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)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
450 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jorgekafkazar
October 31, 2015 1:42 pm

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

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
October 31, 2015 1:51 pm

Hey, his kids have to eat too.

czechlist
Reply to  Johan
October 31, 2015 3:05 pm

I believe Einstein said science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one’s living at it

emsnews
Reply to  Johan
November 1, 2015 5:32 am

Isn’t it sad how they have to howl at the moon even when announcing that there is zero need to howl at the moon in the first place? 🙂

average joe
Reply to  Johan
November 1, 2015 8:44 am

If that is the case then he needs to get a real job!

Menicholas
Reply to  Johan
November 1, 2015 9:01 am

Are they hiring lickspittle prevaricators at the moment?

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
October 31, 2015 2:23 pm

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.

Bernie
Reply to  Curious George
October 31, 2015 2:48 pm

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.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Curious George
October 31, 2015 6:00 pm

“validated weather models”
Pull the other one…

Menicholas
Reply to  Curious George
October 31, 2015 9:57 pm

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’.

David A
Reply to  Curious George
November 1, 2015 2:51 am

So what happened to “Grace” and their claims of ice loss? Was that data, or a projection?

Jay Zwally
Reply to  Curious George
November 1, 2015 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.

Reply to  Curious George
November 1, 2015 9:28 am

Today’s Arctic ice extent vs previous years:comment image

seaice
Reply to  Curious George
November 2, 2015 8:20 am

“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.

Jimbo
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
October 31, 2015 3:38 pm

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.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
October 31, 2015 4:11 pm

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.”

RoHa
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 5:54 pm

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.

BFL
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 6:12 pm

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

Steve R
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 8:08 pm

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.

Samuel C. Cogar
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 5:56 am

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.

Jimbo
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 8:16 am

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

Duster
Reply to  ferdberple
November 2, 2015 1:28 pm

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.

October 31, 2015 1:45 pm

This is just a nice piece of an iced cake to Paris.

October 31, 2015 1:48 pm

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.

nigelf
Reply to  Roy Denio
October 31, 2015 2:25 pm

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.

Steve R
Reply to  nigelf
November 2, 2015 5:05 pm

When sea level drops, who will claim ownership of the vast expanses of continental shelf when it is exposed?

observa
Reply to  nigelf
November 3, 2015 2:41 am

There you go again playing games predicting when you should only be playing games projecting.

Louis
Reply to  Roy Denio
October 31, 2015 2:50 pm

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?

John Peter
Reply to  Louis
November 1, 2015 2:36 am

Louis, This is to retain his job.

Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
Reply to  Roy Denio
October 31, 2015 3:07 pm

““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?

JBP
Reply to  Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
October 31, 2015 3:31 pm

Ha

Knute
Reply to  JBP
October 31, 2015 4:52 pm

+1

MikeH
Reply to  Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
October 31, 2015 8:40 pm

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

Reply to  Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
October 31, 2015 9:33 pm
Hugs
Reply to  Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
October 31, 2015 11:47 pm

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

Leo Morgan
Reply to  Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
October 31, 2015 11:57 pm

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.

Editor
Reply to  Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
November 1, 2015 4:59 am

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

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
November 1, 2015 10:12 am

But what if climate change is killing the turtles? What will support the Earth then?

Reply to  Roy Denio
October 31, 2015 4:23 pm

“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.

MfK
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 5:14 pm

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.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 5:23 pm

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.

RoHa
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 6:16 pm

I thought they were saving the daylight in vast, underground, caverns, in case the sun went out.

rd50
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 6:44 pm

Perfect for Halloween night!

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 10:03 pm

“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.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 10:27 pm

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 1:47 am

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.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 2:56 am

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.

GregS
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 3:25 am

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. 🙂

emsnews
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 5:51 am

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.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 6:16 am

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?

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 8:30 am

EMS, are you really Forest Gump?
Come on, out with it!
🙂

expat
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 8:50 am

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

Ryan
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 11:57 am

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.

Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 4:53 pm

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.”

Bob Bregman
Reply to  ferdberple
November 2, 2015 1:22 am

Does that mean that we can’t predict that we will have to set our clocks forward next spring?

Ter of Kona
Reply to  ferdberple
November 2, 2015 8:53 am

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.

JJM Gommers
October 31, 2015 1:51 pm

In line with the recent report about the antarctic temperatures bu Werner Brozek.

Luke
October 31, 2015 1:55 pm

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.

Reply to  Luke
October 31, 2015 2:05 pm

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.”

