Big increase is Antarctic Snowfall helps to prevent sea level rise

From The EGU  via the BBC:

Mt. Erebus rising above the ice-covered Antarctic continent. Credit: Ted Scambos & Rob Bauer, NSIDC

When scientists looked at Antarctic snowfall over the past 200 years they found a “significant” increase, up to 10%.

In the decade 2001-2010, some 272 billion tons more snow fell on Antarctica per year compared with the decade 1801-1810.

This extra amount of snow is equivalent to twice the water volume of the Dead Sea, on a per year basis.

However, even though that huge volume of water is being locked up on land, the researchers concluded it would only “slightly slow a general trend in global sea-level rise.”

More here:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43691671


The study: https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2018/EGU2018-1964.pdf

Antarctic snow accumulation over the past 200 years

The Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) is the largest reservoir of fresh water on the planet, even small changes in its volume could have significant impacts on global mean sea level. There is growing evidence that the AIS has been losing mass in recent decades, while mass gains are predicted under future climate warming scenarios. However, there
is little consensus on how surface mass balance (SMB) has changed in the past. Here we reconstruct Antarctic snow accumulation variability over the past 200 years based 79 ice core snow accumulation records to (i) produce regional SMB composites using a regional atmospheric climate model (RACMO2.3p2) and (ii) produce an Antarctic-wide reconstruction derived from reanalysis precipitation-minus-evaporation. Both methods reveal a significant (∼10%) increase in total Antarctic snow accumulation since 1800 AD. Our results show that SMB for the total Antarctic ice sheet (including ice shelves) has increased at a rate of 7 +/- 0.13 Gt dec-1 since 1800 AD, representing a net reduction in sea level of ∼ 0.02 mm dec-1 since 1800 and ∼0.04 mm dec-1 since 1900 AD. The
largest contribution is from the Antarctic Peninsula, where the annual average SMB during the first decade of the 21st century.

Advertisements

127 thoughts on “Big increase is Antarctic Snowfall helps to prevent sea level rise

  1. Snowfall rate is only half the issue. Glacier ice melting is the other half. It is the sum of these that count.
    West Antarctica has increasing snow, but also increasing glacial loss. But most of the ice is on East Antarctica.

    • In addition to what Chimp said, glaciers are rivers of snow. When more water (either liquid or solid) is added upstream, more exits at the mouth. More glacial calving is a natural consequence.

      • The French word for ice is ‘glace’ : hence the term glacier. A river of snow is called an avalanche.

        so what is your point here, that more snow makes no difference? Presumably if they had found less snow you would say that this was good news because less snow up hill would slow down the glacial flow, reduce calving and slow down global sea rise ?

        Somehow I get the feeling that it would be ‘worse than we thought’ no matter what happened.

      • Greg,

        Yes, glaciers are rivers of ice, but the ice forms from fallen snow under compression. Plus, they have snow on top, which makes crevasses so dangerous.

      • Greg, I think you have misunderstood – more snow on glaciers turns to ice, increases their mass and as a result the flow of the glacier can / may increase (due to additional loading) resulting in more calving where it meets the ocean. Increased calving is a symptom of increased snowfall.

    • More snow fall now means that at some time in the future, the rate at which this glacier flows downhill is going to increase.
      What I don’t know is how long this delay is.

      • Due to global warming/climate change the mass of ice exiting a glacier is always more important than the mass entering. sarc

  2. I am disappointed that the precipitation was not measured by the amount of water in the Sydney Harbour but in a stupid little lake no one cares about.

      • Since both the Dead Sea and Sydney harbour are tiny on a global scale it matters not.

        The Dead Sea is small and shallow ( about 30 miles by 9 miles wide ) it’s friggin LAKE . Averaged across the 70% of global surface it probably makes out at a few thou’ thick.

      • Actually, at over 300 meters, the Dead Sea is pretty deep. Especially when you consider that its surface is already well below sea level.

        It’s a rift lake, like those in Africa. Indeed, its rift is a continuation of the Rift Valley.

      • IMO the standard units of CACA exaggeration are the Hiroshima for energy and Rhode Island for area. But I could be wrong.

        Lake Superior seems too big a unit for volume of water.

      • There’s a lot less water in the Dead Sea than there was a century ago.
        So is the standard the modern, or the ancient Dead Sea?

      • “So is the standard the modern, or the ancient Dead Sea?”
        What’s it matter? It’s dead already. ;-)

      • Current volume of the Dead Sea is 35 cubic miles.

        The Caspian Sea is 18,800 cu mi, Lake Baikal 5700. Lake Tanganyika 4500 and Lake Superior 2800 cu mi.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lakes_by_volume

        I’m all for the Nipigon as a unit of aqueous volume, ie 59 cu mi.

        A one millimeter rise in sea level equates to an additional 8.7 cu mi of seawater, or roughly 0.15 Nipigon. A two mm rise thus represents almost 0.30 Nipigons. Doesn’t sound like much. Would be even less expressed in Dead Seas or especially Superiors.

