Ooops! New NASA study: Antarctica isn’t losing ice mass after all !

From the “settled science” department and former chief alarmist Jay Zwally, who for years had said the Arctic was in big trouble (only to have his prediction falsified), comes this Emily Litella moment in climate science: “Never mind!”. Curiously, WUWT reported back in 2012 about an ICEsat study by Zwally that said: ICESAT Data Shows Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses. I surmise that with the publication of this second study, the original is now confirmed. I suppose John Cook will have to revise his “Denial 101” video on Antarctica now.

antarctica-ice-map

This map shows the rates of mass changes from ICESat 2003-2008 over Antarctica. Sums are for all of Antarctica: East Antarctica (EA, 2-17); interior West Antarctica (WA2, 1, 18, 19, and 23); coastal West Antarctica (WA1, 20-21); and the Antarctic Peninsula (24-27). A gigaton (Gt) corresponds to a billion metric tons, or 1.1 billion U.S. tons. CREDIT: Jay Zwally/ Journal of Glaciology

From the NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER via press release:

NASA study: Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally.

“If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.

Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods. They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.

“At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.

The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.

Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

“The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica,” said Ben Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally’s study.

“Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to be done independently to understand what’s happening in these places,” Smith said.

To help accurately measure changes in Antarctica, NASA is developing the successor to the ICESat mission, ICESat-2, which is scheduled to launch in 2018. “ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil,” said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. “It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica’s mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes.”

###

Source: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/

In a piece at Nature News, Zwally has said:

“Parts of Antarctica are losing mass faster than before,” says Jay Zwally, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of a paper to appear in theJournal of Glaciology1. “But large parts have been gaining mass, and they’ve been doing that for a very long time.”

The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes.

“I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.

Gee, thanks.

The study:

Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses

Abstract:

Mass changes of the Antarctic ice sheet impact sea-level rise as climate changes, but recent rates have been uncertain. Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1. European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data (1992–2001) give a similar gain of 112 ± 61 Gt a–1. Gains of 136 Gt a–1 in East Antarctica (EA) and 72 Gt a–1 in four drainage systems (WA2) in West Antarctic (WA) exceed losses of 97 Gt a–1 from three coastal drainage systems (WA1) and 29 Gt a–1 from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP). EA dynamic thickening of 147 Gt a–1 is a continuing response to increased accumulation (>50%) since the early Holocene. Recent accumulation loss of 11 Gt a–1 in EA indicates thickening is not from contemporaneous snowfall increases. Similarly, the WA2 gain is mainly (60 Gt a–1) dynamic thickening. In WA1 and the AP, increased losses of 66 ± 16 Gt a–1 from increased dynamic thinning from accelerating glaciers are 50% offset by greater WA snowfall. The decadal increase in dynamic thinning in WA1 and the AP is approximately one-third of the long-term dynamic thickening in EA and WA2, which should buffer additional dynamic thinning for decades.

Full study: OPEN SOURCE

zwally-antarctica-study (PDF)

452 thoughts on “Ooops! New NASA study: Antarctica isn’t losing ice mass after all !

  1. At the end, he says the usual shibboleth to remain in the good graces of people totally without grace.

    • Jay Zwally had his predictions falsified. No IPCC type issues predictions anymore; they issue PROJECTIONS – almost same for most people, but with an important legal distinction. A projection can not be falsified, at least in the U.S.

      • There is a little more to it. A model when used to extend beyond initial conditions provides a projection. Almost all GCM projections show warming trends. When observations validate a model, then it may be a predictive tool.

        In Texas this week, validated weather models called for light rain. Many areas received over 9 inches.

      • I saw a forecast for over a foot of rain a couple of days before it happened, and in the correct region too.
        Just sayin’.

      • Thanks WATTSUPWITHTHAT for the coverage of this new science. Re “chief alarmist’s” previous “prediction falsified”, I say not really. My quote in 2007 was “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of the summer by 2012, much sooner than previous predictions.” What actually happened is that at the end of summer 2012, the ice volume was down to 25% of what it was in the 1980’s (about 50% decrease in thickness and 50% decrease in area), which is a serious reduction with yearly ups and downs on a downward trend.

      • “Today’s Arctic ice extent vs previous years:”
        Hi dbstealy. Since you brought up Arctic sea ice here, just to let you know I am still on for the bet I proposed earlier. To recap, you said Arctic sea ice was growing, I said it was shrinking. I offered a bet that if the average of the next three years minimum was less than the average of the last 3 years minimum I would win, if it was more, you would win.

        You turned it down on the basis that short term variations were unpredictable, and because I didn’t offer you better odds.

        That is a cop out. I am playing the odds. If the ice is shrinking, I am more likely to win – not certain to win, but more likely. If the ice is growing you are more likely to win. I am prepared to back my odds, yet you are not prepared to back yours. It is as if I offered a bet that the next dice throw was going to be a 6. Sure, I might win, but it would be a good bet for you to take. If you are convinced the ice is growing, then a total of 6 year span is long enough to give you better than even odds. Because this is not a certainty I suggest a relatively small, symbolic sum.

        Anyway, I won’t get into a long discussion here. Just say if you want to take it or not.

    • I am so sad. Here are the ooops! and oops! found on WUWT website via Giggle search engine.

      Jokes aside, this is bad. It could be worse than I previously thought!

      oops! 5,720 results from Giggle .

      ooops! 891 results Giggle.

      What about the “oh noes?”

      I know these people are dazed and confused.

    • Below are three quotes that contradict themselves and reveal the lie. Truth has no contradiction.

      1. Zwally said … “that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods.”

      2. “At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.

      3. Zwally notes “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.”

      • C’mon, ferdberple. It’s all ferpectly clear.

        Global warming leads to more snow on Antarctica, and thus more ice. Global warming melts the ice. Since there is more of it, there is more to melt. This means the sea level will rise. This means we’re doomed. Which is what I’ve been saying all along.

      • Zwally done screwed up, he used “climate warming” instead of “climate change”. Now he’s on the “list”.

      • Yes, the author kind of lost me as well when it was suggested that snow which fell 10,000 yrs ago is just now being added to the ice. No indication of where this snow might have been residing for those 10,000 yrs, or why it is only now being added to the ice.
        Maybe need to reread this.

      • I see nothing contradictive with this statement, to wit:

        2. “At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.

        During the last glacial maximum of/at 22,000 years ago (@ end of the last Ice Age) there was surely not very much H2O vapor in Antarctica’s atmosphere to be deposited as snowfall. Thus it would not require very much of an increase in moisture to “double the amount of snowfall” during the post-glacial (interglacial) warming period.

      • ferdberple
        October 31, 2015 at 4:11 pm
        …….
        1. Zwally said … “that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods.”

        Here are some recent observation on East Antarctica from 2012 to 2014

        Abstract – 2 NOV 2012
        Snowfall-driven mass change on the East Antarctic ice sheet
        An improved understanding of processes dominating the sensitive balance between mass loss primarily due to glacial discharge and mass gain through precipitation is essential for determining the future behavior of the Antarctic ice sheet and its contribution to sea level rise. While satellite observations of Antarctica indicate that West Antarctica experiences dramatic mass loss along the Antarctic Peninsula and Pine Island Glacier, East Antarctica has remained comparably stable. In this study, we describe the causes and magnitude of recent extreme precipitation events along the East Antarctic coast that led to significant regional mass accumulations that partially compensate for some of the recent global ice mass losses that contribute to global sea level rise. The gain of almost 350 Gt from 2009 to 2011 is equivalent to a decrease in global mean sea level at a rate of 0.32 mm/yr over this three-year period.
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053316/abstract
        =================

        Abstract – 7 JUN 2013
        Recent snowfall anomalies in Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica, in a historical and future climate perspective
        Enhanced snowfall on the East Antarctic ice sheet is projected to significantly mitigate 21st century global sea level rise. In recent years (2009 and 2011), regionally extreme snowfall anomalies in Dronning Maud Land, in the Atlantic sector of East Antarctica, have been observed. It has been unclear, however, whether these anomalies can be ascribed to natural decadal variability, or whether they could signal the beginning of a long-term increase of snowfall. Here we use output of a regional atmospheric climate model, evaluated with available firn core records and gravimetry observations, and show that such episodes had not been seen previously in the satellite climate data era (1979). Comparisons with historical data that originate from firn cores, one with records extending back to the 18th century, confirm that accumulation anomalies of this scale have not occurred in the past ~60 years, although comparable anomalies are found further back in time. We examined several regional climate model projections, describing various warming scenarios into the 21st century. Anomalies with magnitudes similar to the recently observed ones were not present in the model output for the current climate, but were found increasingly probable toward the end of the 21st century.
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50559/abstract
        =================

        Abstract2014
        High-resolution 900 year volcanic and climatic record from the Vostok area, East Antarctica
        …..The strongest volcanic signal (both in sulfate concentration and flux) was attributed to the AD 1452 Kuwae eruption, similar to the Plateau Remote and Talos Dome records. The average snow accumulation rate calculated between volcanic stratigraphic horizons for the period AD 1260–2010 is 20.9 mm H2O. Positive (+13%) anomalies of snow accumulation were found for AD 1661-1815 and AD 1992-2010, and negative (-12%) for AD 1260-1601. We hypothesized that the changes in snow accumulation are associated with regional peculiarities in atmospheric transport.
        http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/843/2014/tc-8-843-2014.html

      • You missed:

        “A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.”

        One is left wondering how increased accumulation correlates with thinning glaciers. Curious minds want know.

  2. But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally.

    Ah well, must still be worse than we thought then.

    • Or it might not reverse at but start gaining at at increasing rate.
      See, I have just as much credibility as he does at this prediction game.

    • Here’s a related quote: “…the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

      But how can he say that snowfall will not increase to offset the losses? Don’t climate scientists still claim that increased warming will also increase evaporation and put more water vapor in the air? How do we know that won’t result in more snow being dumped on Antarctica?

    • ““It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica’s mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes.”
      Will it tip over?

      • Having all of that mass at the bottom of the Earth is what keeps us right side up.. Come on, basic physics, people

      • Joel,

        Your map is inside out. When I look upwards from my place, the world looks completely different.

        -Dwarf King.

      • It might be just me, but your comment is hilarious, since my very first introduction to Global Warming Scepticism involved me reading a book that forecast that Global Warming was going to tip the Antarctic Ice-Cap into the oceans.
        I had to research ‘Global Warming’ for a debate in a speaking club, and found three books in my Library’s reference section. The two believer books were irrational pseudo-science. The ‘ice-cap tip over’ one alleged there is a gigantic ocean under the Antarctic ice-cap. (Yes, there are lakes. No there is not an ocean.)
        The other believer book alleged deserts are dry because the sun burns away all the water.
        To my great relief, the other book there was ‘Still waiting for Greenhouse’ by the late great John Daly. Rational, scientific, a delight to read after the turgid new-age superstitions and ignorance of the previous books.

      • Oh please, everyone knows that Antarctica can’t tip over, after all Antarctica sits on the back of the 1st Turtle ….

    • “But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse”, according to Zwally.
      ==============
      Speculation on what might happen in the future isn’t science, it is science fiction.

      Imagine Einstein in 1905, proposing Special Relativity, had said: “as you go faster your clocks MIGHT run slower”. No one would know Einstein’s name today.

      Instead he said: “as you go faster your clocks WILL run slower, and here is the amount”. And while some scientists still see this as preposterous, other scientists tested Einstein’s prediction and found it to be true.

      And as a result, governments invented daylight saving time. this weekend we will fall back an hour, to synchronize our clocks with those clocks that have been running slower.

      • That’s the best comment I’ve seen in a long time! And the only explanation for why anyone would would want daylight saving time.

      • After 7 decades, my brain’s internal clock is slowing down. Relative to the clock and calendar in my kitchen, which haven’t changed pace, time to me is speeding up. Tempus fugit.

      • “And the only explanation for why anyone would would want daylight saving time.”

        Are you kidding?
        I am looking forward to getting an extra hour of sleep every morning for the next five months.

        And in Spring and Summer, I would rather have the daylight in the evening after work than have the sun rise at 4:30-5:00 AM in the morning.
        But that is just me.
        To me, it makes a lot of sense.

      • But the sun gets up an hour earlier when we go off of daylight saving time. This will certainly cause an increase in global warming. They should have thought about this before doing it.

      • Yes, we should have three or four hours of daylight savings time in winter. All the extra sun would counteract the cold, and we could have spring right after fall.

      • I don’t change my clocks, I live in Arizona, here in Arizona we are so backward that government doesn’t think we need to change our clocks twice a year. IT somewhat a pain since the rest of the world have no idea what time zone Arizona is in, and on to of the most don’t know the difference between MDT and MST. It just easier to tell them in the summer we are on Pacific time.

      • Mark Luhman, here in tropical Queensland, Australia we don’t change our clocks either. Rumour has it that a former Premier (head of state government) knew exactly where the sun shone from and he wasn’t getting up an hour earlier for anyone. :-)

      • ARIZONA: There is a reason they do not have daylight savings time: ME.

        I had to get up at 4:30am to catch my 5:00 am school bus! We lived on a ranch. When they began daylight savings time, way back in the early 1960’s, my bus driver and I went totally nuts. Getting up at 3:30 am was CHILD ABUSE. He had to rise at 2:45 am to pick me up!!!

        My dad knew Barry Goldwater very very well. I told Barry, my bus driver and I were going to drive to Phoenix to protest. Life Magazine back then had a reporter and photographer who were driving through Arizona when I began my protest and they did a story about me. The legislature yielded to us kids (there were other rancher kids who were inconvenienced too but none rose as early as I, by far!).

        So I was the main reason they changed Arizona to ‘no more daylight savings’ rule.