Reply to  Matthew W
November 1, 2015 5:57 am

@ 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.

Reply to  Luke
October 31, 2015 2:08 pm

Oh, and the fact that he uses “Climate deniers” tells us about his honesty.

Knute
Reply to  Luke
October 31, 2015 2:11 pm

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.

Reply to  Knute
October 31, 2015 5:49 pm

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!!

Knute
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 31, 2015 8:00 pm

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.

RoHa
Reply to  Knute
October 31, 2015 6:19 pm

And it certainly mustn’t detract from the vast profits the Big Money boys are making from the scare.

Menicholas
Reply to  Knute
October 31, 2015 10:08 pm

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  Knute
November 1, 2015 8:35 am

“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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  Luke
October 31, 2015 2:13 pm

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

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 31, 2015 2:18 pm

Good Lord! That went into moderation!
For the life of me, I can’t think why.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 31, 2015 2:35 pm

Well what did you say ??

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 31, 2015 2:40 pm

uk(us):
You must wait until it achieves moderation. If I repeat it then I anticipate the repeat would go into moderation, too.
Richard

Louis
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 31, 2015 2:53 pm

You used the “D” word in your Zwally quote. That will send you into moderation every time.

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 31, 2015 2:55 pm

Louis:
Thankyou.
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 31, 2015 2:58 pm

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 …

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 31, 2015 3:11 pm

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

Knute
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 31, 2015 4:38 pm

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

JohnKnight
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 31, 2015 8:58 pm

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.

Luke
Reply to  richardscourtney
October 31, 2015 10:38 pm

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.

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
November 1, 2015 12:07 am

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

richardscourtney
Reply to  richardscourtney
November 1, 2015 12:48 am

Luke:
If my response to your answer is not sufficiently clear then you may find it helpful to read this comment in the thread from davidmhoffer because it addresses the same point in a different way.
Richard

harry
Reply to  richardscourtney
November 1, 2015 1:53 am

“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.

Bruce
Reply to  richardscourtney
November 1, 2015 11:30 am

Maybe we should be glad he didn’t torture and adjust the data to make it say what he wanted.

Ron
Reply to  richardscourtney
November 1, 2015 4:47 pm

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.

Duster
Reply to  richardscourtney
November 2, 2015 1:34 pm

Harry, +1

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Luke
October 31, 2015 2:33 pm

“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?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 31, 2015 3:39 pm

We can praise him for not being dishonest this time around.

DonM
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 31, 2015 5:57 pm

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)

Reply to  Luke
October 31, 2015 2:39 pm

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?

Hugs
Reply to  Johan
November 1, 2015 12:00 am

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.’

Luke
Reply to  Johan
November 1, 2015 6:18 am

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  Johan
November 1, 2015 9:05 am

“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.

Mary Brown
Reply to  Johan
November 1, 2015 2:14 pm

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.

Reply to  Luke
October 31, 2015 3:40 pm

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.

Steve R
Reply to  Vic Socotra
October 31, 2015 8:16 pm

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.

Catcracking
Reply to  Vic Socotra
October 31, 2015 8:54 pm

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.

iurockhead
Reply to  Vic Socotra
November 1, 2015 11:56 am

Hansen didn’t turn off the AC, Timothy Wirth did. Probably Hansen’s idea, though.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Luke
October 31, 2015 4:17 pm

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”.

Dahlquist
Reply to  JohnKnight
November 1, 2015 9:55 am

“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 …”

Menicholas
Reply to  Luke
October 31, 2015 4:53 pm

“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?

H.R.
Reply to  Menicholas
October 31, 2015 5:06 pm

“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.

Reply to  Menicholas
November 1, 2015 12:25 pm

+10

Knute
Reply to  msbehavin'
November 1, 2015 12:55 pm

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.

bit chilly
Reply to  Luke
October 31, 2015 5:00 pm

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.

Reply to  Luke
November 1, 2015 8:55 am

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.

Jay Zwally
Reply to  Luke
November 1, 2015 9:36 am

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

Dahlquist
Reply to  Jay Zwally
November 1, 2015 10:08 am

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

Reply to  Luke
November 1, 2015 11:20 am

“good scientists” don’t use nonsensical terms like “climate denier” to describe people who disagree with their theories

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Luke
November 1, 2015 12:12 pm

“…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.

Editor
October 31, 2015 1:59 pm

When Antarctic temperatures start warming up again, snowfall will recover again, and sea level rise will slow down even more.
Now who would have thunk that?

