Greenland's Ice Armageddon Comes To An End

One of the catastrophic results of global warming always cited by climate change alarmists is the melting of the ice sheets covering Greenland. Some even speculated that global warming had pushed Greenland past a “tipping point” into a scary new regime of wildly heightened ice loss and rapidly rising in sea levels. Now, from the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, comes word that Greenland's Ice Armageddon has been called off.

In the late 1990s, streams of ice flowing into the sea from the great Greenland ice sheet had begun speeding up. As the glacial ice faces receded global warming proponents pointed to the shrinking ice cap as proof that catastrophe lay just around the corner. But then came reports of a broad slowdown from a survey of glacier conditions across southeastern Greenland. Researchers reported in 2007 that two of the area's major outlet glaciers—Helheim and Kangerdlugssuaq—had slowed significantly by the summer of 2006. Then at the 2009 AGU meeting, glaciologist Tavi Murray and ten of her colleagues from Swansea University in the United Kingdom reported the results from their 2007 and 2008 surveys.


Helheim Glacier's flow to the sea sped up in 2005, as evidenced by the 5-kilometer retreat of its leading edge, but by 2006 it had slowed back down. Credit: Ian Howat.

“It has come to an end,” Murray said during a session at the meeting. "There seems to have been a synchronous switch-off " of the speed-up, she said. Based on the shape and appearance of the 14 largest outlet glaciers in southeast Greenland, outlet glacier flows have returned to the levels of 2000 nearly everywhere. “There's a pattern of speeding up to maximum velocity and then slowing down since 2005," Murray reported. “It's amazing; they sped up and slowed down together. They're not in runaway acceleration.”

Glacial modeler Faezeh Nick of Durham University in the UK and her colleagues found similar behvior when they modeled the flow of Helheim Glacier. In their model, as they report recently in Nature Geoscience, Helheim's flow is extremely sensitive to disturbances at its margin but can quickly adjust. “Our results imply that the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland's outlet glaciers are transient,” the group writes, “and should not be extrapolated into the future.”

So add the disappearance of Greanland's ice cap to the list of bogus “catastrophes” predicted by the global warming pundits, along with rising sea levels, higher temperatures, mass extinctions, and increased hurricane activity. In science, theories are judged by the accuracy with which they predict the behavior of nature. The eco-alarmists have been preaching widespread disaster for more than a quarter of a century and no disaster has occured. It's time to for scientists to start speaking up, as 650 climate scientists did recently at the UN global warming conference held in Pozan, Poland.

Criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and activists like James Hansen, Al Gore, and innumerable Hollywood celebrities, over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, have proclaimed global warming a hoax. This is just the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition to the media-hyped view of global climate change promoted by the UN. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical,” said atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology. Simpson, formerly of NASA, is the author of more than 190 studies and is among the most preeminent climate scientists. According to Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist and former IPCC member, global warming scaremongering is the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

Remember those claims of “consensus” within the scientific community? “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming,” according to Stanley B. Goldenberg, an atmospheric scientist at the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. Why the seeming change in the scientific zeitgeist? Could it be because there is no global warming? Consider the tropospheric temperature data shown in the graph below, data collected by NASA satellites.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” asks geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. According to atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, “many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly, without having their professional careers ruined.”

Don't misunderstand, the IPCC and their ilk will not go quietly. They have been riding the government funded global warming gravy train for most of their professional lives. It is going to get nasty out there. “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” said Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation. Briggs serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. Be safe and stay skeptical.

Graph trend line is wrong

regarding the tropospheric temperature data shown in the graph: what is the trend line based on? It sure isn't based on the data.

I do believe in Global

I do believe in Global Worming. I am not a catastrophist like so many and I believe that the suns activity accelerated the worming. I also believe that it will and as quick as it accelerated. I believe that these in power keep general public from real understanding of the problem. The politicians and banks are trying to have as concentrate on the symptoms instead of the cause. The simple truth is that the oceans salty water worms up and releases the CO2 to the atmosphere creating accelerate greenhouse effect. Sea water can hold 72 times more CO2 than the air. Colder water can hold more of it then warm water. Simple facts are that we have very little, next to none control over it all.
The nature, including the sun will have its way, no matter what we do (within the obvious sane boundaries of course).

Be well

Greenland Ice Fields

What are your comments and reaction to the current issue of National Geographic devoted to Greenland and warming?

Keep up the good work

By coincidence, I happened to land on your website. Just what I have been telling everybody and his dog here in Denmark: AGW is a hoax. The climate of the Earth behaves like the climate of the Earth likes to behave, irrespective of the activities of the small ants called humans, on its surface.
Of course, we have to make ourselves independent from fossil fuels, and of course we have to minimize waste of Earth's resources and develop sustainable technologies. But that's quite another matter.
Thank goodness that COP 15 ended in a flop.
Keep up your good work spreading scientifically founded information! It's important that the catastrophists are unveiled as the hoaxters they are.

