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.
From the NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER via press release:
NASA study: Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses
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
Source: Journal of Glaciology doi: 10.3189/2015JoG15J071
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)
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.
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 /
My Firefox browser doesn’t give me access to WUWT. I have to go to Safari to get here.
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.
coherent thought I had
===============
objection. assumes facts not in evidence.
Exactly.
Try clearing your cache.
WUWT is always fast for me on Windows laptop/desktop (Firefox), Ipad2 (Safari or Dolphin) or Android phone ( Chrome or Firefox).
I don’t want to start a whole thing here, but I generally visit about 20 websites a day.
5 of them are from Anthony’s blog roll, the others are others.
A few of the sites take 10-20 seconds to fully load (meaning that they scroll fine ).
then they are fine.
But WUWT is “always” hanging (you get that “busy” circle instead of the cursor ).
WUWT ??
(I clear the cache all the time, thanks for the tip).
Try https://www.opendns.com/ if select sites are slower responding than the rest.
This site is becoming so slow
====================
try something like this:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/disconnect/jeoacafpbcihiomhlakheieifhpjdfeo?hl=en
Ok, now tell me why it took 20 seconds to get a cursor to get this typed.
I’m running 2 monitors, live feed horse racing on one, and youtube music and facebook and WUWT on the other.
But……..of all my other websites I visit, WUWT is the only one that is really,really slow.
For what it’s worth (admittedly not much), I haven’t noticed any change in WUWT, either in posting comments or loading the site (I use Safari).
u.k.(us) commented: “….But……..of all my other websites I visit, WUWT is the only one that is really,really slow.
Really OT but when selected sites are slow it can be your dns server. WUWT is always up to speed for me. In the past I had issues with other sites like you and used https://www.opendns.com/ , It’s free and an easy tune that you won’t regret. DNS servers are everywhere and choosing the right one to optimize your system speed helps.
I’m just trying to make sense of it.
Not having much luck.
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.
Thanks everyone, I’m gonna sleep on it.
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 !!
— Including NASA, Dept of Defense, NOAA and Homeland Security to name a few !!!
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.
peerblock is like driving down the road with a radar jammer in your invisible car.
I’m trying this on my android smartphone.
No luck. Is there a setting in should check. I’ll take a help link and followthru …
Tnx
I had this same problem with another website. I finally switched from IE to Chrome and the entire issue simply vanished. It’s a bit a a pain to switch browsers, but well worth it imo.
NASA should be warning us of real threats, not the usual false alarms:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/03ee2578bcecc7999face9437b0a2f36/tumblr_nwzmvbIMgv1qkvbwso1_r1_500.png
+1
And unknown till recently.
That’s just not acceptable from a risk management point of view.
The money spent on promoting climate fear comes at an opportunity cost.
this was a warning shot from Gaia. if we don’t mend our wicked ways and reduce CO2 the next one will be on target.
Reliable source predict Al Gore will propose “Preparation A” to protect us all from the ravages of Asteroids.
But there is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent it…so ignorance is bliss in a case like this? It’s like pretending when we are born we will live forever when in fact the moment we are born, and self aware, we are on the path to death. There is no escaping it. There is no adaption. It will happen.
Being prepared will greatly increase your chances of surviving any disaster !!
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
“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?
“Spooky” is even Spookier than expected.
It actually looks exactly like a human Skull. As in warning us of an apocalypse encounter to come.
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.
“taking away .23 mm of sea level change” So that means the error bars on sea level rise just got 8.5% larger?
Actually more. It is not only taking away 0.23 mm from ice growth, it is not adding the 0.27 mm that it was thought to be adding, so the actual difference is now 0.5 mm. Talk about error in the attribution for a settled science.
Absolutely Settled. There’s nothing unclear here, the picture is coming clearer and clearer. The sea level is rising because increasing humidity causes hurricanes which cause floods at the sea.
Hey, it’s only logic!
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.”
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:
Frankly, if the temperature of the Antarctic rose by 5C, the ice would not melt. It’s consistently very cold down there.
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.
That sounds like a really good idea.
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.
But it is not warming in Antarctica. It is cooling.
