New Study Details 16 Years of Ice Sheet Loss

[Crick]

Ice loss in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) dwarfs minute gains in East Antarctica and Greenland has lost almost twice as much. Here, of course, is where our deniers start yammering about volcanoes under the ice.

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

and

| EarthSky

Using satellite data, scientists have made precise, detailed maps of how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have changed over 16 years. How the maps were made, and what they tell us.

earthsky.org

 

[gipper]

Too much ice at the poles, could cause a geomagnetic pole reversal. We don’t want that.

 

[Dekster]

Since we don't have any woolly mammoth to leave under the ice to prank future generations with when the ice returns, what should we salt the areas with instead? Justin Beiber CD's and coroanvirus victims?

 

[DGS49]

So what?

Nothing done in the United States can have any impact on this phenomenon, ever. So what is the point of implying that "we" need to do something about it? Do we need to do something about earthquakes? Tides? Volcanic eruptions? Rain? Wind?

If everyone in the United States, Western Europe, and Japan completely unplugged, parked our cars, stopped heating our homes in winter and cooling them in summer, and started a new life of organic subsistence farming, it would have NO MEASURABLE EFFECT on the climate.

So what, exactly, is your point in posting this?

 

[depotoo]

16 years out of how many?

 

[ReinyDays]

Haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw ...

The link in the OP claims sea levels rose 14 mm over the past 16 years due to ice cap melt ... 0.88 mm/yr ... so by Year 2100, that's 70 mm, 2-3/4 inches ... inches ... Lord have mercy on our heathen souls ...

Oh ... forgot ... including that evil booger-man "Acceleration", we'll see 5-1/2 inches of rise ... billions dead, 99% of cities destroyed, polar bears miscegenating brown bears, Bill Clinton IV as President, Kansas City Chiefs win their first Super Bowl in 80 years ... Madonna wins the Nobel Prize in Literature ...

... too funny ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

What is really funny is the insignificant loss rate in percentage of total mass, which the article carefully avoids mentioning, they concentrated on these misleading statements instead:

"The study found that Greenland’s ice sheet lost an average of 200 gigatons of ice per year, and Antarctica’s ice sheet lost an average of 118 gigatons of ice per year."

"How much ice is that? One gigaton of ice is enough to fill 400,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools or cover New York’s Central Park in ice more than 1,000 feet (300 meters) thick, reaching higher than the Chrysler Building."

No mention of actual percent loss versus estimated total mass of the ice fields. Thus it seem scary when they use those misleading size swimming pools as a comparision, when it is actually only a tiny fraction of the mass loss, over a small frame of time.

It appears that Crick has been mislead once again.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Ice loss in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) dwarfs minute gains in East Antarctica and Greenland has lost almost twice as much. Here, of course, is where our deniers start yammering about volcanoes under the ice.

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

and

| EarthSky

Using satellite data, scientists have made precise, detailed maps of how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have changed over 16 years. How the maps were made, and what they tell us.

earthsky.org

How much do we need to raise taxes by to fix this?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ice loss in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) dwarfs minute gains in East Antarctica and Greenland has lost almost twice as much. Here, of course, is where our deniers start yammering about volcanoes under the ice.

Science | AAAS

science.sciencemag.org

and

| EarthSky

Using satellite data, scientists have made precise, detailed maps of how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have changed over 16 years. How the maps were made, and what they tell us.

earthsky.org

How come that article doesn't bother to tell us how much mass is gained in East Antarctica?

From the paper,

East Antarctic ice shelves gained 106 ± 29 Gt a−1

bolding mine

That was the SHELVES only, what about the interior?

Misleading as usual.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Which is better ALL 40 years of sea ice data or just a small 16 year sample......

No Tricks Zone

Polar Ice Surprises! Svalbard Well Over Average, Arctic Ice Remains Steady, Antarctic Ice Growing

By P Gosselin on 28. April 2020

Excerpt:

Polar ice showing longer term stability. No basis for behind claims of a rapid melt.

By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin

We keep hearing how the ice at the poles is supposedly disappearing rapidly, yet a look at the latest data show this is not the case. Polar ice has remained steady for the last decades.

Antarctic rebounding, trending upwards

Antarctic ice has in fact trended upwards since satellite measurement began 40 years ago.

Data: JMA.

LINK

 

[mamooth]

Which is better ALL 40 years of sea ice data or just a small 16 year sample......

Why are you switching the topic to sea ice, when the article is about ice sheets and grounded ice shelves? They're very different things, you know.

In any case, Antarctic sea ice levels are now dropping fast as well. Way back around 1980, Dr. Suki Manabe predicted (by models) that the Antarctic Sea Ice would initially expand, due to water freshening from meltwater runoff, but eventually rising temperatures would cause the Antarctic sea ice to decline. That's exactly what happened. Once more, the models were spot on.

How come that article doesn't bother to tell us how much mass is gained in East Antarctica?

It does.

