New Paper: Greenland Gained Ice Between 1940s-2000s, Added Just 1.5 cm To Sea Levels Since 1900

Greenland’s Ice Melt Contribution To

Sea Level Just 1.5 cm For 1900-2010


As the HadCRUT4 temperature data indicate, there has been no net warming trend in the Arctic for the last 80 years.  In fact, from the early 1940s to the mid-1990s, the Arctic cooled.


HadCRUT Arctic Temperature 1920-2017 (Climate4You)

Due to its Arctic location, Greenland temperatures have likewise followed a similar trend as the rest of the region — warming during the 1920s to 1940s, cooling from the 1940s to 1990s, and then warming (commensurate with the 1930s) since the 1990s.


van As et al., 2016


Climate Alarm Advocates: Arctic Will Contribute 19-25 cm To Sea Levels By 2100


Despite the relatively unremarkable temperature trends in the Arctic in general or Greenland in particular in the last 100 years, the narrative that says man-made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic Arctic ice melt and consequent sea level rise has gained widespread popularity in media circles.

For example, in yet another alarmist headline from this last week it was claimed that some Arctic glaciers will “disappear completely” in the next 83 years and this “extreme” Arctic ice melt will lead to 19 to 25 centimeters of sea level rise by 2100.


“By the end of this century, as some glaciers disappear completely, the Arctic’s contribution to global sea level rise will reach at least 19 to 25 centimeters, according to the report by the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring Assessment Program (AMAP).”


New Paper Concludes Greenland Contributed Just 1.5 cm To Sea Levels Since 1900


A new scientific paper published in The Cryosphere last week indicates that the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) gained mass during much of the 1940s to 2000s period — especially 1961-1990, the common reference period when it was previously assumed the GIS was stable.

In fact, the scientists conclude that the overall GIS melt for the entire 1900-2010 period contributed a negligible 1.5 centimeters (about half an inch) to sea levels during that entire 110-year period.



Fettweis et al ., 2017

Results from all MAR simulations indicate that the period 1961–1990, commonly chosen as a stable reference period for Greenland SMB [surface mass balance] and ice dynamics, is actually a period of anomalously positive SMB ( +40 Gt yr−1 ) compared to 1900–2010. … [T]he ERA-20C forced simulation suggests that SMB [surface mass balance] during the 1920–1930 warm period over Greenland was comparable to the SMB of the 2000s, due to both higher melt and lower precipitation than normal.”

“The period 1961–1990 has been considered as a period when the total mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet was stable (Rignot and Kanagaratnam, 2006) and near zero. However, at the last century scale, all MAR reconstructions suggest that SMB [surface mass balance] was particularly positive during this period [1961-1990] (SMB was most positive from the 1970s to the middle of the 1990s), suggesting that mass gain may well have occurred during this period, in agreement with results from Colgan et al. (2015).”

“Finally, with respect to the 1961–1990 period, the integrated contribution of the GrIS SMB anomalies over 1900–2010 is a sea level rise of about 15 ± 5 mm [1.5 cm], with a null contribution from the 1940s to the 2000s, suggesting that the recent contribution of GrIS to sea level change (van den Broeke et al., 2016) is unprecedented in the last century.”


Between 1920-1930, Greenland Warmed By 2 to 4°C In Less Than 10 Years


Chylek et al., 2004

A significant and rapid temperature increase was observed at all Greenland stations between 1920 and 1930. The average annual temperature rose between 2 and 4 °C in less than ten years. Since the change in anthropogenic production of greenhouses gases at that time was considerably lower than today, this rapid temperature increase suggests a large natural variability of the regional climate.”


Glacier Melt Rapid, Contribution To Sea Level Rise Substantially Higher Before 1950


Gregory et al., 2013


Fernández-Fernández et al., 2017

“The abrupt climatic transition of the early 20th century and the 25-year warm period 1925–1950 triggered the main retreat and volume loss of these glaciers since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’. Meanwhile, cooling during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s altered the trend, with advances of the glacier snouts.”

