March 18, 2020

"Greenland lost a near-record 600 billion tons of ice last summer, raising sea levels."

WaPo headline.
The mass loss from Greenland alone was enough to raise global sea levels by 2.2 millimeters, the study found.

103 comments:

mccullough said...

Trump should lower the offer to buy it then.

gilbar said...

2.2 millimeters!!!!
THAT'S IT!! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE (in 60 or 70 years or so)

Achilles said...

We only have 12 more years.

But we will die of COVID-19 first.

gilbar said...

interesting NOT MENTION in that article; How much Ice was made this winter?

California Snow said...

Its hard to worry about this when it's all of 2.2 mm.

tcrosse said...

This will take my mind off trying to score some groceries for the weekend.

Dave Begley said...

We don't care. That was last summer. Things could be different this summer.

And what about Antarctica? I understand it has gotten colder and more ice created.

Owen said...

600 Gigatons of ice “ lost” leaves only about 2,699,400 Gigatons. At this rate it will all be gone in...*checks math*...about 3,000 years.

Viewed another way, Greenland’s melting produced a 2.2 mm rise in sea level —which over the centuries tends to rise at 2-3 mm/yr: about the thickness of a pencil lead. The new “accelerated” sea level rise (say 6 mm/year) would give us 600 mm/century or about 2 feet. This will force our great-great-great-grandchildren to move the beer cooler a few yards up the beach.

These changes are not nothing, but they are not hair-on-fire emergencies, despite what the well-compensated and very smug Greens want us to think. Especially they are not emergencies when the proposed solution —an instant (and pointless) cessation of all use of carbon-based fuels— would produce a far worse outcome, for everyone, most of all the poor.

Nichevo said...

Eek?

Milwaukie guy said...

There was a headline a few years ago that Antarctica had lost 3 trillion tons of ice "recently." Sounded bad. I almost panicked until I did the research. 3 trillion tons is about .03% of Antarctica's ice cap. Disaster avoided. Be still my beating heart.

Temujin said...

Stop it.

How do they measure 2.2 mm of sea level rise? 2.2 mm is .0866 inches. We're talking less then 1/10 of an inch. How and where was that measured? I live on the coast of Florida. I missed it.

And did they measure during a rainy period over the oceans? Will some of that .0866 evaporate? How much water does evaporate daily? Is it the same in humid climates as dry climates? How does wind affect it?

Who comes up with this stuff?

Gahrie said...

That is less than an inch if you are interested.

Gahrie said...

And I bet most of it returns to Greenland this winter as snow.

Char Char Binks said...

I'm sure they'll find it somewhere.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Bull Shit. They have no way to measure the ocean rise, or fall, and 2 millimeters? Seriously? They can measure that?

Same people telling us we have to duck and cover for a month because of the flu, destroying our economy in the process.

But don’t worry “the government” will help us all with a check. Hello, it’s our f-ing money

R C Belaire said...

Yipee! 2.2 mm ~ 0.09 inches ~ 0.007 ft.

TestTube said...

Good! We are in the middle of an ice age. We can use all the ice-melting warmth we can get!

Better to deal with 2.2 mm of sea rise than a three-thousand-foot layer of ice scouring Boston, New York, and Chicago clean down to bedrock -- as was the case scant millennia ago!

Warmth will defeat the coronavirus. Warmth will increase crop production. Warmth will open vast expanses of land for cultivation.

Leora said...

I don't believe you can detect a 2.2 millimeter rises in ocean levels.

hstad said...

2.2 millimeters global average rise in sea level. Pure rubbish, can't be measured just another questionable projection like all the the Global Climate Change models.

Kevin said...

Does Greenland have a winter? Snow? Rain?

JackWayne said...

And in the winter of 2018 it gained 1 trillion tons.

Curious George said...

Those polar bears can finish up their Cokes and kiss their furry white asses goodbye.

Narr said...

The effect should be expected less in sea-level rise than cooling of the NAC.

Narr
Wife needs the computer

Birkel said...

And yet the water level at the beach remains the same.

John Holland said...

Ctrl-F "uncertainty": Phrase not found
Ctrl-F "error": Phrase not found
Ctrl-F "mean": Phrase not found

Siri, what's the uncertainty interval on 'mean sea level' satellite measurements?

