New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years

From the NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 3. September 2026

new study reports Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) glacier melt has added a grand total of just 0.74 cm to sea levels from 1992-2020. The authors apparently consider this amount − +0.26 mm/yr of meltwater equivalent − highly alarming.

The study assesses 203 glaciers in the AIS Western Peninsula and documents a statistically significant rising surface mass balance (SMB) trend since 1980 and stable to slightly positive glacier elevation change (+0.02 m per year) from 1989 to 2020.

A 40-year positive SMB trend suggests the region is storing more water as snow and ice on land rather than releasing it into the ocean.

Image Source: Thota et al., 2026
The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 10 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
98 Comments
Eng_Ian
September 4, 2026 2:17 am

I might be missing something here but IF the SMB is trending upward, implying more ice wrt to time, then HOW is the ocean level rising?

Is Antarctica, (the land mass), being elevated to cause an increase in the SMB measurements and possibly an error flows from this or is there something else causing the sea levels to rise. For example, are the ocean waters is becoming less dense and hence taking up more volume? If this is the case, do we have to take a swig out of all our alcohol bottles now, just to make sure they don’t burst?

Be nice if someone worded a couple of sentences together to explain how SMB and sea levels SHOULD align.

Reply to  Eng_Ian
September 4, 2026 2:45 am

wrt ==> “with respect to”

Reply to  Eng_Ian
September 4, 2026 4:29 am

The largest single contributor to slr is thermal expansion of ocean waters as the water warms. The melting of land ice (primarily Greenland and Antarctic) is secondary.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 4, 2026 5:10 am

I’ve always read from various studies that it was primarily lower-latitude alpine glaciers, and to some degree tidewater glaciers in Greenland, that were adding to SLR besides the main cause, thermal expansion. Antarctica and the inland Greenland Ice Sheet have been stable or slightly gaining mass.

(Studies like GRACE put the breakdown as 50% thermal expansion, 20-30% from mountain glaciers. A lot is also land water use changes.)

Reply to  johnesm
September 4, 2026 10:04 am

Thermal expansion is local. If mid Pacific sea level goes up because of thermal expansion, will that cause sea level rise in New York harbor?

We are being systematically lied to about nearly every aspect of “Climate Change” you can thank of.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 4, 2026 2:07 pm

You have it wrong. Thermal expansion is global because 90+% of the planets heat imbalance — which is global, not local–goes into the oceans.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 5, 2026 6:32 am

But not all of the 90% is stored equally across the globe. Example, ENSO. Warm water is stored in the Western Pacific. Does that cause a “global” expansion in sea level?

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 5, 2026 9:15 am

comment image

Mr.
Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 5, 2026 5:11 pm

No source attribution?
So just some work-experience kid with new set of digital coloring crayons?

Reply to  Mr.
September 5, 2026 8:34 pm

Exactly what it is.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
September 5, 2026 8:33 pm

AAAha ha ha ha. Looks like the speckled areas in the middle of the sea had from -10 or +10cm fall/rise during that time. I wonder how that was measured????

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 5, 2026 9:25 am

Think about it.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 5, 2026 8:35 pm

Seems like you have thought about this very deeply eh?

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 4, 2026 8:54 am

Tom Wysmuller , https://www.climatedepot.com/2021/07/08/rip-meteorologist-tom-wysmuller-co-founder-of-the-the-right-climate-stuff-research-team/ , pointed out to me that deep ocean thermal expansion is irrelevant in shallow near shore water .

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 4, 2026 9:57 am

The IPCC says:

IPCC AR4 Chapter 5 Page 387

     The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003,
     global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the
     surface to a depth of 700 m.

Google AI says:

     The thermal expansion of marine water over a 700-meter
     column resulting from a 0.10°C temperature change ranges
     between 5.25 mm and 14.0 mm (0.53 cm to 1.4 cm). The
     exact amount depends heavily on the initial temperature
     and salinity of the water column

You know what? I can’t get too excited over ~1 cm of sea level rise over a 42 year period.

