Is Antarctica gaining or losing ice?

Crick

Gold Member
May 10, 2014
27,876
5,295
290
N/A
Late last week, a study published by NASA scientists in the Journal of Glaciology made the surprising claim that the gigantic continent of Antarctica is actually gaining ice, rather than losing it, to the tune of 82 gigatons (or billion metric tons) per year from 2003 to 2008.

The study has drawn massive amounts of media attention — and no wonder. It contradicts numerous prior scientific claims, including a 2012 study in Science by a small army of polar scientists, a study from earlier this year in Earth and Planetary Science Letters (which found 92 gigatons of net losses per year) and this 2014 study in Geophysical Research Letters (160 gigatons of net losses per year). It also contradicts assertions by the leading consensus body of climate science, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which stated in 2013 that Antarctica is “losing mass” and that this process is accelerating. That statement was itself based on multiple studies showing Antarctic ice loss.

Not only does the new research fly in the face of all of this — if true, it also raises serious questions about our current understanding of sea level rise. If Antarctica is actually gaining ice, that means that a significant percentage of the current rise of the seas, estimated at roughly 3.22 millimeters per year by NASA itself, must be coming from elsewhere. (It takes 360 gigatons of ice to raise seas by 1 millimeter).

No wonder, then, that a number of researchers have been quoted expressing skepticism about the new research, even as climate change doubters have had a field day — adding the study to an argumentative arsenal that previously included misleading claims about growing Antarctic sea ice.

So what’s going on here — and what should you make of the new claim that Antarctica isn’t losing ice or raising our seas?
A controversial NASA study says Antarctica is gaining ice. Here’s why you should be skeptical

***************************************************************************************************

The number of studies that found Antarctic ice decreasing - and at far larger rates than Zwally found it to be increasing - outnumber Zwally a good ten to one. And, if Zwally is correct, hundreds of gigatons of ice is melting annually somewhere else without anyone noticing it.

Besides, surely someone here recalls that since the early 1980s, it has been understood that global warming would INCREASE Antarctic precipitation.

Get a grip folks. AGW is still widely accepted science. Climate change denial is still fringe nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Dunno what that particular study says, but I just finished watching a documentary this week about the Adelade penguins and how their habitat is being affected because there is less ice where they live than there used to be. It also showed a large ice shelf that suddenly broke apart and melted, giving them access to a place that they hadn't been able to get to for over 20 years.

And, that documentary was filmed this year.
 
Dunno what that particular study says, but I just finished watching a documentary this week about the Adelade penguins and how their habitat is being affected because there is less ice where they live than there used to be. It also showed a large ice shelf that suddenly broke apart and melted, giving them access to a place that they hadn't been able to get to for over 20 years.

And, that documentary was filmed this year.

I read an article that indicated volcanic activity under the Antarctic ice pack was melting the ice. That would cause what you described as well as the increase in the water raising the oceans.
 
They also showed how the water around Antarctica is getting warmer as well. They took readings at various levels and brought up the plankton and krill from those levels as well to see how well and what they'd been eating.

Did you know that some forms of plankton actually absorb carbon and when they die, take it to the bottom of the ocean? That's how the earth gets rid of a great deal of the carbon in the atmosphere.
 
Dunno what that particular study says, but I just finished watching a documentary this week about the Adelade penguins and how their habitat is being affected because there is less ice where they live than there used to be. It also showed a large ice shelf that suddenly broke apart and melted, giving them access to a place that they hadn't been able to get to for over 20 years.

And, that documentary was filmed this year.

I read an article that indicated volcanic activity under the Antarctic ice pack was melting the ice. That would cause what you described as well as the increase in the water raising the oceans.
Not very likely. Volcanoes are not very good at melting ice, even ice in the crater of an active one. One of the few growing glaciers on this planet is located in the crater of Mt. St. Helens. There are many active volcanoes under ice in Iceland, and they only create floods when in active eruption. The rest of the time, they have very little effect on the ice.
 