Thanking you

Hi! I'm from the Philippines. Thank you very much for the interesting post!It's very helpful and very informative.

Greenland mass balance higher than expected

Our findings show that considerably more mass
accumulates on the GrIS than previously thought, adjusting
upwards earlier estimates by as much as 63%.

Higher surface mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet revealed by high-resolution climate modeling

Ettema et al. GRL http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038110.shtml

"trend line"

I'm a skeptic too, but the "trend line" in that graph is seriously flawed. Just by appearance one can tell that it distorts the current cooling compared to earlier years. We don't need to distort the facts. Let the facts speak for themselves, otherwise the skeptics look as foolish as the warm-mongers.
Cecropia

'Trendline' = 5th order polynomial?

Cecropia, I've tried reproduce the 'trendline' in the chart, and you can get close with a 5th order polynomial. So it a fit of sorts. Would a linear fit (OLS) any better? Why does a straight line represent a chaotic system? I think not. A simple moving average might have been better...

reply to 5th order polynomial

I'd like to see a simple moving average of a few years, not an OLS, which would as you say not be very representative of a chaotic system. But to go out to a 5th order polynomial smacks of, again, seemingly trying to make it work in our favor. I'm all for letting the data speak for themselves. They'll tell the correct story if you give them enough time...

Well, I guess we all knew it

Well, I guess we all knew it would come to this, at least those of us who were skeptical in the beginning. I am sure the earth is changing, why wouldn't it change with all the additional people living on it. But I do not think it is as extreme as we were all scared into thinking.

Yes, I think global warming

Yes, I think global warming is a big issue for whole human kind.

Cherry picked anectdotal evidence..

How about ALL of the arctic ice...Oh my, not so good...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090225073215.htm

And "Government funded global warming gravy train"?? If you wish to follow the money, how many dollars are associated to burning oil and the trillions of dollars still in the ground as apposed to research grants? You're funny... thanks for the laugh...

Bad evidence proves nothing

Your choice of website to back up the claim of anecdotal evidence is pretty laughable. The use of single instance data is pointless. The question is weather CO2 is responsible for the change, not that there is change. There has always been change and it has around a 0.9 correlation to the sun not CO2. Please stop trying to make the fraudulent link between CO2 and temperature with no evidence for this it is all propaganda and lies.

You mean the GROWING Arctic Ice?

For 36 months ice reduction has been halted, and continues to grow to this date. We will see what the summer brings, but there is plenty of evidence that climate change as its called is simply climate changing, as it always does.

And now were going to get cold. 10 celcius below normal again here tonight, and its been a whole winter of it, again. The frost is in deep, and the wind is bitter. We have lost 30 days of growing season in two years, and folks, La Nina is over.

And this summer is likely to be cooler again...so lets see how the AGW crowd handles these doses of reality...

New flash, not every thunderstorm, hurricane, tornado and disaster is out of the ordinary. Weather, and change in climate, is perfectly normal.

Im all for destroying big oil, but not with the same lies and fear mongering tactics that got us into bed with them in the first place.

I always love that big oil line.

Who the heck do you folks think stand to make the most off of the new cap and trade bill? Yes thats right.. big oil, mega business, banks and gov. Who do you think thought up cap and trade. A power company called Enron. That same big power company that had a scandal that amazingly enough had a plan very much like the pig energy bill we see today.

Its sort of like running looking behind you only to turn around and smash into something in front of you. Wake up folks. Its really not that hard to learn the truth once you go to the sources of the information and get off the sheeple train to the slaughter house.

Glad to be of service

It's good to know that we are at least keeping you amused. If you would read our book you would know that I support getting off of fossil fuels and limiting pollution of all forms. What I truly object to are sloppy scientists suddenly discovering that every aspect of their work touches on global warming (and hence qualifies for government funding). Yes, it is a government gravy train. Earth's climate is changing, ice caps and glaciers have been receding and that is exactly what you would expect for the peak of an interglacial period. It's the "we are all doomed" stuff that is bogus. Learn the facts, buy our book.

The Truth

Well, not many people are talking truth lately because their funds rely on goverments thinking there IS global warming. How many times have I read the world, and now planets, apparently, have never BEEN stable climate wise. Here in the UK we are dependant on the gulf stream? The last ice or mini ice age was 1700? Well?
This proves the earth is constantly on the move and it WILL look after itself? Pollution.. may affect our health, but with the introduction of power saving bulbs, with mercury that by regulation should be disposed of in a safe way, big joke.. so these low energy, lower light bulbs SAVE energy.. we pay more for it, less for the bulbs which are subsodised.. and its all a con? Carbon footprint, ads brainwashing us all the way.. as if they are fact. But if I speak out to mates.. some who know, others look at me as if I`m mad. Is this the reason no one likes a smart `Alec`?
SENSE... common sense.. wheres it gone.