Greenland’s vast ice sheet is undergoing a surge in melting, with the amount of ice vanishing in a single day this week enough to cover the whole of Florida in two inches of water, researchers have found.
The burst of melting has reached deep into Greenland’s enormous icy interior, with data from the Danish government showing that the ice sheet lost 8.5bn tons of surface mass on Tuesday alone. A further 8.4bn tons was lost on Thursday, the Polar Portal monitoring website reported.
The scale of disappearing ice is so large that the losses on Tuesday alone created enough meltwater that it would drown the entire US state of Florida in two inches, or 5cm, of water. Ice that melts away in Greenland flows as water into the ocean, where it adds to the ongoing increase in global sea level caused by human-induced climate change.
“It’s a very high level of melting and it will probably change the face of Greenland because it will be a very strong driver for an acceleration of future melting, and therefore sea-level rise,” said Marco Tedesco, a glacier expert at Columbia University and adjunct scientist at Nasa.
Tedesco said a patch of high pressure is sucking and holding warmer air from further south “like a vacuum cleaner” and holding it over eastern Greenland, causing an all-time record temperature of 19.8C in the region on Wednesday. As seasonal snow melts away, darker core ice is exposed, which then melts and adds to sea level rise.
“We had these sort of atmospheric events in the past but they are now getting longer and more frequent,” Tedesco said.
“The snow is like a protective blanket so once that’s gone you get locked into faster and faster melting, so who knows what will happen with the melting now. It’s amazing to see how vulnerable these huge, giant areas of ice are. I’m astonished at how powerful the forces acting on them are.”
Very informative interview between Dr. Box and Thom Hartmann, Jason Box is a seasoned and reliable observer and very tuned in to the rapid changes in that remote part of our globe.
=========================================================
“Tedesco and other scientists have warned that models used to project future ice loss do not capture the impact of changing atmospheric circulation patterns – meaning they may be underestimating the future melting of Greenland, which is located between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/greenland-experienced-massive-ice-melt-this-week-scientists-say-2021-07-30/
“Tedesco and other scientists have warned that models used to project future ice loss do not capture the impact of changing atmospheric circulation patterns….”. The Reuters’ piece that redskylite recommends states this; “Scientists have estimated that melting from Greenland’s ice sheet – the second-biggest on Earth after Antarctica’s – has caused around 25% of global sea level rise seen over the last few decades”. Could that comment deserve some clarification from the author of this piece, Kate Abnett when the Danes report this?
“Based on this data, it can be seen that during the period 2003-2011 the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost 234 km3 of water per year, corresponding to an annual contribution to the mean increase in sea level of 0.65 mm”
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/#c8450
“In fact, sea level rises for the past twenty years have averaged just 3.2 millimetres a year, according to the University of Colorado monitoring—or 30 centimetres a century.”
Tedesco is from May of this year. The polar portal quote is from 2013 looking at data from 2003-2011. The colorado data looks up to date. https://sealevel.colorado.edu shows the 3.3 +/-.4 mm/yr. Notice that they also show an acceleration of .097+/-.025 mm/yr2
Maybe, just maybe, things have changed because of the acceleration?
Mark Mev Says: “Maybe, just maybe, things have changed because of the acceleration?” Is this what Mark Mev thinks is devastating acceleration?
Major conclusions from tide gauge data have been that global sea level has risen approximately 10-25 cm during the past century.
10 centimeter = 3.937007874 inch
25 centimeter = 9.842519685 inch
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/tide-gauge-sea-level
This is what the sea level is doing where I lived for many years in SE AK.
Relative Sea Level Trend
9451600 Sitka, Alaska
• slander
• EXPORT TO TEXT | EXPORT TO CSV | SAVE IMAGE
The relative sea level trend is -2.34 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.27 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1924 to 2017 which is equivalent to a change of -0.77 feet in 100 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9451600
Is the land in that region of Alaska rising due to plate tectonics? Does that contribute to the numbers you quote? If you go to the same site that you linked to and actually read what they say you could find the answer.
Last year I measured 4.1 mm / year off a plot for the last 10 years. Sure that’s just me with a ruler but I got a nice ruler and I peer up close.