Besides that, you can pretty well depend on the IPCC and Google to pad the numbers in favor of the Climate Cult’s narrative.

Indeed, Google AI says:

     By the year 2100, the global average sea level is projected
     to rise between 1 to 4 feet (0.3 to 1.2 meters) under
     moderate scenarios, though the exact increase heavily
     depends on future greenhouse gas emissions and how
     rapidly polar ice sheets melt.

NOAA’s Tides and Currents page says

“. . . average global sea level rise rate of 1.7-1.8 mm/yr.”

Comes to a little over 5 inches by 2100.

Footnote:
Regarding NOAA”S Tides and Currents Page:

NOAA says:

     This site will no longer be available after September 30, 2026.
     Please visit the new, integrated Sea Level Trends and Extremes

I expect that the (1.7-1.8 mm/yr.) will disappear.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 4, 2026 2:12 pm

SLR is accelerating, so linear projections based on a 42 year avg rate is meaningless.
The current global average rate of sea level rise is about 0.17 inches (4.3 to 4.5 millimeters) per year, and this rate is accelerating over time. 
Current Rates and Recent Trends

  • Recent satellite data: The rate of sea level rise was about 2.1 mm per year in 1993 and doubled to 4.5 mm per year by 2024. — [NASA Earthdata].
  • Historical comparison: Throughout most of the 20th century, the average rise was much slower at roughly 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year. 
  • Total increase: Global mean sea level has risen about 8 to 9 inches (21 to 24 centimeters) since 1880
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 4, 2026 3:12 pm

You want to start your comparison in 1993 when tide gauge records go back to 1807. You say “SLR is accelerating” and here’s a chart that says about how much that would be for a selection of tide gauges with a long record:

comment image

Sea level acceleration of 0.01mm/yr² will add up to a mm/yr in 100 years on top of the 1.75 mm/year that NOAA’s Tides & Current page says. And that’s IF that 0.01mm/yr² continues.

The tide gauge record doesn’t change over the years like the satellite record does. This chart

comment image

demonstrates that Dr. R. Steve Nerem and his Sea Level Research Group changed the data every time they published a new release. All those plots should fall on top of one another. They don’t!

For practical purposes it doesn’t matter what aspect of “Climate Change” you want to look at, you can almost always find some issues that just don’t add up. The media and the so-called experts can nearly always be found to be making undocumented assertions, cherry picking or in some way following the party line.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 4, 2026 5:47 pm

My local-ish tide gauge in Sydney, a stable geological region, shows only 1mm/year mean SLR since 1915.

I find it amazing/bizarre/hilarious that some people are in a lather of PANIC over 2-3mm/year of sea level rise.

fort-denison
Reply to  bnice2000
September 4, 2026 7:32 pm

SLR is currently 4.4 mm /yr and accelerating.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 5, 2026 8:37 pm

SLR is currently 4.4 mm /yr and accelerating.

no.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 4, 2026 7:03 pm

Nerem’s work is well accepted peer reviewed science. Yours is not.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 4, 2026 9:07 pm

Here are three titles from Dr. Nerem:

Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era?

Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era

There was a fourth title:
Speed bump on the way to higher seas
But I couldn’t find the link

Could this guy be any more transparent? He obviously wanted to find acceleration and higher seas and as my 2nd graph above points out he was willing to manipulate the data to find it. That couldn’t be more obvious.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 5, 2026 8:38 pm

Nerem’s work is well accepted peer reviewed science. Yours is not.

God help us.

