A new paper about to be in press, comes at the end of a flurry of papers and reports published this week that claims Antarctica was losing ice mass. Zwally says ice growth is anywhere from 50 gigatons to 200 gigatons a year.
NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally says his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.
By Michael Bastasch
Is Antarctica melting or is it gaining ice? A recent paper claims Antarctica’s net ice loss has dramatically increased in recent years, but forthcoming research will challenge that claim.
NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally first challenged the “consensus” on Antarctica in 2015 when he published a paper showing ice sheet growth in eastern Antarctica outweighed the losses in the western ice sheet.
Zwally will again challenge the prevailing narrative of how global warming is affecting the South Pole. Zwally said his new study will show, once again, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet is gaining enough ice to offset losses in the west.
Much like in 2015, Zwally’s upcoming study will run up against the so-called “consensus,” including a paper published by a team of 80 scientists in the journal Nature on Wednesday. The paper estimates that Antarctic is losing, on net, more than 200 gigatons of ice a year, adding 0.02 inches to annual sea level rise.
“Basically, we agree about West Antarctica,” Zwally told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “East Antarctica is still gaining mass. That’s where we disagree.”
Reported ice melt mostly driven by instability in the western Antarctic ice sheet, which is being eaten away from below by warm ocean water. Scientists tend to agree ice loss has increased in western Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula has increased.
Measurements of the eastern ice sheet, however, are subject to high levels of uncertainty. That’s where disagreements are. (RELATED: Earth’s Largest Ice Sheet Was Stable For Millions Of Years During A Past Warm Period)
“In our study East Antarctic remains the least certain part of Antarctica for sure,” Andrew Shepherd, the study’s lead author and professor at the University of Leeds, told TheDCNF.
“Although there is relatively large variability over shorter periods, we don’t detect any significant long-term trend over 25 years,” Shepherd said.
However, Zwally’s working on a paper that will show the eastern ice sheet is expanding at a rate that’s enough to at least offset increased losses the west.
The ice sheets are “very close to balance right now,” Zwally said. He added that balance could change to net melting in the future with more warming.
So, why is there such a big difference between Zwally’s research and what 80 scientists recently published in the journal Nature?
There are several reasons for the disagreement, but the biggest is how researchers make what’s called a glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), which takes into account the movement of the Earth under ice sheets.
Scientists use models to measure the movement of land mass in response to changes the ice sheet sitting on top. For example, Zwally said eastern Antarctica’s land mass has been going down in response to ice sheet mass gains.
That land movement effects ice sheet data, especially in Antarctica where small errors in GIA can yield big changes ice sheet mass balance — whether ice is growing or shrinking. There are also differences in how researchers model firn compaction and snowfall accumulation.
“It needs to be known accurately,” Zwally said. “It’s an error of being able to model. These are models that estimate the motions of the Earth under the ice.”
Zwally’s 2015 study said an isostatic adjustment of 1.6 millimeters was needed to bring satellite “gravimetry and altimetry” measurements into agreement with one another.
Shepherd’s paper cites Zwally’s 2015 study several times, but only estimates eastern Antarctic mass gains to be 5 gigatons a year — yet this estimate comes with a margin of error of 46 gigatons.
Zwally, on the other hand, claims ice sheet growth is anywhere from 50 gigatons to 200 gigatons a year.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ever notice….it’s always where you can’t see find or measure it…and have to totally make it up
Oh yeah, it’s always just beneath the surface, but it’s there, and it’s gonna getcha.
Cue Jaws music…
All the recent papers on ice loss are just paving the way for the upcoming IPCC report that we are on path for 2 degree by 2040 woah woah … you know the story … please send money.
Antarctica is apparently the big scare story because they are running out of other stories to run the polar bears weren’t cutting it.
Not only that !
ANTARCTICA HAS LOST ALL IT’S POLAR BEARS !!
So…..that HAS to be scary !
PENGUINS report that their POLAR BEAR ERADICATION SCHEME
has been JUST AS SUCCESSFUL as the RAT EXTERMINATION SCHEME
on SOUTH GEORGIA ! TOTAL !!
So…..that HAS TO BE GOOD NEWS !!
Viva the penguins and Viva South Georgia !
