Antarctica Gaining Ice?

[seer]

OK, so we were told that AGW would cause the ice caps to lose ice, so now AGW is actually causing the Antarctica to gain ice? I don't get it.

A new NASA study found that Antarctica has been adding more ice than it's been losing, challenging other research, including that of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that concludes that Earth’s southern continent is losing land ice overall.

In a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology on Friday, researchers from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland in College Park, and the engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation offer a new analysis of satellite data that show a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 in the Antarctic ice sheet.

That gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...l-warming-over

[One Bad Pig]

Though it wouldn't shock me to find AGW alarmists attribute the ice gain to AGW, I don't see an indication of that in the article. You're also only looking at half the picture, since there's also an ice cap up north (shockingly, the prediction that it would disappear by 2013 did not come to pass). What we're finding is that Earth weather is less understood than climate models thus far have assumed. Climate science is so complex that it really should not be looked at on small time scales; unfortunately, people these days tend to operate only on very short time scales.

[Bill the Cat]

I posted this in another thread, and Jichard naturally jumped on it because it didn't tow the party line. He's going to pounce on your source. You should just ban him from the thread now.

[Catholicity]

Polar Ice Caps are Shifting. The Arctic has less indicating a warming trend while the Antarctic has more indicating a Cooling trend. I don't know if that's normal or not. One thing I find more telling in the Arctic of a warming trend is the disappearance of permafrost in some areas. Melting of Permafrost also releases carbon. again I find it a good idea to keep a "healthy sense" of skepticism so to speak. Humans can devastate an ecosystem and make entire species go extinct, we know that from history. So to deny that we have some kind of an impact is silly. The extent of that impact is what I question and that's not to say we shouldn't be good stewards of natural resources either.

[seer]

I posted this in another thread, and Jichard naturally jumped on it because it didn't tow the party line. He's going to pounce on your source. You should just ban him from the thread now.

What source NASA?

[Bill the Cat]

What source NASA?

No, the CSMonitor

[seer]

No, the CSMonitor

How about a direct link to NASA?

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.” Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.”

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/...er-than-losses

[Bill the Cat]

How about a direct link to NASA?



http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/...er-than-losses

Yeah. As I said, it's already been brought up:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post259836

And Jichard did his typical bull in a china shop on it, accusing me of finding it on Whattsupwiththat.

[Teallaura]

I think history owes an apology to Leif Erikson. His naming of Greenland evidently wasn't tongue in cheek...

[Faber]

I think it was in December 2013-January 2014 that the Russian icebreaker Akademic Shokalskiy was researching the loss of ice by retracing an earlier voyage to document global warming. The ice was greater than previously, and they were frozen in. They called for help, and a Chinese icebreaker, Xue Long (Snow Dragon). It also became stranded, and a helicopter had to rescue them.

[TheLurch]

I had a quick look at the NASA news release, but not had time to hit the paper. The gist seems to be that warming is causing the loss of ice near the coast, but additional snow has been causing the ice sheets in the interior to thicken. These two processes counteract each other, and so far the balance has been tipped towards the added snow.

The study's based on a combination of satellite altimetry measurements to the surface of the ice and ice core data. I'm pretty sure that we have also used the GRACE satellite to measure the mass of the ice present, and those measurements indicate it's been shrinking. So, i expect this is going to take some time for researchers to sort out - there may be some sort of systemic error in one or both of the two measures that's biasing them slightly.

If i find out more, i'll post it here. But i expect it'll take several months for researchers to digest this and work over the data before you'll start seeing responses.

[Jichard]

OK, so we were told that AGW would cause the ice caps to lose ice, so now AGW is actually causing the Antarctica to gain ice? I don't get it.



http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...l-warming-over

Amazing. Just amazing. It's like you denialists all parrot the same talking points you get from the same denialist websites, like WattsUpWithThat. It's like you all are just utterly uninformed on the relevant scientific evidence. That, or you willfully misrepresent/cherrypick the scientific evidence to suit your denialist position. It's akin to Young Earth creationists who get their talking points from websites like AnswersInGenesis or CMI.

Anway, I'm utterly confident of the following two claims:

1. You didn't read the scientific research in question before making your post.
2. You won't honestly address any of the loads of scientific evidence on decreased Antarctic ice, since this evidence is not convenient for your denialist position

Interesting ice sheet study by NASA

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/10...nasa-study.htm

It's not saying that there aren't losses in glaciers, but that the snowfall is greater than the losses at this point.

The actual study does not say what you claim. For example, the study does not claim that "the snowfall is greater than the losses at this point". Instead, the study focused on a period from 1992–2001 and from 2003–08. That's not the same as "at this point". There are plenty of other studies that actually focus on Antarctic ice loss "at this point" (say, including the past 5 years), but you conveniently didn't mention those studies. For example:

Surface mass balance contributions to acceleration of Antarctic ice mass loss during 2003–2013

Accelerated West Antarctic ice mass loss continues to outpace East Antarctic gains

Dynamic thinning of glaciers on the Southern Antarctic Peninsula

I also think it's fair to assume that you just repeated what you heard on a denialist website, such as WattsUpWithThat, or some other such source.