IPCC and Skeptics Agree Climate Change Is Not Causing Extreme Weather June 24, 2020 Updated: June 30, 2020
A new Global Warming Policy Foundation report from retired Oxford physicist Ralph Alexander supports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s conclusion that there’s limited scientific evidence linking human-caused climate change to increases in extreme weather.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/ipcc-and-skeptics-agree-climate-change-is-not-causing-extreme-weather_3400695.html?fbclid=IwAR06D_l7QrIXY2QF5EFxDw44l-jNsfrcpm0udhL_Bb02Q55d9i2Ssr9x7c4
I apologize for not taking the word of THE epoch times, so I went to the IPCC report: There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging. [3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.4, 3.5.3; Table 3-1]
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf
This report is from 2018. I believe some more climate extremes have happened since then and more published attribute studies have come out. But then we have you and Ralph. https://www.desmog.com/ralph-b-alexander/
Jason Box paints a very frightening picture of the future for the Earth and its unworthy inhabitants if one more lump of coal or gallon of gas is used to produce energy with.
Jason Box went to great lengths to explain how the polar vortex is doing so much damage to people who use fossil fuels. Even the always alert for all dire signs of global warming, CNN, put forth this story that follows;
“Every US state will see below freezing temperatures over the next week
(CNN)It’s about to get so cold that boiling water will flash freeze, frostbite could occur within 30 minutes and it will become a shock to the system for even those who are used to the toughest winters. February 3, 2021
The coldest air of the season will be diving south, not leaving anyone out. Every single state in the US — including Hawaii — will reach below freezing temperatures on Monday morning. This includes 86% of the country and 235 million people, and one blast of arctic air is responsible for much of that.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/02/weather/polar-vortex-forecast-freezing-cold/index.html
Jason Box said that due to the arctic warming and the polar vortex, that humanities future hangs in the balance until the to be much feared devil in the sky, CO₂, is removed and then perhaps the planet will have a future. I see that this that follows occurred on Jan. 23, 1971 in Alaska.
Alaska’s all-time cold record turns 50 January 21, 2021 Winter snow blankets the Jim River and Prospect Creek valleys in northern Alaska, where an official thermometer registered Alaska’s all-time low of minus 80 degrees Fahrenheit on Jan. 23, 1971.
https://news.uaf.edu/alaskas-all-time-cold-record-turns-50/
Fort Yukon (originally, Gwich’in: Gwicyaa Zhee; translation: “house on the Flats”) is a city in the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area in the U.S. state of Alaska. At the 2000 census the population was 595. Fort Yukon is the hometown of Alaska Congressman Don Young. It is served by Fort Yukon Airport. The highest temperature ever recorded in Alaska occurred in Fort Yukon on June 27, 1915, when it reached 100 °F (38 °C). It is located 8 miles (13 km) north of the Arctic Circle, at the confluence of the Yukon and Porcupine Rivers and in the middle of the Yukon Flats.
http://www.citywideinformation.com/?cityname=Fort%20Yukon,%20Alaska#cityhistory
Some addition and subtractions gives us this to wonder about; 1971-1915=56. What was the polar vortex doing in the 56 years that separate the two records for hot and cold in Alaska?
I am left to wonder which Jason Box that I should believe when in the not too distant past Jason Box had done research that really contradicts what he is maintain in the usual alarmist doom and gloom video.
Greenland Ice Sheet Mass Balance Reconstruction. Part I: Net Snow Accumulation (1600–2009)
Jason E. Box1, Noel Cressie2, David H. Bromwich1, Ji-Hoon Jung1, Michiel van den Broeke3, J. H. van Angelen3, Richard R. Forster4, Clement Miège4, Ellen Mosley-Thompson1, Bo Vinther5, and Joseph R. McConnell6
Print Publication:
01 Jun 2013
A 12% or 86 Gt yr−1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate is found from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840–1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600–2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate. The correlation of Ât(G) with the average surface air temperature in the Northern Hemisphere (SATNHt) remains positive through time, while the correlation of Ât(G) with local near-surface air temperatures or North Atlantic sea surface temperatures is inconsistent, suggesting a hemispheric-scale climate connection. An annual sensitivity of Ât(G) to SATNHt of 6.8% K−1 or 51 Gt K−1 is found.
The reconstuction, Ât(G), correlates consistently highly with the North Atlantic Oscillation index. However, at the 11-yr time scale, the sign of this correlation flips four times in the 1870–2005 period.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/11/jcli-d-12-00373.1.xml
This is what Jason Box, et al. concluded about the Greenland Ice Sheet when he and others were doing actual science research on the ice sheet.
