A groundbreaking study published in Science China Earth Sciences has unveiled a stunning reversal in the fortunes of the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS), which gained mass at an unprecedented rate between 2021 and 2023. This marks the first significant ice growth in decades, challenging the prevailing narrative of relentless ice loss and highlighting the complex interplay of natural variability and climate dynamics. Using data from NASA’s GRACE and GRACE-FO satellite gravimetry missions, the findings offer a nuanced perspective on Antarctica’s role in global sea level changes and raise critical questions about the drivers of ice sheet behavior.
The study, led by Dr. Wei Wang and Prof. Yunzhong Shen at Tongji University, reports that the AIS gained mass at a rate of 107.79 ± 74.90 Gt/yr from 2021 to 2023, a dramatic shift from prior decades of decline. As the article states, “From 2002 to 2010, the AIS has experienced a mass loss with a change rate of -73.79 ± 56.27 Gt/yr, which nearly doubled to -142.06 ± 56.12 Gt/yr for the period 2011-2020.” This earlier mass loss, driven primarily by intensified depletion in West Antarctica and parts of East Antarctica’s Wilkes Land-Queen Mary Land (WL-QML) region, contributed significantly to global sea level rise—0.20 ± 0.16 mm/yr from 2002-2010 and 0.39 ± 0.15 mm/yr from 2011-2020. In contrast, the recent ice growth has had a “negative contribution, offsetting global mean sea level rise at a rate of -0.30 ± 0.21 mm/yr” from 2021-2023, effectively slowing the rise of global sea levels.
The turnaround is particularly pronounced in East Antarctica, where four critical glacier basins—Totten, Moscow, Denman, and Vincennes Bay—reversed their mass loss trends. The article notes, “The four key glacier basins in WL-QML region… exhibited mass loss intensification with a rate of 47.64 ± 8.14 Gt/yr during 2011-2020, compared to 2002-2010, with the loss area expanding inland.” Yet, between 2021 and 2023, these basins showed significant mass gains, attributed to “anomalous precipitation accumulation.” This surge in snowfall appears to have counteracted the factors previously driving ice loss, namely surface mass reduction (72.53%) and increased ice discharge (27.47%).
The implications of this rebound are far-reaching. The article warns that “the complete disintegration of these four glaciers could potentially trigger a global mean sea level rise exceeding 7 meters,” emphasizing their pivotal role in global climate stability. The recent mass gains suggest a degree of resilience in East Antarctica, which had been considered relatively stable compared to the rapidly depleting West Antarctica and Antarctic Peninsula. These regional differences underscore the need for a more granular understanding of Antarctica’s ice dynamics, as the AIS does not behave uniformly across its vast expanse.
What triggered this abrupt shift? The study points to anomalous precipitation as the primary driver, suggesting that natural variability plays a significant role in short-term ice sheet changes. Some researchers have speculated that episodic events, such as volcanic activity or ocean circulation shifts, could contribute to these fluctuations. For instance, the 2021 Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption, which injected sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, may have temporarily cooled the Southern Hemisphere, potentially enhancing snowfall in Antarctica. Such natural phenomena challenge the assumption that slow, CO2-driven warming is the sole driver of ice trends, highlighting the limitations of climate models that often overpredict warming and ice loss.
However, the optimistic data comes with caveats. West Antarctica continues to lose mass, and the risk of marine ice sheet instability remains a concern according to the authors. Rapid ice loss could still occur if underlying glaciers destabilize, potentially overwhelming the gains from increased snowfall. The study’s authors stress the need for continued monitoring, noting that “their pronounced ablation patterns already constitute a critical climate warning signal, warranting greater scientific attention to their stability.” —yawn.
This development underscores the complexity of Antarctica’s ice system and the pitfalls of oversimplified climate narratives. The interplay of precipitation, potential volcanic influences, and regional variability suggests that short-term fluctuations can significantly alter long-term trends. The unexpected AIS rebound challenges policymakers and researchers to integrate this new data into their understanding of climate dynamics, moving beyond one-size-fits-all assumptions about ice loss and sea level rise.