Ivor Ward
October 31, 2015 2:02 pm

“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.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Ivor Ward
November 1, 2015 2:44 am

ABSOLUTELY

Jay Zwally
Reply to  Stephen Richards
November 1, 2015 10:10 am

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

Reply to  Jay Zwally
November 1, 2015 11:07 am

It’s all trumped by your demonizing scientific skeptics as “deniers”.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Stephen Richards
November 1, 2015 12:19 pm

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

JohnKnight
Reply to  Stephen Richards
November 1, 2015 3:50 pm

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?

October 31, 2015 2:02 pm

Sure, but this is new ice replacing old ice. It’s not the same thing.
Seriously, Warmistas have said this to me with a straight face.

Reply to  Matthew W
October 31, 2015 3:41 pm

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

RH
Reply to  Matthew W
October 31, 2015 6:37 pm

HAHA. If new ice didn’t replace old ice Antarctica would eventually contain all the water on earth.

Menicholas
Reply to  Matthew W
November 1, 2015 8:40 am

“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:
https://youtu.be/yH5BPB5067w

Latitude
October 31, 2015 2:03 pm

“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

Alec aka Daffy Duck
October 31, 2015 2:04 pm

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

rogerknights
Reply to  Alec aka Daffy Duck
October 31, 2015 2:16 pm

“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?

Latitude
Reply to  rogerknights
October 31, 2015 2:41 pm

“And silt deposits, right?”
I will never understand all these lame excuses for sea level rise….ground water, melting ice….
When the land is eroding on the shoreline, rivers, …. etc washing into the sea 24/7
How can they attribute sedimentation to killing corals, blocking shipping, eroding beaches, etc and then say it doesn’t 24/7comment image

Latitude
Reply to  rogerknights
October 31, 2015 2:42 pm
Anthony S
Reply to  rogerknights
October 31, 2015 9:51 pm

I did the math one time on sedimentation. Even using the high estimates for erosion, it comes out to about 0.05 mm/yr.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t8AdmoU_jcChSE1xaL-2JZkNa4zXN4dmjq_9zgel44k/edit?usp=sharing

Reply to  Alec aka Daffy Duck
November 1, 2015 8:58 am

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.

matt
Reply to  Alec aka Daffy Duck
November 2, 2015 8:07 pm

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

Scott (who is not the other Scott)
October 31, 2015 2:04 pm

What are the chances this story will be picked up by the mass media?

Reply to  Scott (who is not the other Scott)
October 31, 2015 2:09 pm

100%.
But it will be spun away.

nigelf
Reply to  Matthew W
October 31, 2015 2:28 pm

Zwally already did that for them at the end.

Reply to  Scott (who is not the other Scott)
October 31, 2015 3:18 pm

wonder if this is the beginning of the walk back?
reputations to save
for those that are still savable

Don
Reply to  rebelronin
October 31, 2015 7:40 pm

I had the same thought. Combine that with the increasing evidence that melting in Western Antarctica is mainly from geothermal sources, a walk back made to order.

Menicholas, the one and only, because there is and can be only one Menicholas...the original.
Reply to  Scott (who is not the other Scott)
November 1, 2015 9:07 am

“What are the chances this story will be picked up by the mass media?”
Slim and none, and Slim stepped out for some breakfast?

tty
October 31, 2015 2:05 pm

“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!

tty
Reply to  tty
October 31, 2015 2:08 pm

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..”.

Reply to  tty
October 31, 2015 3:14 pm

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

Mike Smith
October 31, 2015 2:07 pm

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.

DonM
Reply to  Mike Smith
October 31, 2015 6:05 pm

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.

Marcus
Reply to  DonM
November 1, 2015 1:29 am

These pseudo-scientists are going to be very unhappy ( and much poorer ) when Trump is elected !!!

johann wundersamer
Reply to  DonM
November 2, 2015 2:38 am

‘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

matt
Reply to  DonM
November 2, 2015 8:18 pm

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.

emsnews
Reply to  Mike Smith
November 1, 2015 6:29 am

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?

Rob Dawg
October 31, 2015 2:08 pm

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.

matt
Reply to  Rob Dawg
November 2, 2015 8:21 pm

global ice mass has decreased overall despite East Antarctic gains.

Lewis P Buckingham
October 31, 2015 2:10 pm

“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.

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
October 31, 2015 2:38 pm

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?’

bit chilly
Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
October 31, 2015 5:02 pm

the error bars would be orders of magnitude greater than the numbers claimed.

Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
October 31, 2015 4:09 pm

“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.

