Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Jolly green giants toppled | Main | Déjà vu - Josh 364 »

Sea ice holds firm

This morning's story appears to be the hoary old "Arctic sea ice in freefall" one.

The Arctic is in crisis. Year by year, it’s slipping into a new state, and it’s hard to see how that won’t have an effect on weather throughout the Northern Hemisphere,” said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the Colorado-based NSIDC.

As usual on these occasions, I take a quick look at the Cryosphere Today anomaly page, where I find the sea ice apparently still stuck firmly in "pause" mode.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (278)

Mr Appell:

Radical Rat…
Oh, dear. It looks like I’ve upset someone. You could at least try to get my name right.
Do you honestly not see how a reliance on very short-term trends by people like you just keeps undercutting your claims??
You obviously have not been reading the posts from others: many are pointing out that there are records showing that the sea ice extent has been even lower during earlier parts of the 20th Century; even during the 19th Century, it declined sufficiently to encourage foolhardy Victorian explorers to attempt to discover the northwest passage. Interesting to note that none of that is included in the graph you believe in. Nothing you are dragging out with such triumph suggests anything to be overly worried about – and even if there were, what would you suggest be done about it? And how much of that are you doing?

Mar 31, 2016 at 9:55 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Yep today Paul H points out the new record is so small it must be within measuring error.

"That’s a 0.2% decline on the previous lowest maximum in 2015"

Mar 31, 2016 at 12:25 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

If the Sun-Earth system managed to have a milder arctic region in the 19th century without mankind's help then how do know it is not managing so again?

Mar 31, 2016 at 2:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterJoseph Sydney

David Appell states:

The long-term trend in Arctic SIE is -53,500 km2/yr.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on that statement and explain your definition of "long-term"? Do you mean since 1979, since 1870 AD, since 1600 AD, since the start of the Holocene, or some other period?

Presumably by extending your logic you can also extrapolate your linear prediction and tell us which year the Arctic will be ice free, ;-)

Mar 31, 2016 at 2:38 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

@ Mar 31, 2016 at 2:15 PM | Joseph Sydney
You ask one of the pesky questions the climate imperialists have to avoid honestly answering:
What about the past history showing similar conditions?
Think of the corollary:
What was going on with the weather during those similar historic conditions?
That is why the climate obsessed have to ring the alarm bell constantly. Scary distractions are fundamental to the climate obsessed campaign If people were allowed to calmly consider what is not happening, they would stop allowing the alarmists to get so much money and power.

Mar 31, 2016 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Doesn't look like a pause to me at all. The last time it hit the mean was 2012, the last time it strayed briefly above the mean was 2003/4. It's been firmly below the mean the rest of the time. So there is less sea ice now (by area) than the mean, consistent with global warming, and firmly indicating a downward trend.

Mar 31, 2016 at 6:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist


Seeing as the mean is the 30 year period and the latter half is lower than the first then your comment amounts to stating the bleedin' obvious. What else would you expect?

However, sorry to say but your "firmly indicating a downward trend" is patently nonsense to even a cursory glance. Looks like its flatlining to me, and nicely consistent with the global temperature pause, probably since about 2003 - 2005.

A more interesting question is why the variance seems to increase significantly during this period of apparent stasis. Any takers to answer that?

Mar 31, 2016 at 9:33 PM | Registered Commenterthinkingscientist

thinkingscientist, 9:33pm:

Possibly due to the readings coming from crap mass-manufactured sub-standard hardware emanating from the People's Republic of China?

Mar 31, 2016 at 10:13 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

David Appell, do you think we should have been panicking about all those years when the Arctic sea ice was above average in it's extent?

When was it decided what average ice extent was?

Was it based on information from the US Navy, or the Franklin Expedition, or indigenous people, or even whoever it was that knew a North West Passage existed? Perhaps the Vikings circumnavigated the Arctic, and proved the top of the world was round, even if the rest of it was flat.

The problem with climate science's simplistic assumptions, is they raise really simple questions that climate scientists can't/won't answer. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Mar 31, 2016 at 11:48 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

David Appell, do you think we should have been panicking about all those years when the Arctic sea ice was above average in it's extent?

