Greenland 2012

[skierinvermont]

2010 featured several heatwaves during winter over Greenland of equal or greater magnitude. So did 1960. I am sure I can find many others. 

 

This heatwave and melt event are not "unprecedented" as originally described. 

 

Nor will they have any negative effect on the mass balance of Greenland this year, other than the possible benefit of increased associated precipitation, largely in the form of snow.

 

 

 

All it took was for Terry to post some warm temps and automatically everybody assumes "unprecedented" temperature and melt. Why am I the one that has to provide evidence that the temps are NOT at all unprecedented? Shouldn't that be the assumption until someone shows that they ARE unprecedented?

[PhillipS]

It was posted above that the maximum anomaly was 15C.. that certainly would not be unprecedented and would be a fairly typical heatwave. Greenland probably experiences a +15C anomaly once per winter. Unless that description is inaccurate, I will have to say its a typical heatwave.

 

 

Also the average is not zero. This is false. It is slightly greater than zero. Meaning there are likely other little melt events mixed in there. What does (2 + 29*0)/30 equal? .067. The values have clearly been above average this February, but not unprecedented. This is an inevitable conclusion from the fact that +15C anomalies are not uncommon.

 

Also temperatures briefly above freezing are not going to cause meltwater. They'll briefly cause the surface to appear wet from satellite but that's about it. Melt season doesn't begin until May and that's what will determine the mass balance for Greenland this summer. Not a little bit of wet snow on Feb 19 that quickly refreezes. 

 

If anything warm temperatures in winter are probably beneficial for Greenland because they are probably associated with increased precipitation, largely in the form of snow. 

 

Interesting to watch you try to spin you earlier comments instead of simply admitting you were wrong.  In post #297 you label me an Alarmist for pointing out that the long-term for this time of year is essentially zero and that 2013 has been higher that average.  You also claimed that "The 1981- 2010 average comes out to zero despite spikes that regularly occur in the winter months" - an assertion which is mathematically impossible but which you have not retracted.  

 

You have also misquoted me by claiming I said current temps are "unprecedented" when, in fact, I said they are "possibly unprecedented".  

 

And cherrypicking a few record temperatures is not supporting your assertion that recent Greenland weather is 'typical'.  When you go to Wunderground.com and look at the record for Narsarsuaq (the location Terry mentioned) you'll find that 'typical temperatures for today are -3 C, not 15 C.

 

You also claim that the recent temperature will not cause meltwater.  Here's the NSIDC plot on the number of days of melting in Greenland during 2013:

 

 

As anyone can see, large areas of southern Greenland have had 20 or so days of melting during the first 50 days of 2013, and some areas on the east coast have had almost 30 days of melting. More than half of the year to date.  Are you really claiming that 20 days or more of melting hasn't generated any meltwater?  

 

So are you seriously going to characterize 2013 as 'typical'?

[skierinvermont]

Interesting to watch you try to spin you earlier comments instead of simply admitting you were wrong.  In post #297 you label me an Alarmist for pointing out that the long-term for this time of year is essentially zero and that 2013 has been higher that average.  You also claimed that "The 1981- 2010 average comes out to zero despite spikes that regularly occur in the winter months" - an assertion which is mathematically impossible but which you have not retracted.  

 

You have also misquoted me by claiming I said current temps are "unprecedented" when, in fact, I said they are "possibly unprecedented".  

 

And cherrypicking a few record temperatures is not supporting your assertion that recent Greenland weather is 'typical'.  When you go to Wunderground.com and look at the record for Narsarsuaq (the location Terry mentioned) you'll find that 'typical temperatures for today are -3 C, not 15 C.

 

You also claim that the recent temperature will not cause meltwater.  Here's the NSIDC plot on the number of days of melting in Greenland during 2013:

 

 

 

As anyone can see, large areas of southern Greenland have had 20 or so days of melting during the first 50 days of 2013, and some areas on the east coast have had almost 30 days of melting. More than half of the year to date.  Are you really claiming that 20 days or more of melting hasn't generated any meltwater?  

 

So are you seriously going to characterize 2013 as 'typical'?

 

You are putting words in my mouth. 