During the period 1898–1946, the snout of Gljúfurárjökull retreated 635 m, almost two-thirds of the total distance from the LIA maximum (1898–1903) to 2005, at an average rate of 13.2 m yr−1. … The trend in Western Tungnahryggsjökull during the first half of the 20th century was a more rapid retreat, showing the highest average rates of the whole period (19.5 m yr−1). By 1946, this glacier had retreated almost 90% of the total recorded between the LIA maximum (1868) and 2005. … Just as in the glaciers described above, the retreat of the Eastern Tungnahryggsjökull from its LIA position was more intense during the first half of the 20th century, and in 1946 its snout was only 200 m from its current position.”


Conclusion: Abrupt Arctic Warming, Cooling, Ice Melt Uncorrelated With CO2 Emissions


Implicit in the alarmist projection that rapid Arctic warming and ice melt will raise sea levels by 19 to 25 centimeters during the next 8 decades is the assumption that the Arctic’s post-1990s warming trend and ice melt has been driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions — which are expected to continue to rise without dramatic energy policy changes.  However, this assumption ignores the nearly 100 years (1900 to mid-1990s) of non-correlation between CO2 emissions and the Arctic climate.

Succinctly, during the 1920s to 1940s period the (a)  Arctic warmed rapidly (~3°C per decade), the (b) Greenland ice sheet melted rapidly, and the (c) glacier melt contribution to sea level rise was explosive.  This occurred while anthropogenic CO2 emissions were both flat and negligible (10 times smaller than today’s emissions).

Then, just as CO2 emissions began to rise at an accelerated pace after 1940, the (a) Arctic cooled (for nearly 60 years), the (b) Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance was positive with a “null” contribution to sea level rise (1940-2000), and (c) the Arctic-wide ice melt contribution to sea level rise abruptly decelerated.

For the 110 years between 1900 and 2010, the Greenland ice sheet contributed just 0.6 of an inch (1.5 cm) to sea levels despite a 10-fold increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions during that period.  Therefore, the very mechanism (human CO2 emissions) assumed to be driving a projected 19 to 25 centimeters of Arctic ice melt contribution has not been observed to be a driving mechanism previously.

The observational evidence indicates that variations in anthropogenic CO2 emissions do not drive Arctic warming (or cooling), ice sheet surface mass balance, or sea level rise from retreating glaciers.

112 responses to “New Paper: Greenland Gained Ice Between 1940s-2000s, Added Just 1.5 cm To Sea Levels Since 1900”

  1. SebastianH

    […] contributed just 0.6 of an inch (1.5 cm) to sea levels despite a 10-fold increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions during that period.

    Question 1: Are you saying everything has to increase 10-fold because CO2 emissions increased 10-fold?

    Question 2: If that would be the requirement for AGW to be really happening, does that mean that if you observe just one place where this is not the case you win?

    You already linked to a paper some time ago demonstrating that the greenhouse effect is sometimes negative over the poles (because the statosphere can be warmer at times than the surface there). Shouldn’t that be enough? You won, hurray?

    Question 3: Doesn’t everyone know by now that thermal expansion is the main driver for current sea level rise?

    1. Kenneth Richard

      1. “Are you saying everything has to increase 10-fold because CO2 emissions increased 10-fold?”

      No. That would imply that there is a long-term correlation between the atmospheric CO2 concentration and ice sheet surface mass balance. There isn’t. The ice sheets and glacier extent were much smaller than now during the Holocene Thermal Maximum — when CO2 levels were 260 ppm.

      2. “If that would be the requirement for AGW to be really happening, does that mean that if you observe just one place where this is not the case you win?”

      Win what? What does winning have to do with the surface mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet only contributing 1.5 cm to sea level rise in the last 110 years?

      3. “Doesn’t everyone know by now that thermal expansion is the main driver for current sea level rise?”

      So if that’s the case, why is it that alarmists like NASA’s James Hansen project 10 feet of sea level rise in the next 50 years due primarily to the catastrophic melting of the polar ice sheets? If “everyone knows by now” that ice sheet melt contributes the least to sea level rise, and thermal expansion contributes the most, why are they making such dire projections based upon assumptions about ice sheet and glacier melt?

