked out in the late 1950s and the 1960s. There were no Internet blogs so there were no astroturfers making pests of themselves, but the language was hot. It wasn’t until Glomar Explorer sailed the oceans boring deep holes all over the sea bottoms that the idea that continents really do move around took hold.

      It’s nicely documented in Nigel Calder’s book The Restless Earth

      The more things change, the more they stay the same. The war over the ozone layer, the Antarctic Anomaly and then the planet’s climate are nothing new. Different players, same old, same old. The only difference with plate tectonics is that it wasn’t blamed on mankind.

      31

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Not only was it not blamed on mankind, but it wasn’t driven by the political mind set of Christiana Figuers and Maurice Strong.
        It was, for the most part, purely the to and fro that is involved in the process called science.
        If it weren’t for the money and politics involved, the current to and fro nonsense would have ended before it began.

        21

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    I guess CS is worried if there is extra ice all that extra Co2 will melt it , funny how we have hot years and we have cold years ,wet years and dry years and that’s the way it’s always been and the way it always will be .

    92

  • #
    Philip Mulholland

    The DMI snowfall accumulation data for south-east Greenland show a major spike during mid-October due to the arrival of the Remnants of Hurricane Nicole.

    The weather pattern of the northern hemisphere Atlantic operates in two basic modes, either predominantly zonal (latitudinal) flow or predominantly meridional (longitudinal) flow. These two basic flow modes last on average for about 30 years. During periods of zonal (west-east-west) flow the climate generally warms; then during the following periods of meridional (south-north-south) flow the warmth accumulated over the previous 30 years is directed into the Arctic resulting in increased moisture transport producing more snowfall in Greenland and Scandinavia. So now you know why the IPCC chose to define climate as the average of 30 years of weather – they accounted for only the warming half of the climate cycle. During the coming years expect more south-north-south directed weather movement, more cold arctic plunges in winter and more snow. Weather forecast prediction models tuned to the last 30 years of zonal flow will continue to produce poor forecasts until the computer code is adjusted to take account of the new weather reality.

    Yes, you can blame the Russians ;-)

    In dynamics some indices dominated by about 60-year oscillation, which was first described in the North Atlantic and adjacent regions [42, 43] . Available observations and recent publications make it possible to assert that approximately 60-year fluctuations in the meteorological values are found almost everywhere.

    See Modern features of distribution flows of moisture in Eurasia (pdf In Russian).

    51

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      G’day Philip,
      No, we can’t blame IPCC for the 30 year climate interval. That was around, and taught in Geography courses in the 1960s. I don’t recall the reasons given for that time period, but think it was a somewhat arbitrary agreed period used to smooth out weather variability, and known lack of spatial coverage of observation points.
      I may be able to find a reference, but it would probably be in an out of print hard copy book.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      40

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Available observations and recent publications make it possible to assert that approximately 60-year fluctuations in the meteorological values are found almost everywhere.”

      The last 40 or so years has been the upward leg of the AMO (the last 10 being a flatish top)

      The next 30 or so years should be the downward leg of the AMO.

      The AMO seems to have an enormous influence in the pattern of all sorts of climate in the Northern Hemisphere

      From the obvious temperatures around Iceland region
      https://s19.postimg.org/yavxs1i7n/amoreyk.jpg
      https://s19.postimg.org/vws4z68s3/arctic_temp.png

      To the ebb and flow of Swiss glaciers..
      https://s19.postimg.org/xxtc8onhv/swiss_glaciers.png

      Even glaciers in the NW of USA seem to be affected
      https://s19.postimg.org/j23ct07zn/mt_baker.png

      To Icelandic sea ice over a longer period (AMO effect at red dots)
      https://s19.postimg.org/yc38073hv/Icelandic_sea_ice_index_3.png

      32

    • #
      Philip Mulholland

      Hi Dave,
      Very interesting. Be good if you can find that reference.
      Thanks,
      Philip

      20

      • #
        AndyG55

        When there is a known cycle about 60 years long that is known to have strong effects in many parts of the globe.

        Choosing a 30 year reference period gives the chance for the ultimate cherry-pick.

        Choose the coldest part of the cycle, and everything will be relatively warmer.

        ie. I’m pretty sure you will find the 30 year “meme” originated from one of the AGW priests.

        23

      • #
        ROM

        CLIMATIC NORMALS

        Climatologists define a climatic normal as the arithmetic average of a climate element such as temperature over a prescribed 30-year interval.

        The 30 year interval was selected by international agreement, based on the recommendations of the International Meteorological Conference in Warsaw in 1933.