 

I have never said anything except that temperatures are not unprecedented and that this has no bearing on the GIS mass balance. I have clearly supported the first statement. The multiple examples I have given were not cherrypicked. They were simply the first examples found in a quick search. As I said, I can provide many more. If you know anything about weather, you would know that +15C anomalies are not uncommon especially at high latitude. They probably occur at least once per winter in Greenland. Do you really wish to challenge this assertion or are you willing to agree that the warmth is not "unprecedented" as was originally suggested by you and others?

 

In fact the warmest reading at Narsarsuaq this month was a mere 19F above average. A full 14F below the record high. Not even remotely close. Like a 1.5SD event maybe. 

 

The second half of this statement is supportable by the first. If the warmth is not even remotely unusual - a run of the mill warm spell at most that has likely been exceeded hundreds of times throughout the last century - then how can it possibly have meaningful implications for the summer melt season? 

 

 

 

Also IIRC "melt" is defined pretty much as any time temperatures even approach freezing and the snow begins to get that wet glare to it. But that doesn't mean you're actually seeing meltwater running off or mass loss. I'm pretty sure the satellites would say that the snow in the Wasatch here has constantly been melting, and yet we have managed to build up a 70" base of snow in a few months of winter.

 

 

Finally addressing the semantics you have focused on of whether an occasional spike in melt to 3 or 4% over 30 years can still average to zero, it's pretty obvious that I meant near zero especially considering subsequent posts. Do you really think I or anybody else here thinks a positive number averaged with 30 or so zeros averages exactly zero?

[skierinvermont]

Also I don't know where you get temps of 15C for Narsarsuaq from. The warmest I see in this month is 46F on Feb 1. That's under 8C. 

[PhillipS]

Also I don't know where you get temps of 15C for Narsarsuaq from. The warmest I see in this month is 46F on Feb 1. That's under 8C. 

 

That's the value you posted in comment #302, "It was posted above that the maximum anomaly was 15C", referring to Terry's comment #284.  If you weren't referring to Terry's comment, what comment were you referring to?

 

You still haven't explained why you think a thirty year record of melt extent observations with melt spikes from 'typical February Greenland heatwaves" can average out to zero (your post #297).  You clearly didn't mean near zero because in that post you were labeling me an alarmist and trying to refute my posts #289 and #294 where I said that the long-term Greenland Melt Extent average for this time of year is "essentially zero".  in fact, you declared my posts to be "nonsense"

[skierinvermont]

That's the value you posted in comment #302, "It was posted above that the maximum anomaly was 15C", referring to Terry's comment #284.  If you weren't referring to Terry's comment, what comment were you referring to?

 

You still haven't explained why you think a thirty year record of melt extent observations with melt spikes from 'typical February Greenland heatwaves" can average out to zero (your post #297).  You clearly didn't mean near zero because in that post you were labeling me an alarmist and trying to refute my posts #289 and #294 where I said that the long-term Greenland Melt Extent average for this time of year is "essentially zero".  in fact, you declared my posts to be "nonsense"

 

maximum ANOMALY was 15C not temperature.

 

 

Of course I meant "near zero" as I have explained multiple times. I assumed that this would be clear to mathematically literate people.

 

 

What was going on in this thread was unfounded alarmism. The suggestions that the temperatures were unprecedented (or anywhere near unprecedented or anything other than a typical February warm spell) or that this would contribute negatively to the GIS mass balance were both unfounded. Just because I found these suggestions alarmist and false doesn't mean I think (2+0)/30=0.0000000000

[PhillipS]

maximum ANOMALY was 15C not temperature.

 

Of course I meant "near zero" as I have explained multiple times. I assumed that this would be clear to mathematically literate people.

 

What was going on in this thread was unfounded alarmism. The suggestions that the temperatures were unprecedented (or anywhere near unprecedented or anything other than a typical February warm spell) or that this would contribute negatively to the GIS mass balance were both unfounded. Just because I found these suggestions alarmist and false doesn't mean I think (2+0)/30=0.0000000000

 

You're right, you did say anomaly and I misread your post.  The error is mine.