Where as, in the Arctic, the Polar Bears have eaten all the penguins and are now going to die!
big selling point is its really far away and hard to get to
unlike arctic where people can access it to catch em out,
turkeys ship of fools only got seen cos of getting stuck
1.5 degree c loss by 2032.
Actually, I’m wondering if they aren’t pushing the ‘Antarctica is melting’ meme because the know they WON’T be able to work the 2 degree by 2040 meme. In fact, they already dropped it in Paris, going for an easier to reach 1.5
But it doesn’t look like we’re even getting that. So what can they do next? How about ‘look at all the melting at just 1 degree above pre-industrial. Clearly it worse then we thought.’
~¿~
Global warming is hiding in the deep oceans……the bottom of the sea is sinking…..now the land under Antarctica is sinking
….always some made up crap
Am I understanding that the added weight is actually pushing the ground down? I guess 200 gigatons would do that.
Maybe they should pump in some CO2.
I never understood this carbon capture scenario anyway. Wouldnt all the CO2 eventually make its way out of the earth where it was pumped into?
Not on a human scale. The massive SACROC CO2 EOR project in West Texas has been in operation since the 1970″s. It is closely monitored for CO2 leakage and no evidence of leakage has been observed.
that one might be holding but there was at least one that did leak
i see theyre hitting em with Huuge fines if they do
Ira not necessary for the CO2 to stay down forever.
What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/26/africa-lake-kivu-co2-gas
http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2013/07/26/lake_nyos_killed_1746_when_it_released_a_huge_pocket_of_co2.html
It’s called isostasy. The crust is buoyant on the mantle so changes in weight or density will cause it to sink down or float up. Regional changes also cause isostatic adjustment, i.e. an ice sheet depresses the crust under it but causes the crust around the margins to rise as a forebulge.
Zwally is going to be blackballed by NASA. Oh, the horror!
Especially since NASA has a believer at the helm, a believer nominated by a solid disbeliever.
That guy badly needs to be shown the door. He’s a total fake.
Daily Caller links? They keep hijacking the screen to force me to watch ads. Any way to tell us the names of the papers so we can search for them?
Take back control of the content you don’t want to see on your screen.
…https://noscript.net/
It does seem more likely that if you have warmer water melting some of the ice that it would also cause more snowfall.
I believe Zwally’s data more closely matches that of Frezzotti et al which is based on ice cores. You know, real measurements instead of models.
Oops…thank you WashPo and NYTimes for the last hype pieces…
I guess the science isn’t settled.
Am I the only one who finds the juxtaposition of the acronym NASA and the title glaciologist to be irreconcilable?
Satellites with ice penetrating radar altimeters are currently the best means for glaciologists to monitor ice sheets over large areas. Strange—but inevitable—bedfellows.
Then again, land surveyors have taken a real liking to GPS satellites.
That measures the tops of the ice but it does nothing to determine the bottom.
The temperature of the ice is just plain cold. The ice accumulation is on the top and the ice loss is at the edges. Ice accumulates the most in warm times when it snows more ice depletes in cold times when it snows less. Ice flows fastest when volume and weight are the most and ice flows the slowest when volume and weight are the least.
Oceans are a best indicator, when oceans are warm and thawed ice on land increases, when oceans are cold and frozen ice on land decreases. Ice Core Data does prove this to be true!
I wonder whether there has been a shift in the winds in the West Antarctic like there was in the Arctic.
Yes there has been a major shift in surface winds in that region. It started around 26 months ago, and continues currently to affect the entire southern reaches. The net result, imo, is one of continued cooling mainly of the oceans surface.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-83.23,-39.22,672/loc=-85.480,-40.647
1 out of 80?
When told of pamphlet critical of his theory of relativity entitled ‘100 Authors against Einstein’, Einstein replied: “100? Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough”.
1 paper for ice mass increasing and 1 paper for ice mass loss.
Even odds…. Sounds like a debate to me, not a con-sensus.
Zwally, the denier.Are you ready to denigrate?
1 vs 80 you mean?
The only one working with ICESAT data. Which are fairly immune to GIA errors. The others use GRACE data. Which are not significantly different from zero, so you get to chose your own result depending on what GIA adjustment you use.