Reply to  Steve Case
September 4, 2026 7:31 pm

Satellites are needed, not tide gauges, for accurate measurements:
The current global average rate of sea level rise is about 0.17 inches (4.3 to 4.5 millimeters) per year, and this rate is accelerating over time. 
Current Rates and Recent Trends

  • Recent satellite data: The rate of sea level rise was about 2.1 mm per year in 1993 and doubled to 4.5 mm per year by 2024. — [NASA Earthdata].
  • Historical comparison: Throughout most of the 20th century, the average rise was much slower at roughly 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year. 
  • Total increase: Global mean sea level has risen about 8 to 9 inches (21 to 24 centimeters) since 1880
Mario Barbafiera
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 4, 2026 9:11 pm

Satellite measurements of sea level rise face specific technical challenges near coastlines and rely on complex models that can introduce errors. [1, 2]

Coastal and Technical Limits

  • Land interference: Radar echoes bounce off nearby land and mix with water signals within tens of kilometers of the coast, scrambling the data. [1, 2]
  • Environmental corrections: Adjustments for wind, atmospheric pressure, and tides become less reliable close to shallow coastal waters. [1]
  • Instrument calibration: Small mechanical changes or aging sensors on early satellites, such as TOPEX/Poseidon, created hidden biases that distorted multi-year trends. [1]

Modeling and Gravitational Challenges

  • Geoid reliance: Many broader studies use theoretical gravity-based models called geoids instead of direct local water measurements.
  • Missing local factors: Geoid models account for Earth’s mass and rotation, but they leave out changing winds, currents, and water temperatures.
  • Uneven gravity: Earth’s uneven rock density creates local gravitational pulls that cause water to bunch up or drop off unpredictably. [1, 2, 3]
Reply to  Mario Barbafiera
September 5, 2026 3:59 pm

But more accurate for measuring global rather than local slr.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 5, 2026 7:20 am

Satellites are needed, not tide gauges, for accurate measurements:

Funny how you casually toss around the term ‘accurate measurements”. How do you define the term “accurate”? Do you have an uncertainty budget hiding in your back pocket? If so, share it with us!

9 inches should be apparent in photographs taken from around the world. Do you have any historical photographic evidence to support that in locations where subsidence is not an issue?

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 5, 2026 9:27 am

Check your peer reviewed sources to get your answer. Do you use any peer reviewed sources? Or do you make it up as you go along? (As in your other posts)

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 5, 2026 9:46 am

Satellites are needed because tide gauges don’t give the results to want.

leefor
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 5, 2026 9:10 pm

Now what was the instrument uncertainty of satellite altimeter again? About 2-4cm, an order of magnitude difference. Not fit for purpose.

Mario Barbafiera
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 4, 2026 2:24 pm

Its not thermal expansion. I used AI to estimate the atmospheric temperature needed to raise the whole ocean by 1 deg C. 1000Deg C is needed. Further a 1 deg C rise in total ocean temp would cause a bout 30 cm of sea level rise ( once again according to AI). The only part of the ocean rising in temperature is the surface, because of increased isolation due to reduced cloud cover.

Reply to  Mario Barbafiera
September 4, 2026 4:24 pm

The warmest part of the oceans is the coastal margin where tide gauges show an average sea level rise of probably less than 2mm/year.

Reply to  Mario Barbafiera
September 4, 2026 7:05 pm

It is thermal expansion. Just because you say it isn’t, in contraction of all scientific research on the topic, is not compelling.

Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 5, 2026 7:25 am

It is thermal expansion.

It may be so, but if the whole ocean warming from the top to the bottom can only supply 30 cm of rise, how much does only the top 700 meters supply?

In engineering, this is known as a sensitivity analysis. That is, do the sum of the parts add up to the whole!

Reply to  Jim Gorman
September 5, 2026 3:58 pm

the slr is now at 4.5 mm/yr, and still accelerating. Because the amount of heat going into the oceans is equal to 4-1/2 Hiroshima size nukes exploding every second, 24/7, for the last 60 years.

strativarius
September 4, 2026 2:51 am

a grand total of just 0.74 cm

Climate scientists don’t like empirical evidence much, it always contradicts their ideas.
They much prefer modelling instead…

The fate of the planet’s coastlines depends on how fast Antarctica’s ice sheets melt. We don’t know what’s coming

The continent’s most vulnerable regions alone have enough ice to push up sea levels by about 15 metres if they all melt.

 new research bringing together modelling work on this “basal melt rate”

Taking the nine different models together, Galton-Fenzi and colleagues estimate…

Cook adds: “We don’t have the full understanding that we need to predict the future changes.”
Rintoul says while some of the impacts – such as extreme sea level rise – could take centuries of melting, “we commit to that ice loss much sooner than that”.Guardian

The only true statement in all that nonsensical bilge was: We don’t have the full understanding that we need to predict the future changes. Ergo, they really haven’t a clue but profess to be able to read the runes.