Answer: standard deviation of GMSL (GIA applied) variation estimate is 99.81mm. In other words, mean sea level derived from satellite data is accurate to within about four inches. On a 'rise' of 2.2mm, that's a heck of an error bar.

I propose that a rise of 2.2 mm is undetectable. Therefore they are assuming this rise, based on inference from ice loss, again derived (indirectly) from satellites.

My experience in reading actual peer-reviewed climate science papers is that the language is tentative, bland, and information is bracketed with a lot of statistical hedge phrases. Once the NASA PR hacks get ahold of it, all tentative language and statistical phrasing is stripped out. Then the press gets their little rat paws on it and the message is "You're going to drown tomorrow, monster. Maybe Friday. Vote Biden!"

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Seriously? THIS is interesting right now?

Who cares?

The WaPo? This is "Democracy Dies in Darkness"?

Good grief.

etbass said...

When Barack Obama puts his seaside home on the market, I will be concerned but not before.

traditionalguy said...

A Total Hoax never hesitates to make up fake data to feed conclusions of their fake Science. Let us know when actual sea level ever rises based on photographed visual observation. Until then no one believes the delusion.

NickLevi86 said...

2mm? Surely with tidal and wave action that's not even a fraction of the Margin of Error in such a study?

Rob said...

Just as well we didn't buy it. It's a wasting asset.

tim in vermont said...

The record goes back 17 years. and this is a “near record.” No mention of what happened in the thirties, or that “warm blip in the forties” that caused consternation among the ‘scientists’ caught out on the Climategate leak.

Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years.

The Godfather said...

No wonder my ankles are wet!

David-2 said...

So, just another one thousand (1000) years of this record ice loss and we'll finally see that 2 meter rise in sea level! Martha's Vineyard is doomed, doomed I tell you!

David-2 said...

So, just one thousand (1000) more years of this record ice loss and we'll finally see that 2 meter rise in sea levels! Martha's Vineyard is doomed! Doomed, I tell you!

Drago said...

Ice melts in summer.

Tell your friends.

Freder Frederson said...

Don't worry, Michael K promises that we are about to enter a period of global cooling.

Unknown said...

Buy it, buy it!!

Roughcoat said...

Well ... that means Greenland is being restored to the way it was during the Medieval Climate Optimum, when it actually was a ... green land. That's a good thing.

Yeah, you know the point I'm making.

Invest in beachfront property now!

DKWalser said...

I can't wait to see Tony Heller's takedown of the Washington Post. He has several videos on YouTube comparing the claims in the NYT, Washington Post, CNN, etc., with the actual record. If your only source of news were the main stream media, you wouldn't know Greenland had its coldest day on record this January or that Artic sea ice levels are well within the normal range. Nor would you know that many of the Artic glaciers are growing, rather than receding.

n.n said...

Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt
This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland's weather since the end of May. "Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one," said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate.
...
Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise.

- 07/2012

Greenland Ice Sheet Today
The summer months were only moderately warmer than average relative to 1981 to 2010, roughly 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit) higher along the western coast. This confirms that the main driver of surface melt in 2019 was above average cloud-free days, not warm air temperatures as in the 2012 summer melt. This also explains the exceptional dry and sunny conditions at the south.
- 11/2019

Michael said...

Like to see the arithmetic.

Phidippus said...

Let's offer them a little more next time.

Shane said...

2.2 millimeters....I can't believe this isn't get the coverage it deserves right now.

Heartless Aztec said...

Every time I hear global warming or ice melting it's good news because the alternative is an already overdue Ice Age and New York City under an ice sheet a mile thick. Oh wait...

Rory said...

That would be one inch in 11.5 years.

Big Mike said...

The oceans rose a bit less than a tenth of an inch. Time to light our hair on fire.

Jersey Fled said...

Roughly 1/16"

Milwaukie guy said...

Another denominator question.

rcocean said...

How long have we been measuring the ice loss in Greenland. BTW, wasn't Greenland, actually *Green* at one point? Hence the name.

wholelottasplainin' said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PB said...

Sea level has been rising for thousands of years. And I think that 2 millimeters is about average

Unknown said...

2.2 millimeters is less than 1/10 (0.1) inch. Time to move inland ...

John Lynch said...

For some reason, I'm not caring very much right now.

wholelottasplainin' said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chuck said...