      • Don’t be silly, ferdberple, relativity doesn’t apply to us.
        It only applies to a man leaning out of a train carriage who shines a torch towards his twin brother who is riding in an elevator accelerating at g along a vector perpendicular to the train…towards Alpha Centuari.
        I rapidly concluded that such ridiculously far-fetched scenarios were unlikely to occur in real life.

        Meanwhile, back here in reality – I do feel that Antarctica is unfairly being accused of a crime that it has not yet commited. On the basis that it may potentially commit such a crime. Even though, according to ICEsat, it shows absolutely no inclination or tendency to do so. Perhaps, Zwally believes that he has developed precognitive crime solving skills. As seen in Minority Report.
        The accused stands as charged. Did you or did you not cause an acceleration of glacial melting and sea level rise on the night of 23rd June 2348?

      • Perth gave up Daylight Savings after a trial run a few years ago. Seems the extra hour of daylight faded the drapes too much.

      • I know the clock slowing is true as the digital clock in every car I’ve owned so far loses time about 1 minute every month and I only drive an average of 10 miles a day. Next time I drive to visit my mother which is 350 miles, I’ll check the time from my cell phone to the car before and after I arrive and see if my car clock lost a minute in the 6 hours of driving. My cell phone gets time from another non-moving source… automatically changes when I enter and leave Michigan so it will not be affected by movement. Either this or all car radio clocks are just bad.

      • Daylight Savings Time discussions always make me think of the story (possibly apocryphal) of an old Native American who, after hearing an explanation of the reason for Daylight Savings Time, remarked “Only a white man would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket and sew it to the bottom of a blanket and have a longer blanket.”

      • In Hawaii, our clocks run just fine. No need to mess with them twice a year. Don’t really have much use for them anyway.

  3. Zwally is doing what all good scientists do, let the data do the talking. Unlike most of the posters at this site he doesn’t have an agenda. Rather than disparaging him as a “climate alarmist” you should be praising him for his honesty.

    • Yeah sure.
      Did you read his caveat:

      ““I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.”

      • @ Luke, you remember back in 2002 when large ice sheets were breaking off. The projections/predictions were that by now the world would be flooded. The climate refugees, by the millions will die…. the only time they used the word will. Of course, the heartbreaking images of penguins stranded in ice cavities all do to global warming.

        Of course we’re jumping on this. It’s what every critic of CAGW has been saying for the last few years in spite of the rhetoric from CAGW. There was record ice extents and the warmest were still talking as if the ice was going to slide into the ocean any minute now, or it “could” by 2100. I wonder, did they get the boat out of the ice yet? The idiots believe there own stuff doesn’t stink.

    • L

      I would agree until this quote

      “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.

      My brain digests that as … my data says we are not losing ice mass, but in decades to come it will be bad.

      An appeal to fear (in this case the unknown) is not honest.

      • Yeah, Knute, so in summary, the message is always as follows:
        All the individual alarmist fears regarding ice loss, sea level rise, glaciers vanishing, coral reefs dissolving in acid etc etc, they may quite well turn out to be bullcrap, when examined up close and in detail.
        But, that mustn’t detract from the vision of apocalypse that has been industriously created by piling up all such bullcrap into a massive heap and calling the heap – “settled science”. ( all sarc)
        P.S. thanks for your words of support and encouragement, recently. WUWT – my favourite waste of time!!
        And it’s great to know that my comments were being read by at least one person!!

      • Frog

        I read far more than I comment (across multiple platforms) although I have been commenting alot lately here. One of the other things I recently noticed was your comment on “closet skeptics”. It stuck in my gray matter and I shared it over lunch today. It’s a powerful reminder that it is uncomfortable to hide an awareness once you know it. Some people say it creates illness from inner turmoil. Your story has resonated with others.

      • Re closet skeptics…I stopped worrying about criticism, and just bang the drum daily to everyone who will pay attention, and even plenty who would rather not.
        At some point the cognitive dissonance will become unbearable, and people will come to the truth in ones and bunches.

      • “All the individual alarmist fears regarding ice loss, sea level rise, glaciers vanishing, coral reefs dissolving in acid etc etc, they may quite well turn out to be bullcrap, when examined up close and in detail.
        But, that mustn’t detract from the vision of apocalypse that has been industriously created by piling up all such bullcrap into a massive heap and calling the heap – “settled science”.”

        This is brilliant…I love it!

        Each piece of evidence is wrong, but there is so much of it, that the story must be true.

    • Luke:

      You say

      Zwally is doing what all good scientists do, let the data do the talking.

      Really? You claim to think that?

      Zwally is reported to have said

      “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.

      Please say what “data” you think he is letting “do the talking” that makes him expect an effect to “kick in” at some unknown future date and with some unknown magnitude.

      Richard

      • uk(us):

        You must wait until it achieves moderation. If I repeat it then I anticipate the repeat would go into moderation, too.

        Richard

      • Come on, you used the “d*n**r” word, albeit in a quote !

        And concerning Zwally’s reasoning;
        If P (global warming) is true Then Q (Antarctica’s contribution to sea rise) is true
        But Q is not True, ergo, P is … oh dear – reality must still catch up with what I think reality is supposed to be like …

      • Johan:

        I did not ask about “Zwally’s reasoning”: if I wanted to know that then I would ask Zwally.

        I asked Luke for a specific explanation of his assertion, and I still hope to obtain that explanation. If Luke fails to answer my request then everybody can ponder the veracity of Luke’s assertion.

        Richard

      • RC

        Considering the sheer number of similar questions to Luke (including myself), I’d say he feels persecuted.

        Made me ponder. In the eyes of a true believer, when a reasercher puts out data that counters the melting claim they applaud him for his moment of honesty. They then use him as an example of their integrity.

        It’s a momentary moral high ground counterpunch.

        A skeptic on the other hand zeros in on the last minute wiggle by the researcher who still a tosses out the red meat concerning COMING warming.

        Moral high ground for the warmist, red meat for the skeptic. Attention for the cause.

        Maybe that’s the intent of the article.
        If so, I just got baited.

        Hmmmmmm

      • Knute,

        “Moral high ground for the warmist, red meat for the skeptic. Attention for the cause.

        Maybe that’s the intent of the article.
        If so, I just got baited.”

        I suspect the man just realized that what he had detected was not going to be pleasing to the PTB, and he threw out some red meat as you put it, for them, so he wouldn’t be “eaten” by those whom it displeased.

      • It’s pretty simple. The fact that the rate of mass loss in west Antarctica is increasing a faster rate than the increase in mass across the rest of the continent. Those two lines will cross in the near future at which point ice loss from Antarctica will be contributing to sea level rise.

      • Luke:

        Thankyou for your answer to my question.

        I asked

        Please say what “data” you think he is letting “do the talking” that makes him expect an effect to “kick in” at some unknown future date and with some unknown magnitude.

        and you have replied by saying in total

        It’s pretty simple. The fact that the rate of mass loss in west Antarctica is increasing a faster rate than the increase in mass across the rest of the continent. Those two lines will cross in the near future at which point ice loss from Antarctica will be contributing to sea level rise.

        OK. I accept that you think those extrapolations are the data which causes Zwally to expect the effect he observes will reverse.

        Assuming your thought is correct, then Zwally is an incompetent scientist.
        1. Scientists often assume a trend may continue but NEVER “expect” it to.
        2. If it is assumed that the two trends will continue then the extrapolations would indicate when “those two lines would cross” and what their net effect would be after they crossed.

        However it is spun, the quotation from Zwally is a rejection of the indication of the data he has himself published but does not state why he rejects the indication.

        Richard

      • “It’s pretty simple. The fact that the rate of mass loss in west Antarctica is increasing a faster rate than the increase in mass across the rest of the continent. ”

        That is “simple”, it is also totally devoid of merit.
        West Antarctica is much smaller than the rest of the continent. Hence such a conclusion is without foundation.

        It’s like claiming I’m going to go broke because the rate of decline in the money in my wallet is much faster than the rate of increase of money in my bank account.

        When West Antarctica is devoid of ice, if the continent continues to accumulate ice then there will be no negative. In addition, there have been many studies showing ice loss in West Antarctica is dominated by geothermal factors.

      • I would agree that he had “let the data do the talking” IF he hadn’t put in that jab about “climate deniers”. He is not letting the data do the talking.

    • “Praise him for his honesty”? Funny, I thought scientists were supposed to be honest. And I guess we’re supposed to just ignore all the Alarmist hype and spin he includes, shut up and be grateful for the bone he threw?

      • Yep,

        if someone needs praise for being honest, or if someone suggests to praise the honesty of another, it sure says something about that someone’s moral scale.

        Honesty is something that should be expected/demanded, don’t you think so Luke?

        (and by the way, with all of his caveats and disclaimers, Mr. Zwally is by no means being honest)

    • No, he’s not letting the data to the talking. He assumes global warming is true, ergo, “Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear”. But the data tell us “Antarctica is not contributing to sea-level rise”. What does that say about the initial assumption?

      • It tells that insiders can’t let the data talk, they need to declare their tribal binding, their ‘gospel’ of apocalypse, they need to tell they are not alarmism skeptic even when they publish totally unalarming results.

        You can’t be working in NASA in top position and be openly non-alarmist. The pattern is seen so often. ‘Don’t shoot the messenger, and besides, I’m one of you alarmists.’

      • He is looking at the trends in loss from west Antarctica and the accumulation over the rest of the continent and projecting into the future.

      • “He is looking at the trends in loss from west Antarctica and the accumulation over the rest of the continent and projecting into the future.”

        Translation: He is ignoring what is actually known and inserting what he imagines should happen in CAGW fantasy-land into his conclusions instead.

      • Luke says…

        “He is looking at the trends in loss from west Antarctica and the accumulation over the rest of the continent and projecting into the future.”

        More like this….the Antarctica disaster forecasts continue to fail as they have failed for 30 years. Zwally makes excuses and pushes the forecast into the future.

        A warmer earth for 10,000 years has failed to melt Antarctica. Count me as a skeptic that suddenly in 20 years, a couple of trend lines will cross and the big melt down will start raising sea level 6m by 2100.

        Disaster forecasts work great as long as you can keep them in the future.

    • Luke, this has not been about Science since Hansen turned off the air conditioning in the Senate hearings…about the same length as the Pause. It is about politics, pure and simple. Oh, and propaganda and agitprop.

      • I always wondered how Hanson could have actually turned off the AC in the capital without getting himself arrested. Im sure if you or I tried such a thing we would have been prosocuted as terrorists.

      • Now that was a criminal act to lie before congress and to have the gall to shut off the windows AND open the windows to foster a lie.

    • Luke,

      “Rather than disparaging him as a “climate alarmist” you should be praising him for his honesty.”

      I don’t understand your (to my mind) implication that “climate alarmist” is a disparaging/pejorative term, basically equivalent to terms like “climate skeptic/denier”. It seems obvious to me that “climate alarmists” exist, in the real world, whereas I doubt there exists even a single “climate skeptic” (let alone denier) on Earth.

      One term seems descriptive in a rational/realistic and accurate way, the other describes no one . . and insults everyone it is applied to . . I see no “equivalence”.

      • “Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them … Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival … But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses …”

    • “Rather than disparaging him as a “climate alarmist” you should be praising him for his honesty.”

      Oh, so someone being merely honest is cause enough for praise?
      Besides for this statement being a tacit acknowledgement that most of them are not, I dispute your contention that someone being honest is cause for praise.
      Rather, it she be taken as a given that someone in a position of trust is scrupulously honest.
      Do you praise your friends as they leave your house after a visit if none of them have stolen anything from you while they were visiting?

      • “Do you praise your friends as they leave your house after a visit if none of them have stolen anything from you while they were visiting?”

        Good question.

      • My media relations manager friend tells me this is a common strategy for delivering nonconforming news.

        It sends the message, that hey, look we are honest. Muffles the blow to the agenda. He advises that the counter reply is … esp to the unfounded projection of bad things to come ..

        We are happy to see you being straight about incriminating information. It indeed demonstrates that you are open minded to the strong possibility that you are wrong.

        He then adds …

        That’s when you introduce other nonconforming information and pound away while constantly but gently reminding that honest information is what WE are all about.

    • bollocks. how about he takes this as a lesson. actually make an attempt at measuring stuff for future projects. just maybe they will start actually getting something right as is shown in this case. all the doom and gloom was based on the continual churn of nonsense from computer models, models that were fed nonsense to begin with by those anxious to remain attached to the tax payer teat.

    • luke we can thank him for publishing his results rather than massaging his data. Good for him. However it is just a little too much to ask that those who have been pointing out for some time that the numbers don’t add up not to enjoy watching Zwally have his humble pie. He will either do that gracefully or petulantly but he has a slice to eat.

    • Thanks for the comment. We spent a lot of time checking and rechecking our results. The paper also provides specifics on why other results have differed from ours, some of which was requested by reviewers. Jay Z

      • Hi Jay.

        Can you give a brief answer on the specifics of the other results or a link to them…Or both. And maybe answer the question so many have wondered about previously: Why you assume that we should be worried?

        Thanks

    • “…Zwally is doing what all good scientists do, let the data do the talking…”

      Sure thing. Like when he said, “I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.” Yep, not an agenda-driven opinion there…that’s data talking, lol.

  4. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this…”
    A statement like that shows the depths to which climate science has fallen. He could have just published good work and let the work speak for itself but he is so immersed in the activist cause that he cannot leave the house without trying to kick the dog.

      • Absolutely NOT. As a scientist, I publish peer-review papers in scientific journals. I also make comments on the policy implications of the science and provide interpretations of the science that are more understandable for non-scientists and the general public. At times I have been criticized as being an alarmist (or so immersed in the activist cause) and other times as being too conservative in my views.

