The year 2007 marked an overall rise in the summertime melting trend over the highest altitudes of the Greenland ice sheet.

??? The map in the article show no melting at the "highest altitudes" (i.e. most) of the ice sheet. I guess that 0% is 130% higher than 0%.

"Days of melt" is a ridiculous metric. If it gets warm enough to glisten the surface, it counts as a day of melt. It tells you nothing about volume of melt or net accumulation/loss of ice. All it tells you is that temperatures were higher than average. There is always a melt line, which moves up or down in altitude, depending on the temperature.

Given that most of Greenland sees zero melt days, it is safe to assume that most of Greenland is accumulating ice.

This is more indisputable evidence echoing the consensus view and proving that Greenland is experiencing melting that is unprecedented in the vast time frame of the last 19 years.

I firmly believe the major cause of this is increased usage of old model "beer" fridges in Canada.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12975-beer-fridges-present-a-gassy-problem.html
And with depression on the rise in Canada, http://heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/factsheets/depression.shtml
the problem is only going to get worse as more Canadians seek the bottle to drown away their woes.

In the name of all that is good, we must stop this disease of depression to reduce beer consumption and save our planet, if not for ourselves, for our children.

19 year average? I wonder how many time-series they ran until they got the result the wanted?

Brett, is there only 19 years of data that they are going by? Reply: yes, I know, not a lot, but that's as far back as they can go using this type of measurement.

How do we know if this is of any significance with so little information? If their entire story is "melting rose 150% on Greenland from the 19 year average" that is liike me saying "the average temperature in Jersey has dropped 60 degrees from the 8 month average". The average of something can only go up or down, what do they expect of it? To flat line and always stay exactly on the average?

Hi Guys,

Well isn't this the a big piece of political propaganda. They show a very small part of Greenland "melting" while the rest is just static. Can anyone tell me of any place on this planet where the weather is static for 20 some odd years? OH doesn't the rest of Greenland appear blue? So the rest has negative days of "melting", all equal too? Like the scary red colors. I think the administrators at NASA and NOAA along with the AGW politicians should go to the interior of Greenland for a week or so instead of Bali. Get a good indication as too how warm the planet is. Oh yes isn't AGW "global", why is the southern hemisphere not warming and the tropical troposphere showing no warming? AGW going down in a ball of flames, pun intended.

Very timely. Greenland is forecast to tie the coldest temperature ever recorded later this week (-86F), previously set in 1954.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=72.58000183,-38.45000076

Boxer, Ban, Gore, Hansen and the IPCC should go there to see the devastation of global warming.

Reply to this posting: last 3 month SST average
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.seasonal.gif
last month (november)
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.month.gif
last week
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gif

I realize this is not about Greenland, but I have a few questions and I'm sure someone here has some answers. I was looking at SSTs on Jim Andrews site and SST anomaly for the last 2 months at NOAA. It seems that the majority of temps are running colder than normal. Which brings about my questions: If the earth is truly warming as we're hearing, how can we be seeing as much below normal SSTs. I know there are various factors involved and that water cools/warms slower than land, but it seems to me if the earth is warming it should be reflected in the oceans as well. That doesn't seem to be the case. Also, what are the explanations for these cooler temps particularly around Antarctica? Any thoughts.

iceman,

One thing for sure, even though NOAA data shows worldwide SST's averaging 1.5 degrees below normal, NOAA will shortly come out with a press release saying something like "it was the tenth warmest November," accompanied by a map covered with red dots. The oceans only make up 70% of the earth's surface after all.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/tools/briefing/sstaa.gif

Hmmmm... what other evidence do you need, AGW skeptics?

Anyways, what can happen if all that ice which is melting mixes with the Atlantic Ocean water? Could this thing showed in Al Gore's flim happen (the Gulf flow being interrumpted, thus, Europe freezes up)? It wouldn't be as bad really, considering that London is experiencing really mild temps! ;)

As snowbirds know, dry snow is a great support for water, and wet snow basically just sits there. The terms "wet snow" and "runoff" are mutually exclusive. Which sort of makes the next point. If snow or ice melt, and then re-freeze, not much is said about net mass change. In other words, the melting index is a wonderful tool that tells us everything we need or want to know about...ummm...melting.

We'd hate to burst this guy's bubble, but if miniscule amounts of percolating water (relative to ice sheet thickness) make it to the ice sheet base and stay liquid, it's because there's already water there. In Alaska's Glacier Bay one can observe powerful jets break the surface from the force with which water is ejected from the sub-surface rock bed-glacier interface.

19 years is a drop in the bucket. It like saying today was 20 tommaorw will be 22 and yesterday was 25 and then you say well i know tommaorw will be warmer becuase i knocked the lowest and middle temp out and with the the high temp only.

re iceman
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
this might be the beginning of the end of the AGW theory (its a NOAA document). I wonder if Brett might have a look and see what he thinks re is it worth a posting?
cheers

I do hope you scientists can see how my "TUNNEL" idea can prevent this ice melt on Greenland??????

PH,
It does seem to happen that way. Most of Canada, central and northern Asia, norteastern U.S. have been running below normal. At least from what I'm seeing. Just for the record, here in CT, November averaged below normal and the lakes and ponds have iced up. It's pretty early in central CT to have that much ice cover. I'm pretty sure the ice has formed because it's been cold, but I could be wrong. I don't know. But I agree with you PH, it wouldn't surprise me if we hear November was one of the warmest ever.