        Hope someone checks my arithmetic.

  3. “Our results show that SMB for the total Antarctic ice sheet (including ice shelves) has increased at a rate of 7 +/- 0.13 Gt dec-1 since 1800 AD, representing a net reduction in sea level of ∼ 0.02 mm dec-1 since 1800 and ∼0.04 mm dec-1 since 1900 AD.”

    So not only is the missing heat hiding under the sea with the lobsters, now the ‘real’ increase in global sea-level is hiding in the Antarctic snow.

    • OK, so I was being generous with my top of the head “a few thou'” , 40 microns per decade, more like a quarter of a thousandth of an inch. LOL

    • Let’s hope it stays there for a while, before repositioning itself over most of North America, year-round. Thing precession. Do recently observed geomagnetic changes suggest accelerated wobble in the axial plane? Old goofballs would like to know.

      • Thing = think…God, the ‘g’ isn’t even next to the ‘k’… must be carpal-tunnel… yeah! That’s it!

    • Yes, that is what happened to Greenland in the winter of 2016/17. There was steady flows of warm air masses moving north in the North Atlantic. Notice the current situation in Greenland smb where northward flowing air masses have been cut off due to a shift in surface winds.The snow gain has been only slightly above average, and has since fallen to the average trend line. It is now one year with this month since surface winds started moving eastward to the south of Greenland. That is what cut off the moisture flows into Greenland. …https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

      The change in those surface winds is part of the reason for the current cold in the middle of the US, and on the Eurasian continent, imo. If this trend continues in the years ahead, then it will be a major player for continued cooling in the NH, imo.

    • I’m really not qualified to comment (my post secondary education was art college). But I think you’re on the right track here Stephen.
      I live on the northwest shore of Lake Ontario in Canada, and I have been paying close attention to this anthropogenic global warming concept ever since I read Ron Redfern’s wonderful geology book “Origins” (15 years ago) where he expresses doubt concerning the man-made climate effect hypothesis.
      I’ve noticed it’s the jet stream that delivers the daily climate changes. And sometimes the stream is flatter (zonal) and sometimes it’s wavy (meriidional). When its flatter (where I live) it’s warmer as the stream is north of us etc. When it’s meridional we get the hot and cold blasts.
      In another book “Nature” on the natural history of Ontario (from the University of Toronto press) their explanation for the “Hypsethermal” (also known as the Holocene Climatic Optimum) was a flatter, zonal jet stream.
      I don’t understand why this topic is so poorly covered in the media, its interesting stuff and deserves more press.

      Regards, M.W.

    • Stephen I think the Southern Annular Mode was in its positive phase from around 2000, which caused the subtropical ridge to intensify.

      This appeared to change in the Austral winter of 2017 when the STR lost its intensity, so we can expect a return of winter rains to southern Australia in the decades ahead.

      The meridional jet stream is integral, but greater focus should be on the oscillations like SAM. PDO, AMO and ENSO.

    • It is the more meridional jet stream tracks since 2000

      I agree, here are some examples of the effect of this global circulation change.
      Hurricane Nicole (described as the longest-lived Atlantic named storm forming after October 1 since 1906) that brought record snowfall to south-east Greenland in October 2016 is an excellent example of meridional tracking storm system.
      This change from zonal tracking events, for example summer tropical waves in West Africa traditionally passing offshore at Cape Verde and initiating west-tracking hurricanes which hit the US Gulf States; to meridional tracking summer events, as for example my 2007 observation of the West African Monsoon Crossing the Sahara Desert, when the initiating West African tropical wave ended up on a meridional track north across the Sahara; to the more recent post-tropical cyclone Nicole, with its remnant close pass of Greenland, helps to explain why US land-falling hurricanes are not so common of late.

      Here is another example from the Antarctic austral winter in August 2017 showing the effect that these meridional storms have in bringing record snow to the Davis Research Station.

    • “It is the more meridional jet stream tracks since 2000. Increased surges of warmer air towards the poles are giving more snowfall in Greenland and Antarctica”

      Observations/data and weather patterns strongly agree with you Stephen!

  4. Here we reconstruct Antarctic snow accumulation variability over the past 200 years based 79 ice core snow accumulation records to…

    Are 79 records really enough to cover a continent?

    It’s not all flat. The area is broken up by mountains and differentiated into coastal and inland regions.
    And it’s larger than a kitchen freezer.

    It just seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

    • There’s another study, Frezzotti et al 2012, based on 61 ice cores that goes back 800 years. Essentially shows the same thing. Antarctica is gaining ice. I suppose you could add them together if you want more data.

  5. Hey guys, there must be a typo in the ignorant “Brussels” Broadcasting Corporation’s item. Nobody was around in 1801-1810 to measure the snowfall. Its all a nonsense. Try 1901-1910??? Fact checking, please!

  6. But did you see the stat at the end of the piece? Antarctica’s contribution to sea level rise since 1992 is claimed to yave been 4.3mm, equating to a truly terrifying 0.27mm per year!