“So, why is there such a big difference between Zwally’s research and what 80 scientists recently published in the journal Nature?”
Because Jay Zwally has integrity?
Because Jay Zwally is a real scientist?
The weight of the 80 scientists affected the isostatic adjustment during their summer junkets. See? May I now have a grant?
Dr. Zwally has an impressive resume (https://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/bio/h.j.zwally ) and has been at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center since 1974. With such tenure (and over 130 research publications in glaciology, climate and ice science, and physics), he likely is not very concerned about job security.
Conversely, it’s not hard to imagine that more than a few (most?) of the “80 scientists” who submitted the group paper to Nature are looking for continuing or even increased job funding.
The old adage stays true: “Follow the money.”
In order to get the quantity of names, which they believe will give it credence, there will be brand new entrants from the NCAR, Potsdam and UEA Climate Scientist greenhouses.
the 80 scientists should be censored for their collusion in agreeing to publish incomplete statistics in order to support the AGW hoax.
Different methods. ICESAT vs GRACE. Actually GRACE data are probably more precise, but they are completely dependent on GIA, which is almost pure guesswork.
“Actually GRACE data are probably more precise, but they are completely dependent on GIA [Glacial Isostatic Adjustment], which is almost pure guesswork.”
Giving Climate Charlatans discretion = CAGW
Thanks for pointing out that important distinction between using ICESAT and GRACE. 🙂
In some cases GIA is supported by GPS data. However, it’s still dependent on assumptions about the deglaciation history and the rheology of the crust and upper mantle. It may not be pure guesswork… but it’s close… Definitely a SWAG.
Ultimately, the assertions of Antarctic glacial mass balance gains and/or losses are minuscule compared to the mass and volume of the ice sheet and well within a reasonable margin of error.
The problem in Antarctica is that GPS data is scarce, and that none of the GIA models fit the data there is. The models with the least ice-loss tend to have the best fit.
And in particular there are no GPS data for inland East Antarctica – there is no exposed bedrock.
Even if the GPS coverage was “rock solid,” there would still be this issues of deglaciation history and rheology,,, Both of which are less constrained in Anarctica than they are in the Northern Hemisphere. That’s why I call it a SWAG, particularly in Antarctica.
With “rock-solid” GPS data you wouldn’t have to worry about history and rheology, since you would know the current GIA, never mind why it is what it is. However it can never be “rock-solid” for an ice-cap, since there is by definition no exposed bedrock.
When 80 scientists publish something, that is not 80 opinions that agree, that is One or a Few that call on the rest for their consensus rubber stamp. They get kicked out of the consensus if they do not sign, they don’t need to read it even, they all already know the consensus position. I have seen the inside of some of those groups, only a very few even care what they are agreeing to.
Cool …. but let’s hope it’s not a symptom of global cooling onset.
Advancing mile high glaciers are unhealthy for children and other living things.
Men missing at the glacier – women and children hardest hit.
Ice growth in East Antarctica is actually a sign of warming climate, as empirical based research has shown that the EAIS is out of phase with the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets.
However ice ages are synchronous between the hemispheres.
Points to Zwally for having guts to publish something that contrarian.
It takes time to reach a consensus, though. How much this affects on the closure problem?
Is it hammer down, or hammer down the water well?
If you read the AMRC “On the Ice” blog, the team from McMurdo spend their Summer campaign digging up power packs and adding 4, 7 or 10 feet to various AWS towers in West Antarctica. This would seem to be fairly persuasive anecdotal evidence of ice gain in a region widely claimed to no losing ice.
Quote: “This would seem to be fairly persuasive anecdotal evidence of ice gain in a region widely claimed to no losing ice.”
The only persuasion given here is that you misses glaciology 100 when they talked about SMB vs Mass balance or the location “ELA” of the shelf ice.
This won’t be reported by the BBC.
No. They are far too professional to publish this sort of doubt-mongering.
You’re right – the Beeb are professional Climate propagandists. They’ve been doing it for years.
Only someone as credulous as Zazove believes the Beeb.
Egads, how dare the scoundrels spread doubt in the one true religion?
So this scientist and his study is out to lunch? Ok then, I guess we can all go home and cower in our closed rooms. Fool.