 

But don't say "Of course I meant "near zero""  when that's not what you wrote.  "Zero" and "near zero" have very different meanings.  For example, would you prefer a sandwich with zero cyanide or near zero cyanide?  The kindest interpretation is that you were posting sloppy, imprecise writing.  You can't expect others to read your mind as to your intent - which is what you do when you "assume" readers can understand that the words you post are not really what you meant.  You, and all of us for that matter, should strive for clarity to avoid being misunderstood.

 

I really don't want a lingering unpleasantness between us.  I have always respected your posts, even when I disagree with them.  But labeling people, mocking their comments, and responding with snark instead of clear and relevant replies, are all practices that increase the "noise" level and interfere with productive discussions.  I will try harder to maintain a civil tone in my comments and I hope that you will too.

 

I have emailed the NSIDC asking for more information on the observed Greenland melting - particularly whether the melting is refreezing or running off, and its significance for the Summer 2013 melt season - and I'll share any response I get from them.

[skierinvermont]

You're right, you did say anomaly and I misread your post.  The error is mine.

 

But don't say "Of course I meant "near zero""  when that's not what you wrote.  "Zero" and "near zero" have very different meanings.  For example, would you prefer a sandwich with zero cyanide or near zero cyanide?  The kindest interpretation is that you were posting sloppy, imprecise writing.  You can't expect others to read your mind as to your intent - which is what you do when you "assume" readers can understand that the words you post are not really what you meant.  You, and all of us for that matter, should strive for clarity to avoid being misunderstood.

 

I really don't want a lingering unpleasantness between us.  I have always respected your posts, even when I disagree with them.  But labeling people, mocking their comments, and responding with snark instead of clear and relevant replies, are all practices that increase the "noise" level and interfere with productive discussions.  I will try harder to maintain a civil tone in my comments and I hope that you will too.

 

I have emailed the NSIDC asking for more information on the observed Greenland melting - particularly whether the melting is refreezing or running off, and its significance for the Summer 2013 melt season - and I'll share any response I get from them.

 

It could have been clearer, but I think the general point was clear that despite an average of zero or near near zero, there are still occasional melt spikes. This Feb has definitely seen more melt days than normal due to the weather pattern and exacerbated by AGW. However, we're talking about 0-4% of the continent seeing "melt" which is defined fairly liberally IIRC correctly.

 

I looked into the definition last night and the satellites pick up on the surface emission and it sounds like as soon as the snow gets wet it is classified as "melt." Remember last summer when the summit of Greenland was considered to be melting by satellite, but the ground conditions were described as crusty snow that was melting and refreezing? There were not melt ponds or runoff at the summit that I heard about. I imagine the conditions on the SE coast have been similar during the "melt" days this Feb. Also, if 0-4% sees "melt" the other 96% is probably seeing increased precipitation which is a positive trade off. Warm winters are probably a good thing in our current climate. Warmth May through September is the problem.

 

 

Also I apologize with the snarkiness. I think I'm just frustrated with what I feel like is a general growing but unfounded exaggeration of the risks to the cryosphere and albedo feedbacks. It seems like every time it is warm or there is a burp of methane someone is claiming "unprecedented" and that we are headed for disaster. Also the claim that all the bad weather is being caused by AGW  I don't think these claims are justifiable, but instead of it being incumbent on those claiming these things to prove them, it's incumbent on those who disagree to disprove them. Like in this thread.. there were suggestions of unprecedented when the temperatures where a good 10F below record setting. 

[TerryM]

Ogimet

 

http://www.ogimet.com/gsynop.phtml.en

 

Allows for checking weather in past years. This year doesn't seem too far out of line with what Greenland has been experiencing at least since 2010. It's possible that rain is having more of an effect than the temperature. I think the effect that I believed PhillipS mentioned where darkened strata are uncovered might be more important going forward that the runoff at this time of year.

 

Does anyone have a link to the studies last year that found some sort of biological entity inhabiting the GIS and darkening the surface? It was moving inland and to higher elevations than in the past and might be a player in the overall albedo change.

