Greenland 2012

[LithiaWx]

An honest observation would conclude.

 

1. 2013 is likely behind 2012 in overall ice mass loss.

2. 2013 is slightly behind in albedo drop from 1750M or lower.  And no where close to the albedo drop above 2000M.

3. 2013 has not contributed to melting off the snow layer to expose more of the dark ice below at this point.

 

 

I would say 2006 and 2009 are way behind 2012.

 

Do you guys think 2013 is going to be like 2006 or 2009?  Or like 2005 or 2011? 

Is this an estimated chart from 2006 or actual Grace data? Can you please source this?

[The_Global_Warmer]

2013 is definitely behind 2012.  But in-spite of a much more favorable weather pattern.  The lower 1500M where the ice is dirty is being exposed and causing major surface melt.  SST's are very warm along the Western Greenland coast where the majority of GIS surface mass loss takes place. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Dirty ice is finally being UN-covered.  Faster than every year except 2010 and 2012.  Basically tied with 2011.

 

 

 

In 24 hour increments starting tomorrow the forecast highlights this very well.

 

Sunday:

 

Monday:

 

Tuesday:

 

Wednesday:

[LithiaWx]

2013 is definitely behind 2012. But in-spite of a much more favorable weather pattern. The lower 1500M where the ice is dirty is being exposed and causing major surface melt. SST's are very warm along the Western Greenland coast where the majority of GIS surface mass loss takes place.

The Dirty ice is finally being UN-covered. Faster than every year except 2010 and 2012. Basically tied with 2011.

In 24 hour increments starting tomorrow the forecast highlights this very well.

Sunday:

Monday:

Tuesday:

Wednesday:

NSIDC hasn't said the dark ice has made an appearance yet. Check the link a few posts back.

Also the right thing to do would be source the chart you posted. i believe forum rules require this to be done.

[Snow_Miser]

We are no where even close to 2012 right now with the melt.

 

This is 2012's melt from last year, in comparison to the NSIDC charts from this year that MariettaWx and myself have been posting.

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

We are no where even close to 2012 right now with the melt.

 

This is 2012's melt from last year, in comparison to the NSIDC charts from this year that MariettaWx and myself have been posting.

 

 

 

 

Hmmm...90%+ of the surface ice mass loss is over 155 of the GIS ice sheet or less.  If you say it a few thousand times you might remember it. And stop looking like a troll.  And start looking like you are here with intellectual honesty.

 

 

 

[LithiaWx]

Hmmm...90%+ of the surface ice mass loss is over 155 of the GIS ice sheet or less. If you say it a few thousand times you might remember it. And stop looking like a troll. And start looking like you are here with intellectual honesty.

everyone is very aware there is a mass budget and a percentage of the ice sheet experiencing melt, which are two different measurements. He was referring to the melt percentage as pointed out by the NSIDC. If you slow down and read more carefully that was what the last few posts have been about. The NSIDC mentioned 2013 is well behind 2012 in that regard. I am not sure why you are trotting out graphs you claim are broken, however. i think they DMI charts are fine but you have made a point in calling the broken and lies over and over again.

In the end the only important metric is how much ice has Greenland lost. That would be better judged by a combination of both charts also adding in glacier calving. Its not a metric we can measuer right now. The DMI chart resets to 0 every year so to have a mass loss the chart needs to dip below zero, which hasnt happened yet. Many factors would go into that including how much snow has fallen over the year and how much mass is lost to melt. The net is positive in that regard but when you account for calving you come up with on average 200 GT loss yearly.

[The_Global_Warmer]

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html

 

 

GIS is losing more than 200GT a year.

[LithiaWx]

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html

GIS is losing more than 200GT a year.

