Is Antarctica gaining or losing ice?

[Crick]

On what do you base the idea that the glacial isostatic adjustments made to the data I presented are inappropriate, particularly since the graph clearly states they are included?

 

[Crick]

Besides, whatever the actual, rate may be (and I have infinitely greater trust in UC Sea Level lab than I have in you), if you want us to accept Zwally's results, you have to find over 80 billion tons of ice melting somewhere, ANNUALLY, that no one has noticed for the last couple of decades. Let us know when you've located that drip, eh.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The studies are irrelevant, all we know for certain is AGW is melting the ice caps and Guam is about to tip over

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dunno what that particular study says, but I just finished watching a documentary this week about the Adelade penguins and how their habitat is being affected because there is less ice where they live than there used to be. It also showed a large ice shelf that suddenly broke apart and melted, giving them access to a place that they hadn't been able to get to for over 20 years.

And, that documentary was filmed this year.

I read an article that indicated volcanic activity under the Antarctic ice pack was melting the ice. That would cause what you described as well as the increase in the water raising the oceans.

Not very likely. Volcanoes are not very good at melting ice, even ice in the crater of an active one. One of the few growing glaciers on this planet is located in the crater of Mt. St. Helens. There are many active volcanoes under ice in Iceland, and they only create floods when in active eruption. The rest of the time, they have very little effect on the ice.

Volcanoes aren't good at melting ice.... Ok

 

[Crick]

Then in 2013 using blatantly massaged data and obviously fraudulent graphs, the IPCC said exactly the opposite of what they said in 1990. You guys are lairs crick...guilty of malfeasance, and deliberate fraud for no other reason than to gain political power. You have damaged the reputation of science so deeply that it will take many many decades after this circus is over to restore the trust in science that you climate wackos have destroyed for political reasons.

You have presented ZERO evidence that these data were "massaged" or that anything here is "fraudulent". The reputation of science is just fine, despite your efforts. We realize that you like to pretend you don't trust science because the people with whom you typically associate are actually impressed by your contrarian nonsense and, of course, lack the actual science knowledge to realize you're just as ignorant on the topic - if not more so - than are they.

XXXXX ---- Moderation Edit..

 

[Crick]

Why believe Zwally? Where are 80 billion, previously unnoticed tons of ice melting each year? That's a slab of ice 9 feet thick, one hundred miles on a side. I can see how you might miss that...

 

[Crick]

Got any proof you chicken little fucking nutjob little frightened mentally retarded wimp?

Unlike you, you ignorant asshole, I understand that the natural sciences rely on EVIDENCE, not proof. My EVIDENCE may be found neatly compiled at www.ipcc.ch under the title "AR5, WG-I, the Physical Science Basis", a location at which you seem to lack the intellect, the education or the balls to actually LOOK.

WHERE IS YOURS ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ?

 

[Muhammed]

Got any proof you chicken little fucking nutjob little frightened mentally retarded wimp?

Unlike you, you ignorant asshole, I understand that the natural sciences rely on EVIDENCE. My EVIDENCE may be found neatly compiled at www.ipcc.ch under the title "AR5, WG-I, the Physical Science Basis".

WHERE IS YOURS ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ?

IPCC is not evidence dumbass. It is not, has never been, and has never claimed to be a scientific organization.

Climategate, bitch! Wikileaks rocks!

Up your ass! Fraudman.

 

[Crick]

So, anyone else want to suggest where we can find a 9 foot thick slab of ice, a hundred miles on a side, that no one notices melting each and every year?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC on climate is like quoting Madoff on accounting, it cements AGW as fraud

 

[ABikerSailor]

So, anyone else want to suggest where we can find a 9 foot thick slab of ice, a hundred miles on a side, that no one notices melting each and every year?

Actually, scientists HAVE noticed. There was an ice shelf the size of Connecticut that broke off in 2015, and, if you google ice shelf break for Antarctica, you will see that it has been happening on a regular basis most years.

 

[jc456]

What I want to know is why you continue to use that out of context quote of mine in your sig despite my demonstration that arch-conservative and AGW denier Stephanie (to whom you have never addressed one critical word) is actually the guilty culprit and that to interpret my comment as you have is simply to demonstrate your bigot-level political bias and abject weakness in the English language. Do you enjoy looking the fool? BEING the fool?

It is used in the only context it can be used in as that quote was the entirety of your post...there is no other context in which it can be used....your words...live with them.

Your post is here... here.... Go ahead...try once more to defend the indefensible....it is what you people are best at even though you are failing miserably.

XXXXX - Moderation Edit
BTW, there is still ice gains in the Antarctic and losses. A shelf breaks off almost every year.

 

[Crick]

IPCC on climate is like quoting Madoff on accounting, it cements AGW as fraud

No it doesn't, but this statement of yours cements you as an ignorant fool.