6. Conclusions
Our reconstruction suggests that since the 1600s, Greenland ice sheet accumulation rates have increased. The estimated mean accumulation rate in the most recent 170 years (1840–2009) is 30% greater than the estimated mean accumulation rate in the 410 years since 1600, suggesting an acceleration in accumulation rate.
The correlation of reconstructed accumulation rates with the Northern Hemisphere average surface air temperature remains positive through time, while the correlation with local near-surface air temperatures or North Atlantic sea surface temperatures is inconsistent over time, suggesting a larger-scale, hemispheric-scale climate connection.
The reconstructed accumulation rate correlates consistently highly with the North Atlantic Oscillation index. Yet, the sign of this correlation flips four times in the 1870–2005 period. The cause of this fluctuation in correlation remains unexplained.
The ice sheet accumulation rate exhibits positive correlations with Northern Hemispheric near-surface air temperatures. The climate sensitivity we derive suggests that average annual accumulation rate increases with Northern Hemispheric near-surface air temperature by 6.8% K−1 or 51 Gt K−1.
The ice sheet reconstructed accumulation rates from this study spanning 1600–2009 are posted with annual and 11-yr Gaussian smoothed temporal resolutions online at http://bprc.osu.edu/wiki/Greenland_Accumulation_Grids.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/11/jcli-d-12-00373.1.xml
As the work you cite does not in any respect contradict the overwhelming evidence for AGW perhaps you ought to go home and take a course in simple data analysis. Ignorance and obfuscation are not a good look on any person commenting on such matters.
Increased rates of deposition do not show an increase in the mass of the ice sheet. The accumulation you think disproves AGW shows that, as expected, higher oceanic and atmospheric temperatures increase precipitation on the Greenland ice sheet. What is more cores do not measure ice melt nor do they measure the increased speed of glacial streams.
Steampunk_Gentleman #Peace & Justice Project (@Charlesthornt) Says: “Increased rates of deposition do not show an increase in the mass of the ice sheet.” If that is what this Steampunk_Gentleman believes, it is not up to me to disprove his unsubstantiated believes.
This explains that they are NOT shrinking. If you are so mistaken about this, then what are you right about?
LOST 2017 AIRBUS ENGINE FOUND UNDER 12-FEET! OF GREENLAND ICE
OCTOBER 15, 2020 CAP ALLON
Four hours into a September 2017 Air France flight from Paris to Los Angeles, one of the aircraft’s four engines spontaneously exploded.
THE DIG
In June, 2019, Mr Lines and a team of Icelandic mountain guides flew by helicopter to the excavation site in SW Greenland.
It was quickly discovered that retrieving the front section of the engine presented its own set of problems.
In less than two years, the fan hub fragment had been buried by a staggering 12-feet (almost 4-meters) of compacted snow. During the 2017-18 and 2018-19 seasons, the Greenland Ice Sheet gained 686 billion tonnes of snow and ice (DMI), which added to the whopping 544 billion tonnes gained in 2016-17 (the fifth highest in record books dating back to 1981), and was then followed up by the 349bn tonnes added last year. [Note, these totals don’t account for the annual losses due to the breaking off, or “calving”, of icebergs from the ice sheet’s edge. However, it must be stressed that calving events usually occur when an ice sheet is EXPANDING, not shrinking; and furthermore, icebergs breaking off a glacier aren’t necessarily “lost” to the ocean, they continue existing, like some island extension of the sheet].
https://electroverse.net/lost-2017-airbus-engine-found-under-12-feet-of-greenland-ice/
I certainly hope that while I am on the subject of the Greenland ice sheet, that has lasted so far for over one million years, and air planes, that Steampunk_Gentleman #Peace & Justice Project (@Charlesthornt) will gain some knowledge about the ice sheet on Greenland from this report.
“In 1942, eight U.S. WWII aircraft (2 bombers, 6 fighter planes) emergency-landed on the Southwestern coast of Greenland after encountering severe weather. The crews were rescued and the planes ultimately had to be abandoned at the landing site. So there the planes sat on the Greenland ice sheet, undetected, for more than 4 decades. The active search for the WWII planes had been ongoing since 1981, but it wasn’t until 1988 that a group of artifact enthusiasts (Greenland Expedition Society) were able to finally locate the planes. The primary reason why it was so excruciatingly difficult to find the planes is that the explorers had originally assumed the planes were buried under ice that was relatively close to the ice sheet’s surface. They weren’t. When the planes were finally found in 1988, 46 years after crash-landing on the Greenland ice sheet, they were buried under 260 feet (79 meters) of ice. In other words, between 1942 and 1988, the Greenland ice sheet gained mass at a rate of 57 feet (17 meters) per decade at that location. In 1992, the planes were impressively pulled out of the ice part-by -part. In that 4-year span between 1988 (discovery) and 1992 (recovery), the Greenland ice sheet had advanced with another 8 feet of ice, as the planes were 268 feet beneath the ice sheet surface when they were rescued.