Reference: Wang et al., “Spatiotemporal mass change rate analysis from 2002 to 2023 over the Antarctic Ice Sheet,” Science China Earth Sciences, 2025. DOI: 10.1007/s11430-024-1517-1
“unveiled a stunning reversal in the fortunes of the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS), which gained mass at an unprecedented rate between 2021 and 2023″
Some ridiculous hype there – it isn’t clear who wrote it. The abstract itself just says:
“The results indicate that the AIS contribution to GMSL (global mean sea level) rise peaked at 5.99±0.43 mm in February 2020, followed by a mass gain period lasting over three years, ultimately resulting in a total GMSL contribution of 5.10±0.52 mm by the end of 2023. “
Funny, nobody said that when claims about Antarctica losing ice mass were being circulated. Of course they may have been ridiculous hype as well and it was never clear who wrote those either.
But why ask the question now?
Whether it’s true, or not, is now irrelevant. It had the desired effect of fooling a LOT of people into believing it. Once accomplished it doesn’t matter whether it was true or not.
See, I regard claims of observed (“measured?”) changes in the hundredths of a millimeter in the seas all over the world as arrant nonsense.
But that’s just me 🥺
And if you go to Mr. Watts fine “Reference” page and click on the sea ice page, the ‘15% and greater” coverage in Antarctica for the last two seasons has been the lowest since records began. So, I’m thinking, like most of the climate change data, we don’t have enough empirical evidence (length of time) to know what is actually going on. But it’s fun to guess and build models.
Don’t confuse ‘sea ice’ with ice in the ice sheet on land.
I’m not professor. Nor am I confusing a mass measurement with land/sea ice coverage. Just pointing out that one piece of data is showing the opposite of another. More of a statement that we really don’t know what is happening long term with man’s impact on the climate. Natural cycles or you and me. Be well.
The Antarctic ice sheet is perfectly fine. In the last 30 years, the sheet has lost about 2,720 Gigatons. Sounds like a lot. But the total mass of the ice sheet is 26.5 million Gt. The sheet has lost at most one-hundredth of one percent of its mass. Why is anybody worried?
Here is the graph from the paper of this “stunning reversal”:
The reason was, as the article does say, a period of higher precipitation.
Yes, it has reversed hasn’t it. and if we look at the total ice mass absolutely NOTHING is happening or has happened since 1900.
All the “ridiculous hype” of Antarctic losing ice has been just that.. ridiculous hype.
And of course the Antarctic was warmer than now 1000 years ago
New Study: Plant Remains Embedded In A Modern Glacier Evidence A Warmer Antarctica 1000 Years Ago
and…
So, 22 years of data shows the first 19 years has a stunning “downward” trajectory that is almost identical (in the opposite sign) to the most recent 3 years’ “stunning reversal” (light blue dotted line angle). And, neither you, me or the scientist whom wrote this “groundbreaking study”, truly know if the period of “higher precipitation” is going to last 3 years or 30.
People who are “stunned” continuously are not noted for thinking straight.
But it’s the warmest ever we are up 1.5 deg aren’t we … so maybe ice increases the warmer it gets 😉
Well, warmer air does hold more water vapor which possibly can result in higher precipitation rates. But when you are talking really cold temps the absolute amount of water vapor, though higher, is not that much.
My guess what’s happening is the storms that form in the open Antarctic waters north of the ice may be more intense and the steering jet streams are bringing them inland more than usual.
The best corollary is Greenland. It gains ice only when the storms move over it during the accumulation period. If there is a blocking high over the island or the steering jets direct them away, they can’t move in and the ice deposition goes way down. If you have a year of fewer storms and a stronger melt season, we get the “we are doomed” headlines. If there are a lot of storms, we hear crickets.
Stunning, isn’t it! The slope going is recent years is the same as slope during the ice reduction, except for the sign of course.
Funny how the slope didn’t seem to care what humans were doing.
Nick
”the reason was, as the article does say, aperitif of higher precipitation.”
what other mechanism is there?
It looks to me like a transition to a different regime, even if it is only temporary.
So H20 increases ice by CO2 decreases ice.
Seems H20 is the dominant factor.
/s
If anyone knows about ridiculous hype its the climate alarmists and their low-end hangers-on !
The *finding* is not new either ….
“Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1110662
That paper is quoted in the IPCC AR4 report ….
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter4-1.pdf
It is expected due increased snowfall caused by increasing warmth created by AGW.
Look up the Clausius-Clapeyron relation,
So, “AGW” causes both more ice and less ice. Got it.
Antarctic ice mass.
Antarctic-Ice-Mass hosted at ImgBB — ImgBB
Antarctic temperature… just a small RECOVERY since the LIA, but well below most of last 2000 years.