From your Link

GRACE satellite gravity solutions computed according to Velicogna and Wahr (2006) are used to estimate monthly changes in the total mass of the Greenland ice sheet (Fig. 5.19). The data show that the ice sheet continues to lose mass and has contributed +8.0 mm to globally-averaged sea level rise since 2002. The rate of mass loss has accelerated during the period of observation, the mass loss of 367 Gt/y between September 2008 and September 2012 being almost twice that for the period June 2002-July 2006 (193 Gt/y). GRACE data also show that significant mass loss has occurred from glaciers and ice caps in the Canadian Arctic (see the Glaciers and Ice Caps essay).

http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

It's called an average for a reason..... If you are looking at the last few years you would be right but that's not enough to do an average on and can easily be dismissed as short term variability.

Over the last decade it's been about 200GT per year. That is a pretty fair length of time to claim an average on.

[The_Global_Warmer]

How much will 2013 lose overall?

 

Is you're answer 200GT or less?

 

If not then using stats from a decade ago during a time of incredible change is..

 

hold on....

 

wait for it.

 

 

STRAWWWW-MANNN!

 

So you can go with 200GT and live with it when it doesn't materialize or what?

 

2012 lost 527GT total.

 

You think 2013 will be 2/5th of that?

 

so why pimp 200GT?  Unless you want to make the GIS ice mass loss not look at as bad as it has been?

[LithiaWx]

How much will 2013 lose overall?

Is you're answer 200GT or less?

If not then using stats from a decade ago during a time of incredible change is..

hold on....

wait for it.

STRAWWWW-MANNN!

So you can go with 200GT and live with it when it doesn't materialize or what?

2012 lost 527GT total.

You think 2013 will be 2/5th of that?

so why pimp 200GT? Unless you want to make the GIS ice mass loss not look at as bad as it has been?

I have no clue how much 2013 will lose. I bet it's no where near 527GT though. Where are you getting the 527 number from? I've noticed you like to make claims and throw numbers out with little to no backing to the claims. 2012 was a highly anomalous year. So my answer would be we lose more than 200 GT but much less than 500.

Again though, using a ten year average is a pretty fair range, extreme changes or not ten years is a very short window. I didn't come to that conclusion, DMI did.

[Snow_Miser]

And stop looking like a troll. And start looking like you are here with intellectual honesty.

That doesn't make any sense.

How is it trolling when I compare the Greenland melt extent to 2012? How is it trolling when I use a reputable graph from a reputable source to base conclusions off of?

[The_Global_Warmer]

That doesn't make any sense.

How is it trolling when I compare the Greenland melt extent to 2012? How is it trolling when I use a reputable graph from a reputable source to base conclusions off of?

 

You didn't say anything about melt extent.

 

We are no where even close to 2012 right now with the melt.

 

This is 2012's melt from last year, in comparison to the NSIDC charts from this year that MariettaWx and myself have been posting.

 

 

 

 

Yet.  Now you say melt extent.  They are not only not the same.  They represent completely different things.

 

The melt as shown by the model below show's 2013 dead even with 2012. 

 

Do I believe this is accurate?  No.

 

but it represents GIS melt.  Obviously 2012 saw a modern day unprecedented level of "melt extent."  But when 2000-3000M goes to 35F for 8 hours in a day it's not contributing to the GIS ice mass balance.  Melt extent comes into play when we are talking about the snow layer being eradicated. 

 

 

when this melt season is over I guarantee 550GT of ice mass at the minimum will be lost during the melt season.  Overall will depend on how much snow fall's this up-coming winter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2012 Melt Extent crushed 2011 which was crushed by 2010.  But there comes a point where as long as 15-20 percent of GIS below 1500M or so is seeing consistent melt.  The GIS ice mass loss is pretty close. 

 

2010 lost 600GT. 2011 lost 570GT. 2012 lost 680GT. This is not yearly but just Summer melt.  2012 doesn't look all that impressive in that regard.  Which is what counts? 

 

2013 is tied with 2012 according to the model and is running likely ahead of 2011 because Eastern and NE GIS have seen more melt. 

 

I can confidently say 2013 will lose 550GT at the min and could equal 2012 if the weather turns worse. 

[The_Global_Warmer]

The SMI index: It shows 2012 doubling 2010 and tripling 2011.  2011 lost to previous years but is still 3rd only 100GT behind 2012 in Summer ice melt.