It should come as no surprise that the Greenland ice sheet gained so many billion tons of ice during the 50 years from 1942 to 1992.”
http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/24/defying-climate-models-greenland-cooled-by-1-5c-during-1940-1995-as-human-co2-emissions-rates-rose-600/
A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 4, 1988, Section A, Page 20 of the National edition with the headline: World War II Planes Found in Greenland In Ice 260 Feet Deep. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/04/us/world-war-ii-planes-found-in-greenland-in-ice-260-feet-deep.html
But what has happened to the greenland ice sheet since 1992? What is it doing this year? What has happened to the total mass of ice on greenland?
Your initial response is a lie – bur that is all ignoramuses like yourself have.
Your claim about the Airbus engine? What was the velocity of impact? How deep did it bury itself? What was the stratification (if any) of the ice above it. If you look at the image of the excavation you will see that this engine is NOT buried under ice but under snow.
The rest of your garbage is nothing more than a Poo-Bah-ism, hiding your total ignorance behind a mass of irrelevant and ill-considered verbiage. If you think your conclusions are accurate get them published by a peer reviewed journal.
Above all do not cite conspiracy theorists
I’ve sworn off trying to play chess with a pigeon.
Good – really, just ignore the guy. He won’t get the negative attention he craves and he’ll go away (might take a while, but it’ll happen if he posts and posts and no one notices him). The only game he’s actually playing is trying to get people here to pay attention to him, and it might be tic-tac-toe instead of chess, but he’s done pretty well at it so far.
It hasn’t been mentioned here yet, and most of you have probably seen it, but if not, here’s a recent paper:
Ignoring climate change will yield ‘untold suffering,’ panel of 14,000 scientists warns
https://www.livescience.com/earth-vital-signs-climate-change-suffering.html
Paper itself:
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biab079/6325731
I watched the Australian Broadcast Co.’s program that comes on weekends called “Land Line”. It is about one year after the disastrous flood last year on the Mersey River in Tasmania and “Land Line” revisited the farmers in this area to see how they were doing. Many had suffered tremendous losses of livestock and their fields were rendered useless after being covered with silt that they were still trying to clean up. The river needed rerouted where it had changed course. An almost unanimous complaint from these people was that the meteorologist had not issued warnings about how much rain was falling in the highlands that would cause the Mersey River to flood. If they would have received the warning, they could have moved their livestock to high ground and taken other precautions to save much of what was lost by not knowing what to expect. The point of all of this is that we have the climate alarmist telling us that the seas will rise 100 feet by the end of the century plus other dire predictions and they can’t predict the weather a day ahead of time. They need to worry about tomorrow and forget about 100 years from now.
The Mersey River has broken its banks and flooded several towns near Latrobe.
Tasmania is in the middle of one of its worst weather emergencies in nearly a century as widespread flooding devastates large parts of the state’s north, with grave fears held for two missing people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/06/06/tasmania-weather-crisis-rivers-flooded-towns-isolated-2-peopl_a_21390007/
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”. H.L. Mencken
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
I record this divesting observation from the site that jimbills recommends.
“But, at the same time, there has been an unprecedented surge in climate-related disasters since 2019, including devastating flooding in South America and Southeast Asia, record shattering heat waves and wildfires in Australia and the Western United States, an extraordinary Atlantic hurricane season, and devastating cyclones in Africa, South Asia, and the West Pacific (see supplemental file S2 for attribution information). There is also mounting evidence that we are nearing or have already crossed tipping points associated with critical parts of the Earth system, including the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, warm-water coral reefs, and the Amazon rainforest (supplemental file S2).”
According to this report all that is left to do is to lean over and kiss your rear good-by because it is all over unless everyone bends to these fools recommendations; such as, “(6) human population, stabilizing and gradually reducing the population by providing voluntary family planning and supporting education and rights for all girls and young women, which has been proven to lower fertility rates (Wolf et al. 2021).”
