Antarctic and Greenland ice — cold heart of deception

A reader remarked on our discussion of dangerous sea level rise, asking:

Where is all that ice that is dissapearing [sic] from glaciers and land based ice sheets going to end up and why if the decline of glaciers and land based ice sheets is accelerating will sea level rise not accelerate with it?

I asked for a reference to quantify “all” the ice that’s disappearing and to verify the ice melt acceleration. So he sent some, then mentioned studies of the decade-long GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite data that show ice loss accelerating in Greenland and West Antarctica. Note that’s not the whole continent; I don’t know why he focussed on the WAIS.

Anyway, he said West Antarctica is losing 118 gigatons* per year and Greenland is losing 303 gigatons.

But is that a little or a lot? The activists don’t tell us, they just mention “gigatons” and wait for us to gasp with shock. But it’s easy for us to get a sensible guide to the importance of this amount of ice loss, and Wikipedia is a good tool. For objective data, many people acknowledge Wikipedia as a reliable source, though one must be more discerning with contentious topics.

Basic facts

Volume of a gigaton of ice

1 gigatonne (Gt) = 1 cubic kilometre (km3) – Climate Sanity

Volume of Antarctic ice

26.5 million km3Wikipedia

Volume of Greenland ice

2.85 million km3Wikipedia

Annual loss

This is troublesome, since conflicting studies are readily available, some showing net Antarctic loss, some showing net gain. Our reader cited the following figures from NASA, which are difficult to argue with. But it turns out that the losses are trivial and untroubling, as I shall show.

Several studies have shown that different remote sensing methods for studying ice sheet mass balance agree well. GRACE’s record, spanning over a decade, shows that the ice loss is accelerating in Greenland and West Antarctica. Greenland has shed, on average, 303 gigatons of ice every year since 2004, while Antarctica has lost, on average, 118 gigatons of ice per year, with most of the loss coming from West Antarctica. Greenland’s ice loss has accelerated by 31 gigatons of ice per year every year since 2004, while West Antarctica has experienced an ice mass loss acceleration of 28 gigatons per year.

Antarctica: 118 Gt = 118 km3NASA
(0.0004% of all Antarctic ice)
Greenland: 303 Gt = 303 km3NASA
(0.011% of all Greenland ice)

Time for ice to vanish

Antarctica: 225,000 years
Greenland: 9,400 years

Finally, for a meaningful comparison, I thought I’d calculate the mass of annual precipitation over Greenland. It turns out to be quite a bit.

Average annual Greenland precipitation

821 mm – Climate Data

Area of Greenland

2.166 million km3Wikipedia

Volume of Greenland precipitation

1778 km3

Mass of Greenland precipitation

1778 Gt (1,788,000,000,000 tons)

Divide 1778 km3 by 303 km3 (the annual ice loss) and it turns out, ladies and gentlemen, that every year nearly six times the claimed annual ice loss falls on Greenland as rain, snow and hail. I put it to you that the Greenland ice sheet will be with us for many thousands of years.

Conclusion

Nobody can credibly claim that this reported ice loss should cause concern—the loss is just too small, even minuscule. Scientists who imply concern must be knowingly misleading us—or don’t they know the size of Greenland or Antarctica? Most of them avoid clear statements, rather choosing vague expressions such as “could”, “may”, “is in danger of”, “during the Paleocene” (or insert favourite epoch) and similar weasel phrases that give them some small defence if questioned that they never actually committed themselves to the lies told by warmist activists so it’s not their fault, really it isn’t.

But by the same token they remain open to accusations of never having corrected the lies spread far and wide by activists, though they clearly knew better.

In any case, when we know the true scale of these physical climate changes, we have a sturdy defence against spending large amounts of public money that are sorely needed for real social problems.

* US (short) tons, UK (long) tons and metric tonnes: there’s a difference, to be sure, but not so much as to derail the argument made here for the insignificance of the ice loss.

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
10 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
MagooMike HouldingRichard TreadgoldRichard C (NZ)mwhite Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andy
Guest
Andy

Thanks for a succinct and clear explanation of some of the numbers involved.

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

but but but… sea level rise … and acidification… and Nibiru… because ice gigatons!

mwhite
Guest
mwhite

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/40934044

“By far the largest number of local glaciers in north-east Greenland had receded very greatly during recent
decades, and it would not be exaggerating to say that these glaciers were nearing a catastrophe.”

Monday 6th May 1940

Catastrophe? Still waiting.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Year-long study reveals secret of Greenland’s growing ice sheet’ Written by Thomas Richard, Examiner.com on 02 May 2016. A new study of Greenland’s ice sheet shows that very little precipitation on the island’s expansive interior is “lost to the atmosphere through evaporation” because of the island’s unique thermal “lid.” This remarkable thermal lid essentially prevents any snow and ice from escaping the island via evaporation, allowing the ice sheet to continuously build up on the island. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the study was published in the open access online-only journal “Science Advances.” This is more evidence that Greenland’s ice sheet is robust and stable, even though computer models claimed it would be the first casualty in a warming world. […] Based on new measurements from a research tower on the Greenland ice sheet, the study’s authors uncovered how snow piles up on the ice sheet year after year. According to the study’s principal investigator David Noone, an Oregon State University professor and atmospheric scientist, he says: “Normally, the air temperature goes down as you climb, but near the surface in Greenland, it gets warmer,” adding, “The surface is very cold, but… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

There is some news that parts of the Solomon Islands have sunk due to sea level rise.

https://theconversation.com/sea-level-rise-has-claimed-five-whole-islands-in-the-pacific-first-scientific-evidence-58511

Caused by climate change, naturally

Andy
Guest
Andy

This page has quite an interesting interactive graphic showing ice mass balance in Antarctica
https://data1.geo.tu-dresden.de/ais_gmb/

Some basins are decreasing, some increasing.

East Antarctica appears to be gaining ice mass

Andy
Guest
Andy

This is quite a useful formula from the Climate Sanity page

Sea level rise =
2.78 microns / Gt

That is, one cubic kilometer of water (i.e., one gigatonne of water) will add less than 3 millionths of a meter to the oceans

The total ice loss acceleration from Greenland and WAIS is around 60Gt/yr = 60 * 2.78 = 167 microns per year
1 micron = 10^-6m

167 microns = 0.167mm a year of global SLR acceleration.
However, there are other areas (e.g East Antarctica) that appear to be gaining mass according to the site linked above.

This presumed acceleration isn’t presenting itself in tidal gauge data.

Mike Houlding
Guest
Mike Houlding

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it. H. L. Mencken

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

91 new volcanoes discovered under West Antarctic, adding to the 47 already documented:

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/nearly-100-new-volcanoes-found-hiding-beneath-west-antarctic-ice-sheet/all/

As the lower ocean has been warming but not the upper ocean, this massive underwater volcanic is compelling evidence that the theory of the missing heat from the atmosphere residing in the ocean is a crock of bollocks.

Post Navigation