Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
http://www.ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495
http://icesat4.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo_data/publications/Zwally-Giovinetto_SurveysInGeophysics_2011-1.pdf
Are either of these what you are looking for?
of course I love this kind of stuff. lots of detail, links to past papers, history of how things are evolving. especially when it supports and quantifies what I have been saying for years .the GRACE estimates would have to be severely clawed back as more data comes in.
Sounds like a textbook example of confirmation bias
Is it also confirmation bias when you present something that supports your position?
This article points out a different kind of bias.
The laser altimetry was sitting on the books for years before it was published. No paper was produced, although two presentations were given by Zwally that both stated that the AIS was gaining mass overall. The first has disappeared altogether, or at least I can't find it anymore and the link is broken. The second is still partially there but the graphics are gone.
Why is that? Surely this was important enough to release. We're the findings unwelcome? To the point where they just disappeared? How many other 'unwelcome' findings are sitting buried in the files so as to not give 'fodder to the skeptics'?
Crick honestly believes that skeptics are lying, and always lie. Even when we use the same data as the warmers, and sometimes the warmers exact words.
It must be difficult to keep a logical sequence in your head when it matters more who states the information rather than the validity of the information.
The OP shows how Antarctic ice mass estimates have gone through considerable changes. The Consensus side says they are lower so that must be true. But the skeptics also say it is lower so it must be a lie! What is poor crick to do?
AR4 claimed larger losses but more uncertainty, AR5 claims greater certainty but forgets to publicize the newer figures. So crick remembers the old figures but updates the new uncertainty level. He is happy and there is no paradox in his mind.
The Antarctic ice loss is completely comprised of adjustments for rebound, often turning positive gain into a negative trend. But this does not concern our intrepid warmer who knows in his heart that anytime now the data will turn around and prove his fears to be real.
Recall the predictions of increased precipitation in the Antarctic? I do. And I've mentioned them here repeatedly. What does increased precipitation in Antarctic give you? More ice mass. How does Antarctica lose ice mass? Through glaciation. What has been happening for the last 30 years with Antarctica's glaciers? Acceleration via increased melt and the destruction of the coastal ice sheets that were bottling them up. What have water temperatures around Antarctica done over the last several decades? Warmed up. What has happened with the grounding line of the WAIS Ian? It's retreated miles and miles and miles and miles. And what has happened as a result of that retreat? The entire WAIS has destabilized and is slowly crumbling. Has that stopped? Will increasing ice mass stop it? No and no.
Where, exactly, Ian, do you see some conflict between AGW and the dynamics of ice mass in Antarctica?
of course I love this kind of stuff. lots of detail, links to past papers, history of how things are evolving. especially when it supports and quantifies what I have been saying for years .the GRACE estimates would have to be severely clawed back as more data comes in.
Sounds like a textbook example of confirmation bias
New Orleans has always had a levi.well Ian, I have to say, that if the Antarctic is not losing ice, then where in fact would sea level rise come from if not Greenland. And well, there is no evidence there at all. If there is any sea level rise I would bet it is under a foot in the last 30 years. I've been to places and the sand and the buildings are in the same places thirty years later. how can that be if the water level went up. Sarasota Florida, BTW is where I've been and the beaches are still the same. ask the folks who live there.That is one way of looking at it. Another way is to question the satellite measurements of SLR.
If the Antarctic ice sheet loss is entirely made up of adjustments to the GRACE data then perhaps the SLR is also comprised more of adjustments than real sea level rise. It is very odd that SLR jumped 50-100% exactly at the time that satellite measurements started to be used.
Essentially a zero sum game and why we have not see sea level rise globally. Only areas of land subsidence are showing a significant rise of any kind of water level. And its NOT due to ice loss somewhere else.
The banter back and forth is amusing as the end result is essentially a zero rise.
Who's side are you on? Are you actually a warmer in disguise? You make such stupid statements that undecided readers would think that if you were a representative skeptic then we must all be nuts.
No sea level rise? At all? Sez who? I am unaware of any legitimate source that denies ANY SLR. Why don't you claim a decrease in sea levels while you're at it? Sheesh
So sea level rise I call bullshit on for any negligible amount.
There is probably some, but it's so negligible it's hardly noticeable. Which is pretty much the same as saying there's no effect unless maybe you're in someplace like New Orleans that but for some good engineering would already be under water.
Crick honestly believes that skeptics are lying, and always lie. Even when we use the same data as the warmers, and sometimes the warmers exact words.
It must be difficult to keep a logical sequence in your head when it matters more who states the information rather than the validity of the information.
The OP shows how Antarctic ice mass estimates have gone through considerable changes. The Consensus side says they are lower so that must be true. But the skeptics also say it is lower so it must be a lie! What is poor crick to do?
AR4 claimed larger losses but more uncertainty, AR5 claims greater certainty but forgets to publicize the newer figures. So crick remembers the old figures but updates the new uncertainty level. He is happy and there is no paradox in his mind.
The Antarctic ice loss is completely comprised of adjustments for rebound, often turning positive gain into a negative trend. But this does not concern our intrepid warmer who knows in his heart that anytime now the data will turn around and prove his fears to be real.