When was it decided what average ice extent was?

Was it based on information from the US Navy, or the Franklin Expedition, or indigenous people, or even whoever it was that knew a North West Passage existed? Perhaps the Vikings circumnavigated the Arctic, and proved the top of the world was round, even if the rest of it was flat.

With recent discoveries of some of Franklins ships, and HMS Investigator, one of the ships sent to search for Franklin, maybe those Victorians did not die in vain after all. They may not have found the North West Passage, but their misadventure, may prove a significant part of climate science's undoing. If climate science experts respected recorded history, that is supported by modern technology and archaeology, they would not keep looking quite so stupid.

The problem with climate science's simplistic assumptions, is they raise really simple questions that climate scientists can't/won't answer. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Apr 1, 2016 at 12:08 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

You know if you squint a bit it looks like sea ice decline happened during Tony Blair's government. Before that it looked pretty stable and then after than it looked stable as well.

Who knew Gordon Brown was such a calming influence?

Apr 1, 2016 at 9:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterMicky H Corbett

"...sea ice decline happened during Tony Blair's government..."
Surely the climate change act of 2008 is what made the difference.

Apr 1, 2016 at 11:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

I often wonder if folk actually read what they link to or just expect others not to. David Appel's reference is based on statistical analysis from 1979 only. So it he alone who extrapolates any conclusion outwith its limited data bounds - the authors certainly didn't. Further I would presume a consensus scientist should also expect the IPCC to be the greater authority on the pre-1979 fluctuations. We can all speculate of course but the history of such speculation is that alarmists are always wrong. It's very easy to focus on a rising/falling trend from short-term data and predicting a continuation but it isn't at all clever. Predicting pauses and recoveries (ie not post-hoc excuses) would demonstrate actual scientific progress.

Also Ramanathan (one of the authors of the linked paper) was previously banging on about carbon deposits being responsible for much of the Arctic ice loss so exactly how much reduction can be laid directly at the door of CO2 with at least 3 independent variables in play (& probably more) is an abject guess, which is likely why the paper only talks of a CO2 warming 'equivalence'.

Apr 1, 2016 at 11:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Micky H Corbett & JamesG This correlation v causation issue, is where climate science started wrong, and got worse.

President Obama has halted hurricane damage on mainland USA

FIFA corruption has been Unprecedented, but may have reached a tipping point (or should that be a gratuity point?) Is there a Sepp Blatter factor, in overcooking the books of global warming?

It could be that the rapid rise in Polar Bear numbers, with their lazy sun-bathing nature, is actually insulating the ice from the sun.

Al Gore seems to have cooled the warm atmosphere he helped propagate in gullible circles.

Ed Miliband seems to have destroyed the UK Steel Industry, the Labour Party and Global Warming, with his Climate Change Act. Quite an achievement for a failure.

Worryingly, the more money that has been wasted on pointless Global Warming policies, the more the Globe has refused to warm. The Green Blob will be arguing for doubling the money wasted, to ensure the non existent benefits.

Also of concern, is how the growth of chains of coffee shops, and their non-payment of taxes, particularly in the UK, shows a disturbing link to the globe not warming, and the ice refusing to melt as it was told.

Apr 1, 2016 at 12:27 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Re: M Courtney Mar 30, 2016 at 10:27 AM

In actual fact WUWT censors technical responses, especially when it comes to Arctic sea ice! If you doubt my assertion please feel free to examine the evidence:

Apr 1, 2016 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterJim Hunt

Jim Hunt, with your expertise, can you advise how and why the ice extent rises and falls through recorded history, and how the average ice extent was ever calculated?

Should we have panicked more, when the ice extent was above average? Life on earth seems more sustainable with less ice, not more.

As satellite records do not go back very far, has any attempt ever been made to plot ice extent and longevity from port and harbour records that freeze up annually? This might reverse some of the ridicule generated by 'death spiral' scare stories that have so damaged the credibility of ice experts.

Apr 1, 2016 at 2:13 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Interesting to note that the perpetrators of the metaphorical “drive-bys” seem to be put off when people do not roll over and play dead but shoot back with responses that they have no desire (or ability?) to answer. I wonder if they really know the meaning of the word “debate”?

