By Kenneth Richard on 30. March 2017
Antarctica Has Been Gaining Ice,
Lowering Sea Level For Centuries
“Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away”
For decades scientists have suggested that the effects of a climatic warming would likely lead to an increase in Antarctica’s surface mass balance (i.e., mass gains exceed losses), and this would lead to a concomitant lowering of sea levels.
“The results indicate that a climatic warming will probably lead to a sea-level lowering of some tens of centimetres in the next centuries. This is because for Antarctic conditions the increase in snow accumulation exceeds the increase in melting.”
“According to this mass balance model, the amount of accumulation over the entire ice sheet is presently 24.06 x 1011 m3 of ice, and no runoff takes place. A 1°C uniform warming is then calculated to increase the overall mass balance by an amount of 1.43 1011 m3 of ice, corresponding to a lowering of sea level with 0.36 mm/yr. A temperature increase of 5.3° C is needed for the increase in ablation to become more important than the increase in accumulation and the temperature would have to rise by 11.4°C to produce a zero surface mass balance.”
“As a general result, it is found that the effect of increased precipitation on Antarctica dominates over the effect of increased melting on Greenland for the entire range of predictions, so that both polar ice sheets combined would gain mass in the 21st century. The results are very similar for both time-slice patterns driven by the underlying time evolution series with most of the scatter in the results caused by the variability in the lower-resolution AOGCMs. Combining these results with the long-term background trend yields a 20th and 21st century sea-level trend from polar ice sheets that is however not significantly different from zero.”
“We present climate and surface mass balance (SMB) of the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) as simulated by the global, coupled ocean–atmosphere–land Community Earth System Model (CESM) with a horizontal resolution of ∼1∘ in the past, present and future (1850–2100). … CESM [Community Earth System Model] projects an increase of Antarctic ice sheet SMB [surface mass balance] of about 70 Gtyear−1 per degree warming. This increase is driven by enhanced snowfall, which is partially counteracted by more surface melt and runoff along the ice sheet’s edges. This intensifying hydrological cycle is predominantly driven by atmospheric warming, which increases (1) the moisture-carrying capacity of the atmosphere, (2) oceanic source region evaporation, and (3) summer AIS cloud liquid water content.”
“In contrast to Greenland, where increased snowfall currently does not compensate enhanced surface runoff, this increase in AIS snowfall translates almost fully to ice sheet mass gain and mitigation of sea-level rise (Bengtsson et al. 2011; Shepherd et al. 2012). The reason is that rainfall on the AIS remains small, and most of the liquid water produced by surface melt can refreeze in the snowpack. Even in a warmer future, projected surface runoff losses are dominated by mass gains through enhanced snowfall (Ligtenberg et al., 2013).”
“The central Antarctic sites lack coherency and are either not representing regional precipitation or indicate the models inability to capture relevant precipitation processes in the cold, dry central plateau. The drivers of precipitation are reviewed for each region and the temporal variability and trends evaluated over the past 100, 200 and 1000 years. Our study suggests an overall increase in SMB [surface mass balance] across the grounded Antarctic ice sheet of ~ 44 GT since 1800 AD, with the largest (area-weighted) contribution from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP).”
Posted in Antarctic, Sea Levels |
33 responses to “New Paper Indicates Antarctica Has Been Gaining Mass Since 1800”
Love the everything I know is wrong moment. Keep it up.
I am confused. Wasn’t this blog just claiming that there is no warming trend in Antarctica (https://notrickszone.com/2017/03/27/20-scientists-no-continent-scale-warming-of-antarctic-temperature-is-evident-in-the-last-century/)?
And now the claim is: “an increase of Antarctic ice sheet SMB [surface mass balance] of about 70 Gtyear−1 per degree warming” and because there apparently is more snow in Antarctica it must have been warming. Hmm …
every paper that contains a single sentence that supports the sceptic opinion will be included in the relevant list. It does not matter, whether the paper makes any sense, does contradict itself, does contradict the next paper on the list or contradicts the last article or the next one.
These are alternative facts, they simply can not contradict “sceptic” positions!!
Ahh, both sod and SebastianH have just now discovered how AGW “climate science” works.