        Jay Z

      • Ok Jay Z, I’ll bite…let’s see an example of where you were criticized as being too conservative in your views.

      • Jay Zwally,

        “At times I have been criticized as being an alarmist (or so immersed in the activist cause) and other times as being too conservative in my views.”

        Are you skeptical about there being a climate crisis? If not, why not?

    • “It takes time for the young baby ice to reach maturity.”

      Unlike “climate scientists”, who reach old age in a state of complete immaturity…behaving like a bunch of spoiled rotten brats who are not allowed to be proven wrong because their mommy said so!

      Or like the cheese they use to make those crackers:

  5. “If the losses …….. continue to increase at the same rate”

    If the sun continues to set….they know about that much

    “from fast-flowing glaciers”…..and what makes them fast flow?……idiots

    “It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica’s mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes.”…no it won’t…..sane people will just have to hear more of “if this trend continues” crap, every time there’s a hiccup

  6. Antartica ‘gaining mass’ means it is lowering sea level… And that likely means that wells and groundwater extraction now the are the #1 cause of sea rising, followed by ocean thermal expansion and melting glaciers.

    From May 2012:

    “observed sea-level rise between 1961 and 2003. Of that amount, the extraction of groundwater for irrigation and home and industrial use, with subsequent run-off to rivers and eventually to the oceans, represents the bulk of the contribution.”
    http://www.nature.com/news/source-found-for-missing-water-in-sea-level-rise-1.10676

    • “And that likely means that wells and groundwater extraction now the are the #1 cause of sea rising, followed by ocean thermal expansion and melting glaciers.”

      And silt deposits, right?

    • From May 2012:

      “observed sea-level rise between 1961 and 2003. Of that amount, the extraction of groundwater for irrigation and home and industrial use, with subsequent run-off to rivers and eventually to the oceans, represents the bulk of the contribution.”
      http://www.nature.com/news/source-found-for-missing-water-in-sea-level-rise-1.10676

      in addition to the extra water (fossil rain??) pumped out and put into the ocean, it also results in land subsidence–appearing as sea level rise. Places along the gulf coast have dropped by many inches if not feet since we started removing the various liquid resources from deep under ground.

    • Interesting article. The first paragraph sums up the numbers quite nicely. Just how many lawns do we need in the deserts of the South West Americas anyway?

      1.1mm/year from sources attributed to global warming (or warming caused by increase in greenhouses caused by humans)
      0.7mm/year from human water use

  7. “there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for”

    Not really. This means that the GIA correction for the Southern Ocean is not only wrong, but even has the wrong sign. It has always been assumed that the EAIS (Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet) has been gradually shrinking during the Holocene and that the ocean bottom around Antarctica is rising as material flows slowly back as the weight on Antarctica decreases. Now apparently the EAIS has been growing throughout the Holocene which mean that material is flowing from Antarctica and raising the ocean bottom (=sea level) instead.
    It is already known that ICE-5G, the “consensus” GIA (Global Isostatic Adjustment) model, has a very bad fit compared to the few actual GPS altitude measurement sites in an around Antarctica but clearly it is even worse than we thought!

    • PS

      for
      “the ocean bottom around Antarctica is rising as material flows slowly back… ”

      read
      “the ocean bottom around Antarctica is sinking as material flows slowly back..”.

    • tsk tsk your heart really isn’t into climate science, is it? Everything bad that happens is by definition the fault of global warming.

  8. Does anyone really give a hoot if ESTIMATES of the Antartic ice change by an inch?

    First, it has always changed and always will. Second, we can’t actually estimate the amount of ice with any great precision. And, third, it really doesn’t matter. Even the penguins don’t care!

    If we allow the warmists to convince us that this nonsense is important, we’ve lost the war.

    • They are not trying to convince you, they are trying to convince the administrators that are responsible for the budgets, and the politicians that supply the administrators with the funds.

      • ‘If we allow the warmists to convince us that this nonsense is important, we’ve lost the war.’

        DonM –

        1. They try to convince the people – the people of America elect Senate and President of America.

        2. They try to convince the world – the people of the world finance the UN and all other world wide organizations /incl. Churches/

        3. They try to convince god so god help them.

        Regards – Hans

      • are you really touting communism? the communist card was already played during the tobacco debate which the scientists just happened to be right about, cant play it twice, that’s cheating. took 50 years to get the tobacco companies to admit they lied. why is the oil industry any different from the tobacco industry? the pundits are the same after all.

    • On the contrary! The Emperor Penguins are the true rulers of this planet and they want it to be super duper cold or else. See?

  9. It’s -different- worse than we thought. I can hear it now. The heat has been hiding in the oceans and causing an accelerated rise in sea levels that was merely obscured by a transient Antarctic ice gain.

  10. “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
    Is half of the sea rise is an artifact of recalculation where isotatic rebound is added into the rise rate?
    If this is the case then the calculated SLR should be adjusted down by .30 mm a year.

    • So the net adjustment down would be .23 mm plus .30mm equals .53 mm for Antarctica.

      “[SLR} not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
      The question this raises is’ How reliable are the figures on SLR?’
      ‘What is the order of accuracy of these figures?’

    • “there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for”.
      O.K. I’ll have to come clean. That was me. Sorry about that. I didn’t think that anybody would notice.

    • “[SLR} not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
      ========================
      how about the butcher’s thumb on the scale? isn’t that the single most likely reason things don’t add up?

      My charts for the Pacific Ocean, drawn by Cook, Bligh, Vancouver and Flinders. They are hundreds of years old. They show sea levels to plus/minus 6 inches as they were at the time. They have datum corrections for WGS84 (GPS). But guess what. No correction for global sea level rise.

      And in the nearly 20 years we were out sailing (1984-2003), in thousands of different locations, these charts are still correct even to this day. And don’t think these charts are the exception or that they were crudely drawn. Most places on earth have never been resurveyed since the Age of Discovery. We rely on charts drawn mostly by iron men in wooden ships. They are accurate because the men that drew the charts knew lives depended on getting them right.

      If the charts drawn hundreds of years ago say a rock is drying at low tide, it is drying at low tide even today. It the charts says there is a reef with 1 fathom of water at low tide, the reef still has 1 fathom of water at low tide. If the charts day there is a rock awash at low tide, the rock is awash at low tide even today.

      If global sea level rise was really happening, if it wasn’t some sort of cyclical oscillation in sea level, then these charts should no longer be accurate. But they are. This tells me that sea level rise is mostly happening in ivory towers, in places where people who talk about sea level rise actually never spend time on the sea, and have no idea what the facts really are, or who are dealing with records that are for much too short a time scale to accurate tell what is happening.

      Image that you had 6 months of temperature data. Starting in January and ending in July. Predict what will happen for temperatures going forward. You would of course predict they were going to increase, because they had for most of the past 6 months. And for 1 or 2 months you might be correct, but they you would be very wrong. It is only when you have a long enough sample of data, like ocean charts going back hundreds of years, that you can see where the truth lies.

      • Knut:

        DARE you tell me you READ Lawrence of Arabia. Oh – the movie now is out on Blue Ray packed in a steelbook!

        Hans

    • same bit got me too,
      my explanation is the rise is simply from the amount of bullshit in the supposed “measurements”
      via “adjustments” to suit the fear factor they aim to generate
      just like all the other up down sideways rubbery figures

  11. Everyone knew the ice coverage in Antarctica has grown by just looking at satellite photos. Everyone also knew that it snows in Antarctica and that snow stays on the ice sheet. I am surprised they did not explain away the obviously mounting snow as not amounting to anything. I suppose they did with their, “It’s worse than we thought” claim about sea level.

    • They only have to maintain the facade for a couple more months. After that, the world will be “parisided”. GK

  12. What’s all this fuss I hear about fighting climbing chains?

    Who ever heard of such a stupid thing? Why, have you ever tried to go up a snowy mountain without climbing chains? It’s a sure way to have an accident or get stuck and freeze to death. With children in the car! And the children, they love going up the mountains in the snow to ski and have fun. What about the children? Why, if we didn’t have climbing chains all those kids would just be stuck freezing on the road or down over the side sliding and crashing and crying because their parents couldn’t use climbing chains.

    And another thing……..

    What? What? It’s “climate change?”
    Oh. Nevermind.

    We still miss you Gilda.

  13. Popular Prediction 101: Don’t make falsifiable predictions, or at least ones that can be falsified before you make your pension.

    So you have to admit, Zwally has learned something…

    Peter

  14. So little is known about the deeper 50% of the oceans. It is simply unscientific to promote miniscule level changes in a volume of liquid when the size and temperature properties of half of it are poorly known.
    I’d label it junk science.

    • So little is known about the deeper 50% of the oceans.
      ====================
      in fact, what is ignored is that the oceans of the earth do not end at the sea floor. the oceans extend sideways under the continents and deep into the earth’s crust. As the oceans approach the mantle they are heated into super critical steam.

      It is this pressure of steam under the oceans that stops them from sinking further. Without the heat from the earth’s core, the oceans would drain away and sink under their own weight until the earth was dry and without any water at the surface. It is the heat of the core that boils away the water within the earth, allowing it to condense on the surface to form oceans.

      And, like a wet finger on a hot iron, the layer of steam may also be what protects the crust of the earth from the heat of the mantle, insulating us from the mantle and the convection below.

  15. I haven’t read through the comments but did anybody catch the bias in the NASA article title:
    “Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses”

    Why not just say something like “Antarctic ice sheet mass has increased”?

    I bet dollars to doughnuts that there are already ‘scientists’ working on this looking for a data to adjust or a piece of equipment to blame. Won’t be surprised if we hear some time next year that the data was wrong.

    • Prior to publicizing the referenced study, Mr. Zwally himself probably had put together preliminary grant and/or budget requests to further study the significance of the conclusions.

    • West Antarctic peninsula is is losing mass and East Antarctic is gaining. The title of the article is a description of the body of the document and the document discusses both gains and losses and thus, the title is a balanced approached.

  16. Yesterday I was confused. I was digging into the GRACE analysis. And I happened to see some work from Zwally that seemed to be out of step with the consensus. Then I looked him up here at WUWT, and discovered that he was labelled “alarmist”.
    Yesterday, I was confused and today I’m even more confused.
    Now I am going to have to spend several hours de-confusing myself.
    Maybe Zwally is truly a genuine skeptical scientist (using the traditional definition of skeptical) who attempts to base his beliefs on the facts available.
    Maybe he is not tied to any particular mast.
    That may sound like a miracle. But some people do science for the sake of science.
    Whilst what they say publicly may be designed to allow them to continue doing the science.
    Nobody wants to be pointlessly crucified like Willie Soon.

    O.K. here is some fun. Take a look at everybody’s favourite reliable climatology blog – Skeptical Science Search for “zwally skepticalscience antartica gaining or losing ice” via google. And the first link should be an SkS page called “Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?” with page 3 of a huge number of comments below.
    Now that you have that page up, search the page for mention of “Zwally” using you browser.
    You will immediately discover that he is frequently mentioned in the comments. (14 times)
    Repeatedly, the comments are making a “comparison” between GRACE and Zwally’s estimate.
    Tactfully phrased “it will be interesting to find out how Zwally’s results compare to recent assessments using GRACE gravity satellites:”
    That was back in 2012. Well – it sure is interesting now!!!
    Of course trying to introduce skepticism and balance into SkS, is about as fruitless as trying to revive a corpse by beating it about the head with a brick.
    But the comments were polite and tactful and so they were allowed to stay.
    Is there is a big problem with GRACE.
    What do we know about that, so far?
    Can GRACE be SO wrong? If so, then why?

    • Grace mass balance studies depend on a model of how the land is rebounding or subsiding mostly from the last ice age.

      Most of the Grace studies used an old model that was not accurate.

      This was only discovered a few years ago when the results of many GPS stations on Antarctica became available.

      GPS showed Antarctica is rising about twice as fast as was assumed and this cut the Grace ice loss estimates by about two-thirds. Grace is still showing a net loss in ice mass balance after using the more accurate models but there is also an error margin which would include an increase in mass balance.

      I note that No one has yet used the new models based on GPS to re-estimate Greenland’s ice mass balance. There are Antarctic ice scientists and Greenland ice scientists and they stick to their own regions. Greenland’s numbers will likely be cut in half or more after the new glacial isostatic rebound models are used with Grace measurements.

      All this means the sea level estimates produced by the satellites have been adjusted upwards much too high based on expectations of sea level rise produced by ice melt on Antarctica and Greenland. The numbers are heavily adjusted of course.

      • Thanks Bill Illis. You should receive an award for explaining all that succintly and in plain English.
        I spent several hours reading around this topic and found no such easily comprehensible disclosure of the current status of the research and analysis.
        My immediately reaction to your comment – is “wow, could it really all come down to just this one massive consideration (rebound), plus or minus the known errors?”
        Really appreciated.

      • Yes, I thank you as well Bill Illis.
        I knew that the satellites must use some sort of algorithm (Maybe they accidentally used an Al Gore-ism when someone mis-heard their instructions? This is how the sweetener Sucralose was discovered: A lab worker misheard a colleague with a British accent tell her to “Test these samples, please”. She heard it as “Taste these samples, please”, and so tasted each one! True story…look it up. “Hey you, run that raw GRACE data through an Al Gore-ism”. “Right boss…that oughta do the trick *wink wink, nudge nudge*” “Quit poking me…and get your eyes checked…you seem to have some sort of a tic!”), and since it told a different story that the actual ” Steel pole imbedded in concrete” direct tide gauge measurements, I knew which data set I found more plausible.
        Sort of like how modeled temps in GCMs do not line up with radiosonde or unadjusted ground thermometer readings, and some people choose to somehow trust the models better than the actual measurements.
        It is really incredible that people are basing policy decisions, that have far reaching consequences for the well being of actual people, based on assumption-heavy models of spaced-based measurements, that purport to show changes in sea and land surface heights the thickness of a sheet of paper.

