Greenland snow and ice mass an “embarrassment” to alarmists

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi of Weatherbell Analytics says Greenland snow and ice mass balance is “way, way, way above normal,

adding that it is “the climate story nobody is talking about it because it’s an embarrassment given what was being said two years ago, really.

“You know, when you say it’s irreversible and it can’t come back and then it shoves it right in your face like this … I think you get my point.”

Interesting how alarmists aren’t mentioning Greenland ice extent lately.

When you get to the Weatherbell site (link below), scroll down to get to Bastardi’s video “The Saturday Summary.”

Thanks to Glenn Cuthbert for this link

26 thoughts on “Greenland snow and ice mass an “embarrassment” to alarmists”

  1. Can someone point me to a website that has historical temp data for Baffin Island ??

    none of this is valid unless we look at the site where the glaciers begin in a cooling era.

    I think the temps are rising on Baffin which is why it’s ignored by some cooling proponents.

    • Baffin needs Baffin Bay to freeze solid first, and then it will grow.
      That can only happen once Greenland’s ice cap grows to such an extent that the Greenland ice flows rapidly in to the Bay on ice weight alone.
      Over the next thirty years many of the world’s Ice caps and major glacier will grow significantly, as it did during Dalton.
      Baffin will become the North American Ice sheet during the next major Glacial advance, but not for the next 1000 year or more.

    • A couple of questions.

      What makes you think there are any sites that have historical temperature data for anywhere in the world anymore ?

      Why do you think Baffin Island is the site where the glaciers begin ?

      Most of the people who believe cooling is a possibility for the coming years believe in climate displaying cyclic patterns rather than the “unprecedented and unstoppable” warming allegedly due to CO2.

      But anything can, and probably will, happen.

      My bet is future generations will look back at today and exclaim in amazement “what were they thinking ?”.

      • Not if they know the truth. same may be with the temps, someone probably has the actual temps., if not, we should be able to find out what they were by other means, otherwise all data about the past isn’t reliable either. It’s just indoctrination by generation and most of us are already set up for a hard kill. I always revert back to- Global Warming Genocidal Maniacs.

    • There is very little data from Baffin Island and historical data is especially scant. There is one data set reachable through Researchgate (but pay walled). It indicates no historical trend at all over the last 500 years. There is a “warm excursion” around 1980 but the much more detailed data since then falls in the very same range of variability that the former 4.5 centuries show. When we talk about “climate” we run into some serious issues that confound any disucssion. The biggest is the time scale. On a decadal level there are visible short term trends. When time scales are increased to the century scale there still visible “inclinations” but few if any are of statistically significant consistency. At a millennial scale you still see trends and some are large enough to affect “climate” in the classical sense (not just weather but flora and fauna as well). Pushing beyond that, there is no _statistically_ significant trend over the Holocene. But!!! There is a serious “gotcha” in that observation. As we extend our data through time, we begin to also extend the extremes of variation. In an analogy, the longer you flip a coin the longer the possible runs (series of heads or tails only) that can take place are, and that data includes all the lesser trends statistically significant or not, as well as every hot or cold extreme event. So, the scale of the trend, the inclination of the trend, and the magnitude of lows or highs also need to be proportionately greater before they stand out from the “noise.” At the same time, we also know empirically that even temporary shifts of insignificant magnitude (in terms of large amounts of data) can have very significant effects on crops, flooding, and annual weather. There is no nice neat way of sorting through this kind of data brush and no simple means of certainty about what the weather will be doing next.

  2. Question? Would we have more hurricanes if the upper air is getting colder sooner than normal? Might hurricanes be stronger? Ocean lose heat slower than the air, so if we are going into a mini ice age, The temperature difference should increase as we cool.

    • Atlantic Tropical storms depend on Surface Sea Tempretures (SST) of above 26C s which you will find in the Tropical Atlantic from June onwards untill November, after that the seas cool (reduced angles of Sun Light)

      The storms originate off the West coast of Africa as a squall line of Thunderstorms, as they move west they gain mass untill they start to rotate into a Tropical Depression and then dependent on SSTs become Huricanes.

    • that was my read on how it works. I watched a documentary explaining the basics of hot and cold air masses when they meet. and any meteorologist will tell you more intense storms etc. but the weather is gyrating up and down so maybe it’s not extreme yet. however, Irma and Jose are bad this year.

      the temps overall are heading down but in a zig zaggy way

    • The planet doesn’t just gain heat from direct radiation from the Sun. This is the argument that the warmists use as a benchmark, that the overall change in solar heat reaching the Earth is around 1% so not worth worrying about. They do not factor in the heating by EM energy flowing through the Earth, in through the poles and out through constant lightning discharges back into the Earth’s current sheet surrounding the planet. This is increased by changes in the solar wind especially after CME’s hit the planet. Not every head on collision results in death, and in the same way not every CME strike will cause a massive earthquake; it’s not an exact science; too many variables. But is it not worth considering after a huge coronal hole pointed directly at the Earth for many days, followed almost immediately by a ‘decade class CME’ , which, looking at the time of year (hurricane season), and around the full moon, we get a triplet of powerful hurricanes and a massive earthquake just a tad to the left of where the hurricanes reach max power. Come on now folks, the writing is on the wall in bold font and super-luminous paint. That humungous great star sat on our doorstep affects everything our planet does from drying your washing to destroying cities, both taking only a few hours. It’s a very beautiful entity but then the most dangerous things usually are. The majority of hot air driving hurricanes is being expelled from the warmists mouths!

      • Quote: The planet doesn’t just gain heat from direct radiation from the Sun. This is the argument that the warmists use as a benchmark that the overall change in solar heat reaching the Earth is around 1% so not worth worrying about. They do not factor in the heating by EM energy flowing.
        Comment: I would suggest the amount of heat gained directly from the Sun is well into the 98% and above, of the energy budget captured by the world’s oceans, and yes during Solar Warm Periods, TSI varies – on average by 1%. You may find that TSI varies much more during Grand Solar Minimums.
        What varies significantly during minimum periods is at the Suns higher spectrum levels of UV and EUV , this energy variation is as much as 16% which then disturbs the upper atmosphere and varies the path of the World Jet streams and the climate they bring to regional parts of the world.

  3. NSIDC are trying to downplay the situation by having an article headline state ‘Late summer melting spike for 2017 melt season; Greenland ice may increase’

    So according to the headline it ‘may’ increase but in the article itself they are forced to admit:

    ‘It is likely that 2017 will see a net increase in Greenland’s ice mass for the first time this century.’

  4. Joe missed the mark by quite a bit. I’ve seen many models that disagree with his suggested path. As he says these models are just that. They aren’t perfect. Guess he guessed at the wrong ones.

    By the way, if you haven’t visited Joe s web site, it’s very nice and informative.

  5. Regarding Mark’s question as it is something I also have been pondering lately. It seems to me that a hurricane has comparisons to a tremendous ‘machine’ .Machines in order to do work need a difference ,a delta whether it is voltage ,pressure or temperature and the greater delta V ,delta P or delta T then the greater work output possible. Now 84 degree ocean temperature is warm but not boiling so where is the delta driving the ‘work’? We know the upper atmosphere is cold and may be colder than is admitted. Perhaps a colder than usual upper atmosphere is driving greater convective forces which in turn must force upper atmosphere air to return to earth and through compression form high pressure areas greater than usual. Whether it is delta P or delta T or delta V or a perhaps a combo there must be a ‘driver’ in order for ‘work’ to be done on any scale let alone tremendous scales. Just saying.

  6. Yes the new ice age has already started! Smash your television and burn your newspapers. You won’t hear about it there!

Comments are closed.