Reply to  strativarius
September 4, 2026 4:31 am

The only bilge to be found is in your utter lack of comprehension of this study.

strativarius
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 4, 2026 4:37 am

Ah Warren, still ploughing that lonely alarmist furrow I see. Did they take an average of the ‘nine different models’?

I think we should be told.

strativarius
Reply to  strativarius
September 4, 2026 5:08 am

No pithy comeback, Warren? Well, from the alleged study we have…

The outputs from each simulation were averaged over time
 average of multiple independent estimators 
representative of the average of simulations from 1990 to the late 2010s
averaged over some thickness
when averaged over the MEASURES areas.
the ensemble average of the models tends to a…

Multi-model estimate of Antarctic ice-shelf basal mass budget and ocean drivers

Really average stuff.

NB Did anyone spot that Warren Beeton can be averaged out to read Teen Bra Owner? Weird, but true.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  strativarius
September 4, 2026 9:11 am

“Warren” is just trying to make a living in troll-for-pay mode. Such work has not been replaced by AI yet and placing things on the keyboard to show activity does not suffice either. It still takes genuine human attack trolling to get counted and rewarded by the handlers and team leaders.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Warren Beeton
September 4, 2026 5:27 am

“The only bilge to be found is in your utter lack of comprehension of this study.”
Warren is speaking to himself as he looks in a mirror.

Catnip time?

We are laughing at you.

Herman Pope
September 4, 2026 2:53 am

Sea Level and Length of Day
Loss of Polar Ice and Rising Oceans would increase inertia of earth and Length of Day
The atomic clock is used to measure length of day. Nine leap seconds were added in the seventies, and they got a late start, they did not start until 1972 after making an initial adjustment. 6 leap seconds were added in the eighties. 7 leap seconds were added in the nineties. Now, only 5 leap seconds have been added since the end of 1998 and none since 2016. The Length of day has decreased and that would not be true if there was any kind of runaway sea level rise. For whatever reasons, they are lying or just not understanding what they claim to be expert at doing. I have had this discussion with many people for more than a decade. It is still holding. I read a story about melting ice and increasing rate of rising sea level, then I check the atomic clock data, I see that no leap seconds have been added, and none expected, then I relax and just say, not yet. Is their science wrong? Are they just extremely dishonest? Or, both?
 
Watch for it, if runaway sea level rise starts, the Length of Day would increase with more and more added leap seconds.
NO LEAP SECONDS ADDED MEANS THERE HAS BEEN NO SIGNIFICANT SEA LEVEL RISE.
Less Leap Seconds added since 1972 means sea levels have gone down for fifty years and more.
Length of Day is measured accurately by the atomic clock. There is a lot of uncertainty in measuring and averaging sea level, but not in measuring Length of Day.
   
You can check this information on the official website:
https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/atomic-standards/leap-second-and-ut1-utc-information

People have said the inertia of earth is huge, but the inertia of the oceans is tiny. The Crust of the earth floats on the core and the oceans are significant when compared to the inertia of the crust. During major ice ages, Length of Day was significantly shorter. Most ice on land is in or near polar regions, closer to the spin axis. Most water is in oceans closer to the equator, further from the spin axis.
Ice mass is close to the spin axis; water is far from the spin axis. When the dancer or skater pulls arms in close, the spin is faster, when the arms are out the spin is slower. When water is moved from the oceans to be sequestered as ice on land, the inertia of the crust of the earth is reduced. When ice on land thaws and meltwater enters the oceans, the inertia of the crust of earth increases.
 
