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

Lord Coke

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
10,789
Reaction score
13,459
So I want to know how NASA and the IPCC came to two opposite conclusions on the same thing.This isn't some theoretical physics problem this is route measurement of ice over a period of time. I know NASA is a honest organization. I'd like to know whether the IPCC is trying to push an agenda or whether their methodology is off.


http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
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.”

Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.

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.”

The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.

Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods. They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.

“At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.

The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.
 
“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.”

The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.

Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods. They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.

Did you not read your own post?
 
The study is not talking about future loss. It is referring to what has happened up to date.
 
So I want to know how NASA and the IPCC came to two opposite conclusions on the same thing.This isn't some theoretical physics problem this is route measurement of ice over a period of time. I know NASA is a honest organization. I'd like to know whether the IPCC is trying to push an agenda or whether their methodology is off.


http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

To add to 7437's post......

Surface area of ice is the key here. Surface area of ice is what reflects the sun.
 
The study is not talking about future loss. It is referring to what has happened up to date.
Then why is it half of your post? Seems pretty important to me
 
San Diegans, Naruto Fans , And Conservatives, are the bane of all existence.
 
Nah. The Polar bears are doing
swell. Keep up with production
as normal people. NASA has
precious metals to find
 
The study is not talking about future loss. It is referring to what has happened up to date.
Yeah. The thousands of years of ice growth in east Antarctica is able to offset the rapid decline of west Antarctica ice in a way that reduces the amount of sea level increase for 20-30 years. Guess its all a hoax then huh?
 
Hey idiots, alanb wasn't asking if global warming was or wasn't a thing he was asking how the IPCC and NASA came to different results with the same data.

Then If those results from the data were based on a political agenda.

You kids really are terrible, I think "global changing" fanatics need to officially join the vegan, crossfit, athiest, and feminist team.
 
Try reading the actual paper, it's a difference in methodology.
The IPCC report was based on gravity measurements by the GRACE satellites.

Schmidt said that there are two methods for measuring the mass of an ice sheet. The first measures gravity, and the second measures the elevation of the top of the ice sheet. Both methods need to take different variables into account to be accurate. The method used in this most recent study measured the ice sheet's elevation, and the most recent time period it considered ended in 2008.
 
The IPCC losses refer to surface area from loss of glaciers, which NASA acknowledges. The NASA report is talking about vertical (operative word) snow accumulation. These two are not mutually exclusive. TS should pay closer attention to what he posted.
 
Hey idiots, alanb wasn't asking if global warming was or wasn't a thing he was asking how the IPCC and NASA came to different results with the same data.

Then If those results from the data were based on a political agenda.

You kids really are terrible, I think "global changing" fanatics need to officially join the vegan, crossfit, athiest, and feminist team.
thanks for offering no analysis.

I think NASA perhaps has a different agenda than IPCC.
 
It wasn't the same data though. Different methodology, different period. The author of the paper himself admits that if his methodology has produced an accurate measurement, then there's an unknown source for the sea level rises currently being attributed to the Antarctic melt.

It could take only a few decades for the ice melt in Antarctica to outweigh the ice gains, the paper's authors say.

"I don't think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses," Jay Zwally, NASA glaciologist and lead author of the study, said in a press release.

For now, the study authors say, these findings challenge current explanations for sea level rise, much of which is attributed to melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," said Dr. Zwally.

"But this is also bad news," he added. "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."
 
Yeah. The thousands of years of ice growth in east Antarctica is able to offset the rapid decline of west Antarctica ice in a way that reduces the amount of sea level increase for 20-30 years. Guess its all a hoax then huh?


That isn't what the report said:

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.
 
Back
Top