That’s the title of the study, looking at an area that ‘covers approximately 2000 kilometers of coastline and contains as much ice as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet.’ This article shouldn’t be relied on entirely due to obvious alarmist biases, so maybe better to read at least the abstract of the study for a clearer picture. For example [quote from the Discussion]: ‘This positive accumulation trend and positive mass balance is anticipated to persist as snowfall is expected to increase over the entire EAIS in the next century.’
– – –
A whaler’s forgotten aerial photos from 1937 have given researchers at the University of Copenhagen the most detailed picture of the ice evolution in East Antarctica to date, says EurekAlert.
The results show that the ice has remained stable and even grown slightly over almost a century, though scientists observe early signs of weakening [Talkshop comment – a somewhat loose interpretation of the actual study].
The research offers new insights that enhance predictions of ice changes and sea level rise [Talkshop comment – climatist waffle, see the study].
. . .
Using hundreds of old aerial photographs dating back to 1937, combined with modern computer technology, the researchers have tracked the evolution of glaciers in East Antarctica. The area covers approximately 2000 kilometers of coastline and contains as much ice as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet.
By comparing the historical aerial photos with modern satellite data, the researchers have been able to determine whether the glaciers have retreated or advanced and whether they have thickened or thinned.
The study reveals that the ice has not only remained stable but grown slightly over the last 85 years, partly due to increasing snowfall.
“We constantly hear about climate change and new melt records, so it’s refreshing to observe an area of glaciers that has remained stable for almost a century,” says PhD student Mads Dømgaard, the study’s first author.
Full article here.
– – –
Study: Early aerial expedition photos reveal 85 years of glacier growth and stability in East Antarctica (May 2024)
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Look at Leap Second Data. Net Sea Level went down since 1972 when the Atomic Clock was put in service as a time standard. A rising sea level would slow the earth crust spin rate and more and more leap seconds would have been needed every year.
http://www.nist.gov/pml/div688/grp50/leapsecond.cfm
Leap Seconds are being added less frequently. This does show that the earth’s crust is rotating faster. This means the inertia of earth has decreased due to the snowfall and ice sequestering that we have had since 1972 which moved water from the low latitude oceans to ice on high latitudes, polar regions. This means that the ice volume at both poles and high latitudes has increased and that means the oceans have dropped and not risen.
This is proof that the sea level, overall, is lower than it was in 1972 when the Atomic Clock was put into service measuring time most accurately. There were three more leap seconds added between December 2011 to December 2016 and none since 2016, this is more than seven more years with no added leap second and none expected.
Sea Level is hard to measure and hard to average with daily tides and various high and low atmosphere pressure regions over oceans that vary over short- and long-term time periods, while time and Length of Day is measured constantly to a tiny fraction of a second.
Summary: Overall, the net Sea Level went down since 1972 and has been steady since 2016, watch Length of day for the next change. If no leap seconds are added, there has been no sea level rise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_length_fluctuations#/media/File:Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg
Length of day is about the same as or less than in 1850. It has gotten shorter and longer and has decreased since around 1900. This very likely reflects changes in sea level and polar ice volumes and weights.
I would be very interested to see the error bands for each of these points!
Currently, Length of Day is accurate to ms as measured by atomic clocks since 1972.
Historically I don’t know, I suspect time has been accurate, pointing to stars to determine length of day has been used a long time.
“Negative leap second: Climate change delays unusual step for time standard”
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/30/1241674216/climate-change-time-negative-leap-second
Is there nothing that CO2 can’t do?
Marco Morano has noticed the study …
If the study area ‘contains as much ice as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet‘ and is growing, the Arctic must have a lot of shrinking to do to counter it.
But we’re nearing a year when a negative leap second could be needed to shave time — an unprecedented step that will depend in part on how climate change affects the Earth’s rotation, according to a new study.
Of course, ice mass near the poles, near the spin axis has increased and sea level has gone down. This is not unprecedented, what is, or may be, unprecedented is that they may have a more difficult time explaining why they are always more wrong than right.
Oldbrew wrote:
If the study area ‘contains as much ice as the entire Greenland Ice Sheet‘ and is growing, the Arctic must have a lot of shrinking to do to counter it.
Over ten thousand years, solar into the north has decreased and solar into the south has increased more than 30 watts per meter squared. The Arctic ice machine does not need to produce as much ice while the Antarctic ice machine has had to produce more ice.
I feel a rant is appropriate. 1 second in 32 Million? Oh FFS. Why should we care? There is no pointless science our parasitic academics won’t study at our expense if they can get a grant for it. If there was nobody with a grant and an atomic clock atomic clock nobody would notice such a small amount of change. Literally, what on earth is the real effect on our pathetic short lived organic froth?
“I’m sorry I’m late, missed the train ‘cos of the leap second change”, said no one ever.
How is this research likely to make our lives better when our economy is tanking thanks to climate science and “decarbonisation” “science”. How dare they fund these wasters with my money. We need academics like these – out filling potholes and angle grinding ULEZ cameras.
Perhaps we could make a physics degree a requirement to do any physical science? That would cut the numbers of “climate scientists” – by about 97%. Gimme a break
Peer review this….. Antarctica is surrounded by 2/3 of the Earth’s stored heat energy, the Southern hemisphere’s oceans. It’s freezing ******* ice desert. Nothing much changes. It will have to move elsewhere to change so will take a 100 million years or so. Human civiisation will be lucky to survive the next glacial phase of the ice age, really coming relatively soon, with the dearth of useful deterministic science and the wholly technologically ignorant politicians we have left.
Get a real job adding some value elsewhere. Mac Donald’s beckons. etc. Back to my empirical Earth Energy Balance control system … B
Quick science note. The NH has half the heat capacity of the SH so changes in the insolation and atmospheric heat transfer back to space that balance it, will be shorter and sharper in the NH than the SH for the same perturbation, right? Physics 101.
How can supposed “experts” suggest the fact the hemispheres respond differently to claim global change doesn’t happen because its different in different hemispheres. Global change is the ******* average, nobody ever said Earth had a homogenous surface. If you boil twice as much water does it take the same time? Climate science only exists down modellers rabbit holes.
Exits right wing, still ranting…..