 

Not because of temperatures or melt extent.  But because the GIS albedo keeps getting lower. 

 

If the temperatures are the exact same.  And melt extent is the same.  But albedo is 5 percent lower in one year vs the other. 

 

The lower albedo year will see much more melt.

 

 

 

[Snow_Miser]

You didn't say anything about melt extent.

 

 

I think it was abundantly clear that I was referring to ice extent, when I posted a picture of a graph that said "Greenland Melt Extent 2012" on the top.

 

Speaking of which, the melt extent is nearly down to climo levels on Greenland.

 

[LithiaWx]

The southern tip of Greenland just got clocked with a pretty decent snowstorm.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think it was abundantly clear that I was referring to ice extent, when I posted a picture of a graph that said "Greenland Melt Extent 2012" on the top.

 

Speaking of which, the melt extent is nearly down to climo levels on Greenland.

 

 

 

Just get real.  If I didn't call out how you meticulously worded it.  You would of kept going on saying melt extent is GIS melt. 

 

It goes beyond being confused, you are not confused.  You make you're agenda clear below.  You say this.  But yet at the same time year after year you vanish from the Sea Ice thread when you're agenda driven belief's didn't pan out last year, 2011...

 

You are doing the same thing you call out others for right now.  When is the last time you posted in the global temperature thread.  If you would have kept up with the updates I wouldn't have started filling in for you.  But as soon as the Warm push took over you stopped posting.

 

It clearly doesn't fit you're agenda to do so.  As long the sea ice melt is slow you will be in that thread.  if things change course you won't be.

 

 

if the global temp's plummet I am sure you will update it pretty fiercely.  If the sea level's stop rising at an insane rate you will start blowing that thread up.

 

 

Isn't it amazing how neglected these threads are when the ice is not on the brink of a catastrophic melt?

 

That's great news that it's less than 2012. The melt shouldn't be too anomalous over the next week or so in Greenland.

 

 

 

 

This thread proves it.

 

I showed you how "irrelevant" melt extent is when it comes to the GIS ice mass loss.  You're response is to use the melt extent, the only factor that fit's you're agenda to do what?  Show us that a couple inches of snow on a 2200M hillside on GIS isn't melting this Summer?

 

 

If you need a bit of help to push you're agenda which you clearly do.  I will gladly give it you.

 

Since we all know you haven't actually done any research on GIS.  And don't actually look at GIS in real life. 

 

Here shows 2013 well behind 2012 in terms of exposing the full dirty ice layer

 

\\

 

2013:

 

 

 

In case you are not aware this is West Greenland.

[Snow_Miser]

Just get real.  If I didn't call out how you meticulously worded it.  You would of kept going on saying melt extent is GIS melt. 

 

It goes beyond being confused, you are not confused.  You make you're agenda clear below.  You say this.  But yet at the same time year after year you vanish from the Sea Ice thread when you're agenda driven belief's didn't pan out last year, 2011...

 

You are doing the same thing you call out others for right now.  When is the last time you posted in the global temperature thread.  If you would have kept up with the updates I wouldn't have started filling in for you.  But as soon as the Warm push took over you stopped posting.

 

It clearly doesn't fit you're agenda to do so.  As long the sea ice melt is slow you will be in that thread.  if things change course you won't be.

 

 

if the global temp's plummet I am sure you will update it pretty fiercely.  If the sea level's stop rising at an insane rate you will start blowing that thread up.

 

 

 

 

This thread proves it.

 

I showed you how "irrelevant" melt extent is when it comes to the GIS ice mass loss.  You're response is to use the melt extent, the only factor that fit's you're agenda to do what?  Show us that a couple inches of snow on a 2200M hillside on GIS isn't melting this Summer?

 

 

If you need a bit of help to push you're agenda which you clearly do.  I will gladly give it you.

 

Since we all know you haven't actually done any research on GIS.  And don't actually look at GIS in real life. 

 

Here shows 2013 well behind 2012 in terms of exposing the full dirty ice layer

 

\\

 

2013:

 

 

 

In case you are not aware this is West Greenland.