 

[Crick]

So, anyone else want to suggest where we can find a 9 foot thick slab of ice, a hundred miles on a side, that no one notices melting each and every year?

Actually, scientists HAVE noticed. There was an ice shelf the size of Connecticut that broke off in 2015, and, if you google ice shelf break for Antarctica, you will see that it has been happening on a regular basis most years.

Breaking ice shelves are not melting ice shelves and neither does their breaking up contribute directly to sea level rise. And I guarantee you that the world's glaciologists have a handle on crumbling ice shelves.

Did you miss the point? Every other expert has concluded that Antarctica is losing mass. That lost mass is credited with a significant portion of the ocean's rise. If Antarctica is actually gaining mass, Antarctica's mass balance would be acting to LOWER the world's oceans. Since the world's oceans are observed to still be rising and at an accelerating pace, there must be enough ice moving from land to sea, somewhere, previously unnoticed, in solid or liquid form, to compensate. By my calculation, we need 84 billion tons annually which would consist of the slab described.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Late last week, a study published by NASA scientists in the Journal of Glaciology made the surprising claim that the gigantic continent of Antarctica is actually gaining ice, rather than losing it, to the tune of 82 gigatons (or billion metric tons) per year from 2003 to 2008.

The study has drawn massive amounts of media attention — and no wonder. It contradicts numerous prior scientific claims, including a 2012 study in Science by a small army of polar scientists, a study from earlier this year in Earth and Planetary Science Letters (which found 92 gigatons of net losses per year) and this 2014 study in Geophysical Research Letters (160 gigatons of net losses per year). It also contradicts assertions by the leading consensus body of climate science, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which stated in 2013 that Antarctica is “losing mass” and that this process is accelerating. That statement was itself based on multiple studies showing Antarctic ice loss.

Not only does the new research fly in the face of all of this — if true, it also raises serious questions about our current understanding of sea level rise. If Antarctica is actually gaining ice, that means that a significant percentage of the current rise of the seas, estimated at roughly 3.22 millimeters per year by NASA itself, must be coming from elsewhere. (It takes 360 gigatons of ice to raise seas by 1 millimeter).

No wonder, then, that a number of researchers have been quoted expressing skepticism about the new research, even as climate change doubters have had a field day — adding the study to an argumentative arsenal that previously included misleading claims about growing Antarctic sea ice.

So what’s going on here — and what should you make of the new claim that Antarctica isn’t losing ice or raising our seas?
A controversial NASA study says Antarctica is gaining ice. Here’s why you should be skeptical

***************************************************************************************************

The number of studies that found Antarctic ice decreasing - and at far larger rates than Zwally found it to be increasing - outnumber Zwally a good ten to one. And, if Zwally is correct, hundreds of gigatons of ice is melting annually somewhere else without anyone noticing it.

Besides, surely someone here recalls that since the early 1980s, it has been understood that global warming would INCREASE Antarctic precipitation.

Get a grip folks. AGW is still widely accepted science. Climate change denial is still fringe nonsense.

When you consider that NASA has been adding 2mm per year to their 'rise' estimates it pretty much shows that the ice is not melting and the rise is pure artifact of data manipulations.

Dam that was simple!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC on climate is like quoting Madoff on accounting, it cements AGW as fraud

No it doesn't, but this statement of yours cements you as an ignorant fool.

The author of AR4 and 5 flat out admitted Climate changes is a wealth distribution scheme

Clue: Get one today

 

[Crick]

IPCC on climate is like quoting Madoff on accounting, it cements AGW as fraud

No it doesn't, but this statement of yours cements you as an ignorant fool.

The author of AR4 and 5 flat out admitted Climate changes is a wealth distribution scheme

Clue: Get one today

You think Ottmar Edenhofer was "the author of AR4 and 5" ? ? ?

Reinforcing that "ignorant fool" ID, I see.

 

[Crick]

Hey, Guam, are the oceans rising?

Nah

God, are you stupid.

Guam sees the ocean rising as much as anywhere else.

See http://web.ornl.gov/sci/knowledgediscovery/QDR/guam/GuamAssessment.pdf

 

[CrusaderFrank]

IPCC on climate is like quoting Madoff on accounting, it cements AGW as fraud

No it doesn't, but this statement of yours cements you as an ignorant fool.

The author of AR4 and 5 flat out admitted Climate changes is a wealth distribution scheme

Clue: Get one today

You think Ottmar Edenhofer was "the author of AR4 and 5" ? ? ?

Reinforcing that "ignorant fool" ID, I see.

He's listed as "lead author"

Remember when you tried to tell us he was a low level nobody expressing his personal opinion.

Good times

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey, Guam, are the oceans rising?

Nah

God, are you stupid.

Guam sees the ocean rising as much as anywhere else.

See http://web.ornl.gov/sci/knowledgediscovery/QDR/guam/GuamAssessment.pdf

Lol.

Yes your models predict Guam will soon be underwater, you just keep pushing the date further and further out