 

Skier

 

IIRC during the big melt last year they found that melt at the summit had gone down some distance before refreezing & leaving it's mark in the record. So while there wouldn't have been any mass loss in that location (excluding sublimation & evaporation), it was possible to tell how often and when such an event had happened in the past.

 

Terry

[PhillipS]

Ogimet

 

http://www.ogimet.com/gsynop.phtml.en

 

Allows for checking weather in past years. This year doesn't seem too far out of line with what Greenland has been experiencing at least since 2010. It's possible that rain is having more of an effect than the temperature. I think the effect that I believed PhillipS mentioned where darkened strata are uncovered might be more important going forward that the runoff at this time of year.

 

Does anyone have a link to the studies last year that found some sort of biological entity inhabiting the GIS and darkening the surface? It was moving inland and to higher elevations than in the past and might be a player in the overall albedo change.

 

Skier

 

IIRC during the big melt last year they found that melt at the summit had gone down some distance before refreezing & leaving it's mark in the record. So while there wouldn't have been any mass loss in that location (excluding sublimation & evaporation), it was possible to tell how often and when such an event had happened in the past.

 

Terry

 

Terry - Here's a Wharton et al 1985 paper that may answer your questions about algae in the Greenland ice sheet.  My understanding is that the  algae can survive hard freezing in glacial ice but need temperatures near melting in order to grow and reproduce.  Dust and soot on the ice acts to warm and fertilize the algae.

 

You can see some dramatic photos if you do a google images search for "ice algae" or "snow algae".

[PhillipS]

I emailed the NSIDC, asking for information about this year's melting - and I just got a response.  Here's what I wrote:

 

Is the melting being observed so far during 2013 simply refreezing in place without any runoff occurring? Or is the observed melting producing significant meltwater runoff? I understand that the answer may be "both" - with refreezing at higher elevations and runoff at lower elevations. The question has a lively (heated) thread on a climate change forum, with one faction asserting that the melting observed to date is meaningless in terms of 2013 Greenland mass balance change, and the other faction asserting that the observed early melting is significant - even if only to set the stage for the summer melt season by melting off the snow cover and exposing the darker ice. Any help you can give us will be greatly appreciated.

 

This response came from Dr.Ted Scambos:

 

 

Greenland is losing a significant amount of mass through surface melting, and has had a negative mass balance (has lost more snow and ice than new snowfall over the year) since about 1998-2000 timeframe. Several recent papers, using different methods to measure mass loss, document this. Two that are quite high-profile and widely cited are van den Broeke et al., 2009, and Shepherd et al., 2012.

What a series of studies show (not just these two, but dozens) is that Greenland is losing mass through a combination of glacier acceleration and surface melting and run-off. The van den Broeke paper states that (at that time) the partitioning of ice loss between ice speed-up and melt was roughly 50-50.

To the best we can determine at at this point, the 'balance' of Greenland was within 50 billion tons of 'zero' in the mid-1990s. By the period 2005-2010, that value was approximately 150 to 200 billion tons loss. It clearly exceeded that (>200 Gtons) in 2010 and 2011.

But please read this carefully, and explain it to your group. The summer of 2012 was dramatic - unprecedented in our observations, although its true that high-quality mass assessments can only go back to about the early 1990s. By many other means we can be sure that this summer as a whole was unequaled in this century. There may have been a few extreme heat waves (3 or 4) in the past thousand years that equaled it, at least for a few days.

Our early assessments of the mass loss from Greenland for 2012 place it between 600 and 700 billion tons. Approximately 1.5 to nearly 2 millimeters of sea level rise came off of Greenland -last year-. Up from some thing like zero in 1995. The increase was clearly due to increased runoff because of the extended melt season.