“…doubt-mongering…” which boldly proclaims that for you this is 100% political and the science be damned.
We’ll see when the paper comes out! The BBC has reported on some of Zwally’s previous work: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4790238.stm
Hang on – I thought NASA was corrupt and their research not to be trusted? That’s what I’ve read here when other research from NASA scientists was published.
You are correct. Their research about the future (projections) is not to be trusted. Funny thing though, like the Apollo lunar missions, surface temperature records of the past vs. balloon data sets of the past vs satellite temperature records of the past can be cross-checked and verified.
Note the difference between verifiable past and the fraud against the future.
Nope, incorrect. When NASA papers that involve models – whether present day or future forecasting – are mentioned here, there are two reactions. If it is one like the one mentioned here, it is welcome. If it is like the recent one that showed a decline in Antarctic ice, it is criticized. Neither of these papers involve future predictions.
Well I’ll be, a substantive remark! I think lumping all into one group is not good analysis. Some here will respond as you say, but others (many others) explain what’s wrong with the 80 authors at Nature. The Nature article gets noisy press coverage, more coverage than the less-alarming Zwally. Zazy thinks that’s good, the rubes might just believe Zwally’s stuff (but doesn’t tell us what’s wrong wih it). Why not point out that Zazy is what’s wrong with the site? I don’t recall ever seeing this sort of balance from you or the other self-appointed site moderators.
Some comments explain why Zwally’s work is higher quality, some point to the uncertainty and lack of observational data. Plenty of substantive comments up and down that would cause an open-minded warmista to cogitate, even question his settled conclusions. Why not you?
paul courtney, you posted: “. . . to cogitate, even question his settled conclusions.”
So, do you have a pre-print of Zwally’s yet-to-be-published research paper—the subject of this WUWT article—that you can share with the rest of us?
I am not dismissing Zwally’s paper, not at all. It could well be the more accurate one. It takes time to deep dive the papers and compare the two. I am referring to the general tone here. When a paper that supports AGW and its impacts is posted, it is criticized even if it is paywalled and thus not even visible to most. And the converse for one like this, even if it is paywalled it is welcomed as evidence that we should not be concerned about AGW. To me, a better approach is to withhold judgement – either way – until the papers are read and analyzed in depth. But posted articles have a active comment shelf life of about 3 days on this or any other blog site, so that will not happen.
No matter the paper, do you seriously, I mean SERIOUSLY think we need to institute some govt directive to attempt to expand ICE WORLD-WIDE? Why? (tsk tsk tsk..)
Hey Tom, there is something between losing ice and expanding it. It’s called maintaining present ice levels.
You are quite right Chris. Many of the skeptics here do display a certain lack of objectivity when something like this post appears. You can’t really blame us; we are celebrating the fact that there are (at last) a few published pieces that provide evidence or interpretations which give a small counterweight to the relentless torrent of alarmist propaganda that dominates the mainstream media and the cybersphere – most of which is quite shamelessly tendentious – and much of which even takes liberties with IPCC5.
We also as a group (apologies for calling us a group – a group of skeptics is more like a herd of cats) tend to make the assumption that anyone getting something published that goes against the CAGW story must be very sure of his or her science and stand ready to defend it rigorously. Especially when the author works for a government agency or university that is dominated by alarmist managers, politicians or administrators.
You also need to appreciate that many of us are scientists, or scientifically literate amateurs, and many of our criticisms of published articles are based on substantive analysis of the contents of those articles, when they venture into our own areas of expertise.
“skeptics… tend to make the assumption that anyone getting something published that goes against the CAGW story must be very sure of his or her science and stand ready to defend it rigorously.”
Sorry but this is oxymoronic. You cannot be skeptical AND willing to laud at face-value something that confirms your bias.
One trait that no troll has, is self awareness.
Smart Rock, being skeptic is fine, but the readers here really seem to be AGW skeptics. I don’t see articles here about, say, a new cancer treatment, and then comments about whether the supporting research seems valid or not. And I’m not sure how an AGW skeptic can say they are more open minded than warmists, as you call them, given my comments above.
Then you aren’t looking at the right website.