See, AGW causes droughts in California…
…at the same time that it causes floods in California
AGW causes frigid cold weather, or warmth causes cold
AGW causes fewer and less intense hurricanes…
…and AGW causes fewer but more intense hurricanes
AGW causes fish to shrink…
…at the same time it causes fish to grow…
AGW causes the Earth to spin slower…
2002: “[I]ncreasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere will slow the Earth’s rotation.”
2007: “Global warming will make Earth spin faster”
2015: “[W]ater from shrinking glaciers slows Earth’s rotation”
…cancel that, faster…
2015: “Earth May Spin Faster as Glaciers Melt”
And yes, a warming Antarctica will cause the ice sheet to grow, or shrink, just as a cooling Antarctica will cause the ice sheet to grow, or shrink…depending upon the model, or observation, or whatever “climate science” has decided this week, or next year, or sometime last year. Or something.
Welcome to the world of AGW “climate science”, SebastianH and sod. It looks like you’re both on to something.
So which do you think will happen? Will the Antarctic ice sheet grow, or shrink, with warming…or cooling? What do you believe?
Correct approach, Kenneth. A false theory implies everything. Since everything contains the subset of true statements, a false theory may have true consequences. But alas, a true theory cannot have false consequences.
“I am confused.”
Yes seb.. that has been patently clear since your first post.
Antarctica has been remarkably stable, just like the rest of the climate in the 20th and 21st centuries – I do agree some articles cloud the picture as they seem contradictory – I think the real point to for this blog at times, is to show all the theories, even by warmunist, who think there has never been a natural warming period, can see that every week they have some new excuse why SLR is not rising fast enough, c02 has been stagnant for 3 years etc (Man only adds 3.75% to mother nature, termites emit 10X what we do by burning FF – so they basically want you to believe that and unbelievably tiny fraction of a trace gas controls climate – so small it is about zero percent of the atmosphere).
But the warmunist go along with graphs that are abortions of data before 1989, removing the 1940’s global warmth – as clearly shown in climategate emails, Globally recognized, making one of the warm periods in the early 1900’s look like the coldest year on record, Even though News articles talk about very high temps in the Arctic, and very rapid “catastrophic” glacier melt in 1920. Then removing sharp 1970’s cooling – all to get a cyclical graph to look like a linear trend upward – it’s laughable http://www.realclimatescience.com outlines this over and over and over – USING NAS (National Academy of Sciences), NCAR, NOAA’s own graphs before 1989, and the THE SAME scientists OWN WORDS to show the outright fraud – After 1989 they have a monotonous cooling of the past and warming of the present, and when you overlay the graphs you actually see them morph from a natural warming cycle to some sinister looking exponential curve. Again this is clearly shown from their own archived graphs – they just changed methods and and stations used, homogenization, and outright make up most of the ground data, and apparently use time travel climatology, to make the data almost fit their predictions – still does not fit their models, even after they tweak them.
They get paid to produce nonsense for political agendas, and that’s all they do… I think people are extremely gullible about the amount of deception the federal government uses to control how people think, stay in power – decade after decade, we have some boogeyman they come up with, and the only solution is to tax the hell out of you and make their crony friends and supporters rich.. it’s quite disgusting – but if history shows us anything, it is that this is the NORM with large centralized governments.
I am 51, and old enough now to see how we are duped over and over again, with each new generation actually trusting the federal government – overall, all they have done is make a train wreck of democracy and our economy. They take in 5 Trillion in revenue from taxes, and still run half a trillion dollar deficit, yet claim they are going to save the world!!! – a child could see how stupid all of this is.. Truth is, we are in a VERY similar warming cycle as seen from around the 1920’s to 1940’s – Arctic temps, as verified by NASA were even a tad higher in the 1930’3, and we have tons of evidence of similar summer melt offs in the Arctic… it’s all come round again – this time, instead of blaming the Gods, they blame your SUV… that’s the only difference.
[…] Shelf Collapse Video Figure 2 The annual variance of the sea ice is shown in Figure 3. Like this: New Paper Indicates Antarctica Has Been Gaining Ice Mass Since 1800. By Kenneth Richard on 30. March 2017 “Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level […]
Not only is the S Pole gaining ice, the N Pole is losing ice due to natural forces.
Climate “Science” on Trial; Give a Climate Alarmist Enough Rope They’ll Hang Themselves
You’ve hung yourself pretty well with that article behind your link.