[Ex:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/3...ass-after-all/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/1...es/#more-70757]

I highly doubt you even read the study in question before making your post. And then you linked to the techtimes press piece to make it look like you originally got this information from techtimes, as opposed to a crackpot denialist website like Watts' site.

This is another example of why I don't trust many conservatives like you when your lot discuss scientific research. When I see your lot cherrypick scientific research (because you think it supports your implausible position on AGW), I have the following sort of response:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11033[/ATTACH]

[Jichard]

I posted this in another thread, and Jichard naturally jumped on it because it didn't tow the party line. He's going to pounce on your source. You should just ban him from the thread now.

Yes, ban me for pointing out the false claims you make about scientific research you haven't read. And ban me for citing scientific evidence inconvenient for your denialist position.

You apparently love censorship when it suits your ideology. You should remember that the next time you hypocritically start whining about alarmists silenting dissent on climate science!!!, as is typical of denialists.

Interesting ice sheet study by NASA

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/10...nasa-study.htm

It's not saying that there aren't losses in glaciers, but that the snowfall is greater than the losses at this point.

The actual study does not say what you claim. For example, the study does not claim that "the snowfall is greater than the losses at this point". Instead, the study focused on a period from 1992–2001 and from 2003–08. That's not the same as "at this point". There are plenty of other studies that actually focus on Antarctic ice loss "at this point" (say, including the past 5 years), but you conveniently didn't mention those studies. For example:

Surface mass balance contributions to acceleration of Antarctic ice mass loss during 2003–2013

Accelerated West Antarctic ice mass loss continues to outpace East Antarctic gains

Dynamic thinning of glaciers on the Southern Antarctic Peninsula

I also think it's fair to assume that you just repeated what you heard on a denialist website, such as WattsUpWithThat, or some other such source.

[Ex:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/3...ass-after-all/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/1...es/#more-70757]

I highly doubt you even read the study in question before making your post. And then you linked to the techtimes press piece to make it look like you originally got this information from techtimes, as opposed to a crackpot denialist website like Watts' site.

This is another example of why I don't trust many conservatives like you when your lot discuss scientific research. When I see your lot cherrypick scientific research (because you think it supports your implausible position on AGW), I have the following sort of response:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11033[/ATTACH]

[Jichard]

Though it wouldn't shock me to find AGW alarmists attribute the ice gain to AGW, I don't see an indication of that in the article.

^^^ Standard denialist rhetoric about "alarmists".

You're also only looking at half the picture, since there's also an ice cap up north (shockingly, the prediction that it would disappear by 2013 did not come to pass).

Cite a reputable scientific paper that made such a prediction.

... oh wait, that would require you to actually read scientific papers.

What we're finding is that Earth weather is less understood than climate models thus far have assumed.

A claim for which you have no evidence.

Climate science is so complex that it really should not be looked at on small time scales;

The usual denialist mantra of stuff is complex, so you guys really can't make claims. It's the same nonsense many conservatives pulled years ago on the evidence showing that smoking causes cancer: causation is really complex, so you guys can't really make claims about smoking causing cancer. Similrly so for AIDS denialists: immunology is really complex, so you guys can't really make claims about HIV causes AIDS

unfortunately, people these days tend to operate only on very short time scales.

OK, so you either don't know a lot about this topic or you're lying. Climatology is based on literally hundred of millions of years of data. For example, the sensitivity values used for calculating how much warming will result from a given increase in atmospheric CO2, are based on hundreds of years of data on how Earth's temperature response to CO2 levels in the past. This is well-known and covered in the basic scientific reviews on the subject. So you either didn't know this (and are are thus making ideologically-convenient, false claims regarding a subject you don't know about), or you did know this (and are lying by saying otherwise).

[Bill the Cat]

I had a quick look at the NASA news release, but not had time to hit the paper. The gist seems to be that warming is causing the loss of ice near the coast, but additional snow has been causing the ice sheets in the interior to thicken. These two processes counteract each other, and so far the balance has been tipped towards the added snow.

The study's based on a combination of satellite altimetry measurements to the surface of the ice and ice core data. I'm pretty sure that we have also used the GRACE satellite to measure the mass of the ice present, and those measurements indicate it's been shrinking. So, i expect this is going to take some time for researchers to sort out - there may be some sort of systemic error in one or both of the two measures that's biasing them slightly.

If i find out more, i'll post it here. But i expect it'll take several months for researchers to digest this and work over the data before you'll start seeing responses.

Take note Jichard... THIS is how to construct a scientific response.