I’ve authored many posts expressing skeptical views of hypotheses/theories regarding bolides/impacts, abiotic crude oil, human migration into the Americas, megafauna extinctions, etc… As have many of the other guest authors.
That said, most of the posts not directly related to AGW (or the lack thereof), are related to Earth, Space, Ocean and Atmospheric sciences (AKA Earth Science)… because Anthony and most of the guest authors have backgrounds and/or strong interests in various aspects of Earth Science. There isn’t much of an oncology cadre here.
What’s the percentage, David? 5% at best?
I haven’t counted them. With my posts… It’s probably 25-50% that deal with topics other than AGW.
Blind pigs can still find acorns.
You’re displaying a type of sophistry all too common in the world today, you’re anthropomorphizing an organization and throwing around blanket statements as if the organization is a single cognitive entity.
NASA IS an agency, it doesn’t HAVE agency. You can’t ask a NASA for their opinion on anything and a NASA doesn’t do science or write articles, people that work at NASA do those things and each one is an individual that is accountable for their own research and public statements.
That’s why more enlightened people aren’t impressed or persuaded when they hear things like “NOAA’s opinion is this” or “NASA’s stance is that”, because we are fully aware that those are organizations made up of people with an array of opinions and beliefs and that when such statements are made, it is really an administrator –probably the least knowledgeable person in the agency about the subject matter– giving their opinion. And many of us have personal experience with this, belonging to an organization and witnessing that organization releasing public statements aimed at giving the impression that all their members are in concurrence like their some sort of hive-mind.
So Robert, we can safely ignore position statements from any scientific organization.
I am skeptical of them all.
Whining about a lack of consensus in the skeptic camp seems to be all Chris has left.
Another logically incoherent post from MarkW. I’m calling out the hypocrisy here, a site that calls itself populated with open minded skeptics, but is nothing of the kind. You’re a classic example.
Fascinating, pointing out that Chris lies about what others have been saying somehow offends him.
You make the claim that lots of people here say something. I demonstrate that this isn’t the case, and from this little Chris concludes that I’m closed minded.
Then again, Chris has demonstrated time and again that he isn’t capable of saying anything intelligent, which is why he’s been reduced to random bouts of insults.
You better go get in your safe space before those antarctic ice chunks come flingin’ your way. It’s much worse than we thought. Turn off all power sources now, or else you are nothing but a hypocrite, alarmist, shill, dum dum.
“only estimates eastern Antarctic mass gains to be 5 gigatons a year — yet this estimate comes with a margin of error of 46 gigatons”
A classic case of the error bars crossing zero. Interpretation – we have no idea if its going up or down. But lets put out a scary headline about 3 trillion tons of ice melting anyway
Particularly when the GIA is larger than any assertion of ice mass gain or loss.
Errr…
“Reported ice melt mostly driven by instability in the western Antarctic ice sheet, which is being eaten away from below by warm ocean water.”
If the ice is underwater and being ‘eaten away’ surely there won’t be ANY increase in water levels as ice is less dense?
That IS how Ice Ages begin. Poles slowly add to Ice Mass Balance.
And this is how they end.
zazove
What if that Greenland mass loss also turns out to be an artefact of consensus among activists? Just like at Antarctica?
Or what if the 80 are correct and Zwally is not?
Still doesn’t change anything- West Antarctica has the world’s highest concentration of volcanoes, and they aren’t finished counting yet. So we could stop civilization tomorrow, doom billions to a cold death in the dark, and West Antarctica will still be melting.
Chris and Z are convinced that not only is science conducted by a vote, but it’s a good thing to make sure that those who don’t agree with you aren’t permitted to vote.
MarkW said: “Chris and Z are convinced that not only is science conducted by a vote, but it’s a good thing to make sure that those who don’t agree with you aren’t permitted to vote.”
MarkW is convinced that good science is only done when 100% of scientists or members agree on it. He thinks consensus = 100% buy in, which is not true. So, applying Mark’s logic, since we don’t have consensus on vaccines for children, best not to issue any guidance and just let all parents figure it out for themselves.
Have you turned off all of your fossil fuel generate energy yet? Why not? Fool.
I need it to reply to morons like you, tom.
As always, Chris can’t win an argument so he’s reduced to flinging poo.
