New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation

Antarctica as a whole has only contributed 0.35 cm to sea level rise since 2003.

According to a new study published in a Nature journal, from 2020 to 2024 the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) gained mass at a rate of +67.5 Gt/yr, reversing the modest 2003 to 2019 mass loss (-100.6 Gt/yr) trend.

This recent 5-year mass gain trend was driven by a massive increase in snow and ice accumulation (SMB).

Combining the mass loss (2003-2019) and mass gain (2020-2024) trends, Antarctica as a whole contributed a grand total of just 0.35 cm to sea levels over this 21-year period.

Image Source: Kolbe et al., 2026

A Google search of NOAA’s Arctic Report Card record since 2020 indicates that over this same 5-year period (2020-2024) the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) mass loss rate slowed to -147 Gt/yr. This is a substantial deceleration when compared to the –267 Gt/yr mass loss trend from 2002-2019.

Image Source: Google searches for 2020-2024 NOAA Arctic Report Card

Together with the AIS 2020-2024 mass gain trend of +67.5 Gt/yr and GIS mass loss trend of -147 Gt/yr, we learn that GIS and AIS combined lost -79 Gt/yr over this 5-year period.

A total AIS and GIS mass loss rate of -79 Gt/yr translates to just +0.22 mm/yr of meltwater sea level rise equivalent from 2020-2024.

This would serve to undermine claims of a recent acceleration in the rates of sea level rise.

5 16 votes

Article Rating

18 Comments

RickWill

September 8, 2026 6:18 pm

There are numerous locations where ice is being accumulated at altitude. Most locations have offsetting loss at lower altitude resulting in a net mass loss. Antarctica is currently one of the rare locations where the overall mass gain is positive. There are some glaciers in the Himalayas also gaining mass but they are high altitude.

My expectation is that the gain at altitude will eventually overtake the ablation and calving at low altitude or sea level to give a net gain. Greenland’s accumulation equilibrium-line altitude averages around 2300m but as low as 1200m in the south near the North Atlantic cold blob.

Tropical solar energy is trending up at 1.28E18 joules per year. That is consistent with the upward trend in tropical atmospheric moisture being observed.

Whetten Robert L

Reply to RickWill

September 8, 2026 7:42 pm

1.3E18 J/yr, divide by 1.3E14-m^2 area of tropical seas => 1.0E4 (J/yr) per sq.-m.
divide by 10-kJ/mol to chill & freeze one mol (18-g, or 18 cm^3 or 1.8E(-5) cubic-meters. <=> 18 micrometers (micron) thick layer of frost, accumulated each & every year.
After 55 yrs, that one millimeter; 550 yrs for one centimeter …
After ~ 6,000 years (6 millennia, or one Great-Year Season), about five (5) inches of new glaciation, spread over an area equivalent to the tropical oceans.
Sounds about right, to pile up some huge glacier mass at altitude.
But what would Carana-Sam have to say about all this?

RickWill

Reply to Whetten Robert L

September 8, 2026 10:14 pm

Agreed – it is not much but it is a relentless trend.

The increase in tropical solar forcing started 9,400 years ago and keeps going for another 10,000 years. It is currently halfway to what it will eventually get to.

The range in average tropical solar forcing is from 399W/m^2 to 401W/m^2. So exceeds the claimed CO2 forcing for doubling. And H2O is a more powerful radiative gas with wide absorption in the solar band.

This increase is driven by reducing obliquity so gets more moisture into the tropical atmosphere.

The increase in NH summer solar that started in the 13th century is what pumps that atmospheric heat poleward. So accelerating snowfall for the next 9,000 years.

The modern NH interglacial is in its last centuries. I am trying to predict when the ice has net NH accumulation. Greenland, Iceland, other arctic islands, Himalayas etc all bear watching for the inevitable mass accumulation.