    • Almost an inch a century from Antarctica alone!

      However, we plan to maintain out infrastructure in less than a century so we should be able to adapt to that with no extra cost.

      Remind me, why are we spending a fortune trying to control the climate?

      • “Remind me, why are we spending a fortune trying to control the climate?”

        That’s pretty charitable. If you don’t mind, I’ll fix it for you:

        Remind me, why are we spending a fortune pretending to try to control the climate?

  7. Notice that there were 2 computer models used in this study. One is from the reanalysis data. The other one
    “‘ produce regional SMB composites using a regional atmospheric climate model (RACMO2.3p2) “. They compared both methods. In other words they compared the results from 2 different computer models. So even though on the surface this looks like proof that overall the ice sheets are not reducing, I would take this study with a grain of salt. However since the west Antarctica is melting from below like Greenland is, there is no global warming in Antarctica especially since 10 of the 13 reporting temperature stations have not shown any increase in temperatures in 60 years of reporting. The only 3 stations that do show warming are the 3 stations in the west Antarctica peninsula. Now that we know that the west Antartica has volcanic activity underneath it causing it to melt from underneath like in Greenland; we know that the East Antarctica will never melt. Thus if the East Antarctica will never melt then we global warming is an impossibility. You cannot have people dying from heatstroke all over the world from global warming if the Antarctic isnt melting. The Antartic is the real battleground. I wouldnt put it past Michael Mann to hire propane heaters and secretly transport them to Antarica to try to melt the ice. But since the Antarctica is nearly twice the size of Australia, Good luck trying to purposely melt that slab of ice. Meanwhile I enjoy watching the Bloomberg clock as the ppm of CO2 goes up constantly. I hate the Chinese Communist party but at least 1 good thing they are doing is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. love it. The world needs more CO2 not less.

      • I agree but I dont like the fact that Putin a stone cold killer has his finger on a nuclear arsenal.

      • More than that, I see us (the US and Western world) as currently being played by the Chinese, and the Russians with the aid of their satellites, Iran and North Korea. I think that all of the belligerence emanating from NK is at the direction of China.

        Note that China currently has large stockpiles of every conceivable material which would be essential for war, with the exception of food supplies. In regards to the food supply, I think that we have a very handy advantage in that, if there is about to be a several decades long cold spell, then that will become a weak link for China in their global ambitions. Russia will also suffer from a cooling world. This is a vantage point for the West which should be used as needed, imo.

      • Gold,

        Brazil could expand its soybean production even if the world cools, harming Manchurian wheat production. It would cost China more, but they could probably afford it.

        I agree that the de facto allies, Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, are dead set on world domination and the demise of the power of the US and its allies. The situation is complicated by India’s opposition to China but collusion with Iran against Pakistan.

        On paper, NATO, Japan, South Korea and India should be stronger than the opposing faction, but the big question mark is will to win.

      • China will be pleased that the rate of increase in sea level has been reduced , if only minutely. It will make their task of building up their military base on Vanuatu slightly easier.
        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/10/china-eyes-tiny-pacific-island-nation-vanuatu-second-military/

        Either China is unaware of the fact known to all Western governments that this island is about to disappear under the waves in 2,or is it 3 ,years time , or they have the engineering skills and the money to prevent that happening.
        Australia does not seem to be bothered by a closer military base , but so much of Australia’s infrastructure seems to be owned by China (at least that is the impression I get from the JoNova site) that I suppose that it is irrelevant. China will not threaten to damage what it already owns.

    • I just learned from reading Wikipedia on Antartica that 44% of the ice there is floating. Now the studies have said that if all the ice melted then the world sea level would rise 58 metres. But since 44% of that ice is already floating on the sea, doesnt that mean that the sea level would rise only 32.5 metres since sea level does not rise if pure water frozen as ice is floating on the sea.? So even if all of Antartica melted it wouldnt be as bad as everyone is saying. But dont worry Antarctica is not melting. Even Wikipedia had to admit that as of 2013 Antartica ice was expanding.

    • Truly empiricism is a dying philosophy. Who could have predicted back when computers were first being hailed as the greatest boon to science in history that they would one day be its greatest enemy.

      Before they even get to the computer model issues though, has anyone ever empirically proven the foundational assumptions they’re using to guesstimate 200 year old snowfall rates? More and more I’m noticing that modern “science” is based on assumptions stacked upon assumptions to the fact that everyone just acts as though these assumptions are hard facts.

      There are a lot of fudge factors in the depth to age calculations, and the “isotope ratio thermometer” concept is dependent upon the “average global temperature” taken over a few decades by a wide variety of inconsistent measurement techniques applied to a very small sample size of the surface of the planet. If we are skeptical about the current ability to accurately measure a global average temperature with sufficient accuracy, why should we just accept the accuracy of measurement techniques that rely on the assumption that we’ve been accurately measuring global average temperature for the several decades necessary to “calibrate” the isotope ratio thermometer calculations?