---
Compared with a compilation of mass-change estimates for a similar time span (2002-2017) (2), our Antarctic estimates are consistent (within reported errors) for the Antarctic Peninsula and for the whole ice sheet, but significantly more positive for East Antarctica (90 + 21 vs. 2 + 37 Gt a−1) and significantly more negative for West Antarctica (–169 + 10 vs. –124 + 27 Gt a−1).
---

You seem to be shouting "I DIDN'T ACTUALLY READ THE PAPER! I JUST WENT STRAIGHT TO PROPAGANDA MODE!".

I wonder why this simple statement of a mass balance triggered you so badly. It's not like you gain anything by giving out fake low estimates of Antarctic ice sheet loss. Whatever your estimates are, the world will still see the same sea level increase. That sea level rise has to come from something, so you'll have to come up with a theory to explain it, one that doesn't include Antarctic ice loss. Since that's contrary to reality, it will end up being even dumber theory than your current theories. (see: "IT'S VOLCANOES!").

 

[Crick]

Which is better ALL 40 years of sea ice data or just a small 16 year sample......

No Tricks Zone

Polar Ice Surprises! Svalbard Well Over Average, Arctic Ice Remains Steady, Antarctic Ice Growing

By P Gosselin on 28. April 2020

Excerpt:

Polar ice showing longer term stability. No basis for behind claims of a rapid melt.

By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin

We keep hearing how the ice at the poles is supposedly disappearing rapidly, yet a look at the latest data show this is not the case. Polar ice has remained steady for the last decades.

Antarctic rebounding, trending upwards

Antarctic ice has in fact trended upwards since satellite measurement began 40 years ago.

View attachment 332570
Data: JMA.

LINK

Who the fuck is KiryeNet? Let's try a few other sources

This is from IMBIE 2012, a collaboration between ESA and NASA (Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise)

These are from Proceedings of the National Academy of Science

Data from NASA's GRACE satellite

Cumulative Ice mass loss for both Antarctica and Greenland from the European Environmental Agency

Get the drift? Antarctica is losing ice mass. It's coastal ice sheets are thinning and crumbling. The isostatically depressed basins making up most of the East and West Antarctic Ice Sheet fundament have creating an unstable situation. As sea water intrudes further and further under the ice sheet, its catastrophic collapse on both sides now has become unstoppable. At some point in the next century and a half, both basins will get released into the Southern Ocean and, in a period as short as a single decade, global sea level will rise by as much as ten meters. This will flood the homes and cities of hundreds of millions to billions of people.

 

[Crick]

After much searching, I found no trace of anything named KiryeNet. I did, however, find the data. This is copied from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) Climate Change Monitoring Report (CCMR) from 2018. These data originate from the NASA GRACE satellite. Japan Meteorological Agency

2.9.1 Sea ice in Arctic and Antarctic areas (Figures 2.9-1, 2.9-2, 2.9-3) Sea ice is formed when sea water in the Arctic and Antarctic freezes. As the albedo (reflection coefficient) of sea ice is greater than that of the ocean surface, sea ice extent reductions caused by global warming result in more solar energy absorption at the surface, which in turn accelerates global warming. Sea ice also affects deep-ocean circulation because the expelled salt as it forms increases the salinity (and therefore the density) of the water below it causing the water to sink. It is virtually certain that there has been a long-term trend of decrease in sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean since 1979, when continuous monitoring of sea ice using satellite sensors with similar properties started (statistically significant at a confidence level of 99%). In particular, the reduction in the annual minimum extent is notable. The rate of decrease in the annual minimum up to 2018 was 0.089 × 10 6 km2 per year. Meanwhile, it is extremely likely that there has been a long-term trend of increase at a rate of 0.015 × 10 6 km2 per year in the annual mean sea ice extent in the Antarctic Ocean (statistically significant at a confidence level of 95%). However, values observed since 2016 have been lower than normal (Figure 2.9-1).

THIS much lower than normal

The figure shows Antarctic sea ice concentration on February 20 2018. The red lines represent the normal sea ice edge for the relevant days.

Keep in mind the difference between sea ice extent and continental ice mass gain or loss. They are very different measured parameters with very different (but related) controlling processes.

 

[Crick]

As Mamooth (and others) pointed out, an expansion of Antarctic sea ice extents was predicted as was an eventual turn around. This is precisely what is shown here. Antarctica and the Arctic are very different configurations. One is an ocean surrounded by land, the other is a continent surrounded by ocean. As warming sea water and and atmosphere have thinned the ice shelf, its breakup has dramatically accelerated with the collapse of numerous large sections. Since the shelf acted as a cap to the glacially flowing ice sheets ashore, their removal has accelerated the movement of those sheets, beyond five-fold in some areas (Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers for example). The result has been a large and growing mass loss to the continent and the subsequent accelerating increase in sea level. The land below these large ice sheets has been isostatically depressed below sea level. As a result, intruding sea water is moving under the sheet and will eventually release the entire basin's ice to the sea. The final collapse of these regions is very likely to be catastrophic and will cause disastrous global flooding. Happy?

 

[Dr Grump]

Where are all the smart arses and Neville Nobody's now??