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html
      “The study—written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.”

      And if the 0.09 C (nine-one-hundredths of a degree) warmer ocean (since 1955 per Levitus et al., 2012) is the main reason why sea levels have risen, what does that say about the Medieval Warm Period, when ocean temperatures were 0.65 C warmer than they are now (Rosenthal et al., 2013), or the Holocene Thermal Maximum, when the oceans were 2.0 C warmer than now? How much higher were sea levels back then if thermal expansion is what predominantly determines sea levels rise now? And how did the oceans get so warm in the past since CO2 levels were in the 260s ppm at the same time they were 2 degrees C warmer?

    2. AndyG55

      “the case you win?””

      Truth will always win in the end.

      But keep that big “L” firmly stuck to your forehead, seb. It suits you.!!

  2. AndyG55

    “Question 3: Doesn’t everyone know by now that thermal expansion is the main driver for current sea level rise?”

    No proof it is THE main driver. And if it is, then , as you have amply proven with you total inability to provide any papers showing CO2 causes ocean warming…. ..

    …the constant, tiny, sub-2mm/year steady sea level is nothing to do with CO2.

    1. SebastianH

      That’s easily calculated from the increase in ocean heat content. Water doesn’t expand randomly.

      1. AndyG55

        circular nonsense.

        The ocean heat content change before 2003 was calculate from ASSumption only.

        And as you have amply proven,, ocean heat content can ONLY have come from solar effects.

        Absolutely NOTHING to do with CO2 or human effects.

        Your religion is collapsing because of your own ineptitude, seb.

        try not to cry or panic.

        1. SebastianH

          AndyG55,

          it’s fun to watch you do the clown performance, but even you should know that you can calculate thermal expansion from relative OHC changes, right?

          The sea level rise is approximately 110 mm per 10^24 J …

          1. AndyG55

            Only if thermal is the only factor.

            and it most certainly isn’t.

            You make a fool of yourself with every post…

            … signalling just how little you actually know. 😉

  3. AndyG55

    The longer term perspective on Greenland

    Firstly Greenland Total Ice Mass since 1900..

    https://s19.postimg.org/9iwxep7jn/Greenland_Ice_Mass.png

    Then the Greenland ice area over the last 10,000 years.

    https://s19.postimg.org/ceo16fi7n/Greenland-_Ice-_Sheet-_Briner.jpg

  4. clipe

    I’m curious to know who is financing the Sebsod Rapid Response Team.

    It’s blatantly obvious to me after expecting, and confirming by reading, that the initial and one-and-only comment, at time of reading, would be from sed sobsed.

    1. SebastianH

      Here is a link to the RSS feed for new blog posts:
      http://notrickszone.com/feed/

      And here is a link to the RSS feed for new comments:
      http://notrickszone.com/comments/feed/

      Feel free to subscribe. Since the comment system doesn’t notify about new replies, one has to either manually look inside the posts to find new replies or use the comment feed. The later one is more practical, don’t you think?

      1. AndyG55

        Having your granny pay for your Mercedes and your basement heating , leaves you the free time, hey seb.

        No need to actually do any work to earn anything.

        No wonder you are always yapping.

  5. clipe

    confirming confirmed

    1. Mindert Eiting

      Do not know whether they got paid. If you pay someone for a job, you can also dismiss him. Seb came later than the poorly performing Sod but both are still here. They are rather unwise, in the sense that a wise man knows his limitations. Responding (keep talking) is more important than content. Because their texts contain ritualistic elements, they may have got some training.

      1. AndyG55

        “they may have got some training”

        Only in propaganda pap..

        … certainly not in anything resembling science.

      2. SebastianH

        The only two “players” here that perform rituals are AndyG55 and Kenneth. It always the same reflex answers and clown behaviour.

        I get not payed for this, I do this just for fun and sports. What is your motivation to do what you do?

        1. AndyG55

          We are certainly having fun.

