If you'd quit behaving like Herr Trump, I wouldn't have any of your insults to repeat back at you. The Surface Mass Balance graph you link is not the full Mass Balance, because it includes only melting and sublimation losses, not calving losses. We talked about this in a previous your, but you forget or ignore that. To repeat yet again, here is Greenland's ice overall mass balance:
Antarctic Calving has nothing to do with Global Warming.The sheet is heated by geothermal activity underneath . If there was warming the top would melt not gain.What a bunch of idiots. Dude your BS graph is superceded for previous decades by actual science from the 2015 NASA study I posted. NASA is one of the most jaded pro global warming propagandist organizations which ever existed.If they do a study which is contrary to the global warming meme it really stand out as being exceptional.
I've figured it was Antarctica being surrounded by ocean that led to isolation from global weather. My understanding is Antarctica would be a desert but for the accumulation of frozen water due to the low precipitation rates. Grounded sea ice can slow glacier flow into the seas, my global thermometer. Sea ice area is less important than whether it blocks glacier flow. Still area means loss of albedo and accelerates polar warming. This reduces the inventory of multi-year ice which means easier melts the next years. Bob Wilson
As far as science goes, one year in the lifetime of a planet (such as Earth) is just a snapshot - nothing more. Over a human lifetime, anything less than a five-year-mean (preferably rolling, i.e. as the oldest year drops off the next year adds on) is not particularly accurate. The wider the average range period, the smoother your resultant graph will become as the eccentricities are softened out. But hey! What do I know? Your attention grabbing headlines have been selected to sell newspapers and that had to be real science.
The top ice does melt. Plenty of lakes and rivers form on top of the ice sheet, and some of that water finds it way to underneath.
Knock knock! Wake up! I see a light on in there. Is anybody home? Greenland is not part of the Antarctic. They are on opposite ends of the planet.
Thank you, thank you, for seeing and reposting the link I posted back at #34. (tocahatihu did too even earlier, #31.) Now, please keep reading down that page until you find the snippet I (we) copied into those previous posts: "Note that the accumulated curve does not end at 0 at the end of the year. Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr."
"Grounded sea ice"@44 I don't know what this means. For me, grounded means that underneath the ice there is rocks. Or soil. Something that is not sea water or fresh water. Now a chunk of ice can be underlain by both soil and liquid, but that would represent a small amount/fraction of total. Geothermal@42 I must admit, I did expect that amnesia on these ice-balance questions would soon be followed by amnesia on Antarctic geothermal melting. But certainly, it is not mojo's job to surprise us. So, we'll post us the stuff (from before) on geothermal, see if it matches negative-mass-balance areas. And await the next bout of amnesia.
What I have noticed that ice sheets with a smattering of island or grounded bergs appear to be less fractious and prone to breakup than those without. These are the sheets most effective as glacier stoppers. But I have not done a proper study. Bob Wilson