These ‘scientist’ who cobbled together this ‘report’, that is totally devoid of anything to substantiate what they are reporting, naturally did not look into what the situation in a country that relies heavily on fossil fuels, Japan, to maintain its society in such an advanced state, has for its demographic condition today.
Japan
Population growth rate: -0.088% (2007 est.)
Birth rate: 8.1 births/1,000 population (2007 est.)
Life expectancy at birth: total population: 82.02 years
male: 78.67 years
female: 85.56 years (2007 est.)
Total fertility rate: 1.23 children born/woman (2007 est.)
https://www.ciaworldfactbook.us/asia/japan.html
Japan does not desire, nor does Japan need, this group of charlatan ‘scientist’ telling them how to handle their population growth or, as is the case in Japan, decline.
This is a short list of other ‘predictions’ about the Earth’s climate and how they worked out.
Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions 09/18/2019
• CLIMATE
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/?fbclid=IwAR1qX2j-AXZHbT4h3P2CTLdnj4C510PkpyvClkregTWxqGQq6mCgYm80pdc
https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/bioscience/PAP/10.1093_biosci_biab079/4/biab079fig1.jpeg?Expires=1630821087&Signature=VseogwnNVOGHvSAjsT9xbVx55HJsccgWQZlXlNRpNt8N9KiEQtp62BW4Rb1y~sopkH4WWgjNsC~b~yrg4srZzWFG6U30xQajVg8Byl0X8z5vi-BFMJH1UbPLbYVtPNyvis1MqcXE3DNvEEtNwBbek~JPRHMkzpQ6D3oueMbGbsK49srm0f5-BIXEHpXcmEB0QKjrXaco-ouG9wXMlB-9LRvRikSNx-W4ZChU1gzJE1EMHnY6xryl0hI7zPPk4FjjqCzPkLyy2F5-LI6j4A1tyiAkTMu8o2Ce0ahQ6kdh1EtGP-3MqRzk5G7kEj8j7tPWiqH7dvXv6647o3CzKLShtg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA
https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/281518949/biab079fig1.jpg
Term of the day: Gish gallop
The Gish gallop is a technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy, logic or relevance of those arguments.
[Coined by Eugenie Scott; it is named after the creationist Duane Gish, who used the technique frequently against scientists and other defenders of the scientific fact of evolution.]
rhymeswithgoalie Says: “The Gish gallop is a technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy, logic or relevance of those arguments.”
Does this comment that rhymeswithgoalie issued on July 28, 2021 at 2:46 am qualify as being a Gish gallop?
rhymeswithgoalie Says:
July 28, 2021 at 2:46 am
how many times does rhymeswithgoalie dislike a source when he disagrees with it?
I have disagreed with my husband but never disliked him. He is extremely well-informed and well-read.
I have disagreed with my family members (dad, both brothers, one of my sisters) in some engineering and infrastructure topics, but they’re all well-informed.
I have occasionally disagreed with Stephen Jay Gould in a couple of areas that are outside his expertise, but I have learned a lot from his detailed work on evolution biology, evolution and baseball statistics. (I’ve read about 10 of his books.)
I have disagreed with illusionist Penn Jillette about a lot of things, but respect his skill and knowledge in his area of expertise, include how easily people delude themselves and fall for well-constructed illusions.
I have occasionally disagreed with my hydrogeology professor, but only on things that were peripheral to his area of expertise. I learned a lot from him.
I disagreed occasionally with infectious disease doctor Mark Crislip, but not with any of his bimonthly analysis of studies of infectious and parasitic diseases (The Puscast). I learned a lot about how infectious disease research is done from him.
I caught a fault in something a petrology TA said, but that was because I had sat through a lunchtime talk that specifically addressed that topic. Otherwise he seemed to be on top of the subject.
I sometimes disagreed with the approach of my microbiology professor “Dr. Ed” but always respected her mastery of microbial analytics. Her insistence that we draw cellular structures and always mark the scale was inspired.
Of course, I ditch any class or book when it becomes clear that they don’t know what they’re talking about. (I may not be an expert in, say, diabetes, but I can tell when others don’t even get the basics right.)