NH glaciation has two orbital dependencies. Reducing obliquity so tropical solar energy is going up. And precession of perihelion later than the December solstice so the NH summer solar energy is increasing to move the ITCZ further northward. Lots more atmospheric moisture in the NH ahead of deeper winter cooling north of 40N or high altitude. That gives heavier snowfall – as Nepal experienced last November.

Whetten Robert L

Reply to RickWill

September 9, 2026 12:24 am

From A.D. 1256, as your estimate for the Great-Year Solstice (Solar Minimum),
until now (2026) is +770-yrs, which is not long toward the next Equinox of equatorial (tropics) radiation, at ~ 5-millennia yet to come — the main period for distillation of tropical moisture onto the glaciers at high latitude (and / or altitude).

[ Or have I continued to misunderstand the Precession + Obliquity Cycles? ]

Whether for ‘next 9 millennia’ or only five (5), that gives plenty of time for accumulation, as calculated above, leading (ultimately) to sea-level recession.

The modern NH interglacial is in its last centuries.

This (above) should be the take-home message for any/everyone who says they care about the future on Planet-Earth.

Obviously, the Klima-Krise-Kultus rejects this prospect entirely: they are adamant that the present-day ‘far-too-rapid’ warming precludes an imminent re-glaciation onset.
As always, they are looking for trouble in the wrong direction and (more likely) they anticipate that the B.A.U.-Runaway-Warming will have destroyed us all, within the next couple (~2) generations, making your ‘last centuries of interglacial’ a moot point.

It seems to [us] that both these extremes, or disastrous prospects, Neo-[re]-Glaciation and IR-Catastrophic Runaway Warming, can be avoided by expedients like irrigating the lands and enhancing the circulation (unplugging the sea-lanes / straits), given that the biosphere / bio-physical response on land as well as (ultimately) in the re-fertilized seas, can work so strongly in our favor.

As one can tell, [we] are Vernadskyan-at-Heart: Life (the ‘Biosphere’) is in charge, if only we act to help it, by restoring (H2O, CO2, Fe/P/N fertilizer) levels to optimal.

What say you to that?

— RW [the other RW]

P.S. Near term, you noted this:

the ITCZ further northward. Lots more atmospheric moisture in the NH ahead

How can this not result in further sea-ice (volume) reductions, and a major SST increase, above 40N? From an Arctic SST of -2 C (skating under the ice) toward an annual average closer to +13 C, that would amount to a big difference (weighting) on the global measure. Anyway, that’s what our Observational Meteorology (in the person of one JB) has been insisting!

johnesm

Reply to RickWill

September 9, 2026 4:44 am

“The modern NH interglacial is in its last centuries. I am trying to predict when the ice has net NH accumulation.”

One thing worth factoring in is that land across the NH boreal regions that were formerly ice-covered continues to rebound. In however many centuries or millenia it takes, it will have profound effects on ocean circulation and snow/ice accumulation.

Bob Weber

Reply to RickWill

September 9, 2026 7:16 am

There is no connection between orbital factors and snowfall in Nepal last year.

-1

Rud Istvan

September 8, 2026 7:37 pm

Three related observations, all covered here previously.

The approximately 60-65 long record tide gauges (at least 60 years are needed to compensate for the ~19 year lunar nodal cycle) that are also sufficiently adjacent to dGPS for vertical land motion correction show 2.2mm/year and NO acceleration.
That number closes exactly with the estimate of thermosteric rise from ARGO plus Greenland Ice sheet loss plus Antarctic Ice sheet loss.
Both prove that the NASA satalt estimates (that do purport to show acceleration) are wrong. The underlying reason was explained in old post ‘Satalt—fit for purpose?’ NASA claims a resolution to 0.1mm/year when their own resolution documentation says a bit worse than 3.5cm for inherent reasons like orbital eccentricity, varying wave height, and varying atmospheric water vapor.

Steve Case

Reply to Rud Istvan

September 8, 2026 8:15 pm

That’s what I get:

Steve Case

September 8, 2026 8:36 pm

By the way, NOAA is discontinuing their tides & current page in its current configuration.