If the sea level rise had gone from ~3mm to ~5mm per year I expect we would have heard about it.

exhelodrvr1 said...

How much did it gain back this winter?

Pianoman said...

"Was enough to raise"

Does that mean that sea levels rose?

Or is this more like a "theory"? As in, divide the mass of ice by the ocean's mass, and the equation kicks out 2.2?

Charlie Currie said...

Can the naked eye even discern 2.2 millimeters?

tim maguire said...

Greenland is supposed to lose ice in the summer. Idiots.

Unknown said...

https://sunshinehours.net/2020/03/17/sea-ice-extent-global-antarctic-and-arctic-day-76-2020/

rhhardin said...

Buy ice, sell sea. Global warming hedge fund.

brylun said...

Meanwhile, according to NASA, the polar ice caps on Mars are receding.

But the prices of oceanfront properties are still increasing.

rhhardin said...

They didn't measure the sea level, they just divided the volume of water that represents by the ocean area.

Robin Goodfellow said...

"Blogger California Snow said...
Its hard to worry about this when it's all of 2.2 mm."

At first I read it as 2.2 cm (which is a little less than one inch). Then I realized it was mm. I think it's a little too early to sell the beachfront property.

Tomcc said...

Doesn't anyone understand the metric system?! That's 2.2 million(!) meters! Now you may not care that Atlantic City is under water, but what about New York city?
What's that?
It's not?
Oh...
Well, maybe not now; but eventually!

tim maguire said...

AlbertAnonymous said...
Bull Shit. They have no way to measure the ocean rise, or fall, and 2 millimeters? Seriously? They can measure that?


These are very clever people we’re talking about. After all, they know the average global temperature to a 1/10th of a degree in 1850–a time when 99% of the world wasn’t within 100 miles of a thermometer.

Robin Goodfellow said...

"Blogger Gahrie said...
That is less than an inch if you are interested."

Less than an inch doesn't even come close to capturing the magnitude. Better to say, "Less than one tenth of an inch ... after Greenland's record-breaking loss of ice."

Phidippus said...

I suspect that Pianoman is correct. It's difficult to imagine being able to directly measure sea level change at that resolution, what with variation in the wind, currents, tides, etc.

More climate panic hooey. Them humans sure do love an apocalypse, don't they?

gilbar said...

2.2 mm is a little less than a 10th of an inch; so NO
your tides are going to be, what? 6 ft or so?
if your sea wall is 2.2 mm higher than the flood tide; you're kinda screwed any way

gilbar said...

Don't worry, Michael K REMINDS US that we are STILL IN a period of global cooling
fify!!

Drago said...

Freder: "Don't worry, Michael K promises that we are about to enter a period of global cooling."

I guess Freder has never heard of Maunder Minimum's and Solar Cycles.

The Sun? What does it do again?

Big Mike said...

How long have we been measuring the ice loss in Greenland. BTW, wasn't Greenland, actually *Green* at one point? Hence the name.

@rcocean, I was taught that Eric the Red called it Greenland not because it was greener than Iceland (it isn’), but for PR purposes, to attract potential colonists. Where would you rather settle if you were emigrating from Denmark? A place called Greenland or a place called Iceland?

But note that for at least four centuries, from circa 1000 AD to circa 1400 AD, it was possible for colonists to survive on Greenland using nothing more sophisticated than Medieval farming technology. Anybody wanna try that today?

Jersey Fled said...

You have to understand that Lefties don't do math. So 2.2mm sounds like a lot to them. Especially since it's stated in metric units, which they don't understand anyway.

wholelottasplainin' said...


(reposted with math correction)

I am shocked, SHOCKED to learn this!!! 2.2mm!!! why that's about 0.09 of an inch!!

Never mind that the annual increase in sea level has hovered around 3mm for many years. So in ten years that's 30 centimeters, or 1.18 inches.

And never mind that Greenland's total ice volume is measured to be 684,000 cubic miles. The average melting trend is estimated to be about 50 cubic miles annually. (per wikipedia)

Do do the freaking math to see how long it would take to melt the entire ice cap. Answer: almost 14 THOUSAND years

And remember, folks, Greenland loses about this much ice every year, and then gains most of it back during the following fall and winter months. The water that winds up frozen on Greenland as ice comes, of course, from the oceans.

