bear in mind that Tony153 and ant are the same person. So while 153 is here professing ignorance of the Marohasy discussion around Greenland, ant is in the middle of that discussion. Words fail me.

153/ant is incapable of mounting or following a logical argument. He simply regurgitates, without, I think, fully comprehending, what he gets fed by sites like RealClimate and ICN.

eg

"90% of the additional heat that is captured by excessive greenhouse gasses is absorbed oceans."
That was a number thrown around when warmists were panicking that surface temperature rises were in hiatus. It didn't and doesn't have any science behind it and has been dropped long ago. Part of the reason for that is Argo (whch 153/ant mentions without understanding) which shows that sea temperatures from 2004 for depths of 1 - 1900 metres are rising at the rate of 0.02 degrees c per decade. You can't build a scare-campaign out of that so its been ignored and getting the data is becoming increasingly more difficult.

" forecast 30% to 50% probable six to nine meter sea level rises by 2100"

The last IPCC report forecast for RCP8.5 was for an 80-100cm rise. What a berk.

" Prof Muller who was a denialist"

That's one of those things that 153/ant regurgitates without knowledge. Muller was never a denialist. He did reject Mann's hockey stick but anyone vaguely numerate did that as well. Muller in 2004 "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do),..."

re ant/153 - ignore and pity.

Tony153, it would be highly unlikely that sea water temperature would be melting Greenland's glaciers, as they are not ice bergs, but glaciers, and sit on land. There could be an indirect link, in that warmer water will warm the air - that is what ultimately drives air temperature on earth. In which case you don't need to look at the water temperature, but the air temperature, and we've done that already, and there is no significant increase in temperature in this area.

I don't understand why you dismiss the satellite records of temperature. That part of your post made no sense at all. But if you reject the satellite record, and you reject the land record, then I'm not sure what your basis is for claiming anything about temperature.

So the mystery of the Greenland melt continues. I've just found some work on the ice mass balance in Greenland, and it appears to be higher than the average for the period from 1981 to 2010. Of course its possible for this to happen at the same time as it melts around the edges at a higher rate, but it has to give pause to those worried that sea levels will rise because of increased melt. The increase in mass appears to be more than enough to counter this. https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

GrahamY,

I'd again point out (see above) that the losses in Greenland are minuscule as compared the total ice mass. Even assuming that the GRACE figures are accurate, the losses in Greenland over a 16 yrs period amount to a mere one-tenth of one percent of the total mass.

As to the accuracy of GRACE: in regards to the Antarctic GRACE says that the losses in the decade to 2013 were 64gt +/- 44gt. That is, the margin of error is almost as big as the purported melting.
(Bear in mind that the total ice mass in Antarctica is around 24 million gt. So as loss of 64gt over 10 yrs is 0.0003% of the total and may be as low as 0.0002%. At this level the losses are mere rounding errors.)

I haven't yet found the MOE for GRACE's Greenland numbers but it'll be in similar proportions.

Greenland is one of those things that the consensus currently likes to talk about. Since temperatures haven't accelerated at anything near the pace predicted, they've floundered around trying to find other 'scary scenarios' to keep the fear going. Polar bears refuse to die, the oceans refuse to warm as predicted, hurricanes refuse to increase in intensity, the meme around weather related disasters is unravelling (Munich Re who pushed this meme recently admitted that "The blanket statement that weather-dependent damages worldwide show a climate signal cannot be supported”) and so they go looking for things that are moving in the direction they hope.

That Greenland (and Antarctica) have lost some mass is probably true - after all they have been losing mass on average for the last 12000 yrs. But the loss is so small compared to the total mass of these ice sheets that its of little or no concern. Its like a cancer patient fretting over the new zit on his chin.

When it's all boiled down, what is melting or not melting is purely something to talk about - if you like being bored stiff. Nothing can be done about climate change. All the lies and rip offs: higher power prices, billions given to dodgy researchers and scientists, lies about islands like Tuvulu sinking when they are actually growing (yes studies by NZ and satellite photographs prove this) - none of these things have made an iota of difference to climate change. Nature will change again when it is good and ready. Puny man, crooked man, can not do a damn thing about it.

Hi Graham,
Did you watch the Africa video? I dont expect an answer, because if you said yes, you might have to explain yourself to an amada from the far right.

Well, glaciers, unit 1.

Greenland and Antarctic glaciers protrude into the nearest ocean. Parts may break off, and become icebergs. Ice in a glacier tongue has very gradually made its way towards the ocean. The part of the tongue that appears to be in the ocean will stil be resting on rock underneath. There may be a number of rocky bumps impeding free flow of the glacier. Such may have been the situation for thousands of years. But, nowadays, the bottoms of these glacier tongues are bathed in warmer water. Hence their bottoms melt rather quickly. Hindrance provided by rock bottoms reduce quickly, and the glacier speeds up. Some begin to calve large icebergs many kilometers upsteam of historical calving locations. Some glaciers have thousands of square kilometers of snow and ice in upstream bowls, all of which find down stream travel becoming easier. Also, as calving points move upstream, the calving vertical cliff becomes much higher, to the extent that it cannot support itself. So sudden large collapse, like a falling row of dominoes. Hence predictions of 6 to 9 meters of sea level rise. Possibly by 2100.

By the way, tipping points may have been reached. That is, once started, not stoppable.

And, places in the Arctic have had winter temperatures 30 to 50F higher than normal.

Research “methane tipping point”.

If you have children, tell them you are doing all you can to allow global warming to trash our one and only planet.

Hello again, Graham,
There are many videos showing the summer extent of melt lakes on the Greenland ice cap.

These lakes form partly because of atmospheric warmth, but also in a big way because of black carbon soot caused by fossil fuel combustion. And, the lakes look dark blue. Hence they absorb much more heat from the sun than does white ice/snow.

A question for you: many of these lakes are joined by creeks full of very fast moving cold water. Where do these creeks drain?

I will answer for you, knowing your deplorable lack of knowledge on such matters.

Much of the water drains down to the ice/rock boundary far below the surface. Guess what, this water significantly reduces the friction between rock and ice. Hence ice follows gravity at a higher speed. The water racing down valleys to the ocean is increasing in volume rapidly.

Here is a six minute video on the increasing rate of Greenland ice mass:

https://youtu.be/kmmDb1RX5dg

Of course, there are numerous other Greenland ice loss videos.

But, Graham, I would recommend not watching it, as to do so might cause your very simple views on cryospere science to dwindle to nothingness.

Cheers Tony