If there’s ever a disagreement with NASA data or NOAA data, it has always turned out to be because someone completely misinterpreted it, not because it isn’t reliable.
https://climatecrocks.com/2021/07/23/gavin-newsoms-video-gut-punch-on-megadrought/
While on the present posting topic of parasitic diseases as discussed copiously by glaciologist Jason Box I note that there’s enough lumps of aircraft buried throughout Greenland to build an entire child’s bedroom & playground area and save a few quid. On an entirely unrelated side issue to this post though at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIKgit9mszo at 42:54 you see sea (see see) level change measured by 2 entirely different methods 2005-2015 and plotted for comparison in black & orange:
– Sea surface height (SSH) relative to a geoid, relative to Earth’s centre (so land / coast / tide gauges almost totally irrelevant, it’s the change in average ocean depth) from satellite altimetry Poseidon, Topex, Jason 1, Jason 2, Jason 3 series.
– “Weigh” the global ocean with GRACE satellites to measure how much water it gained or lost (it gained actually) 2005-2015 and calculate its expansion or contraction using temperature increase or decrease from the 3,900 Argo floats (it warmed/expanded actually) and add the two and that should equal sea level rise.
You see the two methods’ plots don’t overlay, but they’re similarish considering they use entirely-different methods from entirely-separate instruments.
——————-
Note the famous July – December 2010 weather event when half the ocean fell on South America and OzLand and slowly drained off again. You can see the global ocean being (in essence) “weighed” monthly 2002-2016 by GRACE at 40:34 (I expect they can only measure the anomaly and not the absolute mass). Extra water shown came from somewhere quite steadily 2002-2016 because the ocean mass increased. Any guesses ? Fell off Planet Niburu as it flew past through the Electrified Universe is my guess.
I bookmarked the CLIVAR video (it’s a rare “school night” for me).
I’ll just take the opportunity to echo my standard whine that I don’t like the publicized global average SSH because it’s only useful at a deep theoretical level, and we have to emphasize the sea-level changes are only important at the local level, and that it’s a function of isostatic rebound (e.g. Scandinavia post de-glaciation), changes in major currents (e.g., slowing of the Gulf Stream), gravitational shift (loss of ice mass at Greenland and Antartica), local crustal anomalies (e.g., near-surface magma reservoir creates the geological equivalent of a trampoline), accelerated natural slump of unconsolidated delta soils, etc.
BTW, the “Planet Niburu” suggestion was ridiculous. It isn’t due to pass until 2038.
Even Putin’s Russia is getting concerned. Reported in TASS (the largest Russian news agency and one of the largest news agencies worldwide, along with Reuters, the Associated Press (AP) and Agence France-Presse), 31st July 2021:
===========================================
“In the 1990-2000s it was believed that global warming was a temporary phenomenon and the planet would be able to adapt and return to its former state. But the tendency has not reversed with time, even forcing many skeptics to admit that the climate is changing, he noted.”
https://tass.com/society/1321189
No ‘eureka moment’: the evolution of climate science
“It’s as if we have woken up in a science-fiction movie. But it’s not fiction, it’s physics.”
https://phys.org/news/2021-08-eureka-moment-evolution-climate-science.html
Not Greenland, but close in Latitude News on permafrost from Siberia. . .
“The methane concentrations in the air after last year’s heat wave indicate that increased gas emissions came from limestone formations beneath the thawing permafrost. ”
https://www.uni-bonn.de/en/news/185-2021
“The methane concentrations in the air after last year’s heat wave indicate that increased gas emissions came from limestone formations beneath the thawing permafrost. ”
In geology, limestone is considered a good candidate to trap and store oil&gas because it can be very porous, though it needs an impermeable cap. It seems like the permafrost was acting like a cap on that [limestone] reservoir near the surface.
This is different from the usual contribution from thawing permafrost,where the CO2 and methane comes from the frozen organic matter thawing and being converted by microbes after the thaw.
University of Edinburgh research shows that the melt from the Russian ice sheet is also considerable. . .
====================================
“Satellite data suggests that the amount of ice lost between 2010 and 2018 would put an area the size of the Netherlands under seven feet of water.
Warming of the Arctic Ocean appears to play a key role in accelerating ice loss from two large groups of islands that border the Kara Sea”
https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2021/russian-arctic-warming-leads-to-major-ice-loss
I think it was Jason Box who pointed out that the top of the Greenland ice sheet was still above the warming line most of the time. Those Russian islands probably don’t have much height above the warming line, and they’re being et from the side faster than Greenland is.