Inna summer time it loses ice...

... inna winter time it gains ice...

... it's based on seasonal solar change.
 
Not only does the new research fly in the face of all of this — if true, it also raises serious questions about our current understanding of sea level rise. If Antarctica is actually gaining ice, that means that a significant percentage of the current rise of the seas, estimated at roughly 3.22 millimeters per year by NASA itself, must be coming from elsewhere. (It takes 360 gigatons of ice to raise seas by 1 millimeter).


ahhhhh, yes. it certainly does raise issues on whether satellite-only data (3+mm/yr) should override tide gauge data (2mm/yr). satellite altimetry for SLR came online in the early 90's with estimates in the low 2's. since then it has dramatically risen to over 3, not just for recent years but for ALL the years since it started. every new dataset released is higher than the last one. when SLR dipped in the late 00's a new 'correction' of 0.3mm/yr was added, but only back to 1992. if the correction was carried back for a hundred (or a thousand) years it would soon become ridiculous.
 
Not only does the new research fly in the face of all of this — if true, it also raises serious questions about our current understanding of sea level rise. If Antarctica is actually gaining ice, that means that a significant percentage of the current rise of the seas, estimated at roughly 3.22 millimeters per year by NASA itself, must be coming from elsewhere. (It takes 360 gigatons of ice to raise seas by 1 millimeter).


ahhhhh, yes. it certainly does raise issues on whether satellite-only data (3+mm/yr) should override tide gauge data (2mm/yr). satellite altimetry for SLR came online in the early 90's with estimates in the low 2's. since then it has dramatically risen to over 3, not just for recent years but for ALL the years since it started. every new dataset released is higher than the last one. when SLR dipped in the late 00's a new 'correction' of 0.3mm/yr was added, but only back to 1992. if the correction was carried back for a hundred (or a thousand) years it would soon become ridiculous.

Ian, I suggest you recheck your numbers.

Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level%2C_1880-2013.png



Tide gauges show GREATER recent rise than does the satellite data.

And, I have to ask: do you believe either one or both of these datasets are being manipulated to falsify the results?
 
Last edited:
Dunno what that particular study says, but I just finished watching a documentary this week about the Adelade penguins and how their habitat is being affected because there is less ice where they live than there used to be. It also showed a large ice shelf that suddenly broke apart and melted, giving them access to a place that they hadn't been able to get to for over 20 years.

And, that documentary was filmed this year.

I read an article that indicated volcanic activity under the Antarctic ice pack was melting the ice. That would cause what you described as well as the increase in the water raising the oceans.
Not very likely. Volcanoes are not very good at melting ice, even ice in the crater of an active one. One of the few growing glaciers on this planet is located in the crater of Mt. St. Helens. There are many active volcanoes under ice in Iceland, and they only create floods when in active eruption. The rest of the time, they have very little effect on the ice.

How do you know how much ice is melted by the heat of the magma under Iceland? The last time I checked heat melts ice. I suggest that without the heat generated the ice would be much deeper.
 
Dunno what that particular study says, but I just finished watching a documentary this week about the Adelade penguins and how their habitat is being affected because there is less ice where they live than there used to be. It also showed a large ice shelf that suddenly broke apart and melted, giving them access to a place that they hadn't been able to get to for over 20 years.

And, that documentary was filmed this year.
dude, do you even know how stupid this is? You just posted ice melted in a place that hasn't been open for 20 years. Well if it was open 20 years ago why is that odd? And what does it say about any study about ice and snow build up?
 
Why don't you explain it to us?

Personally, I'm waiting to hear why we should believe Zwally and reject the numerous studies that disagree with him.

And since Zwally claims that the Antarctic mass balance is lowering global sea level, where are the many gigatons of seawater coming from that could produce the net, 3.22 mm/yr rise we observe?