DonM
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 31, 2015 6:07 pm

😉

Marcus
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
November 1, 2015 1:31 am

Come on , put it back ! LOL

Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
October 31, 2015 4:53 pm

“[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.

Marcus
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 1:35 am

Those ” Iron men ” of olde were obviously ” climate change d.e.n.i.e.r.s. !!! “

johann wundersamer
Reply to  ferdberple
November 2, 2015 3:11 am

ferdberple, Your words in golden letters engraved in granite!
Regards – Hans

johann wundersamer
Reply to  ferdberple
November 2, 2015 3:57 am

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

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
November 1, 2015 9:04 am

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

Stan Vinson
October 31, 2015 2:10 pm

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.

G. Karst
Reply to  Stan Vinson
October 31, 2015 7:43 pm

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

FAH
October 31, 2015 2:41 pm

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.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  FAH
November 1, 2015 9:05 am

🙂 ++:-)

Peter Sable
October 31, 2015 2:45 pm

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

u.k.(us)
October 31, 2015 2:48 pm

Kinda a catch .22 , eh 🙂

October 31, 2015 2:55 pm

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.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
October 31, 2015 5:10 pm

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.

Knute
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 5:30 pm

FB
Can you point me to a favorite article or book. I’d love to learn more.
Thanks

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 10:18 pm

Have you been reading Paul Bunyan again?

Knute
Reply to  Menicholas
October 31, 2015 10:21 pm

+2 for the belly laugh

emsnews
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 6:33 am

This is exactly what happened to Mars which did have oceans long, long, long ago.

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 8:21 am

What, babe the blue ox got thirsty after eating Paul Bunyan’s pancake stack, whilst they were on a weekend jaunt to go do some logging up on The Red Planet?
Drank the whole ocean dry…Paul had put too much salt on his bacon and eggs, you see.
When babe went to pee it out, it had so much force it all landed on the moon Europa!
And that was the end of that!

Menicholas
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 8:23 am

And the spash-back made those pretty little rings around Saturn, too!
Babe the ox…that scamp!

Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 6:35 pm

Can you point me to a favorite article or book
==============
http://www.social-sciences-and-humanities.com/PDF/seven_pillars_of_wisdom.pdf

Knute
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 6:58 pm

Ferd
Lawrence of Arabia ?
Twice ?

johann wundersamer
Reply to  ferdberple
November 2, 2015 3:56 am

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

Reply to  ferdberple
November 2, 2015 9:36 am

Don’t you mean ‘The Seven Pillars of Wisdom’?

kramer
October 31, 2015 2:55 pm

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.

DonM
Reply to  kramer
October 31, 2015 6:14 pm

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.

matt
Reply to  kramer
November 2, 2015 8:27 pm

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.

Louis
October 31, 2015 2:56 pm

The gate keepers must be slacking off on the job if stuff like this is getting out before Paris.

October 31, 2015 2:58 pm

Mother Nature is relentless.
Evidence CO2 has no effect on climate & Identification of what does (97% match since before 1900) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

October 31, 2015 3:06 pm

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?

RH
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 31, 2015 6:56 pm

Sally revealed himself to be a climate doomsayer with his unabashed use of the “d” word.

Bill Illis
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
November 1, 2015 4:46 am

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.

Reply to  Bill Illis
November 1, 2015 6:41 am

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  Bill Illis
November 1, 2015 8:13 am

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!

October 31, 2015 3:15 pm

“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

John Robertson
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 31, 2015 8:29 pm

You also post as Luke?
If not your comments at 5:59 to Knute make no sense.

Menicholas
Reply to  John Robertson
October 31, 2015 10:22 pm

He was referring to previous comments and discussions elsewhere.

Reply to  John Robertson
October 31, 2015 11:30 pm

Yes, thanks Menicholas. That is correct. I am not Luke. I only post as ..frog.
My comment above was acknowledging a kind comment from Knute, on an earlier thread.
Apologies for any confusion caused.

Menicholas
Reply to  John Robertson
November 1, 2015 2:09 am

I would be surprised if even our most egregious sock puppets trolls actually argue with themselves!
🙂

TimTheToolMan
October 31, 2015 3:24 pm

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.

u.k.(us)
October 31, 2015 3:37 pm

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 /

Richard T
Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 31, 2015 4:52 pm

My Firefox browser doesn’t give me access to WUWT. I have to go to Safari to get here.

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  Richard T
October 31, 2015 10:19 pm

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.

Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 31, 2015 5:14 pm

coherent thought I had
===============
objection. assumes facts not in evidence.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 5:24 pm

Exactly.

clipe
Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 31, 2015 5:50 pm

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).

u.k.(us)
Reply to  clipe
October 31, 2015 6:38 pm

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).

markl
Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 31, 2015 6:55 pm

Try https://www.opendns.com/ if select sites are slower responding than the rest.

Reply to  clipe
October 31, 2015 7:28 pm

This site is becoming so slow
====================
try something like this:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/disconnect/jeoacafpbcihiomhlakheieifhpjdfeo?hl=en

u.k.(us)
Reply to  clipe
October 31, 2015 7:54 pm

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.

Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 31, 2015 8:01 pm

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).

markl
Reply to  u.k.(us)
October 31, 2015 9:29 pm

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.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  clipe
October 31, 2015 8:18 pm

I’m just trying to make sense of it.
Not having much luck.

Menicholas
Reply to  clipe
October 31, 2015 10:27 pm

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.

u.k.(us)
Reply to  clipe
October 31, 2015 11:47 pm

Thanks everyone, I’m gonna sleep on it.

Marcus
Reply to  u.k.(us)
November 1, 2015 1:48 am

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 !!

Marcus
Reply to  Marcus
November 1, 2015 1:52 am

— Including NASA, Dept of Defense, NOAA and Homeland Security to name a few !!!

emsnews
Reply to  Marcus
November 1, 2015 6:39 am

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.

Reply to  Marcus
November 1, 2015 6:32 pm

peerblock is like driving down the road with a radar jammer in your invisible car.

Knute
Reply to  ferdberple
November 1, 2015 6:48 pm

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

Reply to  u.k.(us)
November 6, 2015 9:27 am

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.

October 31, 2015 3:38 pm

NASA should be warning us of real threats, not the usual false alarms:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/03ee2578bcecc7999face9437b0a2f36/tumblr_nwzmvbIMgv1qkvbwso1_r1_500.png

Knute
Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2015 4:43 pm

+1
And unknown till recently.
That’s just not acceptable from a risk management point of view.

hunter
Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2015 5:18 pm

The money spent on promoting climate fear comes at an opportunity cost.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2015 5:26 pm

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.

Patrick
Reply to  dbstealey
October 31, 2015 8:41 pm

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.

Marcus
Reply to  Patrick
November 1, 2015 1:54 am

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

Menicholas
Reply to  Patrick
November 1, 2015 2:18 am

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.
http://theinfosphere.org/images/7/7c/Katey_Sagal's_Head.jpg

Patrick
Reply to  Patrick
November 1, 2015 11:08 pm

“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?

Bill Illis
Reply to  dbstealey
November 1, 2015 4:56 am

“Spooky” is even Spookier than expected.
It actually looks exactly like a human Skull. As in warning us of an apocalypse encounter to come.

Menicholas
Reply to  Bill Illis
November 1, 2015 7:55 am

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.

October 31, 2015 3:50 pm

“taking away .23 mm of sea level change” So that means the error bars on sea level rise just got 8.5% larger?

Javier
Reply to  fossilsage
October 31, 2015 6:00 pm

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.

Hugs
Reply to  Javier
November 1, 2015 12:34 am

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!

October 31, 2015 3:53 pm

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.”

October 31, 2015 3:58 pm

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:

Robert of Ottawa
October 31, 2015 4:18 pm

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

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 31, 2015 6:03 pm

If you picked Antarctica up and had it FedExed to Hawaii, the ice would still be making Mai Tai’s 10 thousand years from now.

RoHa
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 6:28 pm

That sounds like a really good idea.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist level 7
Reply to  ferdberple
October 31, 2015 7:24 pm

Not true; even if you picked up Puerto Rico and had it FedExed to Hawaii at the same time you’d run out of rum first.

Javier
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 31, 2015 6:12 pm

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.

Knute
Reply to  Javier
October 31, 2015 7:52 pm

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 ?

Menicholas
Reply to  Javier
October 31, 2015 10:46 pm

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.

emsnews
Reply to  Javier
November 1, 2015 6:45 am

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.

seaice
Reply to  Javier
November 3, 2015 3:33 am

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?

October 31, 2015 4:32 pm

“…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.

Menicholas
Reply to  ATheoK
October 31, 2015 9:41 pm

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.

Marcus
Reply to  Menicholas
November 1, 2015 2:00 am

+ 10,000

Reply to  Menicholas
November 1, 2015 12:00 pm

Exactly what I thinking Menicholas! Thank you for finding the relevant passage and greatly clarifying mine!