GHGs or other factors have not caused Sea Level Rise since 1972, the consensus science is clearly mistaken or clearly dishonest. We have not been able to do anything about what they tell us, but we clearly do not need to believe in the Increasing Sea Level Rise or any other alarmist information that they promote when Length of Day has decreased for fifty years, which guarantees sea levels are lower than in 1972.
 
Climate harm is not happening due to manmade CO2 but the harm caused by their “so called” fixes are happening now, and yes, their man-made harm is already very bad.
Power and water outages have already proved their “so called” fixes are bad and getting worse with every fossil fuel energy generation replaced by wind or solar. I once read a story in the “Houston Chronicle Today” by James Osborne after the Ice Storms, in Feb 2021: “this link is not a link to James Osborne’s story, but a link to the story he was writing about”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
This page was last edited on 22 August 2026, at 08:50 (UTC).
I just checked the page was edited last month.
Page was rendered with Parsoid.
James Osborne wrote: “Grids once stayed on in colder weather”.
Before warm tropical ocean currents flowed into the polar regions, there was little ice sequestered on land and oceans were much deeper. The polar regions are great ice machines. Ice machines must be powered and there is energy dissipation. When polar regions are frozen there is little evaporation, snowfall and little sequestering.
Tropical warm currents finally flowed into the polar regions and promoted evaporation and the water vapor changing into ice in the clouds promoted the IR out from the clouds, the ice was stored on land and was build up until ice flowed into the salt water and formed sea ice.
Warm tropical ocean currents power the great ice machines. Sea ice forms to turn the machines off and thaws to turn the machines on again, this is self regulated.

Victor
Reply to  Herman Pope
September 4, 2026 4:03 am

Land subsidence is causing more sea level rise than meltwater.

The analysis identifies the Indo-Gangetic Plain and key Asian deltas as “high-velocity” subsidence zones where land is sinking up to 20 times faster than the sea is rising.

https://unu.edu/inweh/news/sinking-earth-vanishing-water-new-global-analysis-reveals-extensive-land-subsidence

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Victor
September 4, 2026 9:39 pm

And averaging all that nonsense gives Warren’s fictitious numbers.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Herman Pope
September 4, 2026 5:29 am

What a novel way to implement the null hypothesis test.

Braavo!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Herman Pope
September 4, 2026 5:33 am

Supporting this are 2 events.
The massive earthquake in Japan that shifted certain land masses affected the rotational speed of the planet. Measurable, but inconsequential except minor leap second adjustments over the years.

The other was a massive hydro project in China which raised enough water to alter the rotational speed. Measurable, but inconsequential except minor leap second adjustments over the years.

strativarius
September 4, 2026 3:33 am

Look out Antarctica, possibly, maybe…

Jackdaw gasfield set to be approved by ministers this month, sources say
Energy secretary could recommend new North Sea drilling next week, as ministers also consider approval for Rosebank oilfield

The dithering goes ever on…

Officials stress final decisions have not been made for either Jackdaw or Rosebank

They don’t have that difficulty with the energy price cap.

Bruce Cobb
September 4, 2026 3:38 am

Somewhere in there lies dangerous climate change, but I can’t quite see it. Maybe I need new glasses. Preferably green-tinted ones.

Michael Flynn
September 4, 2026 3:46 am

A glacier is a river of ice. It doesn’t melt, otherwise it would be a river of water.

If an Antarctic glacier loses mass, it is because it is not receiving sufficient precipitation, and in this case it stops flowing. It only flows if there is enough mass higher than the sea level to overcome friction.

The precipitation has to come from somewhere, presumably water from the sea, lowering the sea level. No precipitation, sea level doesn’t drop (probably rises), glacier doesn’t flow, and decreases in mass until it ceases to flow.

In the Antarctic, it is nigh impossible for a glacier to melt – it’s cold, cold, cold.

The authors are desperate to write something, obviously, so waffling about uncertain and irrelevant “mass balance estimates” hopefully keeps their funding coming.

Another paper to join the 99% of “scientific” papers which are either pointless, unable to be replicated, or completely worthless for other reasons.