The AGW theory is in serious trouble because three of its main predictions have failed:
1. More warming in the poles than in mid-latitudes: FAIL
2. More warming in the atmosphere than in the surface: FAIL
3. Linear increase in warming with the increase in CO2: FAIL
If it is not discarded is for political reasons and for lack of a better contender. We do not understand mechanistically how the world has warmed so much in the last 150 years. With CO2 we could understand how the warming took place, but clearly it is the wrong explanation. Science doesn’t like to go from having a theory to not having any.
J
“If it is not discarded is for political reasons and for lack of a better contender. We do not understand mechanistically how the world has warmed so much in the last 150 years. With CO2 we could understand how the warming took place, but clearly it is the wrong explanation. Science doesn’t like to go from having a theory to not having any.”
Ah, a potential break in the weather (sorry, bad pun .. was spontaneous). What if, if the pillars to the charade start to collapse ?
The True Believer loses what ?
What would they lament the most ?
Cleaner energy for the masses ?
Inexpensive ?
Refocus on fixing was is truly broken ?
Power shift for the maestros ?
Perhaps the pillars rot but the mess can be redirected towards salvaging the good of the remains ?
Is there a crack to be pryed open ?
Far too many have staked far too much, and done so for far too long, to do any sort of abrupt about face now.
Reputations are on the line.
Careers are on the line.
Pride is on the line.
Money is on the line.
Power is on the line.
Warmistas have painted themselves in a very tight and inescapable corner, and many are still brushing away completely oblivious to this, while some others are seeing what is happening and attempting CYA and damage control and using various other coping mechanisms.
There is no one mindset to alter, no single reason for being True Believers, and not even any way to know how many are being purposely duplicitous and how many of these honestly think the end justifies the means.
It is a real mess alright, and if it is not, t will do until the real mess gets here.
The answer is easy and very obvious: THE SUN.
Sigh. The sun heats up our planet and a lot of other things. It is a star but it is not totally stable and in the last 2 million years it has been rather unstable to a degree that is alarming to our little planet because we like to have stability not an increasingly variable star.
This information is very scary which is why no one talks about it and why my father’s last paper, ‘The Sun Is A Variable Star’ was not published.
Abe, I am not sure why you posted the passage form Javier. If it was meant ironically, I have missed the point – blame Poe’s law.
Javier has failed absolutely to understand the gas constant, R in the Ideal gas equation, PV=nRT. It refers to an ideal gas – the volume of the actual molecules is ignored and there are assumed to be no attractive forces between molecules.
He is wrong on a point of detail that “Nitrogen and CO2 and Argon and Methane and Oxygen, ALL get IDENTICAL VALUES”
The gas constant describes behaviour of ideal gases. It is a constant, and each gas gas does not “get” a value. The compounds listed are not in fact ideal gases, so each behaves differently and none of them follow the ideal gas law exactly. To describe the true behaviour of each of these gases, we need a more complex formula, such as the Van der Waals equation, which quantifies the molecular volume and the inter-molecular interactions. Thus the same amount of each of the gases will occupy a slightly different volume at the same temperature and pressure, unlike an ideal gas. Each gas gets a different value for two constants in this equation. Each real gas does not get identical values.
More importantly, he is wrong because even if all gases were ideal, it only relates pressure to volume and temperature. It does not mean that all gases are the same, or will have the same absorption, or would reach the same equilibrium temperature given a particular radiation flux.
The rest of it is equal rubbish. I ask Javier what happens to the temperature of his sphere if you allow the same amount amount if energy in, but prevent some of it leaving?
Used meteorological data? From where!? The Sahara?
Who was tracking actual snowfalls in central Antarctica?
OOOhmmm said the great swami Zwally. There was no big snow in Antarctica this year.
Big warmy-warmy come soon now, maybe soon later.
Heap bad juju warmy-warmy.
More snow come, then less snow come
Big snow Little snow
Soon, no snow come now
Big warmy-warmy come now, come later, big water rise up, big water angry.
Wind mojo, sun mojo, stop big warmy-warmy, big snow stay, big water happy.
+ 10,000
Exactly what I thinking Menicholas! Thank you for finding the relevant passage and greatly clarifying mine!