One source of confusion may be the maximum few days of the warm summmer (early July) versus the sum total of the melt season (late April to late August, more or less). The fact that melting during this early July period occurred near Summit Station, at >10,000 ft elevation, is important -- but it is true that melting in this high-altitude region did not contribute to run-off. However, surface melt was extreme at all elevations, and below approximately 1500 meters elevation a significant fraction of the surface melt left the ice sheet as run-off.

please take a look at our new website, 'Greenland Today' at NSIDC.
Ted Scambos

 

Shepherd, A., Ivins, E. R., Geruo, A., Barletta, V. R., Bentley, M. J., Bettadpur, S., ... & Zwally, H. J. (2012). A reconciled estimate of ice-sheet mass balance. Science, 338(6111), 1183-1189.

van den Broeke, M., Bamber, J., Ettema, J., Rignot, E., Schrama, E., van de Berg, W. J., ... & Wouters, B. (2009). Partitioning recent Greenland mass loss. science, 326(5955), 984-986

 

I don't feel he directly answered my question, but his response is interesting nonetheless.

[SVT450R]

Yea looks like he shot over the whole point of you talking about now 2013.  I just don't think this early melting is significant we're talking a few hours of melt that re freezes as night comes and is nothing like what you would see during the true melt season when it can stay above freezing for a long period of time. 

[Jonger]

I emailed the NSIDC, asking for information about this year's melting - and I just got a response.  Here's what I wrote:

 

Is the melting being observed so far during 2013 simply refreezing in place without any runoff occurring? Or is the observed melting producing significant meltwater runoff? I understand that the answer may be "both" - with refreezing at higher elevations and runoff at lower elevations. The question has a lively (heated) thread on a climate change forum, with one faction asserting that the melting observed to date is meaningless in terms of 2013 Greenland mass balance change, and the other faction asserting that the observed early melting is significant - even if only to set the stage for the summer melt season by melting off the snow cover and exposing the darker ice. Any help you can give us will be greatly appreciated.

 

This response came from Dr.Ted Scambos:

 

 

Greenland is losing a significant amount of mass through surface melting, and has had a negative mass balance (has lost more snow and ice than new snowfall over the year) since about 1998-2000 timeframe. Several recent papers, using different methods to measure mass loss, document this. Two that are quite high-profile and widely cited are van den Broeke et al., 2009, and Shepherd et al., 2012.

What a series of studies show (not just these two, but dozens) is that Greenland is losing mass through a combination of glacier acceleration and surface melting and run-off. The van den Broeke paper states that (at that time) the partitioning of ice loss between ice speed-up and melt was roughly 50-50.

To the best we can determine at at this point, the 'balance' of Greenland was within 50 billion tons of 'zero' in the mid-1990s. By the period 2005-2010, that value was approximately 150 to 200 billion tons loss. It clearly exceeded that (>200 Gtons) in 2010 and 2011.

But please read this carefully, and explain it to your group. The summer of 2012 was dramatic - unprecedented in our observations, although its true that high-quality mass assessments can only go back to about the early 1990s. By many other means we can be sure that this summer as a whole was unequaled in this century. There may have been a few extreme heat waves (3 or 4) in the past thousand years that equaled it, at least for a few days.

Our early assessments of the mass loss from Greenland for 2012 place it between 600 and 700 billion tons. Approximately 1.5 to nearly 2 millimeters of sea level rise came off of Greenland -last year-. Up from some thing like zero in 1995. The increase was clearly due to increased runoff because of the extended melt season.

One source of confusion may be the maximum few days of the warm summmer (early July) versus the sum total of the melt season (late April to late August, more or less). The fact that melting during this early July period occurred near Summit Station, at >10,000 ft elevation, is important -- but it is true that melting in this high-altitude region did not contribute to run-off. However, surface melt was extreme at all elevations, and below approximately 1500 meters elevation a significant fraction of the surface melt left the ice sheet as run-off.

please take a look at our new website, 'Greenland Today' at NSIDC.

Ted Scambos

 

Shepherd, A., Ivins, E. R., Geruo, A., Barletta, V. R., Bentley, M. J., Bettadpur, S., ... & Zwally, H. J. (2012). A reconciled estimate of ice-sheet mass balance. Science, 338(6111), 1183-1189.

van den Broeke, M., Bamber, J., Ettema, J., Rignot, E., Schrama, E., van de Berg, W. J., ... & Wouters, B. (2009). Partitioning recent Greenland mass loss. science, 326(5955), 984-986

 

I don't feel he directly answered my question, but his response is interesting nonetheless.

 

 

And the debate goes on.

