Future Greenland doom

The author of the paper that prompted Scientific American’s alarming claim of a “meltdown” sounds caution over predicting the demise of the Greenland ice sheet.

Is it a turnaround? No, because in the abstract we read:

“Our results suggest that the ice mass changes in this sector were primarily caused by short-lived dynamic ice loss events rather than changes in the surface mass balance. This finding challenges predictions about the future response of the Greenland Ice Sheet to increasing global temperatures.”

It’s just that “Scientific” American didn’t mention it. I wonder why not?

Now, at Voice of America, geologist and co-author, Kurt Kjaer, of the Denmark Natural History Museum, says: “It is too early to proclaim the ice sheet’s future doom.”

The researchers say a longer and more detailed record of Greenland’s past is needed to better predict the future of the glacier-covered landmass.

That sounds reasonable. It should give scientists who have been predicting more drastic near-term futures pause for thought.

So that’s another peer-reviewed paper by a proper scientist refuting claims of ice-borne peril and disastrous sea level rise. A paper that’s based on observations, not modelling.

Remember this when the alarmists yet again cry wolf.

11 Thoughts on “Future Greenland doom

  1. I used to read SA and New Scientist when I was at school before they turned into tabloid gutter press for The Cause

    It was exciting times back then (showing my age here!). Space exploration, particle physics etc

    At least we have the fantastic Mars mission to celebrate today – some real science for a change

  2. Nic the NZer on August 7, 2012 at 9:21 pm said:

    Exactly, if they can’t tell us when Greenland will be gone, you know like to the nearest Millenia, then better to stay silent and not reveal ignorance. I mean what’s the point of getting everybody in a flap when its so far away, better not to bring the whole topic up. Certainly much better than extrapolating some recent seasonal pattern way, way out into the future. Shame on you ‘Fearmongering American’.

  3. Richard Christie on August 7, 2012 at 11:12 pm said:

    What cause is that Andy?
    The .hard-left socialist, but not a conspiracy, one?

    Good of you to mention NASA, one of the world’s leading bodies involved in in climate… oops

  4. Doug Proctor on August 8, 2012 at 2:41 am said:

    Through my youth and twenties, I read Scientific American with respect. It had a recognizably Americanized and optimistic pro-technological bent, but it seemed clear on the facts. Sometime later the Germans bought the magazine and reworked it for more popular consumption – also necessary, I recall, as many of the articles were for specialists. However, the drive for readership took the magazine into sensationalism and – worse – pandering to the cause of the moment. I gave up some time in the 1990s.

    I don’t believe that interest and currency need genuflecting to the madness of crowds. But the editors and directors of S.A. seem to think they do. But it is possible that the editors and directors of S.A. see themselves not just aspart of the madness, but leaders of it.

    For some, what is important is that they are perceived as important, not that what they profess is important.

  5. Anthropogenic Global Cooling on August 8, 2012 at 7:14 am said:

    You really need to get out a bit more Richard, you sound a bit negative. You know, you really should get a grip on your negative emotions before it starts to affect your health.

  6. I don’t know what The Cause is, but Michael Mann refers to it several times in the Climategate 2 emails.

    Maybe you could ask him.

  7. It’s actually quite east to communicate with Michael Mann, too Richard. You just “like” him of Facebook and you can be his friend.

    However, you do need to be very respectful and polite, otherwise he will ban you from posting or refer to you as “beetle larvae”.

    So I guess asking him about the “Cause” will not get you very far.


  8. Richard C (NZ) on August 8, 2012 at 11:44 am said:

    You’re putting the heat on (Ha!) Gareth Renowden here RT, He’s just crafted his ‘Greenland’s extraordinary summer #2: still melting’ counter to your last post. Now he has to rush out a follow-up counter to this one – pronto.

    Gareth does seem to be struggling with what is normal, usual and cyclic with what is abnormal, unusual and an aberration:-

    And so to New Zealand’s outpost of denial, Richard Treadgold’s blog…….describes Greenland’s extraordinary July melt event as:

    …not unusual – it occurs about every 150 years.

    A strange definition of unusual, you might think.

    Perhaps in working on his counter to this post, Gareth will discover the difference.

    Meantime, we’ll wait and hope

  9. Richard C (NZ) on August 8, 2012 at 12:09 pm said:

    I see Michael Mann has gone in to bat for Hansen’s PBS non-science:-

    Climate change is already here

    Michael E. Mann ABC Environment 8 Aug 2012


    Alan Caruba quotes Watts and Goddard in his rebuttal to recent non-science:-

    The Utter Desperation of Global Warming Liars


    “Anthony Watts……dismissed Hansen’s PBS presentation of bell curve charts claiming the current drought conditions as proof of global warming. “This bell curve proves nothing,” said Watts. “This is nothing but a political ploy from a man who has abandoned any pretext of professionally done science in favor of activism.” ”

    “Steven Goddard……was quick to point out that “There were twice as many daily all-time high temperature records set or tied during the 1930s as in the 2000s, for USHCN stations which were operational during both decades. That is why he (Hansen) doesn’t start his baseline (for the charts he showed in the PBS program) until the 1950s.” ”

    Hansen’s method:-

    Compare recent events to an unusually quiet and cool period. Calculate odds.

    Et voila! climate change

  10. He seems to treat 150 years as a very long time. But elsewhere he emphasises the glacial pace of geological processes, stresses how fast everything is now compared with that and talks about the Younger Dryas as though it was yesterday.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on August 8, 2012 at 6:40 pm said:

    Editorial: ‘Hansen is simply wrong’ and ‘his hypothesis is a complete and abject failure’

    Posted on August 7, 2012 by Anthony Watts


    “There’s a lot of blowback against James Hansen’s recent (non tested) PNAS paper, trying to link weather and climate”

    “This isn’t a serious science paper” – Dr. Hoerling

    “Hansen is simply wrong” – Dr. Pat Michaels

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation