Arctic Temperature Data

edited November -1 in General
To melt away the Arctic ice, it will take a lot more than 274 deg. K!

See the 2019 summertime temperatures north of 80 deg. North latitude? Same as the 1958-2002 mean!


  • edited November -1
    Who cares?

    Most of the ice thats currently melting or is relevant in any way to sea level rise is on land in Greenland and most of Greenland south of 80 deg North.
  • edited August 2019
  • edited November -1
    Yep, and this satellite image of Greenland confirms the warming everywhere. Stop wasting our time moron!
  • edited November -1
    Hey Tessie flaggie boy, are you trying to show me a satellite image?

    Not that is a satellite image, in August! Anybody here in Tesla world actually believe that snow and ice is going to melt away to oblivion?

    It is going to take an awful lot more than 1 deg. C to do that!
  • edited November -1
    Make that...NOW that is a satellite image!
  • edited August 2019
    Mitch you are a complete idiot, you miss the forest for the trees! The satellite image I provided show an incredible melting of ice.

    "But if the fire is ominous, what’s happening to Greenland’s ice is truly terrifying. A heat wave has essentially acted like a blow torch on the ice sheet’s surface, causing a widespread melt. The ponds visible in the satellite image are indicative of a much broader meltdown. An estimated 56 percent of the ice sheet surface went into meltdown on Thursday, sending 10 billion gallons of water into the ocean. "
  • edited November -1
    Here is a Greenland weather map of today.

    The temperatures are well below freezing across most of Greenland. Any of you global warming zealots care to tell me how all of the snow and ice over Greenland is going to melt to oblivion?
  • edited November -1
    No Tessie flaggie boy, quite the opposite! YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE TREES!!!! I am looking at the forest.
  • edited August 2019
    Let's put things into perspective about Greenland ice loss. The Greenland ice sheet contains 2.6E+15 tons of snow and ice. If Greenland loses 103 billion tons of ice per year (per 1981-2010 avg.), it would take 12,500 years for Greenland to lose HALF of its snow and ice.

    When you look at the forest instead of the trees, you get a much better perspective of what is actually going on!
  • edited August 2019
    A web search for "greenland ice loss per year" gave a nas link for greenland-ice-loss-2002-2016.
    GRACE measurements over this period averaged 281Gtons/year. The loss trend is not linear.
    After the Arctic goes nearly ice free, what where will all that heat go?
    Ice cubes in a glass of water keeps water temp near 0 degrees C, but after the ice is gone...
    Greenland will be the a big target for all that heat.
  • edited August 2019
    nas -> Nasa
  • edited November -1

    You make lots of erroneoeus assumptions, several of which you do and should know are false.

    1. The rate of ice loss will not stay the same over the entire melt period. It will increase, and dramatically in faster and faster bursts.
    The Graph in the article you linked to makes that clear.
    The article also makes it clear you cannot assume the present ice melt rate is an accurate predictor for any future levels of ice melt. Let alone assume the rate for even 10 years let alone 100 or a 1000.

    2. Free running water over/on top of any ice mass will significantly hasten the rate of ice mass melting
    (thats why putting ice cubes in a drink cools the drink down and melts the ice).

    3. Free running water UNDER the ice mass of a glacier (Which is what most of Greenlands ice sheets are) acts as an almost perfect lubricant, causing the entire glacial ice mass to move downhill en-masse into the sea far faster than any ice melt will achieve on its own. Once the ice begins to move, friction will block any ice refreezing so the ice continues to move even in winter..

    4. The ice mass at the edge (seaward part) of a glacier acts as a dam holding back the ice further uphill. Removing this barrier ice too quickly [2 and 3] will allow the glaciers melt rate and the ice mass movement from land into the sea to accelerate further accelerating further the ice melt and loss of ice mass in an ever increasing feedback loop.
    This is like kicking the chocks out from under a ship on a slipway, the boat move slowly but as it gather momentum becomes unstoppable.

    5. As the ice mass uphill pushes on the ice further down, large parts of the lower ice mass will break off and float off into or fall into the sea. Exposing the ice mass leading edge now exposed to even more melting and more downhill movement from the ice mass above.

    So while you may think it will take 12,000 or whatever years for a sizeable part of the Greenland ice sheets to melt.
    The reality is that it will happen much much faster. At an ever increasing rate.

    Science tells us the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. It was a little while after that before the ice age glaciers across the globe mostly melted [that is the climate warmed a little, then the glaciers melted a whole lot].

    But the Ice Age glaciers didn't meltdown in a linear fashion. They melted down in an exponential growth fashion.
    So that the bulk of the melt was mostly done within a very,very short time.

    The only argument over this is whether the exponential function governing that process then and now was a X to the power of 2, 3, 4 or something higher. Not whether it will take 12,000 years.

    It won't.
  • edited November -1
    mitch is not interested in fact. He just reposts his disinformation over and over and over.
    Don't bother engaging him, he is impervious to fact and unwilling to engage in a meaningful conversation.
    Better to ignore him or flag him, but don't engage him, it just encourages him to post his BS
    Just Move on ....
  • edited August 2019
    @greg. He has the lethal combination of dishonesty, stubbornness and lack of scientific understanding. That make education a challenge. Just flag and move on. Btw that was a great summary of Greenland. Appreciate the succinct way you explained it. It does make a lot of sense.
  • edited November -1
    @MitchP85D Forget the ice, answer the last fact I presented about the amount of Greenhouse gases I presented where the Carbon Dioxide parts per million using Ice Records in the last 100 years has exponentially grown to be the highest ever recorded in last 800,000 years. Greenhouse gases are on the rise and continue to rise at a rate never seen in the 800,000 years of data they pulled from the ice core samples. Say what you will, but the more Greenhouse gases continue to rise, more of the solar heat trapped in the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise. Regardless of the Ice Melt (which all the data shows is on an upward trend and expected to continue the melting at ever increasing raise, what effect is those Greenhouse gases having on the lifeforms on the planet?
  • edited November -1
    Im surprised this has not been flagged away yet. Are you all having fun talking to @Mitch?
  • edited August 2019
    @andy. I think some of the team may be away. It will be flagged when they return.
  • edited August 2019
    Hey jimmy flaggie boy, quit telling greg what to do!
  • edited August 2019
    teslu3, those are GRACE measurements. Those are not confirmed to be 100% accurate. I think the Polar Portal is the best place to go for Greenland Ice Sheet data.

    The total contribution to sea level rise since 1840 from Greenland is 25 mm, 2.5 cm, about an inch!!!

    You see why I call you global warming zealots hysterical?
  • edited August 2019
    greg, Techy James, thank you very much for your comments!

    I have another night shift tonight before I go on break. I will address your points while I am off. Hopefully, the flaggie boys, won't erase this thread before then!
  • edited August 2019
    greg, Techy James, save your posts!
  • edited August 2019
    Good point andy. I hope they don't erase it!
  • edited November -1
    Same goes for you SCCRENDOD. Quit telling others what to do!
  • edited August 2019
    @teslu. So he posts a link to refute your comments that support exactly what you have been saying. I guess the part he forgets to mention or perhaps does not understand is that the loss is not linear and is increasing exponentially so it will be exponentially larger
Sign In or Register to comment.