[skierinvermont]

Yeah doesn't really seem to answer the question at all.

[PhillipS]

And the debate goes on.

 

When I emailed NSIDC I emailed substantially the same questions to Dr Jason Box (whose MeltFactor.org site deals with Greenland).  No response from him yet but if/when he responds I'll share his response, too.

 

One idea I've been trying to research since the earlier exchanges is the differences between melting ice and melting snow.  (This is all very preliminary so it won't hurt my feelings if it gets shot down)  

 

When snow melts, even if the snow is on a moderate slope, the meltwater tends to sink into the snow below rather than run off.  The snow just turns slushy as the meltwater fills the interstitial spaces between the flakes/grains, and when the temperature drops the meltwater refreezes into either an ice crust on the snow, or a firn layer if it sank below the surface.  Very little runoff until the snow is saturated.

 

Meltwater from ice, on the other hand, runs downhill on all but a very level surface.  Even if it's a very thin layer.  The meltwater can't sink into the ice below and there is no force or surface tension to counteract the pull of gravity.  We can see this behavior in a melting ice cube, icicle, or ice block.  We don't even see beads of moisture as melting takes place, just wet ice.

 

Applying this thought to Greenland, early melt periods, such as has been observed in 2013, will produce very little runoff initially if there is snow on the rock and ice.  But once there has been enough melt and refreeze to form a crust of ice, subsequent periods of melting produce runoff.

 

Anyway, that's my tentative hypothesis.  I welcome comments, particularly on data or prior research that might corroborate or falsify it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Pretty Epic Morch coming to the Western Banks of Greenland.

 

http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r02c02.2013073.terra.500m

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Both the Euro and GFS are now bringing +25 to +28C 850mb temp anomalies along the West Coast of Greenland this weekend. 

 

The Southwest coast of Greenland reached the 40s today.

 

Nuuk, Greenland reached 50F smashing the old record of 42F.  Averages are 26/18.

 

 

Now it's 50F.  The high temps was 30 min ago.  it reached the upper 40s six hours ago. 

 

The torch peaks on Monday and ends by Wednesday.

[skierinvermont]

The NSIDC plot no longer shows the surface melt that occurred earlier in the year. Whats the reason for this? Was the old data a mistake?

 

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

[The_Global_Warmer]

The torch continues to slowly ride up SW Greenland.  Nuuk is at 48F now.  With day time about to get going there.  The record high was 41F.  The averages are 25 and 19F for this day.  Clouds have blocked sat images for a couple days.  But before that we could see snow wasn't very deep in the area and melt regions of the ice sheet were showing up. 

[csnavywx]

The NSIDC plot no longer shows the surface melt that occurred earlier in the year. Whats the reason for this? Was the old data a mistake?

 

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

I think it was an error that was causing wet snow to show up erroneously as melt. Surface temps were well above normal there, but I think they were still predominately <0C in that area.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The peak of the Torch has happened yesterday.  However temps are still well above freezing all up and down the West Coast of Greenland right now.  And will stay warm for for the foreseeable future but cooler than the recent torch.

 

 

this was taken about 16 hours ago and it show's the snow pack getting chomped to bits.  We can see ice with very wet snow or no longer covered with snow along the edge of the ice pack.

I would expect more snow to vanish along this part of Greenland the next few days.

[TerryM]

The NSIDC plot no longer shows the surface melt that occurred earlier in the year. Whats the reason for this? Was the old data a mistake?

 

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

Yes

 

The explanation is up now at their site.

 

Terry

[skierinvermont]

Yes

 

The explanation is up now at their site.

 

Terry

 

 

Interestingly they confirm my suggestion of heavy snowfall this winter associated with warm temperatures. As I suspected, a warm winter is likely having a positive effect on the mass balance.

 

 

They also point out that temperatures on the ice sheet even on the SE coast where the warmest temperatures were directed did not rise above zero. As I suggested above, the warm temperatures coming from some reporting stations were not from the actual ice sheet which is much colder due to higher elevation and higher albedo. 

