A recent study by NASA seems to contradict some of the currently accepted knowledge about global warming and glaciers. It found that increased ice melting in Antarctica is offset by increased snowfall, meaning that the continent's glaciers are posting a net gain in mass, and are not contributing to rising sea levels.
Contrary to some sensationalist headlines about the "end of global warming", the study's authors urged caution.
"We're essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge," in other parts of the continent, [Jay] Zwally said.
"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," he explained in a NASA announcement.
Editors Note: As best as I can tell, this is the NASA study referenced in the article above. Note that it is from October, 2014.
Related Stories
Beneath the Aurora Borealis an oil tanker glides through the night past the Coast Guard ice breaker Amundsen and vanishes into the maze of shoals and straits of the Northwest Passage, navigating waters that for millennia were frozen over this time of year.
Warming has forced a retreat of the polar ice cap, opening up a sea route through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans for several months of the year.
Commander Alain Lacerte is at the helm as the vessel navigates the Queen Maud Gulf, poring over charts that date from the 1950s and making course corrections with the help of GPS.
[...] Today, taking this route cuts 7,000 kilometers (4,350 miles) off a trip from London to Tokyo, saving time and fuel.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Tuesday November 03 2015, @07:59PM
This only proves that we know nothing, and we will know even less tomorrow.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:01PM
This only proves that we know nothing
I'm not so sure about that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @11:32PM
Now we know the name John Snow is posting under. :-)
(Score: 5, Informative) by gman003 on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:14PM
With the sheer number of studies being made, you're almost sure to find some measurements that go against the general trend of global warming and ice melt.
This particular study was of snowfall accumulation. Which is not a 1:1 with ice - in particular, the way snow compacts into ice isn't well-known, and figuring out how much ice is being made from just these measurements is extremely imprecise.
Actually, that's a bit incorrect as well. Sending people out with rulers to measure snow depth over an entire continent is infeasible, particularly when that continent is Antarctica. This used satellite altimetry - having a satellite measure the distance between it and the ground. Other studies have used satellite gravimetry - measuring the force of gravity to determine the amount of mass beneath it, and those studies have universally shown a decreased density in polar ice.
In other words, these measurements could be explained by Antarctic snow being "fluffier" than previously. Lower density would allow for lower mass while still increasing volume. Which is, in fact, a possibility the authors of the study raised. They also point out that, even if it is compacting to ice at the predicted rates, the snowfall has been pretty constant across the continent, while icepack melt is accelerating. (Their measurements only covered 1992-2008, and the rate of melt acceleration actually exceeded their extrapolations).
Do we know everything? Hardly. But we know more than enough to take some action on the issue.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:50PM
You mean, the ones not adjusted to show said general trend? ;)
(Score: 4, Informative) by gman003 on Tuesday November 03 2015, @09:46PM
Oh, you mean like the USGS temperature data? Where, if you take out the "corrections" for different measurement methods used in historical data, the warming is actually HIGHER than it is with the "corrected" data?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 03 2015, @10:50PM
That's a classic problem whenever you're studying something big and complicated. What tends to happen is:
Supporters - "If X happens, then Y will follow, according to our theory!"
(six months later)
Supporters - "Well look at that: X happened, then Y happened. I guess we're right."
Deniers - "No, you aren't, because of Z."
(six months later)
Supporters - "Well look at that: X happened again, and Z didn't affect things like it did the last time, and Y still happened. I guess that shows we're right."
Deniers - "No, it doesn't, because of W."
(repeat as needed)
There's an alternate form of this which has Supporters constantly coming up with additional factors that prevent the Deniers from conclusively disproving their theory by using failed tests.
What actually ends the debate on a topic is not one side being proven right or wrong. What ends it is one side losing funding and apparent respectability - if somebody (let's call them "Exxon") wants to pour lots of money into keeping a debate alive indefinitely in the public mind, they can successfully do so. And that's why Young Earth Creationists and the like still roam among us today.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @12:49AM
It's more like this:
Unscrupulous businessman - "I have a useless product, X, which nobody will buy because it's expensive and useless. People prefer product Y which is out of patent and the competition is making for cents on the dollar."
Advisor - "Looks like a solution looking for a problem. We can call it Problem Z."
Unscrupulous businessman - "How do I create the problem Z?"
