Antarctic weight gain and other news

Posted: November 1, 2015 by Andrew in Analysis

imageAfter years of being convinced that the Antarctic is melting away, NASA now says it’s been gaining ice. NASA warns that this
is not necessarily good news.

The latest news from NASA on the state of the Antarctic

“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.”

That’s good news then? Not so fast there is a sting in the tail.

“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.” (My bold)

So if there is no contribution to SLR from the Antarctic, the oceans must be rising due to more thermal expansion, ARGO needs more adjusting?

What about the GRACE measurements showing the Antarctic shrinking away?

Meanwhile, other articles of interest this week:

Putin not convinced about AGW. Jo Nova reports that Putin has described AGW as “fraud”. Not the most helpful assessment with COP21 about to start

Altamont wind farm, infamous for its ability to munch through large numbers of eagles, owls and other birds is closing.  Loch Rannoch wind farm proposal has been rejected. The huge 336MW Galloper offshore wind farm off the coast of Suffolk gets the go ahead.

Neonicotinoids not so nasty after all. A data review has concluded that there is little effect on honey bees, however Bumble bees could be at risk, however there is insufficient evidence to be sure. Honey Bees get the headlines & so the funding, Bumble Bees are not so exciting, so haven’t had as much attention.

The low fat diet is dead again. More dietary advice to confuse the general public. Fat is back, for now.

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    “there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

    Basing the slope of the satellite altimetry data on a sinking tide gauge probably didn’t help…

    Thanks for Posting Andrew, Stuart and I are busy on our planetary theory stuff at the moment. Feel free to post more articles.🙂

  2. rishrac says:

    Whoa! Not so fast here. Another chicken with its head cut off. Wasn’t the CAGW crowd telling us of immediate doom from Antarctica melting? Of course SLR has to be happening, how else can they explain where the heat is. AGW is a rabbit hole that gets deeper and deeper. How do you know CAGW isn’t dead? When they can hold on to a blade of grass and not fall off the earth.

    Nothing else can account for SLR, nothing at all. (sarc)

  3. Roger Clague says:

    The title of the Nasa report is

    NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

    The Nasa report correctly says mass gain.Weight is not mass, it is a force sometimes caused by mass. The post title should accurately reflect the report quoted.

    The difference between mass and weight is important, especially when when talking of the mass and weight of the atmosphere.

    For example:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-6/#comment-109088

  4. Roger Clague says:

    If a mass of ice is floating in water it does not have weight.

  5. tallbloke says:

    Roger C: “Weight is not mass, it is a force sometimes caused by mass”

    No it isn’t. Weight is not, never was, nor ever will be “a force”. And the post title is accurate, since it is talking about snow accumulation on the continent, not floating ice. Please restrict your endless discussion of weight/mass to the endless convection thread.🙂

  6. Robert Way says:

    The study you’re referring to ends in 2008. Since that time outlet glaciers in the WAIS have increased their discharge by a fair margin. Details are important.

  7. Ron Clutz says:

    There’s actually a number of encouraging things in the recent climate news.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/quiet-storm-of-lucidity/

  8. tallbloke says:

    Robert Way: Details are indeed important. Perhaps you have some detail on what “a fair margin” amounts to quantitatively?🙂

  9. Andrew says:

    Robert Way,

    From the article:

    “But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

  10. michael hart says:

    It always was, and remains, unlikely that neo nicotinoids are a bee doomsday-bomb. Pesticide technology advances, just like other technologies do. A 1950’s car on the road today would be described as a death trap, despite its advanatges over no car at all.

    The environmental objectionists will object. Always. That’s what they do. Facts are irrelevant. They hate the idea of pesticides, and modern analytical chemistry allows detection at levels far far below those considered harmful.

    Once detected, a bit of shonky science and statistics generates a claim cum scare story which will be gratefully lapped up by a scientifically illiterate MSM who will never let a good ‘disaster story’ go to waste. A bit like all those 1970’s UK scare stories of regional hotspots with allegedly radiation-linked outcrops of leukaemia.

    Global-warming “science” has gone down the same rabbit hole.

  11. Andrew says:

    The article is misleading?

  12. tallbloke says:

    I doubt Zwally would have said Antarctica was net gaining ice if thought he could have got away with saying it was net losing ice. ” the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years” seems to be the best he can manage.

    Just in on Email:

    Yes, there exists a clear cooling of the entire Antarctica area since 1980 which is in contradiction with the IPCC model predictions.