Oh for the days of the “natural philosopher” with a first class mind, either wealthy or with a wealthy benefactor.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Michael Flynn
September 4, 2026 5:37 am

Agreed. Cold cold cold.

Except:

There are portions of the glaciers that overhand the ocean (or float in it).
There are undersea volcanos and geothermal vents that will melt those overwater extensions.
Just a nit picking detail. “Nigh impossible” is not an absolute statement, so all is well.

September 4, 2026 3:58 am

Once again we see part of the body of a study cut from its location (bottom of page 2 in this case) and pasted under the paper’s title.

Wonder why?

Read it for yourself and you might see. Once again, they are relying on none of you self-described ‘skeptics’ actually checking anything out for yourselves.

(And NTZ are the clowns who were complaining about no one taking their arguments seriously a few days ago!)

What the first page of the paper actually looks like is shown below.

Screenshot-2026-09-04-115745
strativarius
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 4, 2026 4:05 am

The Antarctic Peninsula has been climate‐sensitive since the mid‐20th century

Now, that is funny. Thanks for sharing that.

Reply to  strativarius
September 4, 2026 5:29 am

I didn’t actually ‘share it”. I just followed the link shared in the article, because I knew very few here would bother to do so.

How about,

this signal is changing due to increased ocean

and air temperatures, and glaciers are experiencing increased mass losses.

Did you like that bit?

NTZ apparently didn’t, so they edited it out.

strativarius
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 4, 2026 5:59 am

The climate changes. Get a grip. Better still, enjoy it.

Reply to  strativarius
September 4, 2026 8:22 am

Then why the need to clip things, alter charts, change data?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 4, 2026 9:44 pm

Ask Mann why the need to hide adverse statistics, grossly overweight one proxy to achieve a desired result. Ask the Pages2K people why the ex post proxy selection, and how they get a hockey stick when almost none of their proxies have one.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 4, 2026 9:42 pm

Name a time throughout Earth’s history were temperatures never changed, when sea levels were static, when glaciers never advanced or retreated. You can’t. And it’s not happening any differently today, we’re just able to scrutinize it like never before.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 5, 2026 3:54 pm

It’s happening in 200 years instead of 40,000 years.k

Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 4, 2026 4:33 am

If you click on the page, it will expand, become clear and readable. Click on the “X” in the circle to contact the image and return to Comments.

Reply to  Harold Pierce
September 4, 2026 5:30 am

Well isn’t that transparent of them?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Harold Pierce
September 4, 2026 9:45 pm

Please take your meds.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 4, 2026 4:40 am

Seems you should have read the whole paper… but you didn’t, did you.

Kenneth has read the whole paper, and pulled out the important parts.

Do you dispute what those parts say ?

Reply to  bnice2000
September 4, 2026 4:56 am

like where it says “substantial uncertainties exist in these estimates”

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 4, 2026 5:42 am

As the text makes plain, that’s a reference to the Pritchard et al. 2025 and Otosaka, et al. 2022 papers.

The point of this paper is to reduce the uncertainties associated with the Antarctic Peninsula, which they have done, such that their best estimate figure is greater than the uncertainty (447 ± 423 Mt a 1).

Michael Flynn
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 4, 2026 6:29 am

their best estimate figure is greater than the uncertainty (447 ± 423 Mt a 1).

And of course, the uncertainty is a guess! An estimate compared to a guess – climate science, is it?

Reply to  Michael Flynn
September 4, 2026 8:23 am

It’s in the paper Michael, along with their methodology.

Go ahead and write a rebuttal. What’s stopping you?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 5, 2026 3:52 pm

He’s chicken. Because he knows he hasn’t the receipts.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 4, 2026 7:20 am

Another climastrologer who can’t express measured values correctly.

Reply to  karlomonte
September 4, 2026 8:25 am

The measured values are a direct quote from the paper.

if you disagree with them, take it up with the publisher.

Or maybe you’re just another blog-warrior who can’t get formulate a proper rebuttal?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 4, 2026 1:23 pm

if you disagree with them, take it up with the publisher.