Alx
October 31, 2015 4:50 pm

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.

JohnKnight
Reply to  Alx
October 31, 2015 7:34 pm

“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 ; )

Berényi Péter
October 31, 2015 4:55 pm

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.

F. Ross
October 31, 2015 5:01 pm

… 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.

Javier
Reply to  F. Ross
October 31, 2015 6:18 pm

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.

Marcus
Reply to  Javier
November 1, 2015 2:05 am

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

Knute
October 31, 2015 5:04 pm

A Blog Series from a Major NGO
http://earthjustice.org/blog/2015-october/can-paris-be-at-the-vanguard-of-global-climate-action
There is a chart in the first blog that gives strategic clues to how the US is being described. Also shows who are the “model countries”. The Paris message will be the US has awakened and a cleaner world is yet to come.

October 31, 2015 5:05 pm

If the JPL interpreted the GRACE data correctly the overall trend 2002-2014 shows net loss of ice sheet mass (but these changes are not related to surface temperature).
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2684427

Bruiser
October 31, 2015 5:13 pm

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.

Eliza
October 31, 2015 5:16 pm

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

Menicholas
Reply to  Eliza
October 31, 2015 9:50 pm

NOAA is both lying and debunking their own lies…simultaneously!
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/noaa-data-debunks-noaa-lies/

Knute
Reply to  Menicholas
October 31, 2015 10:16 pm

A lovely juxtaposition
+1
Meanwhile
http://earthjustice.org/climate-and-energy/climate-change/black-carbon
So why does a special interest group get to mold policy directly with government organizations without anybody batting an eye.
Is this the new normal ?

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
October 31, 2015 11:53 pm

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.

Knute
Reply to  Menicholas
November 1, 2015 8:43 am

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 ?

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  Menicholas
November 1, 2015 3:52 pm

Knute:
Read this quote and decide if the group you referred to even understands Archimedes.
“The rapid melting of Arctic ice would raise sea levels and render low-lying areas such as Miami and New Orleans more vulnerable to coastal flooding.”
How does the melting of floating ice affect sea level? (and yes, I know the arguments wrt salinity – http://www.peacelegacy.org/articles/does-melting-sea-ice-raise-sea-levels).

Knute
Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
November 1, 2015 5:54 pm

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 ?

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
November 1, 2015 11:46 pm

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.

hunter
October 31, 2015 5:16 pm

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

Menicholas
Reply to  hunter
October 31, 2015 9:54 pm

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.

davidmhoffer
October 31, 2015 5:20 pm

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.

Mike Smith
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 31, 2015 6:15 pm

Exactly. And we call this science!

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 31, 2015 6:37 pm

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?

Steve Oregon
October 31, 2015 5:33 pm

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.

October 31, 2015 5:47 pm

Can you point me to a favorite article or book
==============
http://www.social-sciences-and-humanities.com/PDF/seven_pillars_of_wisdom.pdf

noaaprogrammer
October 31, 2015 6:04 pm

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.

Marcus
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
November 1, 2015 2:12 am

Is that why Canadians are all kinda wrinkly ?? Freeze dried ??

Menicholas
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
November 1, 2015 2:33 am

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!

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Menicholas
November 2, 2015 4:01 pm

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

markl
October 31, 2015 6:30 pm

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  markl
November 1, 2015 2:40 am

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.

John_downunder
October 31, 2015 6:45 pm

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.

Bill Illis
Reply to  John_downunder
November 1, 2015 5:01 am

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.

601nan
October 31, 2015 6:49 pm

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.”

Marcus
Reply to  601nan
November 1, 2015 2:15 am

. . . . . . .ROTFLMAO !!!!!

MSQ
Reply to  601nan
November 1, 2015 6:45 am

I like it, is this an adaptation or an original, er, .. story?

Charles Nelson
October 31, 2015 7:05 pm

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?

Marcus
Reply to  Charles Nelson
November 1, 2015 2:16 am

That game was only enjoyable if you played it naked !!!

Hlaford
Reply to  Marcus
November 1, 2015 4:14 am

True, that’s much better. This way I already feel violated.

tango
October 31, 2015 7:22 pm

Zwally is a wally a Australian word describing a bloke

dp
October 31, 2015 7:30 pm

“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.

Scott Scarborough
October 31, 2015 8:12 pm

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!

October 31, 2015 8:15 pm

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.

NZ Willy
October 31, 2015 8:32 pm

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