    For those interested, you can find an open access paper of mine

    Nicola Scafetta and Adriano Mazzarella: “The Arctic and Antarctic Sea-Ice Area Index Records versus Measured and Modeled Temperature Data”. Advances in Meteorology, Volume 2015 (2015).

    http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2015/481834/

    Nicola Scafetta

  13. Andrew says:

    Found this: http://www.climate-cryosphere.org/en/events/2012/ISMASS/AntarcticIceSheet.html

    Zwally giving a presentation of his research in 2012, so it’s been around a while.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Interesting that someone in NASA is firing a shot across the bows of COP21 just now then…

  15. wert says:

    Dear Tallbloke,

    Weight is often considered to be a force, as in Wikipedia: ‘In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity.’

    Weight of course can be used to mean just mass, for example when someone is ‘loosing weight’.

  16. wert says:

    ‘But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally.’

    God gimme strength!

    Might. So they found they had wrong sign in mass gain measurements, and end up speculating how they could change, based on a short linear trend. As if they didn’t fail already too badly.

  17. tallbloke says:

    wert: Weight is often considered to be a force…‘In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity.’

    Read carefully. The force is due to GRAVITY, not weight. Weight is the OUTCOME or material attribute of the FORCE OF GRAVITY acting on a mass.

  18. catweazle666 says:

    Robert Way: “Since that time outlet glaciers in the WAIS have increased their discharge by a fair margin.”

    Yeah, of course they have Bobby, of course they have!

    You just keep right on telling yourself that.

  19. Brett Keane says:

    We are starting to be proven or at least indicated to be right so often lately, that I fear hubris may creep in (grin, rueful or wry?)

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Bill Illis (November 1, 2015 at 4:46 am)

    Grace mass balance studies depend on a model of how the land is rebounding or subsiding mostly from the last ice age.

    Most of the Grace studies used an old model that was not accurate.

    This was only discovered a few years ago when the results of many GPS stations on Antarctica became available.

    GPS showed Antarctica is rising about twice as fast as was assumed and this cut the Grace ice loss estimates by about two-thirds. Grace is still showing a net loss in ice mass balance after using the more accurate models but there is also an error margin which would include an increase in mass balance.

    I note that No one has yet used the new models based on GPS to re-estimate Greenland’s ice mass balance. There are Antarctic ice scientists and Greenland ice scientists and they stick to their own regions. Greenland’s numbers will likely be cut in half or more after the new glacial isostatic rebound models are used with Grace measurements.

    All this means the sea level estimates produced by the satellites have been adjusted upwards much too high based on expectations of sea level rise produced by ice melt on Antarctica and Greenland. The numbers are heavily adjusted of course.”

  21. oldbrew says:

    This story was a short item on Al Jazeera TV channel today. Word is getting around.

  22. Keith Willshaw says:

    Roger Clague said:

    “If a mass of ice is floating in water it does not have weight.”

    This statement is easily disprovable

    Take a bucket full of water and hand it from a spring balance – note the weight
    Add a large lump of ice – If your theory was correct the reading on the spring balance would have fallen when the displaced water overflowed. It does not.

    Archimedes demonstrated this principle rather well circa 250 BC

  23. oldbrew says:

    If 136 billion tons of ice per year, or a significant part of it, is a measurement error then NASA science is in serious trouble.

  24. oldbrew says:

    More commentary from Tony Heller.

    ‘But just when you think this story of fraud and corruption at the IPCC can’t get any worse, it does. Eight years ago, the IPCC knew that Antarctica was gaining ice.’

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/the-other-half-of-the-big-antarctica-lie/

  25. Roger Clague says:

    tallbloke says:
    November 1, 2015 at 8:48 pm

    wert: Weight is often considered to be a force…‘In science and engineering, the weight of an object is usually taken to be the force on the object due to gravity.’

    The force is due to GRAVITY, not weight.

    Due to means caused by.

    So wert’s quote says: the weight ( force ) is caused by gravity.

    Weight is the OUTCOME or material attribute of the FORCE OF GRAVITY acting on a mass

    F=mg
    Law of motion in vertical direction

    Gravity ( at the surface of the Earth,an acceleration of 10m/s^2) acting on mass causes weight ( force)

    FORCE OF GRAVITY means force ( weight ) caused by an acceleration ( called gravity) of a mass.

    Gravity is not force. It is acceleration that can cause force called weight

  26. tallbloke says:

    We almost agree. Instead of “FORCE OF GRAVITY acting on a mass” I should have written “FORCE DUE TO GRAVITY acting on a mass”

    The main problem is that people naively consider weight to be something that an object inherently ‘possesses’. Weight isn’t an innate property, since it is contingent on the object’s mass being acted on by a force – the force due to gravity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s