          Laughing at your ineptitude and ignorance. 🙂

          Please keep going 🙂

      3. sunsettommy

        Mindert editing,

        I have known Sod since the early first decade, he has NEVER improved in all that time in his comment quality and depth. It is still the same shallow thinking that I have come to expect,I stopped replying him years ago only to find him here,so I respond to him here and only here.

        He has been banned in a lot of places for a reason……….., I don’t think he was ever trained or paid either,he is simply this way from day one. He is a typical low information thinker,that never improved over time.

  6. AndyG55

    from CW on RCS

    The tripod moved today in the Nenana Ice Classic:

    The Tanana River Ice Officially Broke Up and Went Out at 12 Noon May 1st, 2017!

    And the trend line of the annual breakup dates for the last 30 years of global warming is still flat.

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/49398-1.png

  7. Richard111

    To melt enough ice off the land to raise global sea level by just 1 metre will require 121,454,545,500,000,000,000 kilojoules of energy.

    Pick your time scale and figure out how that energy will be delivered.

    1. SebastianH

      To melt enough ice off the land to raise global sea level by just 1 metre will require 121,454,545,500,000,000,000 kilojoules of energy.

      That’s about right.

      Pick your time scale and figure out how that energy will be delivered.

      That’s the amount of energy TOA receives from the Sun in about 8 days if my calculation is correct. With an added surface forcing of 1 W/m² it would take around 7 1/2 years to accumulate that amount of energy.

  8. cementafriend

    Kenneth Richard, I am not disagreeing with your comments but to say that CO2 levels were exactly 260 ppm in the Holocene can not be justified. There is strong evidence from actual regular measurements that in the early 1940’s the CO2 level was around 390ppm. The evidence for earlier actual measurement is less clear but the average of some measurements in the nineteenth century points to a figure around 340ppm peaking around 1840. The latter of course had a large error margin. However, there is no record of CO2 measurements in the atmosphere prior to 1800. To claim a claim figure for CO2 concentration in the Holocene within the range of 200 to 500ppm is pure speculation. One knows however, that the level could not have been less than 200ppm or else there would have been little plant growth. With warmer seas & oceans it is very likely that there was out gassing from the ocean (as is possible the case in the last 40 years and was the case in the 1930’s leading to peak CO2 in the early 1940’s) that the CO2 level in the Holocene was around the present level of about 400ppm. Please note CO2 concentration in the atmosphere lags temperature of the surface particularly of water surfaces which make up about 70% of the total surface.

  9. Nope, ingen accelererande uppvärmning av Artktis - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen

    […] Richard på NoTricksZone sammanfattar vad vi vet om förhållandena i Arktis. Bland annat pekar han på en nyligen […]

  10. David Johnson

    A bit off topic and probably deserving of its own post. An excellent summation of the state of climate science from Lindzen http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/#comment-158

  11. sod
    1. P Gosselin

      And other publications show that the pause is alive and well – so it’s disputed. You cannot declare something over because one natural ocean event took place over a year or two. Note, sod, that Die Zeit is a very Green, centre-left political-correctness-enforcing publication and so you have to be very careful with their reporting. They only present one side of the story. They are not objective.

      1. SebastianH

        Says the one who basically translated an article from EIKE … a far right nutjob publication which are true science deniers (not only AGW deniers) 😉

        Secondly: didn’t you (or Kenneth) post a link to a paper mentioning that the oceans are sucking up the trapped energy? And isn’t that what Zeit Online is writing about in their article? Which makes sense because they store 90 percent of the heat content? And then an ocean event like El Nino gets called natural (or transient as if it has nothing to do with climate) if it is stronger than usual.

        1. tom0mason

          @SebastianH 4. May 2017 at 10:45 AM

          “Secondly: didn’t you (or Kenneth) post a link to a paper mentioning that the oceans are sucking up the trapped energy? And isn’t that what Zeit Online is writing about in their article? ”

          No, ‘zeit.de’ is quoting feature articles (opinion pieces) from Nature. They even quote S. Lewandowsky opinion piece, thus ensuring that as a piece about climate or science it is worthless.