Who knew that there must be something other than self-important humans that are causing the oceans to (perhaps) rise. I say perhaps because measuring ocean levels is about as reliable as estimating global temperature, but who knows maybe one day before the year 3000 we’ll figure it out.
It was settled before it wasn’t settled.
Scientists do have to go with what they know until they know better. Looking at the history of learning how to date the earth, scientists arrived at various methods of dating, and each method was the best they could figure at the time. Eventually scientists determined out how to date the earth reliably, and all thoughts of how old the earth based on previous “best as we know” methods were thrown out. Science works, but for some areas takes a really long time.
The problem for climate science is scientists knew it was only the best they could figure at the time and was neither mature, proven or reliable. They had some knowledge and had some working hypothesis, but they also knew better, they knew enough to say it was not settled. This is called fraud.
“Eventually scientists determined out how to date the earth reliably…”
Assuming all sort of things, including no “consensus effect” existed before the almighty CAWG arrived on the science scene ; )
Okay, it’s not melting, but it is projected to be extremely likely that it could melt.
+emphasis
I predict it will “kick in” on November 11, 3351 at 2:37PM in Queen Maud Land.
…well it’s as good a guess as any other.
Seriously doubt it. The next glacial period is scheduled to kick in about 4200 AD when winter snow will stop melting during the summer in certain areas of North Canada. Until then things can only get colder in bouts. We are right now in between two cooling periods and instead of enjoying it, we feel guilty. Go figure.
As a Canadian….. I want my Glo.Bull Warming !!!!!! I’m tired of freezing my nuts off every 6 months !!
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.
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
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.
This is important because it the first time that NASA is openly confronting the alarmists with their own data
NOAA is both lying and debunking their own lies…simultaneously!
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/noaa-data-debunks-noaa-lies/
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 ?
Knute, the text on that linked page at EarthJustice.org may be the most densely packed concentrations of lies and misinformation I have ever seen in my life!
Some of the more obvious ones include:
– The Arctic may not be warming at all, and the rest of the planet is definitely not warming…not for the past 18 years and nine months anyway.
-Ice melting rapidly cannot have any more or less effect on sea level than if it melted slowly.
-Melting Arctic sea ice cannot possibly affect sea level one single millimeter, since it is floating on the sea already.
– While soot on ice may make it melt faster (not sure), in the air it almost surely causes surface cooling by blocking solar radiation before it hits the ground.
– Calling soot “black carbon” is a new one for me…wow, these guys must burn the midnight oil devising their propaganda sound bites.
– There is no evidence that the Inuit people have inhabited that region for multiple millennia, and even if they did, it has been much warmer there for much of the past few millennia. The Thule culture that gave rise to the various indigenous groups arose during the Medieval Warm Period, around 1000 AD.
And there is evidence that they were well along on their way to perishing completely before Europeans met up with them and supplied them with technology and materials to allow them to survive the during the latter stages of the Little Ice Age.
-Polar bears are like any other animal…they eat whatever are the easiest and most abundant food sources. Bears in general are highly adaptable omnivores, and are in no jeopardy from warmer conditions…if there are any such conditions coming. The idea that Caribou are somehow at risk from warmer conditions is absurd. They range all the way South into the US, and some herds have taken up permanent residence in Yellowstone, foregoing the long trek to the Arctic every year. And in any case, both of these species have managed to survived for a very long time as glacial epochs and interglacials came and went, and many periods of time in this and other interglacials were, again, far warmer than today.
– Arctic warming causing more extreme weather in mid latitudes being stated as a fact is laughable and completely wrong. Cold periods have historically been more stormy, as when the Little Ice Age and the Dark Ages conditions prevailed. The reason they were called the Dark Ages is because it was so much stormier…it was actually dark a lot of the time. And as we have ample direct evidence of now, there has been no increase in severe weather of any sort. The opposite is true.
-There is no evidence whatsoever than we can expect .5 degrees of temperature rise by 2040, so there can be no way to have any idea of how to prevent something which we cannot know will happen.
These people act and write as if every shred of alarmist hyped up scaremongering is a verified fact just waiting to happen or already in progress, and the schedule is all work out…plus we have our hand on the control knobs for these changes and can dial in whatever sort of weather we would like to have. All we need to do is make the laws and regulations that these jackasses imagine will put them in control of the climate and the weather.