“A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12″
So “ridiculous hype” about sea level rise of around 1.5 or 1.6mm/ year (1.7-0.12) .. is just that..
more “ridiculous hype”
Thanks Ant.
We hope you see you say that next time someone makes a ridiculously hyped estimate of sea level rise.
https://scitechdaily.com/challenging-modern-climate-narratives-forgotten-1937-aerial-photos-expose-antarctic-anomaly/
Must be Denier Ice.
Sounds good.
How would Hunga Tonga cool Antarctica? OTOH, extra water vapour up there could easily lead to more precipitation. Did they find that temperatures had gone down, or did they just assume that was the case because ice had gone up.
Those are BIG error bars
Advection in the SH is in long term decline due to orbital changes but there are significant year-to-year swings in solar EMR that alter advection. The SH is moving to lower seasonal extremes while the northern hemisphere is moving toward more extreme seasons.
So “anomalous” is entirely relative to the chosen baseline. If an average of 1980 to 2010 is taken as the baseline then solar driven advection in 2004 was down by 0.56W/m^2 in the SH. but 2021 was only down by 0.06W/m^2. So still down from the 30 year average but up quite a lot since 2004 and most of the first decade of the century.
The error is thinking that orbital changes cannot have an impact over short time frames and only CO2 causes climate change.
How inappropriate are the number of significant figures quoted by the authors of the paper? 47.64 ± 8.14 Gt/yr should be 48±8, not four significant figures.
Dueling Satellites:
Several satellites recently were or are still measuring the ice sheet volume changes in Greenland and Antarctica. These include Cryosat, ICESAT, Grace I and FO, plus long-wave EM from aircraft, and for longer periods, ice rafted debris, and other proxies.
All these require difficult calibrations causing accuracy and precision errors. To date, it appears that the measurements are, at best, annual fluctuations.
Taking ALL the Antarctic data together, the measurements oscillate about ±100 km3 of ice volume change per annum during the measurement period – in other words – annual fluctuations in the ice volume are very small; sometimes positive and sometimes negative.
In comparison, Ice Rafted Debris, IRD, an accurate ice loss measurement for Greenland, covering about 200 years indicate a significant DECREASE in the Greenland rate of ice loss from over 600 km3 to less than 200 km3 annually. A declining ice loss for the past 200 years in Greenland, with its more vulnerable ice compared with Antarctica, is not inconsistent with zero ice loss in Antarctica.
Antarctica’s ice changes, if any at all, are very small, annual changes of ±100 km3 in the 30,000,000 km3 of ice on Antarctica or one part in 300,000. Given the challenges in making a continental wide ice volume measurement, an accuracy and precision of one part in 300,000 would be and is incredible, but ice losses are given to several decimal places!
100 km3 of ice may also be written as 100 billion tons of ice, which sounds more impressive, but is still the same amount of ice. It is also ~92 km3 of melt water.
Mean Sea Level implications of 100 km3 of ice melting in the ocean are a rise by about 0.2 mm of the putative annual average 2.2 mm rise in the MSL. It seems at least plausible that the sea level would rise during the Medieval Warm Period, MWP and decline during the Little Ice Age, LIA, and might be rising now as we warm slightly in the rebound from the LIA.
Lots of coastal features indicate that the relative sea level was around 1.5 – 2m higher than now some time around 1500-3000 years ago.
Warmunists love pointing to the ice. But only when some of it melts. It’s their tangible, visual “proof” of AGW. Until it isn’t. Then it’s crickets.
AGW alarmists never talk about observational features that diminish the religion of Gaia.
Remember, humans are unnatural therefore they are against nature which is good.
“the fortunes of the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS), which gained mass at an unprecedented rate between 2021 and 2023”
Of course it’ll be attributed to AGW. 🙂
Stated differently, it is equivalent to the sea level rise being between 0.04 and 0.36 mm/yr. There is no explicit indication of whether the authors consider the “0” following the “2” is considered significant. Giving them the benefit of doubt, the mid-range value is obviously 0.20 mm/yr. [The underscore implies the last significant digit.] However, the digit in the tenths place of the range is varying, suggesting that it (2) is the last significant figure in the mid-range result. Thus, it should be written as “0.2 ± 0.2 mm/yr,” implying that there is a small positive increase in sea level with 100% uncertainty as to the actual magnitude. The article does not say whether the original claimed uncertainty was for a 1-sigma or 2-sigma probability. So much for high precision numeric measurements in oceanography.