But, to be honest, I'm certainly not expecting to hear that from you jc.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you explain it to us?

Personally, I'm waiting to hear why we should believe Zwally and reject the numerous studies that disagree with him.

And since Zwally claims that the Antarctic mass balance is lowering global sea level, where are the many gigatons of seawater coming from that could produce the net, 3.22 mm/yr rise we observe?

But, to be honest, I'm certainly not expecting to hear that from you jc.

Well that's the thing crick....you aren't seeing 3.22mm of sea level rise per year...not in the actual ocean anyway. You are seeing 3.22mm of sea level rise in graphs...and models produced by those who are perpetuating the AGW narrative and raking in the money for it but in the ocean...sorry....just not there. ]Not that I think you warmers will be interested in seeing actual evidence of the level of fraud happening within mainstream climate science, but let me show an example for the benefit of those who aren't taking their kook-aid intravenously. Observe,,,,,,the blatant altering of past sea level data in an effort to reinforce the imminent climate disaster narrative. Much like the blatant alteration of past temperatures to support the current narrative, but that's another post....

Luckily, old data is still hanging around to be found to bring the fraud of the climate science modern climate science community into high relief. This is the sea level increase between 1880 and 1980 shown by NASA. The graph shows an increase of just over 3 inches of sea level increase between 1880 and 1980....NOTE the sharp decrease in the rate of increase after 1950.

ScreenHunter_2132-May.-31-12.25.jpg


You can't really scare people with a 3 inch sea level increase over a 100 year period so the frauds in climate science increased the figure to 6 inches per century with nothing more than adjustments.... NOTE the completely FAKE acceleration after 1950.

Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level_1870-2008_US_EPA-1.png


Here is an overlay of the two graphs on the same time scale. One is scientific in nature...showing actual observed sea level increases...the other is a piece of alarmist propaganda that has nothing whatsoever to do with science and everything to do with supporting a fraudulent narrative.

CGWXcXUU8AABZ5w.png


Then in 2004, the University of Colorado showed 2.8 mm per year rate of sea level increase.

ScreenHunter_10644-Oct.-03-11.07.gif


2.8 mm per year? Not very scary...even to alarmists so again, the data is heavily massaged using inappropriate, and completely fraudulent methods to achieve a 3.3mm per year rate of increase. A global isostatic adjustment was applied which is blatantly fraudulent in the context of sea level increase. Such adjustments are correct in the context of calculating ocean depth as the sea floor sinks and have absolutely no relationship to measuring sea level by satellites. Here is what the adjustments look like...I see you warmers posting this graph as "evidence" of sea level increase all the time...what a laugh....

sl_ns_global-2.png


Here is an overlay of the two graphs at the same time scale....one using valid methodology and one using calculations that are not appropriate for determining sea level increase for no other reason than to support the AGW narrative.

AnimationImage86.png


So some numbers got a massage and a picture was painted to give the appearance of imminent disaster. Shit happens...right? But when the "spokes agency" for modern climate science repeats the fraud as truth....we have real evidence of deliberate data corruption with the intent to deceive regarding climate change. In 1990 the IPCC said:

paintimage85.png


Then in 2013 using blatantly massaged data and obviously fraudulent graphs, the IPCC said exactly the opposite of what they said in 1990. You guys are lairs crick...guilty of malfeasance, and deliberate fraud for no other reason than to gain political power. You have damaged the reputation of science so deeply that it will take many many decades after this circus is over to restore the trust in science that you climate wackos have destroyed for political reasons.
 
Last edited:
SSDD, has it ever occurred to you to actually present evidence for your claims? Your characterizations of all these data seem to be 100% anally derived.Your baseline plot contains NO satellite data and NO isostatic adjustments.
 