As always, the only thing Chris has is lies. I’ve never said anything remotely close to Chris’s recent post.
You implied it. Tell us how my example is so much different. In both cases the majority of researchers believe in one position. In both cases there is a small number of skeptics, who disagree with the mainstream position.
Science isn’t done via voting Chris.
Being in the mainstream often means nothing more than you agree with the group that has bought the most scientists.
Good one. Do you want to buy this nice bridge I have out back? Only one careful owner.
Like all the astronomers who believed in epicycles for a thousand years? Or the robust US-led consensus that held out against Wegener’s continental drift for half a century?
Zwally is not alone as you were trying to imply. Frezzotti et al data agrees with Zwally. Based on real measurements.
https://flore.unifi.it/retrieve/handle/2158/1067243/192354/Frezzotti%20et%20al-2013.pdf
“Our SMB reconstructions indicate that the SMB changes over most of Antarctica are statistically negligible”
Or what if some of us are scientifically literate enough to be able to rebuke the Nature article on scientific grounds before the Zwally article was ever even brought to light? And consequently the disagreement is for the exact same reasons that Zwally gives. It’s almost as if some people can discern whether papers have merit by understanding their methods instead of just employing blind faith or blind rejection.
Get into your safe space now, turn off all fossil fuel generated power and whither away you pseudo scientific fool.
The mass of the Greenland ice sheet is in the neighborhood of 2,437,500 gigatonnes (2,600,000 km^3 volume).
Whatever your opinions on this, the above graph is simply a straw-man argument. People aren’t currently much concerned about how much ice remains – they’re concerned about sea level rise, directly related to the amount lost.
Then people don’t need to be concerned. Greenland’s contribution to Gorebal sea level rise is too small to graph… It ranges from 0.005 to 0.021 mm/yr.
https://www.nap.edu/read/13389/chapter/5
If the entire Greenland ice sheet melted, sea level would only rise by 6.5 m.
However, there hasn’t been a significant reduction in the Greenland ice sheet, relative to today’s volume since the Eemian interglacial, when Arctic temperatures were >5 °C warmer than the warmest part of the Holocene, 7,000 yrs ago.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/22/a-geological-perspective-of-the-greenland-ice-sheet/
…Except ee have been told by the “climate change experts ” that Greenland is melting dramatically.
And it takes dramatic melting to raise sea levels.
So dismissing the evidence that Greenland is not melting dramatically shows you to be just another “climate change” fanatic rejecting things you don’t like and unable to think rstionally or critically.
Putting things into proper context is a strawman argument – “What are things a cultist would say?”
Keeping a sense of perspective is what intelligent people do. Only those who are determined to create panics hide perspective.
So how come they often talk in gigatons and zetajoules rathers than annual SLR or change in temperature of the oceans as a whole.
@ur momisugly B Turner …where is the acceleration in slr then?
I don’t know! I come here to try to learn, not argue (although that’s looking like a mistake). But when I see straw-man arguments cropping up, that’s a negative sign.
As near as I can tell, you define a strawman as any argument you can’t refute.
No one who has a clue is worried about sea level rise. It is a empty rattling vessel. The ‘big scare’ is ‘flooded cities’ as if buildings last literally forever and people forgot how to move a km inland.
Flooding New Yawk! OMG. NYC sits a lot higher than it did 200 years ago. All the south end was a swamp. Now it is well above sea level. Seattle: the main downtown used to be four ft above sea level. Now it is 20. Does anyone actually check these things?
It is a lot cheaper to truck in some dirt like NYC did than relocating 100 billion $ worth of buildings. Honestly, I am so fed up with yelling about sea level and ‘the collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet’. What BS. Let the temperature rise if it wants. Call me in 50,000 years to see how much of Antarctica is bare. Venus de Milo can walk faster than is needed to out-run global warming.
We don’t have any runaway warming, we have runaway warning, each day a new baseless, screaming fit about a thermodynamically impossible future. It is the true definition of ‘vain imaginings’.
How do these people manage to get their hands on so much money?
How much sea level rise would a 1% loss cause?
6.5 m × 0.01 = 0.065 m = 65 mm = 2.55 in
And you must consider sea level is not like water level in your bathtub, unless your bathtub’s floor rises and lowers, the edges move in and out, and the shell is capable of absorbing or discharging water.