  8. El Calentamiento Global que se esta terminando ( 1980 – 2020 ) fue mas CALIENTE que el Calentamiento Global anterior ( 1880 – 1920 ) y MUCHO MAS CALIENTE que el Calentamiento Global de 1780 – 1820.
    A mayor temperatura mayor evaporación, se produce una mayor cantidad de nubes y cuando el Calentamiento Global se TERMINA esas nubes se transforman en lluvia y en los polos en NIEVE. Es por eso que cae mas NIEVE en el periodo 2000 – 2010 que en el periodo 1900 – 1910 y CAE MUCHA MAS NIEVE que en el periodo 1800 – 1810.El Calentamiento Global de 2080 – 2120 sera MAS CALIENTE que el Calentamiento Global que se esta terminando,por lo tanto las lluvias,los tornados,los huracanes SERÁN DE MAYOR INTENSIDAD. Hay que prepararse para que AFECTE MENOS,que los daños sean menores.No se puede luchar contra los fenómenos NATURALES.
    Algo SIMPLE ….miren como construían las casas hace 100 – 200 años para EVITAR que les afecte las INUNDACIONES,….GRADAS……. había GRADAS para ingresar a las casas,esto hacia que la casa este un metro mas alto que el piso y la inundación NO LES AFECTABA.

    [The Global Warming that is ending (1980 – 2020) was HOTTER than the previous Global Warming (1880 – 1920) and MUCH MORE HOT than the Global Warming of 1780 – 1820.
    The higher the temperature, the greater the evaporation, the greater the number of clouds, and when global warming is finished, these clouds become rain and the poles become SNOW. That is why more SNOW falls in the period 2000 – 2010 than in the period 1900 – 1910 and CAE MUCH MORE SNOW than in the period 1800 – 1810.The Global Warming of 2080 – 2120 will be MORE HOT than the Global Warming that is ending, therefore the rains, the tornadoes, the hurricanes WILL BE OF GREATER INTENSITY. It is necessary to prepare so that it AFFECTS LESS, that the damages are minor. It is not possible to fight against the NATURAL phenomena.
    Something SIMPLE … look how they built the houses 100 – 200 years ago to AVOID affecting the FLOODING, … .GRADES ……. there were GRADES to enter the houses, this made the house one meter higher than the floor and the flood was NOT AFFECTED.

    from the Google translate. .mod]

    • IMO the late 20th century warming was not hotter than the early 20th century warming, c. 1920-40. In the late 18 and early 19th century, there was a cooling cycle associated with the Dalton Minimum.

      And after ~1880 was a cooling cycle, the first countercycle of the secular trend of the Modern Warm Period, which followed the Little Ice Age cooling from the mid-19th century.

    • All bullshit. Milton Suarez has a secret magic ball that can look into 102 years into the future and tell us the exact temperature. Unfortunately his magic ball error factor is even greater than all of the worlds climate computer models combined. Anybody that talks about greater intensity of storms caused by global warming forget that any warming that there has been has been no greater than 0.75C in a century. Worldwide there are no more wierd weather events than there has been before and the intensity has not grown on average. That is the alarmists weakest argument. They deny the actual facts which any meteorologist can tell you. That is why when Roger Pielke testified before Congress in 2013 about this fact the alarmists then crucified him so much that Roger almost quit studying climate.

    • Thanks mods, Sr. Suarez, greater intensity would require a larger temperature gradient between the equator and poles. To date, we have witnesses warming predominantly at the poles during winters. This decreased the gradient and has historically not produced enhanced cyclonic activity.
      Hurricanes come from the same dust blowing east across the Atlantic amplified by the same warm SSTs and continental cold, high pressure systems that have always been responsible for landfall storms. Tornados, wind shear, etc, are produced by seasonal air mixing of greatly contrasting air masses.
      Nothing we’ve seen so far backs your predictions, even if you explain how and why future warming will happen

    • Wow, so many problems there. To start with, the claimed temperature changes are less than the measurement accuracy and precision of the methods used to gather (or more accurately guess at) most of the antique temperatures being discussed. Secondly, evaporation isn’t purely temperature specific. Cold dry air can cause faster evaporation than warm humid air. There are a lot of variables left out of the foundational assumption that higher temps equals more evaporation.

      Ignoring the finer points of that however, aren’t we all still of a fairly solid “scientific consensus” that matter can neither be created nor destroyed? Increased evaporation leading to increased rainfall would be a net zero process. If more of the precipitation is falling as snow at the poles, and higher air temperatures are causing the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, that would sequester water leading to less oceanic mass. I thought the going concern was about sea-level rise.

    • “The Global Warming of 2080 – 2120 will be MORE HOT than the Global Warming that is ending, therefore the rains, the tornadoes, the hurricanes WILL BE OF GREATER INTENSITY.”

      You got that exactly backwards Milton.

      The meridional temperature differential is a key ingredient in determining the energy potential of many storms……………mid latitude cyclones, jet streams, violent tornadoes for instance.