        I want a refund!

  17. “We all know that Goldilocks has a lot to say about the Three Bears. Everything they have is either too hot or too cold or too big or too lumpy or too hard or too soft or too completely, absolutely wrong. Only one of them can get anything right! Just right, that is. ”
    Somehow this quote seems as though it was intended as a cryptic description of the state of climate science. So stick me in a yellow wig and call me Goldilocks!!
    From: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3002250-the-3-bears-and-goldilocks

  18. I think the takeaway from this is that the changes are so slight that they can be interpreted in many ways. Even in the sign can change with interpretation. AWG enthusiasts say that the changes are “rapid” but the reality is that they’re rapid in terms of geological time scales not necessarily in time scales of life and so many of their worries on impacts are overstated.

  19. This site is becoming so slow that any coherent thought I had, dies on the vine while waiting for that window that actually lets me type.
    Or is that a feature ? :)
    Rant /

      • I switched from Safari to Firefox because my Safari didn’t always display WUWT properly and Firefox is much faster. It must be something in your settings because I have no issues with Firefox and it does many things better than Safari though I use Safari to do Apple thingys.

    • Try clearing your cache.

      WUWT is always fast for me on Windows laptop/desktop (Firefox), Ipad2 (Safari or Dolphin) or Android phone ( Chrome or Firefox).

      • I don’t want to start a whole thing here, but I generally visit about 20 websites a day.
        5 of them are from Anthony’s blog roll, the others are others.
        A few of the sites take 10-20 seconds to fully load (meaning that they scroll fine ).
        then they are fine.

        But WUWT is “always” hanging (you get that “busy” circle instead of the cursor ).
        WUWT ??
        (I clear the cache all the time, thanks for the tip).

      • Ok, now tell me why it took 20 seconds to get a cursor to get this typed.
        I’m running 2 monitors, live feed horse racing on one, and youtube music and facebook and WUWT on the other.
        But……..of all my other websites I visit, WUWT is the only one that is really,really slow.

      • For what it’s worth (admittedly not much), I haven’t noticed any change in WUWT, either in posting comments or loading the site (I use Safari).

      • u.k.(us) commented: “….But……..of all my other websites I visit, WUWT is the only one that is really,really slow.

        Really OT but when selected sites are slow it can be your dns server. WUWT is always up to speed for me. In the past I had issues with other sites like you and used https://www.opendns.com/ , It’s free and an easy tune that you won’t regret. DNS servers are everywhere and choosing the right one to optimize your system speed helps.

      • It is not the site u.k.(us), it is your internet connection in something in your machine. It may be related to the amount of info that has to load when you open a page here, or to the ads that are running, but with a fat enough connection and a cleared machine, it loads instantly.
        When I have the issue you are referring to, I click the safety tab, and check the ActiveXFiltering option, then refresh the browser (the little wheel in the navigation pane).
        This clears it up immediately.

    • Use a free program ( at Cnet ) called PeerBlock !!! You will be amazed at how many sites are trying to access your computer while on this web page !!

      • Guess why the internet was created and who did this!!!

        My dad was on way back in the beginning. He was part of the beginning, it was from day one a CIA/NASA/Department of Defense operation! I used to sneak into my dad’s office to use the system to talk to students at Berkeley and University of Chicago during the Vietnam War years under Nixon in the seventies. Until my dad caught me doing this.

      • I’m trying this on my android smartphone.
        No luck. Is there a setting in should check. I’ll take a help link and followthru …

        Tnx

    • I had this same problem with another website. I finally switched from IE to Chrome and the entire issue simply vanished. It’s a bit a a pain to switch browsers, but well worth it imo.

    • this was a warning shot from Gaia. if we don’t mend our wicked ways and reduce CO2 the next one will be on target.

      Reliable source predict Al Gore will propose “Preparation A” to protect us all from the ravages of Asteroids.

    • But there is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent it…so ignorance is bliss in a case like this? It’s like pretending when we are born we will live forever when in fact the moment we are born, and self aware, we are on the path to death. There is no escaping it. There is no adaption. It will happen.

      • I am still hoping the head-in-a-jar technique (a al Richard Nixon in the showed called Futurama) gets perfected before I kick the bucket.
        I want to be around to say I told ya so in the year 2100, then go dance on Gavin’s grave.
        Oh, wait…I will be a head in a jar…no dancing…aah crap.
        Never mind.

      • “Marcus

        November 1, 2015 at 1:54 am

        Being prepared will greatly increase your chances of surviving any disaster !!”

        And just how will you prepare for an asteroid strike? Move to Uranus?

      • And doing so on Halloween, of all days.
        I was not sure if it was some ill-timed April Fool’s Day gag at first.

    • Actually more. It is not only taking away 0.23 mm from ice growth, it is not adding the 0.27 mm that it was thought to be adding, so the actual difference is now 0.5 mm. Talk about error in the attribution for a settled science.

      • Absolutely Settled. There’s nothing unclear here, the picture is coming clearer and clearer. The sea level is rising because increasing humidity causes hurricanes which cause floods at the sea.

        Hey, it’s only logic!

  20. Stand by, the alarmist spin on this will be:

    “In a warming world, the increase in water evaporation is leading to rising humidity over the south pole and more snow fall. This is clearly indicated by the models.”

  21. It is becoming clear that in the topsy turvy world of climate science, everything that challenges the consensus must be dressed up as something which supports but guides the consensus.
    The boat must not be rocked. Not until the boat has sunk, with everybody on board.
    And here’s another example of sugar-coating a hand grenade:
    Cern’s CLOUD is an experiment investigating the impact of cosmic rays and aerosols on cloud formation.
    Hence, CLOUD has the potential to seriously challenge the consensus view that CO2 is responsible for “most” of the warming seen in the 20th C.
    But you would never guess this from watching this promotional animation, in which they obediently lick the bottom of the “consensus on climate change”.
    Everybody move along, nothing to see here:

  22. Frankly, if the temperature of the Antarctic rose by 5C, the ice would not melt. It’s consistently very cold down there.

    • But it is not warming in Antarctica. It is cooling.
      The AGW theory is in serious trouble because three of its main predictions have failed:
      1. More warming in the poles than in mid-latitudes: FAIL
      2. More warming in the atmosphere than in the surface: FAIL
      3. Linear increase in warming with the increase in CO2: FAIL
      If it is not discarded is for political reasons and for lack of a better contender. We do not understand mechanistically how the world has warmed so much in the last 150 years. With CO2 we could understand how the warming took place, but clearly it is the wrong explanation. Science doesn’t like to go from having a theory to not having any.

      • J

        “If it is not discarded is for political reasons and for lack of a better contender. We do not understand mechanistically how the world has warmed so much in the last 150 years. With CO2 we could understand how the warming took place, but clearly it is the wrong explanation. Science doesn’t like to go from having a theory to not having any.”

        Ah, a potential break in the weather (sorry, bad pun .. was spontaneous). What if, if the pillars to the charade start to collapse ?

        The True Believer loses what ?
        What would they lament the most ?

        Cleaner energy for the masses ?
        Inexpensive ?
        Refocus on fixing was is truly broken ?
        Power shift for the maestros ?

        Perhaps the pillars rot but the mess can be redirected towards salvaging the good of the remains ?

        Is there a crack to be pryed open ?

      • Far too many have staked far too much, and done so for far too long, to do any sort of abrupt about face now.
        Reputations are on the line.
        Careers are on the line.
        Pride is on the line.
        Money is on the line.
        Power is on the line.

        Warmistas have painted themselves in a very tight and inescapable corner, and many are still brushing away completely oblivious to this, while some others are seeing what is happening and attempting CYA and damage control and using various other coping mechanisms.
        There is no one mindset to alter, no single reason for being True Believers, and not even any way to know how many are being purposely duplicitous and how many of these honestly think the end justifies the means.

        It is a real mess alright, and if it is not, t will do until the real mess gets here.

      • The answer is easy and very obvious: THE SUN.

        Sigh. The sun heats up our planet and a lot of other things. It is a star but it is not totally stable and in the last 2 million years it has been rather unstable to a degree that is alarming to our little planet because we like to have stability not an increasingly variable star.

        This information is very scary which is why no one talks about it and why my father’s last paper, ‘The Sun Is A Variable Star’ was not published.

      • Abe, I am not sure why you posted the passage form Javier. If it was meant ironically, I have missed the point – blame Poe’s law.

        Javier has failed absolutely to understand the gas constant, R in the Ideal gas equation, PV=nRT. It refers to an ideal gas – the volume of the actual molecules is ignored and there are assumed to be no attractive forces between molecules.

        He is wrong on a point of detail that “Nitrogen and CO2 and Argon and Methane and Oxygen, ALL get IDENTICAL VALUES”
        The gas constant describes behaviour of ideal gases. It is a constant, and each gas gas does not “get” a value. The compounds listed are not in fact ideal gases, so each behaves differently and none of them follow the ideal gas law exactly. To describe the true behaviour of each of these gases, we need a more complex formula, such as the Van der Waals equation, which quantifies the molecular volume and the inter-molecular interactions. Thus the same amount of each of the gases will occupy a slightly different volume at the same temperature and pressure, unlike an ideal gas. Each gas gets a different value for two constants in this equation. Each real gas does not get identical values.

        More importantly, he is wrong because even if all gases were ideal, it only relates pressure to volume and temperature. It does not mean that all gases are the same, or will have the same absorption, or would reach the same equilibrium temperature given a particular radiation flux.

        The rest of it is equal rubbish. I ask Javier what happens to the temperature of his sphere if you allow the same amount amount if energy in, but prevent some of it leaving?

  23. “…his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat…”

    Used meteorological data? From where!? The Sahara?

    Who was tracking actual snowfalls in central Antarctica?

    OOOhmmm said the great swami Zwally. There was no big snow in Antarctica this year.

    • Big warmy-warmy come soon now, maybe soon later.
      Heap bad juju warmy-warmy.
      More snow come, then less snow come
      Big snow Little snow
      Soon, no snow come now
      Big warmy-warmy come now, come later, big water rise up, big water angry.
      Wind mojo, sun mojo, stop big warmy-warmy, big snow stay, big water happy.

  24. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

    Who knew that there must be something other than self-important humans that are causing the oceans to (perhaps) rise. I say perhaps because measuring ocean levels is about as reliable as estimating global temperature, but who knows maybe one day before the year 3000 we’ll figure it out.

    It was settled before it wasn’t settled.

    Scientists do have to go with what they know until they know better. Looking at the history of learning how to date the earth, scientists arrived at various methods of dating, and each method was the best they could figure at the time. Eventually scientists determined out how to date the earth reliably, and all thoughts of how old the earth based on previous “best as we know” methods were thrown out. Science works, but for some areas takes a really long time.

    The problem for climate science is scientists knew it was only the best they could figure at the time and was neither mature, proven or reliable. They had some knowledge and had some working hypothesis, but they also knew better, they knew enough to say it was not settled. This is called fraud.

    • “Eventually scientists determined out how to date the earth reliably…”

      Assuming all sort of things, including no “consensus effect” existed before the almighty CAWG arrived on the science scene ; )

  25. If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.

    Okay, it’s not melting, but it is projected to be extremely likely that it could melt.

  26. … As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.

    +emphasis

    I predict it will “kick in” on November 11, 3351 at 2:37PM in Queen Maud Land.

    …well it’s as good a guess as any other.

    • Seriously doubt it. The next glacial period is scheduled to kick in about 4200 AD when winter snow will stop melting during the summer in certain areas of North Canada. Until then things can only get colder in bouts. We are right now in between two cooling periods and instead of enjoying it, we feel guilty. Go figure.

      • As a Canadian….. I want my Glo.Bull Warming !!!!!! I’m tired of freezing my nuts off every 6 months !!

  27. Speaking of letting the data speak for itself; the NYU AWS on Pine Island Glacier shows almost 300 cm of increased snow since Oct 2014.

  28. This is important because it the first time that NASA is openly confronting the alarmists with their own data

      • Knute, the text on that linked page at EarthJustice.org may be the most densely packed concentrations of lies and misinformation I have ever seen in my life!
        Some of the more obvious ones include:

        – The Arctic may not be warming at all, and the rest of the planet is definitely not warming…not for the past 18 years and nine months anyway.

        -Ice melting rapidly cannot have any more or less effect on sea level than if it melted slowly.

        -Melting Arctic sea ice cannot possibly affect sea level one single millimeter, since it is floating on the sea already.

        – While soot on ice may make it melt faster (not sure), in the air it almost surely causes surface cooling by blocking solar radiation before it hits the ground.

        – Calling soot “black carbon” is a new one for me…wow, these guys must burn the midnight oil devising their propaganda sound bites.

        – There is no evidence that the Inuit people have inhabited that region for multiple millennia, and even if they did, it has been much warmer there for much of the past few millennia. The Thule culture that gave rise to the various indigenous groups arose during the Medieval Warm Period, around 1000 AD.
        And there is evidence that they were well along on their way to perishing completely before Europeans met up with them and supplied them with technology and materials to allow them to survive the during the latter stages of the Little Ice Age.

        -Polar bears are like any other animal…they eat whatever are the easiest and most abundant food sources. Bears in general are highly adaptable omnivores, and are in no jeopardy from warmer conditions…if there are any such conditions coming. The idea that Caribou are somehow at risk from warmer conditions is absurd. They range all the way South into the US, and some herds have taken up permanent residence in Yellowstone, foregoing the long trek to the Arctic every year. And in any case, both of these species have managed to survived for a very long time as glacial epochs and interglacials came and went, and many periods of time in this and other interglacials were, again, far warmer than today.