It was YOU who saw fit to republish them in this comments section.

Not falling for your usual weasel act.

Reply to  bnice2000
September 4, 2026 5:35 am

Kenneth has read the whole paper, and pulled out the important parts.

The “important parts” of a paper are generally found in its abstract. You know, the part NTZ edited out of the headline image?

In this case, the plain language version of the abstract ends:

… this signal is changing due to increased ocean

and air temperatures, and glaciers are experiencing increased mass losses.

I don’t see where that important part of the paper has been pulled out in the NTZ article.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 4, 2026 4:43 am

Did you know that the Antarctic has been cooling for at least 2000 years…

antarcticacooling
Reply to  bnice2000
September 4, 2026 5:43 am

Hard to beat an unsourced chart that stops in 2000 when you’re discussing a paper whose data ends in 2022.

Didn’t see that one coming.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 4, 2026 1:00 pm

Yet another showing cooling since 2000

Holocene-Cooling-Antarctica-Peninsula-Turner16-copy-768x312
Reply to  bnice2000
September 4, 2026 4:09 pm

That one’s only 10 years out of date. You’re getting there!

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
September 4, 2026 5:49 am

See furher down thread

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 4, 2026 5:44 am

Abstract (sentence 1):
The Antarctic Peninsula has been climate-sensitive since the mid-20th century, but the long-term glacier mass balance data are scarce.

Plain Language Summary (sentence 1):
The Antarctic Peninsula is affected by the changing climate.

Conclusions and Outlook (second paragraph)
Although our estimates reveal larger, region-wide insights, the elevation change rates are based on the spatially spare and heterogeneous coverage of historical DEMs, highlighting the limitations associate with using such data sets for individual glacier mass balance estimates.

Once again you demonstrate a complete lack of critical thinking.
I will not mention the obvious ad hominem attacks.

The link to the paper was provided by the author of the article.
The SPECIFIC items address in the article were displayed.
There was no need to reproduce the entirety just so one troll might not have a chance to once again prove himself an idiot.

Catnip. Definitely.
We all are laughing at your idiocies.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 4, 2026 9:47 pm

The Antarctic Peninsula has been climate-sensitive since the mid-20th century”

Lol, and never before then. hahahaha.

Editor
September 4, 2026 4:35 am

It isn’t Antarctic ice melt that the paper reports on, it’s West Antarctic Peninsula.ice melt. The West Antarctic Peninsula is a small part of Antarctica, and its ice is a very small part of Antarctic ice. It’s almost irrelevant, as their figures suggest.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 4, 2026 5:22 am

Exactly. The Antarctic Peninsula is the Florida of Antarctica…

Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 4, 2026 5:48 am

The paper and the title of it makes that clear: Three Decades of Glacial Changes on the Western Antarctic Peninsula

The article’s headline is from NTZ, so I’m surprised you’re surprised it’s misleading.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 4, 2026 1:22 pm

And of course the peninsular is a region full of active volcanic activity. Some hundreds of volcanic mounds under the sea ice and shelfs, and all along the peninsula.

Some places have pools warm enough to actually swim in.. Tourist attractions. 🙂

There is not a lot known about how active that are, but expecting them to be “stationary” is just dumb.

Obviously , the region is nowhere as active as the western Pacific convergence zone, but here’s a total hypothetical question….

What would be the effect of the Hunga Tonga size sub-ocean volcanic eruptions under a 20m thick ice sheet ?? Spectacular ??

antarctic-volcanoes
Reply to  bnice2000
September 4, 2026 3:00 pm

Further on the effects of Thermal action on the region. (click to expand)

High-geothermal-heat-flow-coincides-with-ice-flow-in-Antarctica-Haeger-2022
September 4, 2026 5:00 am

Temperatures from 5 high resolution ice cores show no Antarctic warming since 1800

Antarctic-temps-going-nowhere
Reply to  bnice2000
September 4, 2026 8:28 am

Stops 26 years ago. No source quoted.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 5, 2026 9:56 am

Global warming began after 2000?