[skierinvermont]

The torch continues to slowly ride up SW Greenland.  Nuuk is at 48F now.  With day time about to get going there.  The record high was 41F.  The averages are 25 and 19F for this day.  Clouds have blocked sat images for a couple days.  But before that we could see snow wasn't very deep in the area and melt regions of the ice sheet were showing up. 

 

I suggest the areas that are above freezing are primarily areas that are not actually part of the ice sheet. They are mostly just areas that get some snow in winter and melt out every summer anyways. The snowfall associated with this warm spell is beneficial. 

 

It's March in Greenland. It's cold on the ice sheet. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

I suggest the areas that are above freezing are primarily areas that are not actually part of the ice sheet. They are mostly just areas that get some snow in winter and melt out every summer anyways. The snowfall associated with this warm spell is beneficial.

It's March in Greenland. It's cold on the ice sheet.

We can compare sat images from Summer and it will show you that ice is being exposed along the ice sheet edge.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Except you think it's just areas of deeper snow next to the ice sheet?

[skierinvermont]

We can compare sat images from Summer and it will show you that ice is being exposed along the ice sheet edge.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Except you think it's just areas of deeper snow next to the ice sheet?

 

What do you mean by the ice being exposed? Do you mean melting? And if so, can you offer any evidence?

 

 

As to your second statement, yes I am saying exactly that. Any melting that has occurred is primarily just some snow in a few low elevation coastal locations that got the warmest. There's been nothing widespread, especially on the actual ice sheet. As the corrected NSIDC demonstrates. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

I never said the ice was melting

 

I think the ice edge is very clearly depicted on the image below.  It's also pretty clear where the snow has melted off on the ice or is melting during the warm period.  From Sat images in August and September it looks more like the snow has melted along the ice edge in places.

 

 

http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r02c02.2013078.terra.500m

 

 

No one has said there has been any widespread melting, you are arguing with ghosts on this one.

[PhillipS]

I never said the ice was melting

 

I think the ice edge is very clearly depicted on the image below.  It's also pretty clear where the snow has melted off on the ice or is melting during the warm period.  From Sat images in August and September it looks more like the snow has melted along the ice edge in places.

 

 

http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r02c02.2013078.terra.500m

 

 

No one has said there has been any widespread melting, you are arguing with ghosts on this one.

 

Friv - I'll own up to being the one who said that per-seasonal melting was taking place in Greenland, primarily the SE coastal area.  Silly me, I believed the NSIDC plots - boy is my face red.

[skierinvermont]

I never said the ice was melting

 

I think the ice edge is very clearly depicted on the image below.  It's also pretty clear where the snow has melted off on the ice or is melting during the warm period.  From Sat images in August and September it looks more like the snow has melted along the ice edge in places.

 

 

http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r02c02.2013078.terra.500m

 

 

No one has said there has been any widespread melting, you are arguing with ghosts on this one.

 

So you are saying snow is melting on and near the ice edge. I am saying that this has not occurred, except in a few very localized areas during the strongest warm spells. I cannot see snow melt from the image you have posted. I am not even sure where or what I am looking at. It looks like an island to me. Where am I looking and how do you know that this area is normally snow covered?

[The_Global_Warmer]

So you are saying snow is melting on and near the ice edge. I am saying that this has not occurred, except in a few very localized areas during the strongest warm spells. I cannot see snow melt from the image you have posted. I am not even sure where or what I am looking at. It looks like an island to me. Where am I looking and how do you know that this area is normally snow covered?

 

It is Western/South West Greenland.

 

 

http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Arctic_r02c02.2013077.terra.1km

 

 

You can see the Baffin Bay Sea Ice edge.  You can definitely see the warmth and the quick toll it took on the edge of the Sea Ice.

 

 

This area will have snow cover until late April or May.  It's doubtful that it will remain in this state until then.

 

The blueish areas on the edge of the ice sheet where it's not white is where snow melted off.

 

No one is saying this was widespread.  Pretty much only a small region on the SW side.

 

And we know the warm temps in the 50s were overland as well.

 

Regardless the area just saw 20-30C temp anomaly's for a few days.  A ski resort shut down around Nuuk and they said it was unprecedented for them to have to shut down in March due to melting snow.