        – Arctic warming causing more extreme weather in mid latitudes being stated as a fact is laughable and completely wrong. Cold periods have historically been more stormy, as when the Little Ice Age and the Dark Ages conditions prevailed. The reason they were called the Dark Ages is because it was so much stormier…it was actually dark a lot of the time. And as we have ample direct evidence of now, there has been no increase in severe weather of any sort. The opposite is true.

        -There is no evidence whatsoever than we can expect .5 degrees of temperature rise by 2040, so there can be no way to have any idea of how to prevent something which we cannot know will happen.

        These people act and write as if every shred of alarmist hyped up scaremongering is a verified fact just waiting to happen or already in progress, and the schedule is all work out…plus we have our hand on the control knobs for these changes and can dial in whatever sort of weather we would like to have. All we need to do is make the laws and regulations that these jackasses imagine will put them in control of the climate and the weather.
        These fools sicken me.

      • M

        “These fools sicken me.”

        Good. They are am intermediary feeder group.
        Here is a link to well done illegal (so the brief claims) rulemaking.

        http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/30/report-epa-broke-the-law-to-push-co2-regulations/

        Report link is in second paragraph. It’s well done.

        CO2 regs are the lynchpin. The US holds that lynchpin. For me, it begs the question …. why is a GOP controlled congress not going after this like they went after other administrative abuses ?

      • WD

        Easy to understand. 47 mm max one time big meltdown. Thanks for the link. You present it so simply even a child could get it. Consider a children’s book. In fact, it should be in a top ten of CAGW misunderstandings.

        I sent the link to Menicholas because that organization I linked to is a major player both in the US and internationally. The recent explosion of special interest NGOs are as powerful as any corporate/military special interest K Street lobbyist. The current ngo wave focuses on what are called protected classes.

        CAGW targets those protected classes and actually the Pew link I sent Harmon does a pretty good job of identifying the mostly likely to believe groups.

        CAGW appeals to protected classes and the young. It could simply be that the hesitancy of otherwise clearheaded people are afraid to speak out against CAGW spin because they sense it is has morphed into a racial issue.

        What do you think ?

      • So, technically I was incorrect to say that melting arctic sea ice will not raise sea levels by a single millimeter?
        Perhaps, but that 47 millimeter figure was for the total volume of floating ice on the earth.
        The Arctic sea ice is a small amount of the total.
        plus, as the last comment mentioned, the net change is zero, since the sea ice expelled salt when it froze.

        I notice they took no account of the reduction in overall salinity as the sea ice melted, though.

        All things considered, the alarmist site is completely wrong that if the Arctic ice melted, it is a danger to coastal inhabitants.
        But the ice is now reforming rapidly, so it should be lowering sea levels at this point.

  29. Once again skeptics are shown to correct in their beliefs and justified in being dubious of the consensus.

    • And I predict that once again, the warmistas will pretend they never heard of this study, or that it does not say what skeptics think he said when this author said what he said but now what he meant.
      Right up until they forget they ever discussed or took a position on Antarctic ice, or that it ever mattered.
      Except for the ones who write a model that explains how warmer means colder, except where and when it is hotter and dryer, except when and where it is wetter.

  30. If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.

    Well, see, we took some climate data which we know is cyclical, but we rammed a linear trend through it anyway, and it looked very very bad. But then we found out that our data was wrong, and the trend was actually the other way. But, there’s this other data, and we know it is cyclical too, but we crammed a linear trend through it anyway, and it overtakes the first trend in 20 or 30 years, reversing it.

    So, you see, its still looks very bad.

      • And if you’d LIKE, we can show you how we applied those IDENTICAL algorithms and discovered MARIJUANA is like HEROIN !!

    • One of the trends under the West Antarctic ice sheet cannot be measured as it is volcanic.
      No volcanologist has yet been able to predict the size or frequency of eruptions, so how may they know the extent, frequency or sign of the heating under the ice cap?

  31. In a soaring fossil fuel emissions, CO2 driven, with feedback, warming world how is it possible that the continent of Antarctica is adding ice.
    Antarctica must be on another planet altogether.

  32. Has anyone done any sublimation studies on Antarctic’s surface. I know that when I put a piece of uncovered fruit into my freezer and take it out a year or two later, it has really freeze-dried itself into a smaller, leathery existence of its former shape and size through sublimation.

    • Are you married NOAA programmer?
      If so, props to your wife for tolerating such science experiments in the mafriginator.
      Ditto for your being able to concentrate on long term goals even when they might conflict with more mundane, day-to-day concerns like tidying up, or stocking up during a sale or ahead of a bad storm and filling that puppy to the rafters.
      Cheers!

      • (My wife grew up with a brother who hibernated snakes among the potatoes and other root vegetables kept in their basement refrigerator.)

  33. The disturbing part about this is the original misstatement/lie is still carried forward by the Warmist Cult as if it were true. Polar bears/glaciers/snow are disappearing. Sea level is rising faster than ever. Increases in foul weather will accelerate and the last almost cat 5 hurricane in Mexico is proof. The MSM never backtracks to identify the false narrative. But I’m betting the people are.

    • Exactly Mark.
      Every part of the spiel has been debunked over and over, plus a bunch of other ones which never even come up any more.
      And yet the whole collection of chestnuts is repeatedly trotted back out with a fresh layer of lip gloss.

  34. I’m wondering if NOAA will now need to adjust their isostatic adjustment figure of 0.3mm per annum to global SLR ?. If Antartica is gaining mass then it should be causing the surrounding ocean floors to rise, not fall.

    • GPS stations are reporting that the land surface at the coast is rising by an average of 0.3 mms/year to 0.4 mms/year so I think that is solid confirmation of the estimate.

  35. God Child Emperor Barak Hussein Obama the USA’s First Born God Savior of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not pleased! His hatred grows by the minute like a volcano ready to erupt and kill all that it can.

    Walking in the Rose Garden, The God Child Emperor Barak Hussein Obama notices a Sparrow. He holds out his right hand and the Sparrow sits on this index finger.

    Obama, “Little One … What do you “know” that I God Child do not!” He then grabs the bird with his left hand and thrusts the bird into his mouth thus biting the head off and chewing it to his satisfaction with a gulp and a smile on his face.

    Obama then runs back into the Oval Office and hurriedly pins an Extra-Judical Kill Order for certain Enemies at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

    Obama then exclaims, “They are dirty, THEY MUST BE PUNISHED!”

    Half a world away, the Pope, in his study in the Vatican notices … ripples in the Tea of his cup.

    He smiles, “It is done. Good my son. We will kiss in Paris.”

  36. Every time I hear Warmist Scientists discussing things like this, I am reminded of the1970s family game Twister (not sure if it had the same name in the U.S.) It involved a mat upon which you had to place your hands or feet depending on the roll of a die. Eventually you would get into a tangled muddle and fall over…Climate Twister…how long will we wait before the whole farcical thing collapses?

  37. “At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.

    So at the current rate of imagined warming touted by the alarmist faction of the discipline formerly known as climate science, our oceans should dry up by 2100 with all that water locked up in Antarctica’s interior.

  38. The GRACE satellite mission says that the Antarctic is loosing mass. If it is actually gaining mass then the GRACE satellite mission is wrong! If the GRACE satellite mission is wrong then it’s measurement of Greenland’s ice mass loss is probably wrong too. Since the GRACE measurement of Greenland’s mass loss is about the same proportions relative to the ice available as it’s incorrect measurement of Antarctica’s mass loss then Greenland is probably gaining mass just like Antarctica. If that is true then there can’t be much sea level rise so the sea level rise measurements must be wrong too!

  39. For years, the MEDIA reports ” The Antarctica is losing ice FASTER THAN EXPECTED by the cimate scientists””” …….and this is the problem. “Faster than expected”. and for this reason, the world must worry, and satellite measurements are unimportant, because those do not make it into the media.

  40. I don’t suppose it could *possibly* occur to Zwally that the currently-measured sea level rises are entirely due to fraudulent adjustments.

  41. After some time searching – I am unable to find an example of this study being reported through any major media channels. “Antarctica Not Melting Away, After All” it should say – but nothing – silence – tumbleweeds.
    The Daily Mail mentioned Antarctic Science – but only because a researcher had been sadly drowned by a Leopard Seal. Nothing about the fact that the entire continent isn’t really disappearing into the sea – as formerly supposed.
    If this had been an announcement of ice losses then we’d have heard about through the BBC and Guardian.
    But, why has this wonderful news not been picked up by anyone?
    Why am I even asking that question?

    • indefatigablefrog If this hit the MSM it would be ah catastrophic. Think of the millions of people who would lose their purpose in life, who would be condemned to an eternity of aimlessly wondering the city streets. With no worthy signs to proudly carry forth. They would become mindless crusaders without a cause, No crusade to bond to, Ah I’m not laying on to thick am I?
      michael :-)

    • The satellite was decommissioned in 2010. If memory serves, it used lasers that started failing in 2009. So 2008 was probably the last complete year of data.

  42. I do not mean to hurt feelings or insult any other commenter.
    Using logic in place of science I conclude that Earth should warm from the LIA and the cold of the 70s so temps should rise a bit.
    Rising temps should melt ice everywhere, Maybe only a little ice but some somewhere.
    Greenland is not losing ice. Antarctica is gaining ice. Arctica is neutral. Glaciers appear about even though perhaps losing a tad.
    Adding those data points together I think temps are not rising at all. I conclude that we are likely cooling by a tiny bit since we all KNOW Earth never stays at the same exact temp.
    This leads me to the conclusion that the GHG hypothesis is pure politics.
    Finally, using actual science, logic and 66 years of experience I believe the 50s and 60s and 70s beatnics, hippies and “new agers” want to destroy modern Capitalist society and just don’t CARE about facts and logic.
    I mean no insult but the “liberal” position has become stupid, vapid and pointless outside politics. Whatever is happening with Earth’s climate GHGs are either irrelevant or nothing at all..

    • JH

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-23/americans-have-never-been-so-sure-about-climate-change-even-republicans

      IF you believe this poll something has shifted.

      The GOP party is not normally recognized as the bastion of beatniks, hippies, yippies, new agers and liberals. They are typically identified as supporters of “capitalism”.

      So why is the party shifting ?
      Do they feel they have to compete w Hillary ?

      The science supports it less not more than b4.

      Is it for da money ?
      Do they see green in being green ?

      • Serious thoughts: The actual questions have to be “tested”. Phrasology alters outcomes. The questioner alters outcomes. The respondents must be accurately classified and nearly never are. If Bloomberg (Miky’s employees) used the vote histories to select repeated Republican Primary Voters would the results change? Folks want to be polite anbd agreeable. Well, most folks answering surveys do or they would refuse to answer. Respondents often lie.
        My BA in Psychology (1971 SIU) does not qualify me for much but I am also a Republican Precint Committeeman and a Vice Chairman of the County Party. Surveys conducted by Bloomberg will ALWAYS (near enough anyway) give results biased toward hard left positions. You will recognize what “push polls” are and most stuff are pretty much “push polls”. How would the authors get on with their liberal friends if they got the “wrong” results?
        As “warmists” interpret potential science to match their prejudgedices so too do journalists. Irritating the Editors and management by finding skepticism damages careers at Bloomberg.
        Easy example is gun control. Hard to square the different survey results on gun control. Who asks, what is asked and of whom the asking is done make for REALLY big differences in results.
        In short, I am skeptical about Bloombergs numbers. The Pew survey is different. My experience even more so.

      • JH

        Thanks for the serious reply.
        Bloomberg is thus biased and should go with my Paul Bunyan books.

        The Pew survey breaks it down further. You can identify the most likely demographic for a warmist. If I read it right, it’s a younger minority female, college science degreed, identifying as a liberal democrat.

        If you don’t mind, please scan the Pew and see what conclusion you come to.

        I haven’t done the same for the least likely.
        Busy day. Will look later.

      • I think it is a case of people saying what they think the questioner wants to hear, because they are not comfortable getting into a dispute about it.

  43. “I suppose John Cook will have to revise his “Denial 101” video on Antarctica now.”

    Yeah right, like that’s EVER going to happen!

    • John Cook reconsider?
      Hah!
      He would have to take his fingers out of his ears and stop shouting…lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalicanthearyoullalalalallalalalalalalicanthearyoulalalalalalala…

  44. The following question isn’t specifically related to the article itself, but more so the website.

    Is WUWT actually the world’s most viewed site on climate change? Are there any statistics/evidence that I can see?

  45. In answer to second question : Yes see the middle of the menubar at the top of the page which says REFERENCE PAGES

    ..Last time I looked at NASA’s pages their argument focused on “97% say” which of course is not science but propaganda based on the fallacy of argument from authority.

    • Of course other general sites like general green or general science websites do rank higher, but they tackle a broader range of issues rather than being just focused on Climate Change. They may also differ in that they don’t provide a forum for free discussion on the topic.

  46. The current strategy and propaganda blitz appears to be to muddying the waters, so that AGW or climate change does not require actual warming or a change, but is still an ongoing and terrible fact and factor to be reckoned with.

  47. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

    Ground water depletion ends up in the oceans and according to a number of studies contributes con siderably to sea level rise. See for instance Geophysical Research Lettters article by Wada et al. 2010: “Global depletion of groundwater resources.” This is ignored by the iPCC.

  48. “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

    0.23 and 0.27 aren’t whole MILLIMETERS. At that rate it would take more than 4 years to reach a staggering 1 WHOLE millimeter!

    • The difference between 0.27 mm of rise and the previous estimate of 0.23 mm of loss is 0.5 mm/year. I think it would be good for all of us if we knew where that 0.5 mm/year is coming from- don’t you?