        2. AndyG55

          Even Marx would seem far-right to you, seb.

          You are so far left, you need 3 seats next to you to sit down.

        3. AndyG55

          “And then an ocean event like El Nino gets called natural (or transient as if it has nothing to do with climate)”

          roflmao.. the seb thinks El Ninos are NOT NATURAL

          he also thinks the recent El Nino was not just a transient… again PROVING that real data means absolutely NOTHING to him.

          (1998 El Nino caused a step, which is always used by the AGW scammers to show a trend related to CO2, even though CO2 has absolutely ZERO warming effect on the oceans.. as seb has more than convincingly proven by his ABJECT INABILITY to produce one single piece of real science related to the issue.)
          ..

      2. sod

        Pierre it is not so simple. This is a big article in a important magazine (Nature).

        you can also see the paper via the link in the Zeit article.

        It is giving a pretty good explanation for any difference between models and reality. And it ends with a big bang: hindcasts might wipe out more “sceptic” talking points soon….

      3. tom0mason

        The evidence in zeit.de is from a Feature piece (not a research paper)
        http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

        zeit.de corrupts this piece sorry, reinterprets this piece with the views of another Feature Article (again opinion not research) from Risbey & Lewandowsky. Thus negating any illusion to climate or science to zero.

        1. sod

          “The evidence in zeit.de is from a Feature piece (not a research paper)”

          NO! the paper in your link is 3 years old.

          “zeit.de corrupts this piece sorry, reinterprets this piece with the views of another Feature Article (again opinion not research) from Risbey & Lewandowsky.”

          NO! The article is linked in the Zeit article. You have full access to read it!

          Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus
          ’Iselin Medhaug
          1
          , Martin B. Stolpe
          1
          , Erich M. Fischer
          1
          & Reto Knutti

          1. tom0mason

            Wrong again, I have full access.

    2. AndyG55

      Ouch, One far-left AGW suckophant paper talks a load of yapping balderdash.

      Or is that sob-sob. samo. !

    3. tom0mason

      wrong again sod,
      You have obviously not read the ‘zeit.de’ link to Nature from where they cherry pick limited information.
      The ‘paper’ they use is an opinion piece in the journal ‘Nature’ — A Feature Article by Jeff Tollefson
      My cherry pick from the same article —

      The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability. Much like the swings between warm and cold in day-to-day weather, chaotic climate fluctuations can knock global temperatures up or down from year to year and decade to decade. Records of past climate show some long-lasting global heatwaves and cold snaps, and climate models suggest that either of these can occur as the world warms under the influence of greenhouse gases.

      But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared. Others say that this conclusion goes against the long-term temperature trends, as well as palaeoclimate data that are used to extend the temperature record far into the past. And many researchers caution against evaluating models on the basis of a relatively short-term blip in the climate. “If you are interested in global climate change, your main focus ought to be on timescales of 50 to 100 years,” says Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

      In other words the hiatus is observed the models are wrong. Thus by the evidence of ‘zeit.de’ own link they are wrong. They even quote anothe opion piece —

      “Die Wissenschaftler James Risbey und Stephan Lewandowsky unterstreichen das in einem Kommentar, der ebenfalls in Nature erschienen ist. In Perioden, die länger andauern als 16 Jahre, sei keine Unterbrechung der Erderwärmung erkennbar (Nature: Risbey & Lewandowsky, 2017). ”

      If you have to quote S. Lewandowsky about climate then you know ‘zeit.de’ piece will be nonsense.

  12. AndyG55

    OT.

    This is the way to go.

    Keep up the good work, China et al.

    Don’t let the AGW SCAMMERS rule your decsions.:-)

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/05/04/chinese-firms-to-invest-15bn-in-pakistani-coal-fired-power/

  13. AndyG55
    1. AndyG55

      A rhetorical question..

      …. just HOW STUPID are those pathetic politicians that constantly cow-tow to the far-left socialist anti-science, anti-CO2 agenda.

      China.. well done for continuing the ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY production of atmospheric CO2. 🙂