      Warm the highest latitudes the most as we have and you DECREASE the temperature difference with latitude. Basic meteorology 101 and physics.

      By no coincidence, the atmosphere, which obeys this law produced more violent tornadoes in the 1950’s/60’s/70’s……….during modest global cooling.

      The violent tornado outbreaks in 2011, show us that weather in an individual year can be the dominant feature which is completely the opposite of a decades long trend. Of course we heard that human caused climate change caused the 2011 violent tornadoes from some sources.

      Some sources will blame everything bad on human caused climate change…………because they don’t understand meteorology or climate(which is just the weather over a long period of time) and many people believe those sources because they don’t check the accuracy of the science, trust them because they present themselves as authorities on climate change or decided a long time ago that they believe in catastrophic, man made climate change.

      Think what would happen if we lived on a planet where the temperature of the high latitudes was warmed up so much, that it was close to the same temperature of the tropics.(this could never happen because the angle of the sun is too great of a determinant in temperature).
      Strong cold fronts would cease to exist as well as strong jet streams. There would still be plenty of thunderstorms but fewer severe thunderstorms and violent tornadoes, especially long tracking violent tornadoes would be a thing of the past.
      Powerful mid latitude cyclones would instead, be wimpy areas of low pressure that never have the environment to greatly intensify.

      This would include well developed snowstorms and blizzards in the Winter.

      Global cooling is what increases all these weather elements.

  9. What rate of sublimation do they use for 200 years to arrive at their snowfall rate numbers? I assume their calculation run off layer thicknesses in core samples.

  10. Just a few weeks ago the climate scientist “consensus” was that the Antarctic was losing ice.
    I’m so confused now.

    • OK, since you played the straight man I’ll do the punchline:
      The More snow falls on the glaciers, the more the glaciers slide and calve into the sea! (laughter and applause)
      We’re up there with “The Funny Company” and “The Big World of Little Adam”, right?

    • MarkW

      According to the BBC, the snowfall doesn’t make up for the loss of ice melting into the sea.

      Of course, its record breaking, but just not quite record breaking enough. Unlike ice melting into the sea, which is really, really record breaking, always, and forever.

      Personally, I reckon, Arctic, and Antarctic ice is good for nothing other than cooling a nice G&T.

    • Yup! You have to give them credit for consistency . They change the observed facts more than their underwear but the conclusions never change! The cause is always global warming and it’s always worse than they thought. No warming for 18 years? It’s worse than they thought! Lol!

    • If you look at sea ice extent, the underlying trend is that Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing and Arctic is decreasing. However, like all aspects of climate variability things tend to occur in cycles. Sea ice extent cycles range from 4-5 years in a periodic variation. 2016 was a low minima for both Antarctic and Arctic sea ice extent, however, sea ice extent appears to be increasing at the end of 2017.

  11. Saw that original item. But I always thought Antarctic ice was at record levels and balanced out Arctic losses. Can someone set this straight?

    “Even with these large snowfall events, Antarctica is still losing ice mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass from snowfall, mainly due to the regions of known ice dynamic instability, such as in the Amundsen Sea Embayment which includes Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers.”

    • Arbeegee

      Saw that original item. But I always thought Antarctic ice was at record levels and balanced out Arctic losses. Can someone set this straight?

      No. Over the entire year, any selected area of sea ice around Antarctic reflects 1.7 times as much energy as an equal area up north in the Arctic. Thus, if the Antarctic were +1.0 Mkm^2 in sea ice area for an entire year, and the Arctic were -1.0 Mkm^2 lower than average for that year, the net energy would be a massive loss of energy to space. (More energy reflected from the Antarctic excess than is absorbed by the Arctic “deficit”.) In reality, the Antarctic sea ice is “dark” for a few weeks in June-July (when much of the Arctic is being illuminated for 24 hours), and the Arctic is dark for many months when the all of Antarctic is being hit by light 24×7.

      Several reasons for this: The Antarctic sea ice in mid-summer (January-Feb) at 0.75 albedo is much, much cleaner with less dirt and soot than is the Arctic with its Gobi desert salts and Chinese pollution and ashes and melt ponds – causing an leverage mid-July albedo of only 0.42 or less.

      Most important, the edge of the Arctic sea ice cycles between 70-71 north and 78-79 north latitudes. The Antarctic sea ice also cycles, but much, much further from the pole: Minimum at 70 south, maximum at 58-59 south. You could work some average sea ice impact per day out for both poles, but it would be meaningless.
      Over the course of a full year, less Arctic sea ice means greater cooling up north, more heat losses from the newly exposed arctic oceans than can be gained by the ocean absorbing the sunlight.

      • The albedo from Antarctic sea ice at its winter max is several times greater than from Arctic sea ice at its winter max. Mostly from, as you note, the much lower latitude to which SH sea ice is able to reach. But also because it’s cleaner, as you also observe.

        Haven’t crunched the numbers myself, but sources I consider reliable estimate something like five times as much reflection from Antarctic as Arctic sea ice.