You frequently see this graphic (CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado)because the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group are the world's leading experts on global sea level. Your charges that they are manipulating these data for alarmist purposes might be interesting if you had ANYTHING in the way of evidence to support your charge. But you don't.

sl_ns_global.png

Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously monitored against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality.
To cite these plots or data, please use: Nerem, R. S., D. Chambers, C. Choe, and G. T. Mitchum. "Estimating Mean Sea Level Change from the TOPEX and Jason Altimeter Missions."Marine Geodesy 33, no. 1 supp 1 (2010): 435.


And if you think this is manufactured crap, you might want to explain the following multivariate correlation to us:

sl_mei.png

Discussion
The Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) is the unrotated, first principal component of six observables measured over the tropical Pacific (see NOAA ESRL MEI, Wolter & Timlin, 1993,1998). To compare the global mean sea level to the MEI time series, we removed the mean, linear trend, and seasonal signals from the 60-day smoothed global mean sea level estimates and normalized each time series by its standard deviation. The normalized values plotted above show a strong correlation between the global mean sea level and the MEI, with the global mean sea level often lagging changes in the MEI.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you explain it to us?

Personally, I'm waiting to hear why we should believe Zwally and reject the numerous studies that disagree with him.

And since Zwally claims that the Antarctic mass balance is lowering global sea level, where are the many gigatons of seawater coming from that could produce the net, 3.22 mm/yr rise we observe?

But, to be honest, I'm certainly not expecting to hear that from you jc.
so dude, not sure what you expect me to post up here. See I've been waiting, I don't know 2 plus years for one of you warmers to post up factual excessive climate information, to which, through this morning, hasn't made it into this forum. The thingy thing is, the actual figures for Antarctica is that the scientist don't know what is actually happening there because it is too dangerous to scope out by humans and the satellites can't capture it all. But hey, you go with your experts that have no factual information because there isn't any. If you were truly astute, you'd already know this. Do you?
 
You frequently see this graphic (CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado)because the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group are the world's leading experts on global sea level. Your charges that they are manipulating these data for alarmist purposes might be interesting if you had ANYTHING in the way of evidence to support your charge. But you don't.

sl_ns_global.png

Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously monitored against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality.
To cite these plots or data, please use: Nerem, R. S., D. Chambers, C. Choe, and G. T. Mitchum. "Estimating Mean Sea Level Change from the TOPEX and Jason Altimeter Missions."Marine Geodesy 33, no. 1 supp 1 (2010): 435.


And if you think this is manufactured crap, you might want to explain the following multivariate correlation to us:

sl_mei.png

Discussion
The Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) is the unrotated, first principal component of six observables measured over the tropical Pacific (see NOAA ESRL MEI, Wolter & Timlin, 1993,1998). To compare the global mean sea level to the MEI time series, we removed the mean, linear trend, and seasonal signals from the 60-day smoothed global mean sea level estimates and normalized each time series by its standard deviation. The normalized values plotted above show a strong correlation between the global mean sea level and the MEI, with the global mean sea level often lagging changes in the MEI.
it's quite simple, give the data to congress.
 
You frequently see this graphic (CU Sea Level Research Group | University of Colorado)because the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group are the world's leading experts on global sea level. Your charges that they are manipulating these data for alarmist purposes might be interesting if you had ANYTHING in the way of evidence to support your charge. But you don't.

sl_ns_global.png

Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously monitored against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality.
To cite these plots or data, please use: Nerem, R. S., D. Chambers, C. Choe, and G. T. Mitchum. "Estimating Mean Sea Level Change from the TOPEX and Jason Altimeter Missions."Marine Geodesy 33, no. 1 supp 1 (2010): 435.

I see you can;t read the words on a graph any better than you can read what the graph says.. Note this graph is using TOPEX and Jason1 data as well..

ScreenHunter_10644-Oct.-03-11.07.gif


Here is that graph and yours overplayed for the same time frame.....yours is using entirely inappropriate global isostatic adjustments for no other reason than to support the AGW narrative

AnimationImage86.png




 

Forum List

Back
Top