Advisor - "Define problem Z to be a constellation of existing conditions that people generally take no notice of. Blow it out of proportion and blame product Y as the cause. They will then buy Product X, because everyone loves a good placebo."
Unscrupulous businessman - "Ok, easy, done"
Advisor - "I warn you though, you will have at on average 2-3 years to get rid of your excess product stock before people start to wake up and come after you with pitchforks."
Unscrupulous businessman - "That should be just enough time for me to sell my stock out and let someone else take the blame."
Advisor - "Exactly"
And a few months later a bunch of scientists and think tanks are quoted in bold on the paid-for-media: "Exposed, Product Y is the work of the devil, causes Problem Z. Symptoms of problem Z include sneezing, farting, occasional itch, belching and noticing cold or warm weather."
A few months after that: "Amazing: Product X cures Problem Z"
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @02:03AM
Imagine if the global warming researchers were in charge of SETI, just considering the endless news releases we would get blows my mind.
"Its ALIENS!"
"Did you rule out Satellites?"
"Now we did. Its ALIENS!"
"Did you rule out pulsars?"
"Now we did. Its ALIENS!"
"Did you rule out reflections from space debris?"
"Now we did. Its ALIENS!"
"Did you rule out computer error?"
"Now we did. Its ALIENS!"
"Did you rule out a hoax?"
...
If there is the need to suggest these other possibilities to someone trained in science, it indicates something is wrong.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:42PM
No, it proves we are screwing up the planet in ways we don't fully understand.
Skeptics will say, "I'm not doing anything about it until you prove we know EXACTLY how we are screwing it up."
I imagine network and security administrators deal with this kind of thing all the time.
PHB: "Can you install my doohickey on the network? It makes sales presentations shinier."
IT: "I'd like to study it first to know if it's safe."
PHB: "But I need it in 1 hour; clients are coming. Until you prove it's bad, I insist you install it now! We need shiny sales presentations or the company will die! Gartner told me so."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday November 04 2015, @12:55AM
Skeptics will say, "I'm not doing anything about it until you prove we know EXACTLY how we are screwing it up."
Let's face it, your stereotype of "skeptics" makes more sense than you do. The huge problem here is that we don't know that "not screwing up" the planet is better. After all, there are more than seven billion people. The world will be screwed up no matter what. We need to figure which ways are better, not just for the world, but ourselves as well.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday November 04 2015, @01:23AM
They used a new measuring tool, and they got different results than the older tools. How do you go from that to "we know nothing"? Maybe there are things you just don't want to know?
You're sitting in a bar. You count the money in your pocket three times. The first two times you get $52.55. The third time, it's $42.53. You throw up your hands and say, "money is a mystery, managing my finances responsibly is a waste of time, I should just blow everything on hookers!" Now, maybe you should blow everything on hookers, we can't rule out that possibility, but the way you arrived at your decision is logically suspect. And the kind of hookers that you can get for $42.53 will probably make you regret the decision either way. Right now, human civilization is that guy at the bar.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Wednesday November 04 2015, @08:40AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:12PM
It seems like an odd study, it mentions no clear publication date.
The full text [ingentaconnect.com] is available on line
and contains only the statement:
MS received 9 May 2015 and accepted in revised form 19 September 2015
Hot on the heels of the above study comes the worry over the West Antarctic ice [phys.org] being in a state of irreversible retreat.
in this report the author addresses the disagreement by saying:
According to climatologist Michael Mann, who was not involved in either study, the use of older satellite data could be the cause for the disconnect.
"It sounds to me as if the key issue here is that the claims are based on seven-year-old data, and so cannot address the finding that Antarctic ice loss has accelerated in more recent years,"
There was another news item [natureworldnews.com] that mentioned the melting in Greenland was found to be NOT related to soot/ash
on the snow. Previous detection of lowered albedo was apparently the result of degrading optics in satellites.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Wednesday November 04 2015, @02:41AM
That's an interesting point. So if sats' optics are degrading... what other components are also degrading, and which other measurements might be therefore inaccurate??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by captain normal on Wednesday November 04 2015, @05:31AM
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses [nasa.gov]
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2015-antarctic-maximum-sea-ice-extent-breaks-streak-of-record-highs [nasa.gov]
Don't read the headlines. Read the whole articles.