Recall the predictions of increased precipitation in the Antarctic? I do. And I've mentioned them here repeatedly. What does increased precipitation in Antarctic give you? More ice mass. How does Antarctica lose ice mass? Through glaciation. What has been happening for the last 30 years with Antarctica's glaciers? Acceleration via increased melt and the destruction of the coastal ice sheets that were bottling them up. What have water temperatures around Antarctica done over the last several decades? Warmed up. What has happened with the grounding line of the WAIS Ian? It's retreated miles and miles and miles and miles. And what has happened as a result of that retreat? The entire WAIS has destabilized and is slowly crumbling. Has that stopped? Will increasing ice mass stop it? No and no.
Where, exactly, Ian, do you see some conflict between AGW and the dynamics of ice mass in Antarctica?
Did you read the OP? What did it say about the grounding lines of the WAIS? What citation did it give?
Are Antarctic air temperatures increasing or decreasing? Are the Southern Ocean sea surface temperatures increasing or decreasing?
Crick honestly believes that skeptics are lying, and always lie. Even when we use the same data as the warmers, and sometimes the warmers exact words.
It must be difficult to keep a logical sequence in your head when it matters more who states the information rather than the validity of the information.
The OP shows how Antarctic ice mass estimates have gone through considerable changes. The Consensus side says they are lower so that must be true. But the skeptics also say it is lower so it must be a lie! What is poor crick to do?
AR4 claimed larger losses but more uncertainty, AR5 claims greater certainty but forgets to publicize the newer figures. So crick remembers the old figures but updates the new uncertainty level. He is happy and there is no paradox in his mind.
The Antarctic ice loss is completely comprised of adjustments for rebound, often turning positive gain into a negative trend. But this does not concern our intrepid warmer who knows in his heart that anytime now the data will turn around and prove his fears to be real.
Recall the predictions of increased precipitation in the Antarctic? I do. And I've mentioned them here repeatedly. What does increased precipitation in Antarctic give you? More ice mass. How does Antarctica lose ice mass? Through glaciation. What has been happening for the last 30 years with Antarctica's glaciers? Acceleration via increased melt and the destruction of the coastal ice sheets that were bottling them up. What have water temperatures around Antarctica done over the last several decades? Warmed up. What has happened with the grounding line of the WAIS Ian? It's retreated miles and miles and miles and miles. And what has happened as a result of that retreat? The entire WAIS has destabilized and is slowly crumbling. Has that stopped? Will increasing ice mass stop it? No and no.
Where, exactly, Ian, do you see some conflict between AGW and the dynamics of ice mass in Antarctica?
Did you read the OP? What did it say about the grounding lines of the WAIS? What citation did it give?
Are Antarctic air temperatures increasing or decreasing? Are the Southern Ocean sea surface temperatures increasing or decreasing?
Once again, Ian, where do you see a conflict between AGW and the dynamics of ice mass in Antarctica?
oh.....oh.....oh.....to all of the controversies let me say.........Crick honestly believes that skeptics are lying, and always lie. Even when we use the same data as the warmers, and sometimes the warmers exact words.
It must be difficult to keep a logical sequence in your head when it matters more who states the information rather than the validity of the information.
The OP shows how Antarctic ice mass estimates have gone through considerable changes. The Consensus side says they are lower so that must be true. But the skeptics also say it is lower so it must be a lie! What is poor crick to do?
AR4 claimed larger losses but more uncertainty, AR5 claims greater certainty but forgets to publicize the newer figures. So crick remembers the old figures but updates the new uncertainty level. He is happy and there is no paradox in his mind.
The Antarctic ice loss is completely comprised of adjustments for rebound, often turning positive gain into a negative trend. But this does not concern our intrepid warmer who knows in his heart that anytime now the data will turn around and prove his fears to be real.
Recall the predictions of increased precipitation in the Antarctic? I do. And I've mentioned them here repeatedly. What does increased precipitation in Antarctic give you? More ice mass. How does Antarctica lose ice mass? Through glaciation. What has been happening for the last 30 years with Antarctica's glaciers? Acceleration via increased melt and the destruction of the coastal ice sheets that were bottling them up. What have water temperatures around Antarctica done over the last several decades? Warmed up. What has happened with the grounding line of the WAIS Ian? It's retreated miles and miles and miles and miles. And what has happened as a result of that retreat? The entire WAIS has destabilized and is slowly crumbling. Has that stopped? Will increasing ice mass stop it? No and no.
Where, exactly, Ian, do you see some conflict between AGW and the dynamics of ice mass in Antarctica?
Did you read the OP? What did it say about the grounding lines of the WAIS? What citation did it give?
Are Antarctic air temperatures increasing or decreasing? Are the Southern Ocean sea surface temperatures increasing or decreasing?
Once again, Ian, where do you see a conflict between AGW and the dynamics of ice mass in Antarctica?
God, you're boring!
Have you read up on any of this?
If you won't read my link you could at least read the Bamber article at Real Climate. There are sooooo many interesting aspects to this subject and you refuse to discuss any of them.
Your answer is always the same. Consensus.
Mamooth's answer is always the same. Conspiracy.
Don't you guys ever have any independent thoughts??????
So that means Greenland is melting much faster than previously thought.
Everything is interconnected.
If mass loss from the great ice sheets is less than assumed then it is impossible to reconcile the amount of sea level rise that is claimed.
That is one of the major problems with climate science.
There is too much adjusting of methodology to produce a result that is coherent with other results.
Zwally is a die hard warmist.
That is probably why it took so long to produce a paper that went against the grain of CAGW.
You can bet that he spent years trying to find a way to bring the results back into line.
And failed.
He finally had to let the cat out of the bag and publish the disappointing results.