      • “Saw that original item. But I always thought Antarctic ice was at record levels and balanced out Arctic losses. Can someone set this straight?”

        “No. Over the entire year, any selected area of sea ice around Antarctic reflects 1.7 times as much energy as an equal area up north in the Arctic.”

        This response conflates *sea* ice with total Antarctic ice. *Sea* ice can increase, while total Antarctic ice decreases (because the ice is moving from the land to the sea).

        In fact, it appears per this website that the Antarctic ice sheet (land) mass is decreasing:

        https://sealevel.nasa.gov/resources/90/antarctic-ice-loss-2002-2016

      • Mark Bahner

        This response conflates *sea* ice with total Antarctic ice. *Sea* ice can increase, while total Antarctic ice decreases (because the ice is moving from the land to the sea).

        In fact, it appears per this website that the Antarctic ice sheet (land) mass is decreasing:

        False. Dead wrong.

        The Antarctic sea ice is a near-concentric ring around the 14 Mkm^2 area of the Antarctic continent. What little land ice “moves” out from the glaciers ringing small parts of the Antarctic continent moves at a rate 1-4 kilometers from its grounding points. (Actual locations vary considerably at each glacier’s terminus.)

        The Antarctic sea ice area expands every year from a low of 2-3 Mkm^2 to a maximum extents of 18 Mkm^2 (area of 16 Mkm^2), from a latitude of -68.7 in mid-Feb to a maximum of -61 south. That’s a “movement” – if your statement was correct in any way – is a movement of more than 700 kilometers radially. What little land ice that “moves” away from the continental glaciers little affects the sea ice that far away.

        Further, the Southern land ice + shelf ice + sea ice receives each day more solar energy than the Arctic sea ice ever gets: The Arctic sea ice is never below 70 north, the southern sea ice is never less than 67 south. (Plus the small regional sea ice of Hudson Bay, Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, and Gulf of St Lawrence: Those four are at latitude 58 – 60 north, but vanish each summer. Until recently.)
        Note that in both 2016 and 2017, the Sea of Okhotsk and the Bering Sea – for the first time ever! – did not melt out completely in August. Gulf of St Lawrence stayed frozen many days later than ever before in the satellite era.
        In June 2014, just the excess sea ice around Antarctic exceeded the entire area of Greenland. (Antarctic sea ice anomaly = 2.14 Mkm^2, area of Greenland = 2.06 Mkm^2.) Antarctic sea ice anomaly steadily and irregulalry increased from 1992 through mid-2015 – then went negative during the 2016-2017 El Nino.

        Your statement would have the Antarctic continental land ice pushing an area the size of Greenland away from the shores of a continent the size of Africa, below the equator. Does the illogic and lack of sense in your claim become apparent now?
        Antarctic sea ice increased from March 2017 to March 2018 by an area 2/3 the size of Greenland. Quick, show me what glaciers moved that much sea ice that far.

        Date    DOY     TOA     Area    Latitude
        2-Jan	2	1408	4.656	-67.0
        12-Jan	12	1407	3.692	-67.7
        2-Feb	33	1401	2.409	-68.6
        12-Feb	43	1396	2.041	-68.7
        22-Feb	53	1390	1.874	-68.7
        2-Mar	61	1385	1.913	-68.5
        12-Mar	71	1378	2.258	-68.3
        22-Mar	81	1371	2.832	-68.0
        2-Apr	92	1362	3.606	-67.6
        12-Apr	102	1355	4.460	-67.1
        22-Apr	112	1347	5.371	-66.7
        2-May	122	1340	6.311	-66.2
        12-May	132	1334	7.295	-65.7
        22-May	142	1328	8.264	-65.2
        2-Jun	153	1323	9.212	-64.6
        12-Jun	163	1320	10.136	-64.1
        22-Jun	173	1317	11.058	-63.7
        2-Jul	183	1316	11.909	-63.3
        12-Jul	193	1317	12.586	-62.9
        22-Jul	203	1318	13.285	-62.5
        2-Aug	214	1321	13.907	-62.2
        12-Aug	224	1325	14.342	-62.0
        22-Aug	234	1330	14.608	-61.8
        2-Sep	245	1337	14.911	-61.6
        12-Sep	255	1344	15.054	-61.6
        22-Sep	265	1351	15.092	-61.6
        2-Oct	275	1359	14.994	-61.6
        12-Oct	285	1366	14.751	-61.8
        22-Oct	295	1374	14.411	-62.0
        2-Nov	306	1382	13.769	-62.4
        12-Nov	316	1389	12.830	-62.9
        22-Nov	326	1395	11.509	-63.5
        2-Dec	336	1400	9.882	-64.2
        12-Dec	346	1404	8.094	-65.0
        22-Dec	356	1406	6.324	-66.0
        
        
  12. But but the BBC was also at pains to point out…

    “”Theory predicts that, as Antarctica warms, the atmosphere should hold more moisture and that this should lead therefore to more snowfall. And what we’re showing in this study is that this has already been happening, Dr Thomas said.”