Apr 1, 2016 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

Ken (And Then There's Mincing),

"Strangely enough, though, even though it was claimed to be obvious, noone seemed to moderate their interpretation of this graph."

Why would I moderate my interpretation? I've been a regular viewer of that graph for years. I find it fascinating. And I understand it. Honestly, I do. Though I realise that you might find that hard to believe.

Apr 1, 2016 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames Evans

‘hunter’ wrote:
"You ask one of the pesky questions the climate imperialists have to avoid honestly answering: What about the past history showing similar conditions? Think of the corollary: What was going on with the weather during those similar historic conditions? That is why the climate obsessed have to ring the alarm bell constantly."

No one avoids this question -- it is because there is a new and powerful factor in the climate system: anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Apr 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

‘golf charlie’ wrote:
"When was it decided what average ice extent was?"

This old and boring question?

It doesn't matter what average sea ice extent is. All that matters is whether species, including humans, can adapt to the large changes we're creating.

Apr 1, 2016 at 4:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

"The problem with climate science's simplistic assumptions, is they raise really simple questions that climate scientists can't/won't answer. But feel free to prove me wrong."

Your questions have been answered time and time again. But you won't know that if you only read this blog or other sources that only confirm your biases.

Apr 1, 2016 at 4:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Appell

Mr Appell:

… it is because there is a new and powerful factor in the climate system: anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
And what evidence do you have for this rather confident assertion? A similar question could be posed for your next post:
… adapt to the large changes we're creating.
Just because you are being told things by people whom you trust, this does not necessarily make it the truth.

Most will have noticed that you have not answered the simple questions I asked earlier; is this because you are unwilling to answer them or because you are unable to answer them?

Apr 1, 2016 at 6:28 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

David Salt

A postscript on Greenland ice melt.

Note how the sea level is decreasing around Greenland.

Best guess, ice melt is reducing the mass of the Greenland ice sheet and reducing its gravitational attraction. The gravitational bulge in sea level around the island decreases as water moves away to increase sea level elsewhere.

Apr 1, 2016 at 6:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Of course, it could also be isostatic rebound of Greenland as the great weight of ice is lifted off it. Interestingly, this also explains the increase in sea levels, elsewhere. It could be a combination of the two; it could even be for neither of these reasons. Perhaps it might be an idea to observe, and not get too worried about it.

Apr 1, 2016 at 7:11 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent

GPS measurements show some areas of Greenland to be subsiding at up to -9mm/year

>That is suggested as being due to ice accumulation between the end of the Holocene Optimum and the Industrial Revolution warming.

If the island is sinking by 9mm/year and the sea level measured by the tide guages is sinking by 5mm relative to the land, then the near-Greenland sea level is going down by 14mm/ year.

Apr 1, 2016 at 8:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

David Appell,

You seem to reply in riddles, grasshopper. You may find your arguments are more convincinģ if you actually addressed the point. You could start with mine earlier upthread.

You seem to be caught in the fantasy that you are Obi Wan Kenobi and can wave away criticism with the old Jedi mind trick that "these are not the droids you are looking for". Dream on mate, we have way more expertise, experience snd resilience to fall for that old Jedi mind trick.

Apr 1, 2016 at 10:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

David Appell, thanks for your condescending reply. Clearly you have learned nothing from all the rubbish you spout, about the history you ignore.

My questions about ice come from an interest in seafaring, past and present. As your knowledge does not extend beyond the satellite records, how do you hope to explain current climate changes, if you ignore the recorded history of climate change?

If you accept Mann's Hockey Stick as proof that the climate only started to change in the last 100 years or so, then you should stick to websites designed to pander to your special needs, and book an Arctic beach holiday.

I do hope this reply matches the tone of your posts at this blog, and is not to technical for you.

Apr 1, 2016 at 11:48 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

EM, perhaps you should read that link a bit more carefully, though, to give the report due credit, the authors are not quite as convinced as you are about their findings:

The lower bound of 9.2 – 4.8 = 4.4 mm/yr would imply the ice is thickening at a rate from 22 to 44 cm/yr…
It would appear that some consider the possibility that the change is an increase in the ice, not the decrease you crave.