        The 30 year interval is sufficiently long to filter out many of the short-term interannual fluctuations and anomalies, but sufficiently short so as to be used to reflect longer term climatic trends

        20

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        G’day Philip,
        I’m away fro home at the moment, so tried a Safari search and found this:

        http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/downloads/climate/11-703-Climate-Variability-and-Climate-Change.pdf

        “Climate isn’t defined by any particular timeframe, however scientists typically use average weather conditions over 30-year time intervals
        to track climate. These 30-year averages are called climatological normals, and are used to determine, monitor or represent the climate – or a specifc slice of climate – at a particular location. irty years of data is long enough to calculate an average that is not influenced by year-to-year variability.”

        It’s undated, but, being on line, is obviously more recent than my memory. And their terminology is new to me.
        Hope this is useful.
        Will try to find the older reference when I get home.
        Cheers,
        Dave B

        20

        • #
          Philip Mulholland

          Hi Dave,
          ROM has already nailed it for us-1933! (h/t ROM).

          OK so the purpose of the 30 year average is to remove inter-annual variability in average weather records, thereby damping the high frequencies, with the aim of establishing a norm. Fine, but since 1933 the Science has moved on.
          In particular we have the work of Schlesinger, M.E. and Ramankutty, N., 1994 An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65-70 years. Nature, 367(6465), pp.723-726.

          Here we apply singular spectrum analysis to four global-mean temperature records, and identify a temperature oscillation with a period of 65-70 years. Singular spectrum analysis of the surface temperature records for 11 geographical regions shows that the 65-70-year oscillation is the statistical result of 50-88-year oscillations for the North Atlantic Ocean and its bounding Northern Hemisphere continents.

          This statistical analysis was then confirmed by Latysheva, I.V., Belousova, E.P., Olemskoy, S.V., Latyshev, S.V. and Loschenko, K.A. 2010. Modern features of distribution flows of moisture in Eurasia. Izestia, Series “Earth Science” Vol.3, No.1, pp. 62-79.

          Annotation: This work deals with spatial features in the distribution division of the zonal and meridional moisture flux in the territory of Eurasia between 30 to 90 N. and from 0 to 180 E., which are the most important characteristics that define the current trends of climate change.

          Ever since I first learned about variations in the Length of Day (delta LOD) at university in the 1970s I have followed the Russian climate school’s analysis of the difference between zonal and meridional atmospheric flow and its impact on long-term weather norms. Of particular interest is the use of sudden step change in delta LOD as a long term predictor (circa 5-8 years) of the switch between zonal and meridional flow. The last step change of significance was reported in the Noughties and as a result of this expectation of weather change I spent the summer of 2007 collecting EuMetSat satellite images for Northern Africa and was lucky to capture a perfect example of meridional flow as the West African Monsoon crossed the Sahara and reached the Mediterranean Sea.

          The track of Hurricane Nicole (described as the longest-lived Atlantic named storm forming after October 1 since 1906) is also an excellent example of meridional flow. This change from zonal tracking events, for example summer tropical waves in West Africa passing offshore at Cape Verde and initiating west-tracking hurricanes which hit the US Gulf States; to my summer 2007 example where the initiating tropical wave ended up on a meridional track north across the Sahara; to this year’s Hurricane Nicole, with its remnant close pass of Greenland, helps to explain why US land-falling hurricanes are not so common of late.

          So what about the canonical 30 year average? My view is that the Science has moved on since 1933 and we need to adjust climatic norms to average weather data over a much longer period (of at least 60 years) to remove this low frequency North Atlantic Oscillation signal, so that the rate of the long term climatic warming trend can be correctly measured.

          10

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    AGW (Anthropologic Global Warming) dogma becomes CC (Climate Change) dogma when temperatures drop. And the scientific consensus remains at 97%.

    72

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    The lack of ice in the arctic is probably helping. Hard to get evaporation when there is an ice cap on the water. The law of unintended consequences means we have a lot to learn before we can proclaim any comfort level of understanding the climate.

    41

  • #

    Party like it’s 1816, warmies.

    40

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    “Climate Change causes more snow and ice on Greenland”

    Correct! Well done. Although I do not see any evidence that ice has increased. From memory it takes years (if not decades) for snow to compact into ice.

    The weather over Greenland is very interesting at present.

    A prediction of global warming is precipitation will increased in some areas, and snow is precipitation. Considering how warm it has been over the Arctic recently I am not surprised that some of the warming has transported extra moisture to Greenland.