Better file this story under Polar Bear kills Baby Seal

Jersey Fled said...

Can the naked eye even discern 2.2 millimeters?

Not without my glasses.

Owen said...

Charlie Currie: “Can the naked eye even discern 2.2 millimeters?”

Only with the assistance of strong drink.

Regarding how much deeper the ocean has become thanks to Greenland’s recent melting, bear in mind that due to local differences in the gravitational field, there is no absolute sea level. Add in subsidence of land where sea level markers were established, expansion of the ocean basin due to crustal motion (increasing its volume and thus reducing any rise), effects of winds that push water into heaps, tides and currents confounding the search for “the” sea level, measurement error, etc, and it’s anyone’s guess (within an inch or two, based on long-running averages at known-good locations) how much the sea level is “really” rising. But these geniuses who cash Jeff Bezos’ paychecks at the WaPo have it all dialed in to the nearest TENTH OF A MILLIMETER.

chuck said...

we are STILL IN a period of global cooling

Have been for about 8,000 years since the Holocene climatic optimum.

Matt said...

Sure, it did, WaPo.

Sure, it did.

Clyde said...

2.2 millimeters is a rounding error.

mandrewa said...

I see this has already been more or less covered in the comments above, but let's do a little math.


(1)

In the last 15,000 years ocean levels have risen more than 300 feet. Three hundred feet is 91,440 millimeters. 91,440 millimeters / 15,000 year is 6 millimeters per year.

So in other words the Greenland's ice loss this summer is one-third of the average ice melt per year that has occurred over the last 15,000 years.


(2)

There was a time when I would have assumed that we are talking about net ice loss. Now, after years over witnessing disingenuous arguments from people that should know better, I think it's quite to legitimate to inquire how much ice was added to Greenland last winter?

For instance if it turns out 500 billion tons of ice was added to Greenland during the summer followed by a loss of 600 billion tons during the summer, then that puts a completely different cast on the story. The 2.2 millimeter business would become downright misleading, for instance.

Maybe someone here can answer that question.


(3) It's actually kind of important to have a context for this kind of information. It's important for instance to discriminate between what's usual and what's not. If 600 billion tons per summer is in reality kind of normal, then again it puts a completely different cast on this information. And of course I'm cheating a bit here, because I'm pretty sure we don't have this kind of information on what is happening to the Greenland ice sheet over than for the last few years, and therefore we don't know what is normal.

mandrewa said...

correction: "if it turns out 500 billions of ice was added to Greenland during the winter"

Bob Boyd said...

The water then evaporates out the ocean and falls as snow back on Greenland.

We should buy it. We should use the money we used to owe China until their frigging virus got out.

stevew said...

Yet another statistic that is gross speculation, at best, and unproven nonsense, intended to incite fear and panic. These people are incorrigible and to be ignored.

n.n said...

Invest in beachfront property now!

Yeah, the Profits, 1%ers, and climate celebrities are looking for a green seller. What is Latin for "seller beware"?

Friendo said...

Freder - I think you've some sand in your vagina.

Milwaukie guy said...

"Sea level rise" is different between the southern edge of the North American plate and the northern end. The northern part is still uplifting, having been free of the weight of the Wisconsin Glaciation. The southern part, like Louisiana and Florida, is tipping into the ocean while Nova Scotia rises. This is sort of like Guam flipping over due to climate change, except real. The glaciers didn't recede from the Canadian mainland until like 8,000 BP.

Ray said...

"was enough to raise global sea levels by 2.2 millimeters"

Notice the slight of hand. "Was enough to", is an extrapolation. They didn't actually measure anything.The 2.2 mm assumes everywhere else either stayed the same or melted more. What if more ice was created elsewhere? This is typical global warming slight of hand, aimed at the ignorant. I'm open to it being true, but when they play games with wording and data like this it makes me extremely suspect. Show real science, using real data, taking into account the sun variations, previous warm and cold periods, without using models. Show me the science!

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
etbass said...

Using Hardin's methodology, I calculate only 3/4 mm rise in the ocean. But I admit it takes a lot of keeping track of scientific notation and unit conversion to get there.

Bruce Hayden said...

“ The mass loss from Greenland alone was enough to raise global sea levels by 2.2 millimeters, the study found.”