Apr 2, 2016 at 1:06 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

EM, any idea why Greenland is 'subsiding'? Is it due to the increasing or decreasing weight of ice on top, or some other force?

Is it Greenland 'subsiding' that causes other parts of the earth's crusty surface to go up? Or does rock get consumed by the millions of degrees of heat only imagined by Al Gore, and vapourise, once it is below sea level?

Apr 2, 2016 at 2:41 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

EM & Radical Rodent

EM, out of curiosity, I did click the link you provided at 8:55pm. The Introduction quotes someone called Houghton (would that be John Houghton?) in a 1995 report saying that global warming was set to continue for several decades.

Now my 'O' level maths indicates that the '1995 predicted' 2 decades of global warming, should have finished by now, yet we are into almost 2 decades of no warming at all. It must have been unimaginable to Climate Science Experts in 1995, that they could be so wrong. Is this why he rose through the ranks so successfully?

Do you think the report you quoted has stood the test of time? I gave up reading it at that point, having realised it was based on false assumption, already accepted by the IPCC, possibly with the support of Houghton himself.

Is this a report that you have read? Perhaps you could flag the report as yet another one likely to cause embarrassment, and find something else to address Radical Rodent's queries. I think Radical Rodent can do 'big sums' not just 'small sums', and may be able help if your sums contain dismal points, squaw roots, fructions, brockets, etc.

Apr 2, 2016 at 3:35 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Re: golf charlie Apr 1, 2016 at 2:13 PM

1a) Your 1st question is extraordinarily vague. Does this help answer it?

1b) What has "the average ice extent through recorded history" got to do with whether "sea ice [is] apparently still stuck firmly in 'pause' mode" in 2016?

2) Yes, after a fashion - See e.g.

3) What are your views on the "censorship" of "technical" and/or "emotional" comments at WUWT?

Apr 2, 2016 at 9:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterJim Hunt

What are your views on the "censorship" of "technical" and/or "emotional" comments at WUWT?
Quite simple: his gaff, his rules. If you do not like it, you do not have to go there, nor do you have to comment. I am sure that he would be aware of any complaints people might have about it; if he thought that it was putting people off visiting or making sensible comments, then it is up to him to change his rules. There are many other sites where any disagreement is either heavily amended or simply deleted. I suspect that you would defend that position of some of them.

Apr 2, 2016 at 11:02 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

David, since the AGW signal is at most difficult to differentiate from "normal" climate, a sincere effort to study the current age should be built on an honest discussion of the past. Your answer illustrates an interesting lack interest, much less understanding, of the past.

Apr 2, 2016 at 2:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Jim Hunt, what are your views on censorship by the IPCC, or RealClimate?

Entropic Man links to IPCC approved reports, which are now at odds with common sense and observational information.

I have never tried to prove anything about global warming, or profit from it either. What is your angle?

If you have posted here, and your post remains uncensored, to whinge, and then post links to information that you think is really really important, then what are you whingeing about?

Are you going to keep whingeing about your own drivel, until someone gets annoyed about it and censors your posts, and then go around whingeing about censorship at this site?

Perhaps you would prefer blogs if they only allowed people to post on condition they never questioned the sanctity of Mann's Holy Hockey Stick? If that is the way you think blogs should be run, then stick to those blogs.

Meanwhile, the graph that heads this post seems devoid of evidence to support scare stories about sea ice death spirals. A basic knowledge of history should be able to confirm this has happened before, in the absence of human CO2.

Despite flogging sea ice and polar bear demise, to death, they both seem remarkably healthy. Isn't this joyous news?

The history of sea ice extent seems to show increases and decreases, and it repeats. No one really knows why. The history of sea ice extent during the satellite record does show a decrease, that now seems to have levelled out. Sea ice experts who only look at satellite records draw a line on a graph and predict doom. What is the extent of your sea ice extent expertise? Why has it levelled out, why are you convinced it will resume a downward trend?

If you could answer any of this rationally, I am sure you would generate constructive comment, criticism and congratualtions from many on this blog over the weekend. But simply posting links to sites associated with failed predictions of gloom, is not a way to boost confidence.