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/slrmap.html

This terse message appears:

              This site will no longer be available after
             September 30, 2026. Please visit the new,
             integrated Sea Level Trends and Extremes –
                 BETA site. If you have any questions
            regarding this forthcoming change, please
             contact our customer service support at
                      tide.predictions@noaa.gov.

I’m betting that this snippet

[average global sea level rise rate of 1.7-1.8 mm/yr]

that you can find on that soon to be gone web page will be
trashed in the new & improved version come October 1st.

OR For

September 8, 2026 9:21 pm

Garbage in, garbage out. Too many lies have been told for too long. Nothing published by Nature can be trusted, and it’s entirely their own fault.

Rud Istvan

Reply to OR For

September 9, 2026 1:11 am

True. My own favorite example is OLeary (2013). Explained with illustrations in essay ‘By land or by sea’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. O’Leary committed intentional academic misconduct (provable by his own Nature paper SI) while purporting to prove a previous WAIS global warming sudden SLR rise from WAIS collapse. West Australian earthquakes are NOT the same as Eemian WAIS warming collapse!

Bob

September 8, 2026 10:15 pm

More good news.

Peter Rees

September 9, 2026 3:05 am

“ Antarctica as a whole has only contributed 0.35 cm to sea level rise since 2003.”.

This equates to 1.5mm/year. Global tidal gauge average is 1.8mm/year so the claim just doesn’t make sense especially since Antarctic land ice mass has increased since 2020.

-7

pillageidiot

Reply to Peter Rees

September 9, 2026 7:14 am

You are off by a factor of 10.

0.35 cm divided by 23 years is .15mm/year, not 1.5.

Phil R

Reply to Peter Rees

September 9, 2026 7:21 am

Maybe I’m mathematically challenged but when I calculate 0.35 cm (3.5 mm) over 23 years (2003-2026), I get 0.15 mm/yr. Not sure that is something that I would write home about.

pillageidiot

September 9, 2026 7:28 am

How can the models show anything other than increasing snow accumulation on the massive areas that are cooler than freezing most of the year?

Winds blowing over bitterly cold sea ice cannot contain much water content at all. Even when orthographic lift occurs as the air mass encounters Greenland, wringing out 100% of the water would not produce much snow.

However, in the periods when sea ice is declining, then the winds are blowing over (relatively) warm OPEN water. That air is going to contain substantially more water vapor. Consequent snowfalls must increase, even if there is a slightly widening band of warmer land temperatures on the periphery of Greenland.

Further warming of the arctic ocean, would only enhance the snowfalls. This should cover (on average) more bare bedrock earlier in the snow season, and keep it covered longer past the end of the season.

More annual snow mass and more albedo changes would both be strong negative feedbacks to runaway sea level rise in a slightly warming world.

johnesm

Reply to pillageidiot

September 9, 2026 10:17 am

Ah, but the media already have a negative spin for it. You see, increased snowfall on the barren tundra makes it more difficult for grazing animals to scoop down to any vegetation on the surface. Also, the increased snow cover insulates the permafrost zones from the extreme cold air above, and so permafrost gradually warms. That naturally leads to more methane escaping from the soil. That means that we should start seeing palmettos on Baffin Island by the next decade. Or something.

ToldYouSo

September 9, 2026 8:44 am

Regarding just the first paragraph in the above article, I am so glad (NOT!) to see that the editor’s at the journal Nature believe that annual ice gain/loss for the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet can be calculated to a precision of +/- 0.1 Gt/yr, which against the absolute values cited is a precision of about 1/1000, or 0.1%.

I can believe that calculating the areal coverage of ice might—with a lot of effort—achieve this level of precision based on photographic-computer based analysis, but I also assert that the difficulty of measuring the thickness (“depth”) of ice/snow over the oceans and over the variable terrain of underlying land using aircraft and/or satellite radar makes it impossible to achieve this level of precision for a volumetric/mass computation.