      • Yes, we should indebt future generations for some more tens of billions of dollars in order to pay for making such wild ass guesses about stuff that does not matter and we have no affect on, and is almost surely comically mistaken to begin with.

      • Luke, I’m in the US so had just a vague idea of how small 0.5 mm is. Turns out it is 0.019685 inches which equates to the thickness of about 4 1/2 dollar bills. Take 3 minutes to watch the very illustrative video at the link below, about the difficulties of measuring sea level. Then please come back and let me know how

        1) how confident you are that we know the sea level to this level of precision and
        2) whether you still think we should invest any effort in finding out where that .5mm is coming from

  49. “ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil,” said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. “It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica’s mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes.”

    How does this “solve the problem” of Antarctica’s mass balance? This just sounds like a big waste of money to me. If Antarctica is growing, so what? If it’s shrinking, so what? We already have dedicated satellites to measure this,why spend even more to get a more precise measurement of the ice thickness. Whether CAGW is “settled science” or not, either way this sounds like wasted money that would be better spend almost anywhere else.

    • What can’t you understand about more precise being better? The increase or decrease in ice mass in Antarctica has huge consequences for anyone living near a coast.

      • If my local supermarket installed new scientific balances to weigh produce meat and bulk foods, there is no question that they would be more precise than their current technology. But does that make it better? The precision is entirely unnecessary for the purpose, and only adds more unnecessary expense. I would go shop elsewhere.

      • What has huge consequences for anyone living near a coast has not changed…large coastal storms including hurricanes, and what the tide is doing when they hit.
        Compared to storms and tides, the sea level rise in a hundred years does not amount to enough to even get anyone’s ankles wet.
        And if people are so worried about sea level rise, why are the shorelines and rivers all over the country lined with expensive buildings?
        And why are storm damaged properties still being rebuilt as fast as possible after any storm damage?
        Why, in fact, was New Orleans rebuilt in place, when the city is largely below sea level and sinking more every day…a trend which cannot be stopped?

  50. So how much heat does 82 billion Tonnes of water release into the air when it turns to ice?

    • Heat of fusion of water is 334kJ/kg. 82 billion tonnes is 82 trillion kg, or 82 x 10^12 kg. The freezing ice releases 82 x 10^12 x 334kJ of energy, or 27 x 10^15 kJ.

      To put this in perspective, incident solar radiation is 173,000 terrawatts. (173,000 x 10^12 watts, or 1.7 x 10^14 kW or kJ/s). The freezing ice releases about 200 seconds worth of incident radiation.

      A typical thunderstorm has an energy of 10^15 joules, so the energy from this freezing water is the same as 27,000 thundrstorms. At any given time there are about 2000 thunderstorms occuring on Earth.

  51. i liked this one from “stephan the denier”

    ‘on Antarctic; when the steam from your coffee cup goes out at 95C, (203F)- it takes 6-9 seconds to turn into ice crystals => therefore: -” debating about the amount of ice on the polar caps as indicators of ”global temperature” only serves the Warmist agenda!!!!!!!!!”

      • All sea ice extent graphs are estimates, including the one Eliza linked to. There is no absolute clear line where ice ends and water begins. Someone has to draw a line of demarcation, giving rise to an estimate of the ice area. This estimate is quite close to a measurement, given satellite data.

    • Great citing Eliza! Add the effect of heat content to prevent even lower temps (I know, but a little effect) and that melting will absorb heat and “their” whole idea falls apart.
      We sure have smart people commenting.

    • Eliza, the graph you show is the Surface Mass Balance. From the web site you got it from:
      “For an ice sheet that neither grows or shrinks, there is…a balance between

      •the amount of snow that falls and is compressed to ice
      •the amount of snow and ice that melts or evaporates (sublimates) and
      •the amount of ice that flows away due to the ice motion

      The two first contributions make up the surface mass balance.”

      It is therefore incorrect to say that the graph shows a gain of ice, as it does not include the ice removed by flowing.

      They say “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr”.

      • seaice,

        It is amusing to observe the emphasis that the alarmist cult places on “ice”. The planet is recovering from an extremely cold period (the LIA). Naturally, polar ice may retreat. But interestingly, global ice cover is pretty much unchanged.

        Also, please refrain from trying to scare people with your “gigatons” of ice. Use percentages, and stick with global numbers. Because the scare is over global warming, see? And your “gigatons” amount to a tiny fraction of a percent.

        Just like global T, global ice cover fluctuates. But not a whole lot, and certainly not to the extent that should cause any alarm. The “ice” hoax is the last, desperate scam of the eco-loons. It is a complete non-problem, and the only reason it’s even mentioned is because every other scary alarmist prediction has been completely wrong, while the “disappearing Arctic ice” predictions have only been 90% wrong.

        The “ice” scare is all you’ve got. That’s pretty lame, no? Why not do the honest thing, and just admit you were wrong? “Ice” just isn’t a problem — and it’s not disappearing, as the endless predictions stated would happen.

      • Hey db, if the website Eliza linked to had used percentages, then so would I. In fact the scale on the graph is in Gt. I am only quoting from the same source. Eliza said Greenland was gaining ice, I pointed out that her source says Greenland is losing ice. The amount is not all that important in this context, but that is what they said, so I quoted them.

        The original post talked about gaining 82 billion tonnes (82Gt) of ice per year – why did you not criticise this and put “billions” in scare quotes?

      • seaice,

        I didn’t even read the link, because as I said, the “ice” scare is nonsense. The alarmist contingent clings to “ice” like a drowning man clings to a toothpick. The Arctic was ice-free before any human industrial emissions. Per Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is natural variability, and adding an extraneous variable like CO2 just needlessly muddies the waters.

        The alarmist crowd picked the wrong side of the argument, which is why you’re getting thrashed repeatedly. Global warming stopped, but you still try to find irrelevant factoids like “ice” that you mistakenly believe will support your ‘dangerous AGW’ HOAX.

        And that’s all DAGW is: a hoax on the taxpaying public. It is nothing more than pseudo-science; politics covered by a thin veneer of your anti-science eco-religion. None of it can withstand even the mildest scrutiny.

        You lost the debate a long time ago, when Planet Earth began deconstructing your belief system by not warming up as predicted. Now you’re fixated on “ice”. That argument couldn’t be any more lame. Polar ice naturally fluctuates, and you cannot find a century-long time frame where global temperatures remained within a 0.7ºC range. What do you expect, a 0.00ºC change?? Do you really think that tiny wiggle in global T over the past century is a problem at all?

        Well, do you?

      • “Well do you?”
        I think Arctic sea ice area is on a downward trend that shows no sign of stopping. I am prepared to put my money where my mouth is. Are you?

        It is a bit pointless accusing me of being fixated on ice when that is the subject of the post, and I have simply replied to other posters.

      • seaice,

        I offered a wager. I was generous: offering 5 – 1 odds, based on your pal’s stated belief.

        But you tap-danced around that, avoiding it completely. So now you want to replace it with something you fabricated, and which as I pointed out before, is nothing more than a coin flip?? As if. Coin flips are for chumps; that leaves me out. Unless, of course, you’re willing to do just like me, and offer 5 – 1 odds. I’ll take that coin flip. Even if I lose, it’s still a good bet to fade.

        So if you ever stop deflecting, you can take my wager. Or not. That’s up to you. But anything else is just game-playing, and you’re just not smart enough to pull that off.

        And you are fixated on ice, ‘seaice’: you’re fixated on the belief that Arctic ice is gonna disappear. A lot of other folks believe that, too. That’s what my original offer to Chris was about. By 2019, remember?

      • dbstealy.
        “I offered a wager… based on your pal’s stated belief.”

        1) Why do you think I should bet on an offer you made to someone else based on a position that I have never held nor expressed?

        2) Your offer was not based on their stated belief – they went to some lengths to explain to you what their beliefs actually were, which you apparently failed to understand.

        I offered you a bet based on your stated beliefs.

        You think it is a coin flip, i.e. 50:50. That must be because you believe it is equally likely that there will be more sea ice or less sea ice coverage over the next three years than the last three years. Your actual position is that it is equally likely the ice is growing or shrinking. That is depite your stated belief that it is growing.

        I, on the other hand, believe it is shrinking and that there is clear evidence of this from the trends. I am therefore prepared to bet 50:50 odds on what I think is a greater than 50:50 chance of winning. I have a positive expected return. If you need 5:1 odds, then you presumably think it is about 5 times more likely the ice will shrink than it will grow.

        I have confidence in my belief, you have no confidence in your assertions that the ice is growing. Why not just say you don’t believe the ice is growing if that is the case?

        To help you out, I will say I don’t believe the Arctic will be ice free by 2019 and that is why I will not take the bet you offered to someone else. See? it is easy.

      • seaice, me boi, you are certainly amusing. I’ve pointed out more than once that you aren’t smart enough to paint skeptics into a corner, which you keep trying to do. You aren’t even smart enough to see that the planet is busy falsifying everything you believe in: there has been no global warming for many years. But you always ignore that inconvenient fact, which falsifies your whole belief system. Naturally, you will deflect onto something else… like ‘seaice’. heh

        Next, you say the Arctic won’t be ice-free by 2019, which is what your pal tried to argue. I offered him generous terms to put his money where his mouth is, but he tucked tail and ran. So did you. You chickened out, then you tried to cover it by inventing something that only exists in your alarmed mind. Amusing, but lame.

        It doesn’t give me that much of a thrill to debate morons, but in your case I enjoy it. Now, sit up straight and pay attention: I offered generous 5 : 1 odds that Chris was wrong. I even said you could fade me, but you chickened out, too. You don’t get to step in and change my offer to some vague, unquantified, nebulous idea you have, trying to stack the deck so you might win for a change. In other words, you don’t get to make up the rules. Another way of putting it: take it or leave it. I made an offer. You? Pff-f-f-ft. You’re just deflecting. But you don’t get to make up the rules, as much as you would love to have that privilege. Unless you accept my offer, I will simply ignore anything you invent to take its place. If you accept my offer, and then I’ll consider what you have to say.

        To recap: your #1 is pure projection; #2 is covered above — and I’ll add #3, which you always ignore, and which is the central point that debunks everything you’re trying to either ignore, or bluster your way through: global warming stopped many years ago. Planet Earth is showing you to be just an eco-religionist, proselytizing your greenie nonsense to skeptics, who know better.

        Your basic conjecture has been falsified, so the right thing to do, per the scientific method, is to go back and try to figure out why you were so totally wrong. Instead, you keep emitting twaddle about “ice”, because it’s the last, desperate hope of your climate alarmist cult. That prediction was only 90%+ wrong, while every other alarmist prediction has been 100.0% wrong. But it’s all you’ve got.

        So keep ’em coming, “seaice”. You’re still good for a laugh. I like pulling the wings off flies, too. ☺

      • His bet seems reasonable. “Yes” or “no” DB. And then can we kill this annoying lingering thread?

      • Mary Brown,

        Then you take his bet, if it seems so “reasonable” to you. It doesn’t seem that way to me. And he won’t take mine — but he insists that I have to take his. Doesn’t work that way in the real world.

        And thanx for keeping the thread going… ☺

      • dbstealy.
        “And he won’t take mine — but he insists that I have to take his.”
        You are obviously having a problem understanding. I do not believe the Arctic will be ice free in 2019. I agree with you on that. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I have never said I believed it would be ice free by 2019. You have won that straw man argument already, so there is no point mentioning it again.

        You, on the other hand, have stated several times that you believe the arctic ice is growing. I have stated that I believe it is shrinking. We now have a disagreement about something. I think we can see who has most confidence in their belief by a small wager. You refuse the wager. I conclude I have more confidence in my belief than you have in yours.

        I have explained that I won’t take your bet because I agree with you. Do you refuse my bet because you agree with me?

      • seaice,

        I’ve tried to explain to you that you’re just not smart enough to box me into a corner like you keep trying to do. But I suppose you’re not smart enough to understand that, either.

        You keep saying that my position is that Arctic ice is growing. To be generous about your misunderstanding, I have repeatedly posted links (and quite a lot of them) showing, as I wrote, that :

        Just like global T, global ice cover fluctuates.

        I haven’t posted charts that make future predictions. Those are what the alarmist crowd relies on. If you’re assuming that I’m making predictions, I’m not. Karl Popper understood what you’re going through:

        It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.

        So I should have considered my audience.

        I know that Arctic ice has been growing for the past decade,:

        As we see, Arctic ice cover is at a 10-year high. Sorry about that, it must really sting to see what the planet is telling you.

        You seem to be confused about the difference between reality, and future predictions (which are not reality). Now, if you want to fade me, fine. If you want to give me the same odds I offered you and Chris, fine. But coin flips? Get real.

      • dbstealey: “If you’re assuming that I’m making predictions, I’m not.”
        Yes you are. You offered a bet based on future outcomes. It is not the priniciple you object to. You can’t wriggle out by saying you don’t bet on future outcomes.

        You said “Looks to me like sea ice is growing” and “Arctic sea ice is growing year-over-year” and “despite the wild-eyed scare stories, Arctic ice only dipped for a few years. It is recovering now.”

        If the area does not grow over the next few years, then it is not a recovery. It is just ups and downs on a downward trend.

        You seem to have very little confidence that it will grow, which is why you don’t take the bet. It is very clear now. I think you should withdraw your allegation that I am a moron.

      • seaice me boi, you quote me:

        “Looks to me like sea ice is growing” &etc.

        Observations are not predictions. But when you say:

        It is just… on a downward trend.

        That’s your prediction. And:

        I think you should withdraw your allegation that I am a moron.

        I withdraw it. Morons can’t help themselves.