Yep… 2.55 inches of SLR over 120 years would tend to fall into the noise level, if the ocean has tides and waves.
How dare you try to impose perspective on this discussion.
Don’t you know that only data that supports the alarmist position qualifies as science.
Notice the end date. The Greenland Ice Sheet grew in 2017….
zazove, that graph of mass loss in Greenland’s ice sheet has a very strange and distinct slope change from 2010 to 2013.
Did the Norse gods protecting Greenland decide to turn on the AC for the planet at that time, at the expense of additional ice melting? Or is there a more reasonable explanation for this anomaly (e.g., “Karlization”)?
And thank GOD they end!!
I love the way trolls cherry pick the time frames in order to hide what is really happening.
At that rate the ice will be gone in 93,750 years. The sea will be lapping at the door steps of the 93,840 year old Empire State Building.
I don’t think you realize how small…those big scary numbers really are
That would involve perspective, something that Bob says no scientist should dabble in.
Even if the East somehow “balances” the West, so what? Antarctica is a big place. If the West continues to melt at an accelerating rate, what makes anyone think the East will keep up. And the west is the concern because of the ice that sits on bedrock below sea level.
Because the West is very, very tiny compared to the East.
All of the West Antarctic ice sheet could melt, and only a few penguins would notice.
Better get in your safe space. What are you doing to make the planet colder and less habitable today? Fool.
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-antarctica-lost-trillion-tonnes-ice.html?utm_source=menu&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=item-menu
“The ice sheet mass balance inter-comparison exercise (IMBIE) is an international effort: a team of 84 polar scientists from 44 organisations, including both of us, working together to provide a single, global record of ice loss from Earth’s polar ice sheets. In our latest assessment, published in Nature, we used 11 different satellite missions to track Antarctica’s sea level contribution since the early 1990s.”
“In 2014 the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) published its fifth assessment report, which includes modelled projections of Antarctica’s contribution to sea level rise over the century. By mapping our measured sea level contribution on top of these projections, we found that our previous assessment of Antarctic sea level contribution, which measured ice loss until 2012, was tracking the IPCC’s lowest projection. In light of the acceleration in ice loss we have observed over the past five years, we now find sea level rise from Antarctica to be tracking the IPCC’s highest projection. This amounts to an additional 15cm in global sea level rise from Antarctica alone by 2100.”
So what?
It would still require a physically impossible acceleration of Gorebal SLR to reach the upper end of the IPCC fiction…
And sea level isn’t doing anything today that it wasn’t doing already.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Love that ruler! And all your other graphics. 🙂
Sea level rise and global ice volume. Neither can be measured to the degree of accuracy that would be required to end the debate. This simple fact explains why there is a debate in the first place, and why the debate is meaningless in the second place.
It is the practice of modern science to make bold and authoritative statements with every publication no matter how flimsy and uncertain the evidence, and then defend yourself with the statement that the evidence was the ‘best available’. If a scientists wishes to receive future financial support, they must produce definitive conclusions. “I don’t know” is not an acceptable statement following a period of expensive research.
Anthony Banton, the quote beneath the figure labeled Antarctic Ice Contribution to Global Seal Level invites the following question:
When accounting for the ice “melt”, did they discern between ice that was floating and ice that was partially or fully supported by underlaying land. If so, using what means?
Can you say “confirmation bias”?
I knew you could.
I can see a hockey stick with smoothing, without error estimates nor uncertainties, with badly marked x-axis but with a very artistic background.
I’m sure the Carteret islands have now sunken and surely are not inhabiting more people than ever before, right?
Who cares what their projections say? Especially when their projections are refuted by actual data.
So what’s your plan to make the earth colder and grow ice on continents dum dum?
Why did it need 80 scientists to come up with their conclusions?
The quality of any scientific research is inversely proportional to the square of the number of contributors. 1 / 80^2 = 0% quality
In lay terms, they’re trying to bluff with a bunch of doctorates.
Just like when good German scientists wrote joint papers condemning Jewish science, these good “climate change scientists” prefer to eork in gangs.
Think of Mann and his gang atracking Crockford.