These fools sicken me.
M
“These fools sicken me.”
Good. They are am intermediary feeder group.
Here is a link to well done illegal (so the brief claims) rulemaking.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/30/report-epa-broke-the-law-to-push-co2-regulations/
Report link is in second paragraph. It’s well done.
CO2 regs are the lynchpin. The US holds that lynchpin. For me, it begs the question …. why is a GOP controlled congress not going after this like they went after other administrative abuses ?
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).
WD
Easy to understand. 47 mm max one time big meltdown. Thanks for the link. You present it so simply even a child could get it. Consider a children’s book. In fact, it should be in a top ten of CAGW misunderstandings.
I sent the link to Menicholas because that organization I linked to is a major player both in the US and internationally. The recent explosion of special interest NGOs are as powerful as any corporate/military special interest K Street lobbyist. The current ngo wave focuses on what are called protected classes.
CAGW targets those protected classes and actually the Pew link I sent Harmon does a pretty good job of identifying the mostly likely to believe groups.
CAGW appeals to protected classes and the young. It could simply be that the hesitancy of otherwise clearheaded people are afraid to speak out against CAGW spin because they sense it is has morphed into a racial issue.
What do you think ?
So, technically I was incorrect to say that melting arctic sea ice will not raise sea levels by a single millimeter?
Perhaps, but that 47 millimeter figure was for the total volume of floating ice on the earth.
The Arctic sea ice is a small amount of the total.
plus, as the last comment mentioned, the net change is zero, since the sea ice expelled salt when it froze.
I notice they took no account of the reduction in overall salinity as the sea ice melted, though.
All things considered, the alarmist site is completely wrong that if the Arctic ice melted, it is a danger to coastal inhabitants.
But the ice is now reforming rapidly, so it should be lowering sea levels at this point.
Once again skeptics are shown to correct in their beliefs and justified in being dubious of the consensus.
And I predict that once again, the warmistas will pretend they never heard of this study, or that it does not say what skeptics think he said when this author said what he said but now what he meant.
Right up until they forget they ever discussed or took a position on Antarctic ice, or that it ever mattered.
Except for the ones who write a model that explains how warmer means colder, except where and when it is hotter and dryer, except when and where it is wetter.
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.
Exactly. And we call this science!
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?
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.
Can you point me to a favorite article or book
==============
http://www.social-sciences-and-humanities.com/PDF/seven_pillars_of_wisdom.pdf
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.
Is that why Canadians are all kinda wrinkly ?? Freeze dried ??
Are you married NOAA programmer?
If so, props to your wife for tolerating such science experiments in the mafriginator.
Ditto for your being able to concentrate on long term goals even when they might conflict with more mundane, day-to-day concerns like tidying up, or stocking up during a sale or ahead of a bad storm and filling that puppy to the rafters.
Cheers!
(My wife grew up with a brother who hibernated snakes among the potatoes and other root vegetables kept in their basement refrigerator.)
The disturbing part about this is the original misstatement/lie is still carried forward by the Warmist Cult as if it were true. Polar bears/glaciers/snow are disappearing. Sea level is rising faster than ever. Increases in foul weather will accelerate and the last almost cat 5 hurricane in Mexico is proof. The MSM never backtracks to identify the false narrative. But I’m betting the people are.
Exactly Mark.
Every part of the spiel has been debunked over and over, plus a bunch of other ones which never even come up any more.
And yet the whole collection of chestnuts is repeatedly trotted back out with a fresh layer of lip gloss.
I’m wondering if NOAA will now need to adjust their isostatic adjustment figure of 0.3mm per annum to global SLR ?. If Antartica is gaining mass then it should be causing the surrounding ocean floors to rise, not fall.
GPS stations are reporting that the land surface at the coast is rising by an average of 0.3 mms/year to 0.4 mms/year so I think that is solid confirmation of the estimate.
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.”
. . . . . . .ROTFLMAO !!!!!
I like it, is this an adaptation or an original, er, .. story?
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?
That game was only enjoyable if you played it naked !!!
True, that’s much better. This way I already feel violated.
Zwally is a wally a Australian word describing a bloke