Perhaps there is a time delay between sea ice extent stabilising around a marginally increased, and stabilised raise in global temperatures? Perhaps global temperatures may rise or fall due to ENSO, and it will be a few more years before sea ice extent does something significant. I don't know, do you? But I am not a sea ice expert, or climate scientist, or even a historian.

Perhaps the owners of Bishop Hill or WUWT would welcome a rational guest post about sea ice. The subject has been awash with so much rubbish, written by those seeking more funding, with scary stories, that interest is in its own death spiral. It may never recover, which would be Unprecedented since the Satellite record began.

Apr 2, 2016 at 2:12 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Re: golf charlie Apr 2, 2016 at 2:12 PM

You haven't actually answered any of my questions. Please feel free to do so!

Sticking with 1b) for the moment, let's try to embed a recent graph of Cryosphere Today Arctic sea ice area:

That didn't work, so you'll have to pop over here to see it:

It's the lowest it's ever been for this day of the year, since CT's records began at least. It's been in that state for much of this year too. How does that constitute a "stuck firmly in 'pause' mode"?

Apr 2, 2016 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterJim Hunt

Re: Radical Rodent Apr 2, 2016 at 11:02 AM

In which case do you not agree that Anthony should simply say so, rather than inventing spurious reasons for said "censorship" then accompanying them with spurious ad hominem remarks?

Apr 2, 2016 at 2:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterJim Hunt

Jim Hunt: as you do not seem to have given any examples to illustrate your point, I cannot help you, there. However, like I said: his gaff, his rules. If you do not like them, don’t go there, unless you feel beholden to your duty.

Apr 2, 2016 at 3:07 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent

Why should I crave decreasing Greenland ice? It is bad news for sea levels, temperatures and Arctic sea ice extent.

As I said, the paper blames the isostatic sinking to increased ice between 5000BC and 1850. Modern measurement by gravity measurement and surface profiling now show that the amount of ice is decreasing again.



The AGW signal is clear. These are the current "control knob" settings for radiative forcing as of AR5. Note almost all the forcing is due to C02 and CH4. The other forcings are small positive, neutral or small negative.

Apr 2, 2016 at 3:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Because it is appears that it is bad news you love; I suspect you could find bad news in a pools win. I am not sure we read the same paper; the one I read was full of a lot more doubt about it than you have.

The AGW signal is clear.
If that were so, then we would not be having these discussions.

Apr 2, 2016 at 3:23 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

EM. Cannot help myself when I read so much drivel. Amount of ice decreasing since 1850. Really?

I recall some years ago seeing a fascinating TV documentary about recovering US bomber planes lost as they transit Greenland on their way to Europe during WWII. They had to be quarried out of the ice, lying as they did 10s of metres deep. The programme emphasized that the planes didn't bury themselves but that the covering ice fell as snow onto the crashed planes. I believe an ice accumulation rate of c 1m/year was mentioned.

Some decrease! History lessons for all.

Apr 2, 2016 at 3:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Jim Hunt, I am not an ice expert. You claim to be.

WUWT have not championed Ice Extent Death Spiral Stories. You do, and so far, WUWT have a better track record of being right, just by challenging the Consensus. Isn't this the way scientific debate should be carried out?

On this basis, I prefer to read critical appraisals and comment from Bishop Hill and occasionally WUWT amongst others. I also appreciate constructive discussion, whether I participate or not.

I suggest you charter your own icebreaker, to adjust sea ice extent to match your favoured forecasts/predictions and computer models, if you have nothing else to offer. I did look at your greatwhite blog, and you do approve of sarcastic comments about people who don't look at data. Have your mk1 eyeballs read any books from before the computer adjustment era? Why are you whingeing about WUWT again? Not enough over-dramatic dead polar bear stories for you?

Apr 2, 2016 at 3:57 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Re: Radical Rodent Apr 2, 2016 at 3:07 PM

My first link above provided one example out of many. Did you click it? If not, here's a brief quote:

It seems that the perfect way to “threadbomb” a WUWT discussion concerning a NASA scientist’s views on Arctic sea ice is to mention said NASA scientist’s views on Arctic sea ice!