Bad scientists love company.
There is no”i” in “team”.
TEAM: The Enemies Assisting Me
Little fish swim in big schools to spread out the personal risk, big fish swim in small packs to get things done.
“Zwally says ice growth is anywhere from 50 gigatons to 200 gigatons a year.”
How many minus Manhattans is this?
Would that be with or without the maraschino cherry or lemon peel?
So … the world is gaining ice. Why is the sea level still increasing? Is the sea level still increasing? If so, is the sea level increase accelerating?
I’ve always accepted that the glaciers have been decreasing for the last hundred and fifty years. It also seems obvious to me that the alarmists are exaggerating the amount of sea level rise and, therefore, the glacier melt that causes it.
Zwally’s announcement is wonderful news. I somehow don’t think it’s the last word though. Surely the alarmists will try to refute or suppress his upcoming paper.
We’re working at the edge of instrumental accuracy. The error bars are bigger than most researchers will admit. There are still unknown unknowns that can’t be accounted for. I’m skeptical of everything, even the good news.
So a thoroughly skeptical.
This is not the first time that NASA says the Antarctic wins ice in the plus-minus business.
Actually, this has been a consensus among NASA scientists since 2015. However, it will take some time before this ice gain affects the sea level. Because while the loss flows directly into the sea, the profit from the atmosphere is achieved. A different process on different time scales.
In the end, however, good news, because the Antarctic ice is basically land ice and if it grows again in the forecasted extent, it can only be good for the sea level in the long run.
When I posted I probably had this WUWT story in mind.
Groundwater is a known unknown as is subsidence. There will be unknown unknowns. The only question is how much they matter.
“a team of 80 scientists”
This is supposed to make it a better study?
We need quality not quantity.
Zwally’s paper will not make into the headlines as the Shepherd + 79 did.
Because the “headlines” of Soros and his brothers are dominated in spirit and in the dollar.
But truth has a quality like water, it finds its way through the finest cracks.
Otherwise the lie would have long been the sole standard in the world.
To make things clear, Jay Zwally is a consensus scientist except in a particular specific point. He is having a scientific debate on East Antarctica Ice Sheet melting. On everything else he is not only consensus, but actually alarmist.
As an example here is his prediction from 2007 that the Arctic was going to be ice-free by 2012.
2007 NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally predicted that the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012.
National Geographic. December 12, 2007
Al Gore withdrew the conclusion “Greenland will be ice free in five years”, after receiving the Nobel Prize — became very rich. Before that IPCC withdrew the conclusion “Himalayas will be melting by 2035”.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
When did Gore say Greenland will be ice free in 5 years?
Good point. It’s not clear exactly what the moron was actually predicting in his Nobel Prize speech.
10 December 2007…
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html
Al either predicted that the “North Polar ice cap” would be gone by 2014, or he’s too stupid to comprehend what he read and doesn’t know what an “ice cap” is…
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/gallery/icecaps.html
If he wasn’t so brain-damaged, I would assume he was referring to summer sea ice… which is not even close to being an ice cap. Many people incorrectly refer to the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets as ice caps… and the Greenland ice sheet is in the North Polar region of Earth, but I don’t think Al Gore is that fracking stupid.
Just hearing ALGORE’s name makes me *shudder*, ick.
Blind pigs still find acorns.
Then super kudos to Dr. Zwally for having the personal integrity to change his stated position based on the most recent scientific data. N.B.: 2007 was more than a decade ago.
And yes, I’m aware that you are pointing to his 2007 position on the Arctic versus his 2015-current position on the Antarctic. But we’re talking about “global warming”, aren’t we?
Yes, he no longer thinks the Arctic melted by 2012, and unlike Peter Waldhams, he is no longer making predictions about that.
if he worked at JCU hed be on notice and be accused of uncollegiality
wonder what nasa will do?
would bet that not ONE aus msms site will mention, let alone run this item
oh Bolt might
and create a frenzy again;-)
“6 feet of snow in Labrador ‘unprecedented’ this late in June”
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/labrador-lodge-snow-june-6-foot-snow-banks-unprecedented-june-2018-atlantic-canada-newfoundland/104706/
Bet they wish “Global Warming” was real !!