      • There will not be an ice free Arctic summer by 2019. That is your prediction. I agree with your prediction. Therefore I will not bet against your prediction. You are quite happy to make and bet on predictions, just not my prediction. That is presumably because you think my prediction for a continuation of the downward trend in Arctic sea ice area is reasonable. Anyway, I think we are about done here.

  52. Looks like someone’s going to be “disappeared” from NASA for blabbing about the Antarctic ice lies. Bad enough that he did it, worse that he exposed it just before Paris.

    He forgot to mention that the only part losing mass is massively active geologically. But we can’t have everything.

  53. It deserves acknowledgement that growing Antarctic land ice was actually forecast by the IPCC.
    The reason it deserves acknowledgement is that I have previously pointed out the opposite. That the claimed shrinkage was the opposite of what they’d forecast.
    Now all they need to do is explain the causes of the earlier errors, and put the numbers to the forecast and reality, and account for discrepancies, and they will have achieved the very first ever accurate ‘Global Warming’ forecast. (Provided the numbers match up, of course.)

  54. Well, duh, Antarctica has been slightly cooling and the sea ice increasing. So, would one think the land-ice has been increasing or decreasing?

  55. “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

    Or maybe, just maybe the IPCC report is wrong about sea level rise?

  56. Harry,
    The problem with your analogy is that Zwally has actual numbers to make his prediction. From his conclusion, “If dynamic thinning continues to increase at the same rate of 4 Gt a–2 with no offset from further increases in snowfall, the positive balance of the AIS will decrease from the recent 82 Gt a–1 to zero in ~20 years.”

    • In other words, the glacier is gaining mass rather than loosing mass. And they have difficulties (ten years of work!) in measuring the change to know even if the sign is positive or negative.

      This is of course alarming, since we’re busted if glaciers grow. It’s the delicate balance of Nature again.

    • Luke:

      You say in total

      Harry,
      The problem with your analogy is that Zwally has actual numbers to make his prediction. From his conclusion, “If dynamic thinning continues to increase at the same rate of 4 Gt a–2 with no offset from further increases in snowfall, the positive balance of the AIS will decrease from the recent 82 Gt a–1 to zero in ~20 years.”

      The problem with your quotation is that it is selective.

      Zwally is also reported to have said

      “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.

      Your quote gives an “If … ” statement that provides quantification and dates.

      My quote says the effect is “expected” but “when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear”.

      Simply, Zwally is NOT using “actual numbers to make his prediction” which is pure pseudoscience. And you knew this because I explained it to you in this thread here and davidmhoffer explained it to you in this thread here.

      Richard

      • Richard states “Zwally is NOT using “actual numbers to make his prediction”
        He certainly did in his paper. Go take a look.

      • Luke:

        You refuse to understand the explanations of your error provided by me and davidmhoffer so please read the explanations of your error provided by harry here and here.

        Richard

    • No, he uses one set of numbers and then assumes no increase in the other. Assumption isn’t data.
      As I point out, the two physical phenomena are not related. Assume all of West Antarctica (my wallet) melts, clearly as the rest of Antarctica continues to add snowfall the balance returns to positive. West Antarctica acceleration has zero affect on the rest of Antarctica (my bank balance).
      Since we are talking of a physical system, clearly West Antarctica is limited in terms of how much it can accelerate, since at some stage the amount of ice available to melt reduces so much it can’t accelerate.

    • Luke says:

      …Zwally has actual numbers to make his prediction.

      And so what? It’s the prediction that matters here, not the numbers.

      I predict Zwally will be wrong about the word “If” in his conclusion.

      What’s your prediction?

  57. Just last year someone smelt a rat in Antarctica.

    July 6, 2014
    Lying with Statistics: The National Climate Assessment Falsely Hypes Ice Loss in Greenland and Antarctica
    by E. Calvin Beisner and J.C. Keister
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/06/lying-with-statistics-the-national-climate-assessment-falsely-hypes-ice-loss-in-greenland-and-antarctica/

    Greenland………………….seeing is believing OR don’t believe your own lying eyes.

    Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI
    http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

    • Well, there is that.
      Plus, there is not any one single climate on the Earth, and the climate zones delineated over a hundred years ago remain unchanged.

  58. I find NASA’s timing of this data dump of growing Antarctic land ice very interesting as it comes one week after NASA refused Congress’ request for data on the hiatus-busting and highly controversial Karl2015 paper and just weeks before the Paris Left-FEST.

    I think NASA is getting ahead of the curve to avoid another scandal prior to the Paris Left-Fest by announcing Antarctic’s growing land ice now, as it would make much sense tactically to announce this after Paris…

    Something very strange is happening…

    • S

      I agree. It’s orchestrated theatre.
      Red meat for the skeptics to feast.
      Faux moral high ground for the warmist.

      Since it’s actually nonconforming data and potentially a bombshell to one of the pillars, it behooves them to “take the wind out of the sail” by releasing it first in some non MSM matter. CAGW is a multipronged weight of evidence narrative. At this point pre Paris, WUWT and Nova would do well to produce the top ten things that haven’t happenned concerning CAGW claims. MSM likes top tens. It’s easily consumable and pass up the line.

      They run like a military propaganda campaign.
      Skeptics should be as organized and anticipate instead of being in reaction mode.

  59. Thanks WATTSUPWITHTHAT for the coverage of this new science. Re “chief alarmist’s” previous “prediction falsified”, I say not really. My quote in 2007 was “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of the summer by 2012, much sooner than previous predictions.” What actually happened is that at the end of summer 2012, the ice volume was down to 25% of what it was in the 1980’s (about 50% decrease in thickness and 50% decrease in area), which is a serious reduction with yearly ups and downs on a downward trend.

    • Jay Zwally,

      In other words, you were wrong.

      Every scary prediction by the alarmist crowd has been wrong. So I have a question:

      At what point will you admit that your ‘dangerous AGW’ (DAGW) conjecture is wrong?

      Or, can you never admit what most folks can clearly see? There is no DAGW. It is a baseless scare, which has now morphed into the silly arm-waving over “ice”.

      Polar ice fluctuates. Naturally. Deal with it.

      • DB

        The current strategic advantage of the skeptic is that many of the pillars in the weight of evidence approach are weakening.

        The disadvantage is that the unorganized approach of the skeptic don’t allow them to anticipate in the attack. They are unfortunately mostly left to reacting.

        The solution is to compile an easy top ten and publish it via the various media options, blogs, video (sunny eg), twitter, representative webpages.

        In this way you steal a play from the warmists playbook.

        Thinking out loud as I’ve watched the approach to Paris.

    • There’s a huge difference between nearly ice free and a a reduction of 25%. That’s probably an error nearly 400 %. And a very alarmist prediction. What was the purpose of that statement you made in 2007. Statements like that show that the alarmists views can not be trusted. If their statements can’t be trusted…can their work be trusted?

      I’m a professional engineer…..if I made statements like that in report…and they were proven false Or ridiculous I woulld stand a high chance of losing my engineering license….

      • “the ice volume was down to 25% of what it was in the 1980’s” means a 75% reduction not “a reduction of 25%”. It’s scary that a professional engineer does know the difference!

    • Was it really necessary to spam this post twice?

      2012–Glory days.

      Ice hits record low (for the immensely long period of satellite coverage) due mainly to a storm in August blowing ice out of the Arctic.

      What’s happened to ice coverage since 2012 or doesn’t that count?

    • Dear Jay Zwally, You seem to claim that volume measurements somehow let you off the hook for your falsified area predictions. There is no shame in admitting your prediction was wrong. Not sure why this is so hard to accept. Pretending otherwise is far worse for your credibility than just being honest with yourself. Just my unsolicited advice.

    • Knute

      You just volunteered, You write pretty good. Put together a top 10 and submit it to Anthony.

      Thanks Knute : )

      • D

        Thanks, but I’m a pebble compared to the boulders at this webpage. I know a few toppers, but they come at me from reading here and elsewhere. Perhaps a more on top of the facts poster like DB, Harmon, Ball, Frog or others can weigh in or maybe by all posters contributing in a group write.

        Graphs, cites, pictures … those are all at the tips of some folks fingers, but not mine.

        1. There has been NO appreciable warming in 18 years and the IPCC models failed to predict this despite increases in atmospheric CO2.

        2. The Antarctic/Arctic ice gains/losses balance each other out.

        3. There has been no appreciable sea level rise.

        4. Polar bear pops are indeed stable.

        5. Where 97% came from and why it’s BS.

        My pressing suggestion is realize that in order for other people to HEAR a fact, you first have to realize it has to get thru an emotional bias.

        Imagine being a kind Uncle explaining to his puppy dog in love nephew that indeed Jane is good at seduction, but not because she only has eyes for him. The awakening needs to be his. The Uncle plants the seed.

    • I agree that there was more ice at the end of the cold phase of the approximate 64 year oceanic cycle. Was there 4 times as much ice in 1946? Was there more during the “Golden Age” of Arctic Exploration? Read up because the evidence is compelling that you are, in effect and regardless of your intent, cherry-picking your comparison date.
      I don’t know what you think but you ARE not being quite perfectly straight with the start date. Satellites or no we DO know there had been less ice earlier in history. Your implication appears to be that “we” melted the ice with GHGs but history shows Nature had melted it without our help before the freeze-up of the 70s.

    • Yada, yada 1980’s.When we have satellite data from the early to late 1970’s (pre-1978, that magical year), and even data from the 1960’s.

    • Jay Zwally
      November 1, 2015 at 9:15 am

      Thanks WATTSUPWITHTHAT for the coverage of this new science. Re “chief alarmist’s” previous “prediction falsified”, I say not really. My quote in 2007 was “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of the summer by 2012, much sooner than previous predictions.” What actually happened is that at the end of summer 2012, the ice volume was down to 25% of what it was in the 1980’s (about 50% decrease in thickness and 50% decrease in area), which is a serious reduction with yearly ups and downs on a downward trend.

      If you are the real Jay Zwally you would be aware of what nearly ‘ice-free’ means. An ‘ice-free’ Arctic is extent of 1 million km2 or less, as it is very difficult to melt the thick multi-year ice in the Canadian Archipelago. You or your name-sake are still wrong.

      Abstract
      “…..ice-free state (defined as 1 million km2)…..”
      http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219716110

      List of Arctic ‘ice free’ failed predictions.

  60. This has pretty large implications. First…sea level rise water gains have been based on Antarctica. Satellites show that 3.2-3.4 mm/yr rise. A large portion of this is coming from Antarctica. So if this now is a negative impact…..where’s the rise coming from. Some studies show that SLR is only about 1 mm/ yr……this seems more reasonable with this new paper. Second the grace satellites analysis showed an increase of 106 gt/yr in Antarctica. Is the grace analysis so flawed that it can’t be trusted for mass gains anywhere?

  61. Antarctica is a continent surrounded by ocean, with a dominant circumpolar current.
    The arctic region is an ocean surrounded by continents with two currents carrying warm water into the region and no circumpolar current to block that mixing.
    The impression that the alarmists have made on the world is that both poles behave in the same fashion and the ‘hockey stick’ was reflective of both hemispheres.
    Perhaps it’s the biggest misconception next to the gross exaggeration of CO2’s temperature forcing abilities that the general public has been programmed with.

  62. This is today’s Arctic ice extent, versus past years:

    Yes, Arctic ice naturally dipped for a few years between 2006 – 2012. Polar ice fluctuates; that’s what it does. And it’s been recovering since then.

    But the alarmist cultists who jumped on the short term dip with their predictions of an ‘ice free Arctic’ are all silent now, ignoring the year-over-year recovery.

    They call themselves scientists. They’re not. They are pushing their climate alarmist narrative for self-serving reasons. By doing that they forfeit any credibility.

    Skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. But there are no skeptics among their alarmist clique. Planet Earth is proving them wrong, but they just cannot admit it.

      • DB

        Nice cherry pick counter.
        THAT is the type of answer that the currently disorganized skeptic groups need to promote.

        It’s visual.
        I can understand it.
        It’s easy.
        Took me 5 seconds to get it.

        Feeder special interest NGOs flood the information machine with more nonsense than skeptics counter with. I gave
        menicholas an example in an earlier post.

      • Craig Loehle,

        You’re cherry-picking to beat the band.

        This year (which isn’t even over yet) isn’t what anyone would call a trend. It’s a cherry-picked anomaly. And as we see, it’s rising again.

        The issue is, and has always been, global warming. By the chart you linked, global ice cover is very near its long term average — as I stated.

        So what’s your point? That a 0.7ºC wiggle over the past century and a half is anything other than the planet’s natural recovery from the LIA?

        If so, produce measurements supporting whatever it is you’re trying to say. IOW: produce measurements quantifying AGW. That’s the starting point; everything else is conjecture.

        (Note: That was not Dr. Loehle, it was a banned sockpuppet stealing his identity. The faker’s comments have all been deleted. -mod.)

      • How about a graph from 1930 through 1988? Or 1930 through 2010? 1930 through 2012?
        C’mon, either use a long time period or leave it alone. 1978 is cherry picking.
        How about using the best estimates going back as far as you can find decent data? Perhaps I have become “sensitive” but AGW believers leave out much of what is known. Actual instrument records show 1930s the hot decade in the US. Compelling evidence shows the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods.
        Our climate is cyclical. It gets warmer AND cooler. Choosing a date near the end of a cooler period seems dishonest to me. It is certainly meaningless.
        A bit of “heat” here but I feel “you guys” are deserving of it since with skill and effort most folks can get statistics to say nearly anything.