    And

    “The BAS researcher is keen to stress that the increases in snowfall do not contradict the observations of glacial retreat and thinning observed by satellites over the last 25 years.”

    Very keen I’m sure.

    Also, “She told BBC News: “Even with these large snowfall events, Antarctica is still losing ice mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass from snowfall”

    All very keenly put.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43691671

    PS. I’m only asking but does it also snow heavily in glacial periods? Really don’t know.

    • Before claiming that whatever happens shows catastrophic human-caused climate change, the charlatans of anti-scientific CACA asserted that Antarctica must lose ice mass due to human activity. Now that it isn’t doing so, they claim that that’s what they predicted all along.

      This is not science. It’s globalist socialist special pleading. The antithesis of real science.

      • Yup.

        It is fascinating isn’t it that whatever direction the evidence goes in it ALWAYS results in the same outcome…..

        Hmmmm?……..Not sure quite how that works.

      • Here’s how it works:

        Whatever happens is bad, and it’s the fault of humanity, specifically capitalism.

      • Chimp

        “Whatever happens is bad, and it’s the fault of humanity, specifically capitalism.”

        You mean I have to become a socialist to enter the pearly gates?

        Point me to the nearest cliff, I’ll take my chances elsewhere thanks.

        Talking of which, a man condemned to the fires of hell observes a glum former compatriot floating by, on a cloud, with a gorgeous woman by his side, and a huge tankard of beer in his hand. He asks the devil “why does my old pal look so miserable? he has everything I desire.” The devil replies “The tankard has a hole in it, and the woman doesn’t.”

        Sorry……non PC sexist joke if any concerned souls are watching, but it doesn’t quite work otherwise.

      • Diabolical, that Devil.

        Although how a woman could be gorgeous without at least a mouth, I don’t know.

        I’d expect nothing less un-PC from a citizen of the country whose true national anthem is “Four and Twenty Virgins Came Down from Inverness”.

    • Well there’s a climastrology proof of prediction for you. In the next ice age children aren’t going to know what snow is.

    • CACA spewers need to explain why sea level rise has not accelerated over the post-LIA norm, despite supposedly warmer global temperatures since WWII.

      • “…need to explain why sea level rise has not accelerated over the post-LIA norm, despite supposedly warmer global temperatures since WWII.”

        We first need to agree on the facts. The fact is that the global sea level is rising. As far as I know, there is no scientific debate about that. So it’s simply wrong to write that sea level rise is being “prevented.”

        An accurate statement might instead be, “Big increase is Antarctic snowfall helps to reduce rate of sea level rise.”

      • Sea level rise was higher in the period between 1900 and 1950 than it was between 1950 and 2000. CO2 has nothing to do with sea level rise. Ocean tectonics are the biggest reason. The other important point is there has been no acceleration in sea level rise according to the satellite data which actually has a higher error factor than the rise itself. Tide gauges give rises and falls all over the world. Measuring sea level rise is the stupidest activity that man has ever tried to measure. If Antarctica is not melting why would anybody worry about sea level rise?
        Sea levels have risen for past 8000 years. . I really am getting tired of having to counter every last fear of every alarmist. This madness of global warming has to end before it bankrupts us all.

      • Actually to be technically correct from a scientific stance that actually deals with sea level (stratigraphy), global sea level is not rising.

        Global sea level rise occurs when all coastlines are showing a landward transgression of water. This is clearly not the case we see today or for the past 10,000 years. Some coastlines show landward movement and some are showing a sea ward movement, whereas most are showing no movement at all — so the technical global sea level trend is currently called stillstand.

        This is because sea level is not as simple as the water level in a bathtub that the climastrologists seem to think it is. They are confusing the concept of eustasy (absolute water volume present in the ocean basins) with global sea level change, but the two are not synonymous. To reiterate, global sea level change is the universal change –either seaward or landward– of almost all coastlines and this only happens when eustasy overwhelms tectonic and sedimentation controls on regional sea level.

        http://basin.earth.ncu.edu.tw/download/courses/sequence_strat/9_sequence_Cat.pdf

      • As far as where we currently are in the sequence tracts, we are currently at the MFS (maximum flooding surface) between the TST and HST.

      • “Actually to be technically correct from a scientific stance that actually deals with sea level (stratigraphy), global sea level is not rising.”

        Per this website, global sea level is increasing, global ocean mass is increasing, steric height is increasing, Greenland ice mass is decreasing, and Antarctic ice mass is decreasing:

        https://sealevel.nasa.gov/

  13. The history of the SANEA base tells us something. Originally built in the 1960’s on an ice field, within 15 years it had sunk over 10m and had to be accessed by ladders before it was finally crushed. In 1997, a new base was built on top of the southern buttress of Vesleskarvet which remains free of snow accumulation (but windy!). It used to be supplied from an anchorage 160 km north at the edge of the ice field. However, the snow accumulation at that site was so great that the craneage on the original supply vessel, the Agulhas 1, could no longer reach the upper surface of the ice. For several years it was necessary to supply from a Russian anchorage some 150km further east while a new supply ship, Aghulas 2, was commissioned. It had a crane witth twice the reach of the first ship, and supply became much easier.
    Yes, the depth of snow in Antarctica has increased, and the effects are very real! .