Apr 2, 2016 at 4:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterJim Hunt

Re: golf charlie Apr 2, 2016 at 3:57 PM

If you "appreciate constructive discussion" then I suggest you point your Mark 1 eyeballs at the graph I directed their attention towards and answer the associated question I posed. Here it is again:

How does that constitute a "stuck firmly in 'pause' mode"?

If you're a regular here perhaps you can also explain to me how to embed said graph in a comment. Or is that not technically feasible?

Apr 2, 2016 at 4:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterJim Hunt

Jim Hunt 4:23, do NASA scientists have a library of Sea Ice knowledge going back before NASA was created , about attempts to explore the North West Passage?

I don't expect Canadian or Russian harbours keep much historical information about the early days of the Space race, but I am sure they appreciate modern satellite communications.

Apr 2, 2016 at 4:49 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Mr Hunt: curious. You complain about being censored, and link to a comment that you have submitted, and has been accepted without censor, but censured, with a moderator appending that, yet again, you have submitted a comment despite being banned from commenting. As you seem quite comfortable with ad hom attacks by others, perhaps WUWT has a historical reason for your ban? So, despite knowing that you have been banned from the site, you insist on submitting comments to the site, and seem to be in high dudgeon when that comment is included. Your comment seems to hold that by Ron Clutz in disdain, despite RC’s comment apparently supporting your point of view. I might be completely misreading the situation, but you seem to want to have your cake and eat it.

Apr 2, 2016 at 4:54 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Jim Hunt, I did visit your website. You are the main commenter. Is that the say you like it, or are you posting here to get more traffic?

Either way, in response to your question about posting graphs here, I haven't a clue. I know where I would like to shove Mann's Hockey Stick Graph, but I think most IPCC aprroved climate scientists feel that way too.

People have lost interest in Arctic death spiral stories because of all the false panics. What is now so different? Has the death spiral turned into a gentle ramp more like a sinusoidal curve? It is what it has done before, as far back as historical records go, and it is my totally uneducated guess that it might continue to do the same thing, but I haven't had formal training in writing scary stuff.

Apr 2, 2016 at 5:25 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Alan Kendall

Perhaps you should research how ice sheets behave.

Water precipitates onto the surface of an ice sheet as snow. Some melts and the remainder compacts into ice. The rate of surface accumulation depends on the relative rates of precipitation and surface melt. This will determine how fast an aircraft becomes buried. The accumulated ice flows outward to the margins of the ice sheet and flows into the sea as glaciers or becomes floating ice sheets. Both lose water by melting and shedding icebergs.

Thus anything landing on the main ice sheet, like "Glacier Girl" and her companions, gets buried by later snowfall and will gradually be carried outwards to the ice margin.

Whether the total amount of ice is increasing or decreasing depends on the balance between three processes; precipitation, surface melt and loss at the margins. If precipitation minus surface melt minus marginal loss is positive, the ice sheet gains mass. If negative, the ice sheet loses mass.

There is no inconsistency here. The Greenland ice sheet is quite capable of burying an aircraft and losing mass simultaneously.

Apr 2, 2016 at 5:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Jim hunt

There is no way in which one can display graphs or other graphics here. It is possible to provide a link to a website using the usual HTML protocol.

Of course, there is no garuantee that anyone will look at it. I referred golf charlie to the NASA archive of early 20th century Danish Arctic ice extent charts, yet he continues to make foolish comments about pre-NASA ice sheet data.

Apr 2, 2016 at 5:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Em. Perhaps you should teach your grandmother to suck eggs? Don't quote Wiki-knowledge back at me. I have measured iceflow rates on Rockies glaciers. Have you even trodden on one?

Noticed elsewhere you claim to have done scientific work with Bellamy. Surprised you didn't absorb more sense from him.

Apr 2, 2016 at 6:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall

I am surprised you made the comment. I would have expected a geologist with experience in glaciology to know better.

Alas, my only direct experience is on the Aletsch glacier. I do live in a glacial landscape and can give you a guided tour of the drumlins, eskers, morraines and glacial lakes in the Murrins Complex if you are passing by Tyrone.

Apr 2, 2016 at 6:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>