    213

    • #
      AndyG55

      For your education, Twotter

      Here is a approximate graph of the Total Greenland Ice Mass from 1979 to 2015

      https://s19.postimg.org/miw84hsab/Greenland_ice_mass.png

      Feel free to produce your own, using proper zeroed vertical axis, if you feel it is incorrect

      102

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      Remember that not only is it necessary to cool the humid air to the freezing point, extra energy must be removed to solidify the rain and produce snow. Since the source of the water vapor was liquid seawater, the entire system is out of balance by the total mass times the latent heat of freezing. In a closed system, added heat doesn’t produce cold, and those that say it can are either ignorant, stupid, insane, or malign.

      31

    • #
      Mark M

      Hola Harry.
      A prediction of global warming is precipitation will increased in some areas, and snow is precipitation.
      . . .
      Sadly for Harry, he fails to provide information for such 97% ‘sciencey’ statements.

      Which areas will have increased precipitation?

      Allow me to help. You’re welcome. Here are places that won’t:

      Meanwhile, in the Real World, Climate Change Is Creating Vast Deserts

      51

    • #
      AndyG55

      Climate NORMAL causes more snow and ice on Greenland…

      ….. and sometimes less snow and ice on Greenland.

      Its called NATURAL VARIABILITY !!

      62

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘The weather over Greenland is very interesting at present,’ said Harry.

      The NAO is neutral because of positive height anomalies near Iceland and Greenland, according to AER. If the NAO continues neutral or positive there is little chance of snow falling in London on xmas day.

      20

    • #
      Mark M

      Off you totter, Harry, back to Sou’s safe space for Doomsday Global Warming believers.

      Plenty of crayons, play dough and all the doomsday kool-aide you can drink in that echo-chamber.

      Perhaps you will complain that I bullied you.

      Unlike you, who tells me to go away, I welcome your science in any forum.

      42

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘I welcome your science in any forum.’

        Yep and CS too. On this thread, thanks to their effort, I have discovered that geothermal flux is the major contributor to ice loss on Greenland.

        20

  • #
  • #
    John Smith

    Climate Change
    Lord of All
    Maker of fire and ice
    Giver and Taker
    Deniers must quake at His/Her mighty wrath
    We know not in what form She/He will manifest
    Fear Him/Her whether She/Him comes in bikini or full length mink
    Praise Climate Change

    (Sorry, I’m not in college so I’m not up on gender neutral pronouns. All new Gods must be gender neutral)

    40

  • #
    David Maddison

    Research grants are what causes climate change.

    142

  • #
    TdeF

    It has taken mankind a century to reach both poles, touch the bottom of the ocean, climb Everest and put a man on the moon, fight to the death in WW1 and WW2 and to see democracy triumph over socialist dictatorships as in Russia and Cuba.

    We have a new form of capitalist communism in Vietnam and China and 75% of the world’s governments are now military dictatorships and vote in the UN, but at least they pretend to have elections. Even Mugabe pretends he is not a murderous dictator and cares about the many climates of the world, as long as he gets truckloads of cash from COP21 in Paris.

    What is frightening is that it might take a real turn towards a frozen planet to finally convince people that Global Warming is over. Even today in reading such articles, the words say Climate Change but mean Global Warming. A necessary semantic trick because everyone knows Global Warming is not happening so no one says it, but every scare from Climate Change is warming. Climate Change is heating the oceans and killing our coral, without heating the air? How does that work? Perhaps Roo boy can tell us how his science explains that?

    How tragic would it be if the glaciers returned, destroying half our world as the glaciers covered everything above 40 degrees. Half of our living space would be gone. You cannot argue with a 1km mountain of ice at your door. London shuts down in an inch of snow. Cold is so much more threatening than a sea rise. Mankind has coped with sea rises for ten thousand years. We just move. We cannot cope with the return of the ice. Our puny energy sources could not cope.

    How ironic would be it be if the rationalists were proven right and the politically motivated climate scientologists proven very wrong. However you can be sure if the glaciers returned, the logic would be twisted around to make the disaster the fault of Western democracies and motor cars and the stuff of life, Carbon Dioxide. We would however be wiped out by that other pollutant, the other polluting product of combustion and partner ih photosynthesis, H2O.

    172

    • #
      David Maddison

      Well said TdeF.

      62

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Seems the greenies like Hairy used to scoff at this:
      TITLE: Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short
      by Archibald, David
      ISBN: 1621-57158-0
      ISBN 13: 978-1621-57158-2
      Publisher: Regnery Publishing
      Publish Date: 2014-03-24
      Binding: Hardcover
      List Price: AUD 38.07

      31

  • #
    Ruairi

    To have heeded the great warmist scare,
    Greenland’s ice-sheet should hardly be there,
    But by ‘Holy Shomoly’,
    And surely but slowly,
    This year brings a solid thick layer.

    100

  • #

    Could Patrick Moore be one of Mr Trump’s environmental advisors, please?

    00