7 ms·

As is very clearly stated in the page you linked to: "It does not include the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into cont

As is very clearly stated in the page you linked to: "It does not include the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater." There has of course been no "recovery". You can see the Greenland Ice Sheet loss at: https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/30/greenland-ice-loss-2002-2020/ https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/30/greenland-ice-loss-2... This one is a continual talking point for climate change deniers, and is corrected every time, but it still gets trotted out. I strongly advise you to actually learn something about this topic as I've seen you attempt to post on it before.

chrisco255 5y ago
Between your link and mine, it shows that Greenland loses ~279 gigatons / year to calving and warm water contact. But so far this year, alone, according to the DMI it has gained ~400 gigatons in snow and ice(even after factoring for daily melt offs on the surface). And we're not even done with the year yet. That's a net gain.
- adrianN 5y ago
  As I read it, your parent's link shows a net numbers.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    It's not clear to me that it is net numbers, and it doesn't show 2021, which is the year we're talking about. I'd like to see the actual data and a study and not an MP4 file to be sure.
- phaemon 5y ago
  No, your link shows SMB, my link shows the overall loss. There is no gain. Please learn what these numbers mean. I have had this conversation hundreds of times. You are completely wrong. EDIT: If you don't believe me, simply email the folk at the Danish Arctic research institution (the link you provided). They will confirm.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    Ok, I'll accept that and admit my mistake. Then tell me this, what has been the loss in SMB to calving and sea water contact this year? Where do we find that data, to see what the equation looks like for 2021 (since your data only goes to 2020)?
    - phaemon 5y ago
      The figures for 2021 aren't available yet as the year isn't over. If you want more immediate data, please ask your elected representative to prioritise funding scientific research. I'm curious why you're fixating on this year though? Do you think something has changed from the past 20 years? You do know the SMB has been mostly positive over that period, right?
      - chrisco255 5y ago
        If you notice, even in the GRACE data, the Mass loss was 3333 gigatons for that first decade (May 2002-Sep 2012). Which is an average of 333 gigatons of loss per year. And what you notice for this past decade is that the trend of loss is decelerating. 8 years of data to Aug 2020 show an additional loss of 1660 gigatons. Which is an average loss of 207 gigatons per year. That's a 37.8% reduction in ice loss and now, 2021 is shaping up to be one of the strongest ice mass gains in decades (whether a net loss or not, it will prove to contribute to deceleration this decade as well). Tell me, what's your hypothesis, why is the trend decelerating?
        bildung 5y ago
        > the Mass loss was 3333 gigatons for that first decade (May 2002-Sep 2012). You conveniently used a month with an unusually sharp drop as your end of decade, which make me think I'm feeding a troll, but nevertheless: The correct decade is May 2002 to April or May 2012, which gives you 272 gigatons per year as the average. There is pretty obvious seasonality in the data, so you can't just jump between seasons. You could also use September 2002 to September 2012, if you insist on including the outlier month, which would work out out to 309 gigatons/year.
- conductr 5y ago
  Even if net gain is true, who cares about 1 year. The trend is more telling. It’s like saying the stock market is down this year so it will never go back up.

chrisco255 5y ago

Between your link and mine, it shows that Greenland loses ~279 gigatons / year to calving and warm water contact. But so far this year, alone, according to the DMI it has gained ~400 gigatons in snow and ice(even after factoring for daily melt offs on the surface). And we're not even done with the year yet. That's a net gain.

adrianN 5y ago
As I read it, your parent's link shows a net numbers.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  It's not clear to me that it is net numbers, and it doesn't show 2021, which is the year we're talking about. I'd like to see the actual data and a study and not an MP4 file to be sure.
phaemon 5y ago
No, your link shows SMB, my link shows the overall loss. There is no gain. Please learn what these numbers mean. I have had this conversation hundreds of times. You are completely wrong. EDIT: If you don't believe me, simply email the folk at the Danish Arctic research institution (the link you provided). They will confirm.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  Ok, I'll accept that and admit my mistake. Then tell me this, what has been the loss in SMB to calving and sea water contact this year? Where do we find that data, to see what the equation looks like for 2021 (since your data only goes to 2020)?
  - phaemon 5y ago
    The figures for 2021 aren't available yet as the year isn't over. If you want more immediate data, please ask your elected representative to prioritise funding scientific research. I'm curious why you're fixating on this year though? Do you think something has changed from the past 20 years? You do know the SMB has been mostly positive over that period, right?
    - chrisco255 5y ago
      If you notice, even in the GRACE data, the Mass loss was 3333 gigatons for that first decade (May 2002-Sep 2012). Which is an average of 333 gigatons of loss per year. And what you notice for this past decade is that the trend of loss is decelerating. 8 years of data to Aug 2020 show an additional loss of 1660 gigatons. Which is an average loss of 207 gigatons per year. That's a 37.8% reduction in ice loss and now, 2021 is shaping up to be one of the strongest ice mass gains in decades (whether a net loss or not, it will prove to contribute to deceleration this decade as well). Tell me, what's your hypothesis, why is the trend decelerating?
      - bildung 5y ago
        > the Mass loss was 3333 gigatons for that first decade (May 2002-Sep 2012). You conveniently used a month with an unusually sharp drop as your end of decade, which make me think I'm feeding a troll, but nevertheless: The correct decade is May 2002 to April or May 2012, which gives you 272 gigatons per year as the average. There is pretty obvious seasonality in the data, so you can't just jump between seasons. You could also use September 2002 to September 2012, if you insist on including the outlier month, which would work out out to 309 gigatons/year.
conductr 5y ago
Even if net gain is true, who cares about 1 year. The trend is more telling. It’s like saying the stock market is down this year so it will never go back up.