      • Craig Loehle

        We can do all sorts of projections. But extrapolations have a large chance of being wrong. Even if you are using a “sophisticated” GCM. Plus we can all cherry pick start dates and choose whatever shape for the curve we need to fit our bias. Research often gives us the results we expect as we haven’t done our checking and verification very well. But tree stumps under glaciers, trees submerged in lakes, analysis of sediments and debris on Arctic shorelines and so on suggest mother earth has seen it all before. Who knows what is coming? 67 million years of dinosaurs, then poof! 200,000 years of homo sapiens sapiens and then ??? Maybe the Arctic sea ice will go to zero in September in a decade or two. Or maybe the polar see saw will kick in the Antarctic will warm and the Arctic will cool. I am betting on the latter but it may be a decade from now before we can look backwards and see the “measured” trend.

        (Note: That was not Dr. Loehle, it was a banned sockpuppet stealing his identity. The faker’s comments have all been deleted. -mod.)

    • Craig, where did you come up with that graph in your post about “average monthly arctic sea ice extent march 1979 – 2014?

      (Note: That was not Dr. Loehle, it was a banned sockpuppet stealing his identity. The faker’s comments have all been deleted. -mod.)

      • Since the fake “Craig Loehle” identity thief ends his link at 2014, here’s a comparison of Arctic ice between 2012 and 2014:

        Antarctic ice reached a new record high in 2014:

        Next, here’s a comparison blink chart between 2006 and 2015:

        Arctic sea ice thickness is recovering:

        Another view of Arctic ice thickness:

        Global sea ice is now rising (recovering):

        And NSIDC “adjusts” inconvenient data to produce their own ‘data’:

        Finally, global ice cover is right around its long term average:

        The “ice” scare is just another false alarm. The planet has been recovering in fits and starts since the LIA — one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,000+ year Holocene. It is only natural that temperatures are reverting to their long term average.

      • Craig Loehle says:

        Not really, because due to Milankovitch cycles…&etc.

        Really. ‘Fits and starts’:

        Unless the Milankovitch cycles hypothesis has been shown to fully explain the LIA…

        (Note: That was not Dr. Loehle, it was a banned sockpuppet stealing his identity. The faker’s comments have all been deleted. -mod.)

      • Nonsense, “Craig”.

        You can do anything with WFT — as you show here.

        And that’s not ‘my’ graphic. The data was provided by Dr. Phil Jones.

      • Hi folks,

        I’m familiar with Dr. Loehle’s writing. He doesn’t make amateurish mistakes like writing “Fit’s and starts”. There is no apostrophe. Only a dummy writes like that, and Dr. Loehle is no dummy.

        That is grammar written by someone ignorant. Someone I suspect is about as ignorant as the sockpuppet who desperately tries to comment here, after being repeatedly banned.

        Mods, can you please check on this “Craig Loehle” character? I’m pretty sure it’s the same loser who’s been booted many times before for identity theft.

        Thanks.

        (REPLY: Correct assumption. Those comments were not made by Dr. Loehle. The impostor has wasted his time. His fake comments will be deleted. -mod)

      • HA…

        (Joke’s on you, chump. All your comments have been deleted. Everyone else’s remain. -mod)

      • [Wrong-o, sockpuppet. It’s a waste of time so we don’t bother. But not as much a waste of time as yours. -mod]

      • So who was the banned commenter who stole another man’s name?
        They should be outed and publically shamed.

      • dbstealey. I think the weight of evidence points to Arctic sea ice extent going down in the future. What do you think? Is it going up or down? You have said previously that it is going up.

        If you have had another look at the evidence and now think it is going down, you can say so. There is no shame in changing your view. Or you could say you don’t believe the evidence is strong enough to say either way. You could still argue that it doesn’t affect your broader point about global warming because Antarctic ice is going up, or whatever.

        What you cannot reasonably do is say you think it is going up, that the evidence clearly indicates it is going up, keep posting selected data you say supports that view, then refuse to stand by your claim. So which is it? Is the evidence strong enough to support your previous claims? Will you take my little wager?

  63. Another nail in the AGW noble warming scam. The only thing that can be predicted accurately is they can’t predict anything accurately.

  64. “his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods.”

    Given that Antarctica is 14 million square kms and 1 ton of water equivalent precipitation covers a surface area of a minuscule 10 square m at 1 cm deep, Zwally is claiming an annual precipitation accuracy of just a millimetre per year over vast areas of unmeasured continent. Something on the back of my envelope smells fishy.

    Anyone feel like checking my work?

    • grr I already see that he said East Antarctica not the whole thing. I don’t know what “East Antarctica” area is so I can’t redo the reverse engineering.

    • Instead of ten square meters, perhaps you meant ten meters, squared? That would be 100 square meters, times one centimeter equals one cubic meter…or one metric ton of water.

  65. According to Zwally in 2007, the Arctic was a “dead canary”, and it was “time to get out of the coal mines”.
    Unfortunately for him though, the issue of ice fluctuations is nothing but a red herring, and his cAGW ideology has become a dead parrot.

  66. About the real meteorology, by station, that is true and very little known for certain (especially measurement accuracy and precision) including surface winds that affect the metamorphism of snow (low density) to firn (variable mid densities) to glacier ice (high density) on the +3 km elevation basin divides (ice divides).

    But in general, and sloppy, the truth is out.

    I’m waiting for NSIDC to stop faking the numbers in SH_seaice_extent.csv but I suspect the “addictions” are getting in the way. After all, Colorado. Ha ha.

  67. Its very confusing to me how a scientific story about the Antarctic ice sheet can make claims completely contradictory to the 13 year accumulation of data from the NASA GRACE satellites without even mentioning that they looked at that data. The 2 NASA Gravity Recovery and Climate Evaluation satellites have been measuring Antarctic and Greenland ice sheet masses since 2002 and over that 13 year period show a decline of 134 billion metric tons per year for the Antarctic ice sheet. Years of work and $100 million of NASA’s budget was spent with claims of providing mass and gravity measurements “with unprecedented accuracy”. There has never been any error band given with the GRACE measurements, implying any errors were small. Is this report saying the GRACE measurements are garbage or is there a difference because “ice sheet” includes sea ice in this report and not in the GRACE data? They mention ICESat data but that ended in 2009, why would they not even mention the GRACE data that covers the same 2003 to 2009 that ICESat did plus the last 6 years? Both are NASA satellites. Is GRACE data considered bogus by some climatologists?

    • The actual data from grace showed little change in mass. It only showed a negative balance because they applied the GIA. …I think the GIA was is only about 3 mm elevation gain.. So with this it would be the GIA would be about a 3 mm drop.

      If you think about it…..the average ice thickness say near 7000 feet…..their trying to measure a few mm thickness difference. I say that’s impossible.

      But if they get the GIA wrong here….what about everywhere else where sea level rise Is also base on GIA.

      • J

        There are NO words of astonishment that explain the feeling of realizing that there is a debate over a few millimeters of measurement concerning ice thickness in the natural environment. An environment outside the confines of a controlled lab setting.

        Do scientists ever get together and perhaps one jumps on the round table shouting and writhing in the crazy man dance about such things ?

  68. Jay Zwally
    November 1, 2015 at 9:21 am

    Thanks WATTSUPWITHTHAT for the coverage of this new science. Re “chief alarmist’s” previous “prediction falsified”, I say not really. My quote in 2007 was “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of the summer by 2012, much sooner than previous predictions.” What actually happened is that at the end of summer 2012, the ice volume was down to 25% of what it was in the 1980’s (about 50% decrease in thickness and 50% decrease in area), which is a serious reduction with yearly ups and downs on a downward trend.

    What are the error bars on “nearly”?

    +almost_completely -not_much_at_all?

  69. This what happens when you make Computers your god, as I’ve recently found out from three different Hyundai Mechanics, who were unable to diagnose and fix a mechanical problem on my car because today mechanics use computers for all diagnosis of a cars problem, instead of using the older methods of trial and error and process of elimination to diagnose a cars problem. So, I sit here with the same car problem having spent a bucket full of money because today’s mechanics can’t diagnose a problem without relying on their little computer gods. I believe the analogy to Algore Inc’s and the IPCC’s and the U.N.’s use of computer models to always predict what’s going to happen with the weather 20-30 years from now is obvious…

  70. Did he actually concede that skeptics have been right about Antarctica all along and then have the nerve to refer to “Climate deniers” in a scholarly journal? Do I have that right?

    Very unprofessional.

    • Big difference between a skeptic and someone bent on a big conspiracy. A skeptic asks for evidence. A conspiracy nut denies the evidence when shown. Climate deniers are nuts, not skeptics.

      • Sam Keola,

        You do realize that many thousands of people have been convicted of criminal conspiracy, don’t you? And isn’t something like a drug cartel or mafia “a big criminal conspiracy”? What exactly makes one a nut for believing people conspire . . It seems to me one would have to be a nut to deny such things happen.

      • Anyone who denies there’s a climate would have to be nuts, so we’re in agreement on that. And all here seek evidence for manmade global warming. Got any?

  71. Memo to Jerry Brown: Your grant for high speed rail funding is being recalled. You have 30 days to refund the money or interest and penalties will apply.

  72. ” Craig Loehle
    November 1, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    “The planet has been recovering in fits and starts since the LIA” Not really, because due to Milankovitch cycles, the LIA should still be going on. Unless that is, you know of an event which has disturbed the orbital cycles of the Earth.”

    Wow, so our CO2 emissions are keeping the planet out of little ice age conditions!!??

    That’s very good news for mankind! :)

    (Note: That was not Dr. Loehle, it was a banned sockpuppet stealing his identity. The faker’s comments have all been deleted. -mod.)

  73. To be fair, Zwally isn’t just known for his “nearly ice free” goof. He was among the many that under-predicted Greenland’s resilience to climate change. In fact, just a decade ago, he was claiming Greenland-melt was in the “worse than we thought” category.

  74. This is all comforting, if true. But I don’t believe for a moment that the satellites can hold an orbit stable to 0.23 millimeters per year, and still have their data corrected to that accuracy after allowing for that orbit drift.

    • Good point. Measurement accuracy claims are generally off by an order of magnitude. Surface temps have been adjusted many times where the adjustments now are as big as the trends. Sat Temps have been through many adjustments, too, including recent switch to UAH 6.0. Claims of ARGO’s accuracy are laughable. Does anyone really believe ocean temp can be measured with floating buoys to within .01 deg? ARGO proponents claim it is actually much better than that. Sea Level measurement is wildly uncertain.

      Bottom line…our climate is so stable we can barely measure any change with sophisticated modern instruments. That’s good news.

  75. This letter regarding what was going on before the satellite era is interesting. It appeared on page 23 in the UK’s ‘Sunday Telegraph’ newspaper, on Tuesday October 1st 2013, and came from Captain Derek Blacker RN (retd), Director of Naval Oceanography and Meteorology 1982-84:
    “SIR – I was a meteorologist during the Seventies when glaciers in Europe and other continents in Europe had been growing for the previous ten years, and pack ice had been increasing during winters to cover almost all of the Denmark Strait between Iceland and Greenland. Scientists were then warning that the Earth could be entering another ice age.
    The current deliberations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have conveniently overlooked this. Before insisting that humans have been the main cause of global warming an explanation of this apparent anomaly should be promulgated.”
    In connection with this letter, a look at information supplied by the Icelandic Meteorological Office is also of interest. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, “heavy sea ice was quite common along the coasts of Iceland, but in the 1920s a drastic change occurred. Sea ice along the coasts of Iceland became an uncommon characteristic and almost a forgotten phenomenon around the middle of the century. An abrupt change occurred in the mid-1960s. Heavy sea ice distribution occurred almost each year following, but since 1980 widespread and long-lasting sea ice off Iceland took place (sic) at rather irregular intervals.”
    Nothing is as simple and cut and dried as the warmists would have us believe!

    • It seems to suggest that there may well be some natural oceanic cycles at work.

      A pity that the possibility of multidecadal natural cycles and variation was not rigorously investigated by Climate Scientist before predicting their current round of scare stories.

    • So, a government-paid agency claims that a measured “sea level rise” of less than 1/2 inch has caused greater flooding damage to the US? To justify 1.3 trillion in new taxes for their government-paid bureaucrat bosses and 30 trillion in carbon futures trading for the global banking industries?

      How many government-paid writers can you buy for 92 billion dollars?

      • Interesting that you and others here have no trouble accepting the results of a government paid agency study when it is consistent with your beliefs (Zwally’s paper) but you reject it when it doesn’t (NOAA publication cited above). One more thing, sea level has risen about 8″ since 1880. I’m not sure where you got the 1/2″ value.

  76. I guess this is true, I saw a news article on AOL of all places. Wow! That’s got to be a huge blow to the propaganda machine with icebergs crashing off and seashore flooded. Oh the fear factor! I guess they could show thermal expansion like gorilla rising from the sea to swamp cities…

  77. I find it amazing: as each building block in the global warming structure fails, as more predictions fall by the wayside, disciples become ever more certain of the Divinity of the Cause.

  78. I find it amazing that days after the release of this paper and there is NOTHING, nothing about it in the main-stream news. Is it not news that Antarctica is gaining mass and perhaps the scientists are wrong with their models? If Antarctica had been losing ice it would have been front page news – EVERYWHERE.

    It’s not the data, it’s the side.

    Sceptical Science has gone quiet as well, c’mon John us moon hoaxers want an answer!

    • Ron commented: “….I find it amazing that days after the release of this paper and there is NOTHING, nothing about it in the main-stream news….”

      It has hit several on line MSM outlets so you should see it tonight on TV news and tomorrow in the newspapers. Surprised me!

  79. He shows his true colors when refers to “climate deniers”. It must be wonderful being able to dismiss all fact-based criticism of one’s work as a pathological form denial. I’m going to try it at work and refer to my boss as an “awesome denier.”

Comments are closed.