Notice how misleadingly that was phrased. They seem to be saying, essentially, that their models predict that the ice melt last year might have been enough to raise the ocean .08 inches, if everting else were held constant. But, of course, not everything else is constant, and most notably there is a lot more ice in Antarctica than in Greenland, which has tended in recent years to shrink in some places, and probably grow more in others.

Of course, they can’t measure 2.2 mm, even using satellites. As someone above noted the threshold for satellites is at least an order of magnitude greater than this. And measuring on the shoreline is less than worthless, because some places the land is rising, and some places, it is sinking. Moreover, you run into the problem of assigning a single number to the sea level at some specific point, when the actual sea level varies second by second, 24/7, 365, as waves roll in, waves roll out, tides come in, and tides go out. This is actually worse than generating a single number for global temperatures. The same generalizations of daily highs and lows into a single, statistically invalid, daily number, then averaging them over the year, then interpreting from a small number of discrete sample points to the entire world is present, but wave action makes the calculation even more problematic. GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

doctrev said...

The general reaction to this particular article, on this particular day, is going to be "FUCK Greenland, and FUCK the 2mm rise. If I thought it would get the economy in positive growth I'd hang a climate scientist from a lamp post."

Bruce Hayden said...

Or to simplify, they most likely calculated how much water was generated from melting the ice, and divided that by the surface area of the oceans, hopefully taking into account that land tends to rise a little when relieved of the weight of ice.

tim in vermont said...

If you have a number that is pretty much unchanged over seventeen years, with some random fluctuation, you know, the number is in a PAUSE, you still get the occasional NEAR RECORD high in that number, and when you are talking about Greenland, the number is going to be pretty big.

Surprised they didn’t give us the number in fluid ounces, like they count ocean warming in joules. A thousand joules is about the amount of energy from a kitchen match. So that’s a good unit to use to measure heating of something as large as the ocean. Note that they don’t give the rise in degrees that often, because the heat capacity of the ocean is huge compared to that of the atmosphere.

wholelottasplainin' said...

What Bruce Hayden said, +100

wholelottasplainin' said...

doctrev said...
The general reaction to this particular article, on this particular day, is going to be "FUCK Greenland, and FUCK the 2mm rise. If I thought it would get the economy in positive growth I'd hang a climate scientist from a lamp post."
**************
If you were someone who's been reading wattsupwiththat.com over the years---as I suspect many commenters here are---you would understand that we were making the same arguments when the current hysteria was well into the future.

Facts are facts, whatever the state of the economy.

If you have counter arguments, why not make them?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

2.2 millimeters

that's only because I stepped in the bath tub, right when they took the measurement.

Gospace said...

Gee, everyone is talking about 2.2 mm basically not even large enough to be a rounding error is measuring sea level anywhere. Not measurable in any meaningful way.

But then, there's the 600 billion tons - that was calculated to be lost from Greenland. Calculated. From a few random measurements. How much ice was gained or lost in Siberia? Finland? Antarctica?

Jakobshavn Glacier in Greenland has grown for 3 straight years. Is it's mass gain included?

This is a somewhat outdated list of growing glaciers. But on the dates each entry was made, do you recall reading anything about glaciers growing? All I've read in the mainstream media is the ever shrinking ice mass. Which, BTW, is a good thing. .Humans and other living things thrive when the Earth is warm and CO2 is high enough for plants to healthily grow.

Narayanan said...

You Americans peoples so silly! Divide volume by ocean area and what do you get?

All can be done back of envelope.

Freeman Hunt said...

But now it's okay because everyone had to get out of the ocean for social distancing, and it went back down.

Nichevo said...


gilbar said...
2.2 millimeters!!!!
THAT'S IT!! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE (in 60 or 70 years or so)

3/18/20, 2:32 PM



I wonder if this is what they meant by, the coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave man dies but once?

Rusty said...

2.2 mm or .0858 of an inch, or nearly 3/32 of an inch. Holy crap! Head for the hills!
Jaysus.

Danny Lemieux said...

We don't have the means to accurately measure sea levels. The "best" tool available is supposed to be our satellite system, but the error standard deviations are measured in centimeters, rather than millimeters.

Cato said...

I'm so old I can remember when the sea level was about 200 feet lower. Then something happened and the Earth started warming. Lots of land ice melted. Lots. The Earth went from an ice planet to a water planet.

I tried to stop it but there was nothing I could do.