Vincent,
I'm afraid no matter what we're seeing in SST's there will be an excuse or simple explanation that comes out to fit it into the AGW plan. It will be coming. Maybe it will be ignored or called insignificant.

Patrick,

Your link shows SST anomalies for the NINO 3.4 region. Not for the entire world. It would be nice if, for once, you would stop misleading people. After all, there are some people here who are looking to learn more about the climate and you are doing them a great disservice.

Thanks,
Mark

Iceman,

Where are you getting your data?

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_30a.fnl.anim.html

If you go to the site linked too above you will see an animation of 30-day anomalies. the most recent one,from Nov 2 to Dec first, shows norther and central asia to have been mostly warmer than average. I do have one caveat. I know for a fact that some areas of Nunavut had a below normal November, but this map does not agree. I'm not surewhat's going on.

bad data equals misleading info. Sadly sometimes you can't tell if your data is legitimate or not. espcially since it's from NOAA which is supposed to be a good source.

Mark,

Obviously, you don't have a clue to the importance of the NINO 3.4 area. And I thought you pseudo-intellectual types knew all about these things. Go read up on it and get back to us a bit later when you figure out the importance of this region.

Mark,

Have a look at the referring NOAA page.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/tools/briefing/

HOME> Outlook Maps> Seasonal Outlooks > Consolidated SST

It says nothing about a particular region. Perhaps you are correct, but if so it certainly was not an attempt on my part to "intentionally mislead." I'm not like Gore or Hansen and don't do that. Take it up with the person at NOAA in charge of that web page.

Sorry Mark,

I gave the wrong link in that last post. The referring page is inside a frame. This is the correct referring page.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/SSTs/

For those with questions about mass/volume changes, the GRACE data is pretty clear that it has changed...at least in the 5 years since GRACE has been operational! See ftp://ftp.csr.utexas.edu/pub/ggfc/papers/1129007_preprint.pdf and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7109/full/nature05168.html. Although there is overlap between ice mass change and AMI in the eastern coastal regions, there are differences between the AMI trend and the ice mass trend. Another difference between these papers and Tedesco's melt index is GRACE measurements indicate that most of the mass loss is occurring in the eastern coastal regions of Greenland whereas the melt index seems to show wider regions of anomalies in the western coastal regions as well. It would be interesting to have more context about how geography, climate, and ocean dynamics figure into this relationship between AMI and ice mass/volume loss.

Haven't we already dealt with this? There was an exceptionally warm June which led to the melting.

Anonymous,
I've just been using Weatherunderground. I live in the N.E. so that parts easy for me. I've put some links below. In terms of Asia I've just been following temperatures there. Unscientific I know. I've put a link there as well. The data I've provided from Canada definitely doesn't seem to match the NOAA images.

Wow, I wrote iceland again. Scary. This iceland guy is getting on my nerves.

Windsor Locks, CT-main source of weather data for central CT.
http://www.weatherunderground.com/history/airport/KBDL/2007/11/6/CustomHistory.html?dayend=5&monthend=12&yearend=2007&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Eureka, NU
http://www.weatherunderground.com/history/airport/CWEU/2007/10/15/CustomHistory.html?dayend=15&monthend=11&yearend=2007&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Churchill, MN
http://www.weatherunderground.com/history/airport/CYYQ/2007/11/1/CustomHistory.html?dayend=5&monthend=12&yearend=2007&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Ojmjakon, Russia

http://www.weatherunderground.com/history/station/24688/2007/11/1/CustomHistory.html?dayend=31&monthend=11&yearend=2007&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Interesting article. Someone may have posted this before. This is from 2002. Since then the trend of growing Antarctic sea ice has continued, setting a record this year.
"The one region in the Antarctic where the temperature records have shown prominent warming over this period is the Antarctic Peninsula"
The one region.

I'm really not sure how anyone can be arguing that Antarctic has been warming.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html

"prominent," iceman. Learn to read. Repeating: First, the southern sea ice trend is not statistically significant. That is why it's not news outside of denialist circles. Second, other than the Peninsula, the Antarctic warming trend is slight. This surprises only denialists, who for some reason have poor memorization skills. Why is that?

sorry guys, that last post marked anonymous was me.

Patrick,

If you look at those graphs, at the very top it says "Consolidated SST Nino 3.4"

Hi Steve Bloom,

Always entertaining reading your posts.

the southern sea ice trend is not statistically significant.

Is is extremely significant. It is increasing, not decreasing as the models predict. Polar warming is a basic tenet of AGW theory and it isn't happening at one of the two poles.

There have only been five years where southern hemisphere sea ice made it to 16 million km2. Three of them were 2005, 2006 and 2007. All five have been in the last 13 years. Temperatures are running 10-20 degrees below normal in Antarctica this spring.

The only reason you choose to believe it is "not significant" is because it blows your beloved climate models out of the water.

Steve Bloom,
Do you have the ability to argue without insulting people? Or is it beyond you? Maybe it's genetic. BTW, for someone who held such low regards for Climate Audit, you sure spent a lot of time posting there. I believe you've achieved a similar status here. Congratulations. Also, don't worry I do listen to you. I now believe that more ice "could probably" form when it's warmer. I kind of like that term, "could probably". As matter of fact I think my 8 year son says that sometimes. I think he says it when he's not sure what he's talking about.

Mark,

You are correct. The graph refers to a specific geographic region. My error was not intentional and I think you can see that the NOAA site did not make this clear.

Nevertheless, the