Pirate's Cove

Despite the massive predictions of doom and gloom surrounding Greenland ice melt, it seems that Greenland is not melting any faster (and 2,500 Manhattans above normal so far this year).

(Grist) Back in 2006, scientists in Greenland made an alarming observation: Glaciers were crumbling into the ocean twice as fast. And not in little cocktail-sized cubes, either: Glaciologist Jason Box accurately predicted the spot where a hunk four times the size of Manhattan would later shear off into the sea.

Remember that starting paragraph for a little later in this post

As Box told our Climate Desk Live audience in January, rising air and water temperatures — driven by greenhouse gas emissions — are to blame. And with more warming on the way, he made a grim prediction: Melting from Greenland and the world’s other land-based glaciers could ultimately raise global sea levels by 69 feet, Box warns.

Not so fast

But don’t start building your flood-proof ark quite yet: Advanced imaging released in August suggested the ice sheet is capable of quickly reversing its melting habit. And a study out today in Nature finds that the sped-up ice loss on the water’s edge, while still a problem, is unlikely to get much worse, even with a big rise in global temperatures. Taken together, these two studies suggest that Greenland’s ice melt problem isn’t as bad as experts like Box had predicted.

Surprise! Yet another ginned up issue, blamed on Mankind (a previous paragraph specifically blames mankind’s GHG output) which has failed to conform to Warmist computer models and hysterical ravings.

For the Nature study, Faezeh Nick, a researcher at Norway’s University Center in Svalbard, led a team that took the closest-ever look at so-called “outlet glaciers,” the 200 or so outermost arms of the ice sheet that flow straight into the sea. Their findings suggest that the increase in melting rate is about to slow down, suggesting that in a medium warming scenario these glaciers will likely contribute just 19-30 millimeters to global sea levels by 2100.

That’s a far cry below 69 feet. It equates to roughly 7-11 .75 to 1.18 inches*. The historical norm over the past 7,000 years since the massive sea height increase post-ice age leveled off is around 8 inches per century. If we’re talking averages, that means that periods must be higher and lower. During a warm period we would expect much more than 8 inches. So, pretty much below what one would expect for this warm period, since the 20th century average is around 6-8 inches. Of course, to be fair, they’re saying that Greenland melt will only contribute 7-11 around 1 inch, per computer models and bottles of tequila. Still a far cry from 69 feet, wouldn’t you think?

But, really, scientists didn’t know how the melt in Greenland was working, so they took a little data and made a model, and found that there were lots and lots of things that determine behavior. Money quote

Scary as these breakups are, she says, evidence suggests they come in spurts and aren’t closely linked to temperature, unlike surface melt, the other main cause of lost ice.

Obviously, Grist and the scientists immediately attempt to dismiss this finding and still blame Mankind and proclaim doom. Remember, the article started off with a doom story about giant glaciers, including one 4 times the size of Manhattan, breaking off. Now we find that they aren’t linked to temperature. Surprise!

Still and all, Warmists should immediately run and sell their fossil fueled vehicles, set their AC to 78 (well, for those who need it, considering how below average this not-yet-really-spring has been), and purchase expensive solar panels for their homes.

*Somehow in converting from millimeters to centimeters to inches I messed up the measurements. Thanks to Clinton in the comments at Right Wing News for the correction. And J.D. here at Pirate’s Cove, who noticed my mistake (been napping most of the afternoon, therapy on my hurt shoulder)