Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

The Greenland ice sheet is part of the Arctic ice cap.

Greenland ice sheet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Greenland ice sheet is a vast body of ice covering 1,710,000 square kilometres (660,000 sq mi), roughly 80% of the surface of Greenland. It is the second largest ice body in the world, after the Antarctic Ice Sheet. The ice sheet is almost 2,400 kilometres (1,500 mi) long in a north-south direction, and its greatest width is 1,100 kilometres (680 mi) at a latitude of 77°N, near its northern margin. The mean altitude of the ice is 2,135 metres (7,005 ft).[1] The thickness is generally more than 2 km (1 mi) and over 3 km (1.9 mi) at its thickest point. It is not the only ice mass of Greenland – isolated glaciers and small ice caps cover between 76,000 and 100,000 square kilometres (29,000 and 39,000 sq mi) around the periphery. Some scientists predict that climate change may be near a "tipping point" where the entire ice sheet will melt in about 2,000 years.[2] If the entire 2,850,000 cubic kilometres (684,000 cu mi) of ice were to melt, it would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 m (24 ft).[3]

The Greenland Ice Sheet is also sometimes referred to as an ice cap.

The ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 110,000 years.[4] The presence of ice-rafted sediments in deep-sea cores recovered off of northeast Greenland, in the Fram Strait, and south of Greenland indicated the more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland for the last 18 million years.[5]


***

 

And the Greenland Ice Sheet is still there.

 

What an incredibly clueless remark. Greenland is losing ice mass at accelerating rates.

New Greenland Ice Melt Fuels Sea Level Rise Concerns
ClimateCentral
By Brian Kahn
March 16th, 2014
(excerpts)
Stability in the rapidly changing Arctic is a rarity. Yet for years researchers believed the glaciers in the frigid northeast section of Greenland, which connect to the interior of the country’s massive ice sheet, were resilient to the effects of climate change that have affected so much of the Arctic. But new data published Sunday in Nature Climate Change reveals that over the past decade, the region has started rapidly losing ice due to a rise in air and ocean temperatures caused in part by climate change. The increased melt raises grave concerns that sea level rise could accelerate even faster than projected, threatening even more coastal communities worldwide. “North Greenland is very cold and dry, and believed to be a very stable area,” said Shfaqat Khan, a senior researcher at the Technical University of Denmark who led the new study. “It is surprisingly to see ice loss in one of the coldest regions on the planet.”

The stability of the region is particularly important because it has much deeper ties to the interior ice sheet than other glaciers on the island. If the entire ice sheet were to melt -- which would take thousands of years in most climate change scenarios -- sea levels would rise up to 23 feet, catastrophically altering coastlines around the world. Sea levels have risen 8 inches globally since the start of the 1900s, and current projections show that figure could rise another 3 feet by the end of this century.

 

Jet stream dude. Just like the unusual extreme cold weather in the US.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1

 

So who are these researchers? Name them. Let's read their input to this. Not someone's interpretation. And as hoosier pointed out, they're still there. So your statement sir is false. Predicting is not actual. So you are in error.

 

From his link,

.

 

Then perhaps we should be concerned since a web editor said so.

Edit; I also like the wording in the first couple of sentences "yet for years researchers believed". Not witnessed, believed. Maybe documented, or something related to actual information. It is just hilarious.

Sorry, one more he uses the word accelerating like it's happening now and it is out of control.

 

Utter nonsense. All that is required is that instrumental readings be degraded to the same temporal scale as the proxy data. At that point, both records will have the same ability to show spikes, if such spikes exist.

For example, here's 20-year-resolution proxy data, 1-year-resolution proxy data, and 1-year-resolution instrumental data on a single graph, after the 1-year resolution data (both proxy and instrumental) has been degraded to 20-year averages:



See? No spikes. Except, of course, for the century-long spike that we created by burning fossil fuels.

 

Marcotts 20th century spike isn't worth squat as even he has conceded . Its at odds with every paleoclimatic study ever published too apart from perhaps Manns long discredited Hockey Stick

.http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

Too many graphs here for you 'fiddle' but you could always try

 

Which, of course, is utter BS. Often different proxy records don't even correspond.

 

The hallmark of Denierville: a potty-mouth accusation unsupported by either evidence or argument.

Correspond to what?

 

So you think adding one set of a completely different type of measurement that does not correspond to another set and "normalizing" them is accurate? Reminds me of Mann's "hide the decline". LOL

 

What, other than the Denier Church Of No Evidence, leads you to believe that two datasets both measuring temperature don't correspond?

 

If you don't understand, no one can educate you. It is the same thing as the debunked hockey stick.

 

Indeed ! This is not just trying to compare apples with oranges this is more like comparing apples with .... errr sausages ?

 

On the contrary, I'm happy to be educated by any actual evidence you have. It's just that you don't have any. Which is why you've lost the debate.

 

Yet you resist any attempt. You cannot lose a debate that is not proven to be true.

 

And that even goes as far as physically changing graphs from Peer review studies to get them to say what he wants when they don't fit. I've been on forums like this for a while now and have never come across such utter desperation not to be proven wrong

 

Well, for them it is not rational but emotional, that is why they resort to name calling instead of any kind of real debate.

 

People who actually want to debate rather than preach seem rather thin on the ground of late. It seems many here are happier trying to stifle debate rather than promote it. The constant trolling and flaming Is very sad because this used to be a fairly good forum once upon a time. Its been replaced by screaming ad hom by both sides.

 

The alarmists keep re-drawing the line in the sand.

 

Which is why that graph doesn't use Marcott in the 20th century. The Adventures of Flogger-Can't-Read, Chapter 85.

Oh really? How many paleoclimate studies do you have that go into the 20th century?

Utterly hilarious: in order to prove that paleoclimate studies DON'T show an uptick in the 20th century, Flogger gives a link which includes, as it's only full Northern Hemisphere study, Moberg et al. -- which shows an uptick in the 20th century!
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_mobergnh.php

The Adventures of Flogger-Can't-Read, Chapter 86.

... and a page which doesn't address the 20th century at all. The Adventures of Flogger-Can't-Read, Chapter 87.

 

You certainly live up to your forum name, don't you?

 

With this guy its all about 'winning' or losing. Failing that flaming ad hom will do . Actually debating the content of what is presented is never an option

 

This from a guy who has had multiple posts taken down on this thread because of flaming ad-homs.