September 4, 2026 5:04 am

And on a shorter more precise time period, CFSR shows cooling from 1979 to 2021

cfsr-ant-ta-monthly-1979-2016-12-01
Reply to  bnice2000
September 4, 2026 8:38 am

Chart stops 5 years ago. No link to the source (again).

UAH shows no change or minor warming in Antarctica, Dec 1978 – Aug 2026

The paper is about the Antarctic Peninsula, not Antarctica as a whole.

The Antarctic Peninsula is warming rapidly.

Screenshot-2026-09-04-163450
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 4, 2026 10:41 am

“The Antarctic Peninsula is warming rapidly.”

No it isn’t. Here are the temperatures (Tmax) recorded at Esperanza Base since 1961. I wouldn’t say it’s warming at all, never mind “rapidly”. Even your fictional chart only shows 0.2 degrees over 45 years. What do you think “slowly” would look like, if that’s “rapidly”?

Esperanza-Tmax-1961-2026
Reply to  stevekj
September 4, 2026 2:51 pm

Not to mention that UAH SoPol covers all of the globe south of 60 degrees.. and the topic is the West Antarctic Peninsular.

Reply to  bnice2000
September 4, 2026 4:19 pm

You just posted two charts for the whole of Antarctica.

They’re right there in the thread above.

Have you forgotten that already??

Reply to  stevekj
September 4, 2026 4:15 pm

Note also that the 3 large spikes are all before 1996…

… and the fact that the peak anomaly in the last 25 years is the same as in 1980. 🙂

Reply to  stevekj
September 4, 2026 4:17 pm

That’s one station of dozens across the Peninsula and it’s Tmax, not Tavg, which gives both max and min temps.

Rather than cherry-pick a single metric from a single location, see the UCAR link: the Antarctic peninsula, as a whole, has warmed by nearly 3C since 1950.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 5, 2026 6:10 am

It’s not “cherry-picked”. I chose a random peninsula station and it doesn’t support your case. Not in the least. Can you find a station that does?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 5, 2026 6:58 am

Here is the Tmin chart for Esperanza. Do you see any influence of human CO2 emissions in there? I don’t. The last two years look maybe a couple of degrees less cold than most of the previous sixty-five. And there was a nasty cold snap in 1995, apparently, but that’s just how weather works, isn’t it?

(I think the two “heat spikes” in the 1960s are data recording errors – it looks like they omitted the minus signs compared to the preceding and following day’s reports, and I don’t think it went from -25 to +25 and back to -25 in the span of three days in midwinter at night, unless someone accidentally lit a fire under the sensor)

Esperanza-Tmin-1961-2026
ResourceGuy
September 4, 2026 9:02 am

The authors know the key words and phrases to get past the barricades of the climate crusades gatekeepers. It’s more important for careers than to truth, context, and scientific doubt. Hopefully that southern continent of ice can survive the dark ages of science publication controllers. Jerry Brown sure knew how to use it.

Mario Barbafiera
September 4, 2026 2:31 pm

I read a paper recently that claimed that the Antarctic Ice sheet formed when temperatures were 5 degrees warmer than they are today. I can’t see our trivial warming having any effect….

https://spacedaily.com/t-antarctica-mantle-waves-uplift-ice-sheet-34-million-years/

Gregg Eshelman
September 5, 2026 12:29 am

It shows that most ice changes in Antarctica have been to floating ice. Floating ice can melt, water can freeze to floating ice. The effect to sea level is ZERO.

The only ice that can raise sea level is ice that is grounded and from 9% above sea level and above. From 9% above sea level down to the solid ground beneath, melting has the same ZERO effect on sea level as does floating ice.

Sea water expands about 9% in volume as the water freezes and squeezes out non-water components. So assume a chunk of ocean 50 meters deep freezes solid. The ice would raise 4.5 meters above sea level.

Someone with access to all the sub-ice topographical data of Antarctica needs to use it to calculate the total volume of ice that’s not floating, and if not floating over land that’s below sea level, those areas need 9% cut off the level of ice above sea level.