  14. If the dead sea were filled up it would make a significant reduction in sea level. We must stop stealing water from the Jordan river.

      • In another million years or so, Africa’s rift valley is going to start filling on it’s own.

        PS: I’ve read of plans to drill a tunnel from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea in order to re-fill it.
        This was several years ago. I don’t know what became of the plans.

      • The Israeli’s and Jordanian’s are now planning on doing an above ground canal/pipe project from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea through Jordan. A huge desalination plant along with two hydroelectric plants that would partially power the works on the head differential to the -1300 ft below sea level Dead Sea. The brine from the desal plant would arrest any further drop in the Dead Sea, while allowing for continual mining of fertilizers and minerals from the Dead Sea. The tunnel on a much larger scale makes a lot of sense, and could turn a lot of the Middle East back into the Garden of Eden, being the defecto Peace Plan, with everybody so busy working and making money, they all too busy to fight. Sounds like a win-win to me, but the Palestinians doth protest too much.

        Latest update March/2018

        http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/dead-sea%E2%80%99s-revival-red-sea-canal-edges-closer-reality

  15. So the theory is that with more CO2 there is warming, which means there is more snow, which leads to more calving glaciers, which results in more mass in the AIS.

    But the actual observations are that it is losing mass? Hmmmmm

  16. The term ‘surface mass balance’ (SMB) as used in the paper is a little misleading to a layperson like me, since it implies that they are estimating the total mass of the glacier. Seemingly not. Their SMB appears to be derived from what they call “precipitation-minus-evaporation”; the amount of ice gained from snow accumulation minus the amount lost due to evaporation.

    No account is made in this method of ‘calving’, where the snout of a glacier terminating in the ocean breaks off to form iceberg, which seems to be the main method by which Antarctic land ice mass is reducing. This may explain the apparently contradictory comments attributed to the paper’s authors re increased SMB but overall decline in glacial mass balance.

    • Have there been any attempts to empirically measure the total mass of water lost to evaporation and sublimation across the entire Antarctic? Are we sure the calving of a few icebergs would be more significant?

      What about mass loss on the underside of the ice due to warm water currents?

      • Aparition42

        What about mass loss on the underside of the ice due to warm water currents?

        Fair point. I understand that is also believed to be one of the main mechanisms leading to ice loss. It’s comparable to calving though, in that it’s not accounted for in the surface ‘precipitation-minus-evaporation’ model studied by this group.

  17. [mod] The title of this article should read “increase in Antarctic” rather than “increase is Antarctic”

  18. Hmmm. Since some warmists are so concerned about the welfare of polar bears, lets transport some polar bears to Antarctic islands, and see if they can establish colonies there. They’d have seals to munch on (a staple of a polar bear’s diet), and they could adapt to dining on penguins, which appear to have a lot of body fat. And the extra snow could provide ample water for them (don’t ask me how — maybe they could eat the snow).

    • Are you mad?! If polar bears eat the ice cap and urinate it out as warm liquid water, that would accelerate sea-level rise by an immeasurable amount!

      This is probably why the polar ice caps are shrinking and polar bears are losing habitat there. Quick, somebody give me a grant to look into this.

    • The polar bears would eat all the 4000 researchers that are in the Antarctic now doing all that research to try to prove that Antarctica is melting. Therefore the researchers would have to import guns with them that would increase the number of suicides caused by those long cold dreary winter nights.

  19. The RATE of increase in sea levels should be accelerating(going higher at a rate that is greater vs around the same linear rate) based on the increase in average global temperature, as well as thermal expansion of the warmer ocean and runoff from underground aquifers.

    The lack of acceleration has been baffling. One element is probably the increase in evaporation from the oceans into an atmosphere that holds more moisture and the greater resulting precipitation. This falls across the planet, not just Antarctica.

    The planet is massively greening up. This added vegetation holds more moisture, including more extensive root systems. Global drought has dropped a bit over the last 4 decades and it’s likely that soil moisture has increased globally.

    While there are some other reasons for the lack of sea levels accelerating higher, there is no question that the weather/climate and CO2 levels during the last 4 decades have been he best for life on this greening planet since at least the Medieval Warm Period(that was probably as warm as this globally).

    If CO2 levels then………….1,000 years ago were not this high, then this recent period marks the best for life in thousands of years.

  20. I’d thought sea level rise were due to freshwater reservoirs being emptied and nothing else to do with climate change. I suppose access to freshwater snow in Antarctica would alleviate those fresh water reservoirs.

    Someone would need to push the penguins out of the way to get at it though.

Leave a Reply - if your comment doesn't appear right away, it may have been intercepted by the SPAM filter. Please have patience while our moderation team examines it.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s