The Musk/Trump interview appears to have been hacked, but not a DDOS hack...more like A Distributed Denial of Reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:38PM
Theories regarding pangea claim warming triggers an ice age:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @09:44PM
Warming can also lead to another glaciation period (commonly referred to as an "ice age", but technically we're still in an ice age until all polar ice caps completely melt) by shutting down thermohaline circulation. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @08:40PM
the antarctic was in danger of breaking off and raising the sea level 3 meters.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @09:06PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-03/west-antarctic-ice-melt-could-raise-seas-by-3-metres/6908118 [abc.net.au]
Posted November 03, 2015 17:02:36
Antarctic iceberg
Scientists are filling in more of the details about the collapse of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), an event that is now expected to begin in 60 years under current greenhouse warming conditions, and eventually boost sea levels by three metres.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @09:06PM
I believe this marks the end of the global warming debate. Move on.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday November 03 2015, @10:23PM
I believe you are wrong. But you are free to move on.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @10:39PM
This debate is settled. The data shows that ice is increasing in Antarctica. Why are we even still debating global warming....it is a myth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 03 2015, @11:24PM
And how can I possibly have a fever if my feet are cold?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mmcmonster on Tuesday November 03 2015, @11:44PM
Or as Colbert said, 'I just had lunch. I declare that global famine has been eradicated!'
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 04 2015, @01:27AM
C'mon, AC! Learn from the masters! Just look at frojack's post above. It is a thing of beauty.
First, do NOT use terms like "myth", "fraud", "hoax", or "lie". If you do, everyone will know you are a climate denier and stop reading.
Instead, just mildly suggest that the source for the article is "odd". Then you will notice that frojack fails to find the source study, and quotes something about when it was received at ingentaconnect, which he insinuates is the full text of the study. Brilliant!
But this now allows the topic to be shifted to another study, and for fro to introduce "the controversy". So smooth I almost cried. And then we can quote a climatologist (not some wacko) who was not involved in a study, to say something about how there is some sort of "disconnect". Wow, I am in awe!
Finally, the shift to Greenland, a polar opposite, literally, of the original topic, and a massive earth-moving example of changing the subject, but even better, goes into space! Some other data was wrong because of optics on satellites! So the data about global warming must be questionable, as well.
See, this is how it is done. Never address the issue of global warming head on, you do not have to! All climate change deniers have to do to win is to introduce uncertainty in the minds of the public, to get them to not trust those egg-headed scientists who are probably set to get rich off of alternative energy and so have a clear conflict of interest . . . . oops! I am doing it myself, aren't I? And after frojack's fine example. Let this be a lesson: being an Anthropogenic Global Warming Denier is not easy!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @03:55AM
If it's not easy, you can bet it's the right course of action!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 04 2015, @05:03AM
Leaving a room by running at full speed toward a solid wall is also difficult. (Mandatory Reference" "Men Who Stare at Goats", 2009, dir. Grant Heslov) Probably not the right action.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @06:09AM
It COULD be the right action.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 04 2015, @07:57AM
And it could NOT be the right action, since it requires such finely honed deception in order to be possible at all.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Gravis on Tuesday November 03 2015, @11:42PM
listen to the scientists, not the editorialized bullshit: https://youtu.be/J_WWXGGWZBE?t=1m7s [youtu.be]
Some people have looked at the Antarctic increasing tread and used that to suggest that global warming isn't happening or that the increase in the Antarctic is offsetting the decrease in the Arctic and that's simply not true. If you look at simply the magnitudes of the changes we're seeing, in the winter time the Arctic is decreasing about twice as fast as what the Antarctic is increasing.
(Score: 1) by pinchy on Wednesday November 04 2015, @01:08AM
From what ive read the increasing antarctic ice just confirms a warming trend in that the surface ice over the land is melting and when it gets to the sea it refreezes.
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Wednesday November 04 2015, @01:10AM
There are multiple contributors to sea levels rising, and a particularly important one is the fact that warming sea levels cause thermal expansion which *could* have a massive impact on sea levels. I don't recall how much exactly, or how much of a contribution it would make in comparison with the entire poles melting, but I believe that these are the two major contributors to sea level rise as a result of general warming of the globe.
I'm not an expert on the matter, but these are things I have read and have vague memories of reading.