 

I think you are the only one that is confused, Frivolous.

 

I don't post in the Global Temperature thread day after day to say that the CFS anomaly changed five thousandths of a degree from one day to the next.

 

Also, cherry picking the area in Greenland with the most amount of melt, when ignoring the recent snowfall in Southern Greenland doesn't help to improve your credibility.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think you are the only one that is confused, Frivolous.

 

I don't post in the Global Temperature thread day after day to say that the CFS anomaly changed five thousandths of a degree from one day to the next.

 

Also, cherry picking the area in Greenland with the most amount of melt, when ignoring the recent snowfall in Southern Greenland doesn't help to improve your credibility.

 

WHAT?

 

Here shows 2013 well behind 2012 in terms of exposing the full dirty ice layer

 

 

 

I don't know how on Earth I was trying to cherry pick anything?

The snowfall is irrelevant.  It snows every Summer in Greenland to some extent.

How am I supposed to quantify how much it snows when there is no reporting stations on the ice and computer models are garbage when it comes to GIS?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There you go it snowed.

The same model says 2012 and 2013 are tied.

[Snow_Miser]

WHAT?

I don't know how on Earth I was trying to cherry pick anything?

The snowfall is irrelevant. It snows every Summer in Greenland to some extent.

How am I supposed to quantify how much it snows when there is no reporting stations on the ice and computer models are garbage when it comes to GIS?

There you go it snowed.

The same model says 2012 and 2013 are tied.

My mistake then. It looked like the top image had a higher albedo than the bottom image, and I thought you were saying the bottom image was 2013.

[The_Global_Warmer]

My mistake then. It looked like the top image had a higher albedo than the bottom image, and I thought you were saying the bottom image was 2013.

 

 

No problem.  There is almost no way 2013 will end up causing more "surface" darkening than 2012.  It might equal it soon but breaking past it won't happen without a mega torch.

[The_Global_Warmer]

My mistake then. It looked like the top image had a higher albedo than the bottom image, and I thought you were saying the bottom image was 2013.

 

 

No problem.  There is almost no way 2013 will end up causing more "surface" darkening than 2012.  It might equal it soon but breaking past it won't happen without a mega torch.

 

After day 4 both major globals are favorable for melt to be restricted to under 1500M

[LithiaWx]

2013 may be tied with 2012 for mass loss at the moment but it isn't highly anomalous yet. I don't think it can keep up with 2012 much longer due to reasons of albedo feedback experienced during the 2012 melt along with the extreme amount of the surface that eventually experienced a melt. If I'm wrong here is a perfect opportunity to take a prediction of mine and revisit it whether its accurate or fails.

[LithiaWx]

There is a pretty hefty snowstorm impacting southern Greenland right now. Stacking on some mass in peak melt season is a great thing.

[LithiaWx]

Another snowy day yesterday (newest update) in southern Greenland. This has resulted in a dramatic slowdown in the mass loss during peak melt season.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The Western side of GIS torched today.

 

 

The warmth quickly moves East. And hit's area's of "apparent" major snow.

 

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Western GIS waters are torching.

 

 

 

Low and behold it did snow in SE Greenland.  Snow Bunnies there can rejoice.

 

[LithiaWx]

Western GIS waters are torching.

Low and behold it did snow in SE Greenland. Snow Bunnies there can rejoice.

Yes, the waters in that one section of the coast are abnormally warm. Those anomalies show up nowhere else around Greenland though. As for the snowfall it probably won't last but any extra mass we can add this time of year is a very welcome event. Front he looks of it feet of snow has fallen down there.

[LithiaWx]

Meanwhile surface melt is right at climo levels .

[The_Global_Warmer]

GIS is having it's best year since 2009.  On it's current pace could end up below 2011, 2012, 2010 and possibly even 2005 or 2007 if it can stay in the lower heights through all of July.

 

but it still has to make it another 50 days or so.

[LithiaWx]

Another great day for Greenland yesterday. The storm in southern Greenland is really laying down a ton of snow it seems. Mass loss equaled the gain yesterday.