No understanding of how the greenhouse effect works. No understanding of radiative energy transfers and the resulting temperature changes. Despite the mentioning of ways energy is transported to the Arctic, you don’t understand that the source of that energy is influenced by the greenhouse effect as well.
Perhaps you can explain why the greenhouse effect went on hiatus (didn’t have a positive radiative influence on the energy balance) during the period 1992-2014, when the yearly human CO2 emissions rose from 6.1 GtC/yr to 10.1 GtC/yr? Since you know how the greenhouse effect works, why didn’t the greenhouse effect work during 1992-2014 despite all that CO2 emission growth, SebastianH?
A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect
In the 1980s, a significant increasing Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] tendency exists with a linear estimate of 0.19 W m−2 yr−1. However, this uprising trend pauses starting in circa 1992, when Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] begins to slightly decrease at a rate of −0.01 W m−2 yr−1. This statistically non-significant trend indicates that the enhancing global atmospheric greenhouse effect is slowed down. Moreover, the atmospheric greenhouse effect hiatus can be found over both sea and land.
The oceanic Gaa [atmospheric greenhouse effect] exhibits a notable increasing trend with a rate of 0.21 W m−2 yr−1 in 1979–1991, whereas its rate of change (−0.04 W m−2 yr−1) during 1992–2014 is not statistically significant.
You realize that his paper is essential saying that either the warming trend slowed down by:
a) decreasing solar shortwave radiation (interestingly by a “downward tendency of clouds”)
– or –
b) the ocean absorbing the energy via La Nina events
From the paper:
Yes, in other words, warming trends and cooling trends are predominantly due to changes in factors other than CO2.
From the paper itself:
“[T]he influences of water vapor and clouds … contribute approximately 75% of the total [greenhouse] effect.”
“[T]he atmospheric and surface greenhouse effect parameters both become trendless when clouds are considered.”
But do explain your “Nope.” Explain how the heat content of water is predominantly caused by 0.000001 changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations using physical measurements from an actual scientific experiment.
“No understanding of how the greenhouse effect works. ”
We know you haven’t.
You actually BELIEVE against all science, that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
Can’t provide one single paper, but you just BELIEVE. !!!
That makes it a baseless religion.
The paper about the negative GHE over Antarctica included detailed measurements of the part of the GHE that CO2 causes for the whole globe.
What you are saying is: “I don’t believe measurements” … isn’t it? All fake … of course … life is so easy for a denier 😉
DENY that you have FAILED UTTERLY to produce one single paper showing that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
DENYING is what you do, seb.
No, he’s not saying that he doesn’t believe “measurements”. You’ve fabricated a statement and falsely attributed to someone…again.
What he is saying we have no measurements from an actual experiment that shows that 0.000001 variations in CO2 concentrations heat or cool water — and ultimately the atmosphere (since the heat flux almost exclusively goes from ocean to air).
There are no measurements from a physical experiment to “deny”. So you’re bigoted name-calling is devoid of merit.
On the other hand, I asked YOU a cogent question about the measurements from a peer-reviewed paper in Nature that shows there was a hiatus of the CO2 greenhouse effect from 1992-2014 — during a time when anthropogenic CO2 emissions rose by 65%. You have not addressed this question (again – you keep avoiding answering), but instead you chose to attempt to smear AndyG for “denying” CO2-ocean-heating/cooling measurements (that don’t exist).
Do you consider yourself an honest person, SebastianH?
Read , seb
“CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space.”
oh dearie me. !!
They do use the standard non-proven AGW CO2 warming statement of AGW bias, but the rest of the paper is just assumption driven models and simulations all the way down.
“What you are saying is: “I don’t believe measurements””
I’m saying to you… “PRODUCE the measurements that show CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.”
So far you are rating an absolute ZERO on that front.
Please produce the measurements for the ball I threw behind the big wall in the neighborhood. I didn’t see it falling to the ground and since I don’t believe in physic laws being universal I need proof for everything otherwise it didn’t happen.
That’s how you two sound to me.
We know the physical properties of CO2, we can measure radiation emitted by CO2, we know how water reacts to LW and SW and we even measured the change in surface temperature when the downwelling IR radiation changes. What more do you need? A complete rebuild second Earth where we can manipulate a column of the atmosphere to our liking? It’s too easy an escape to demand something like that, don’t you think?
Next time we want to measure the size or temperature of a star we better send a probe there to actually place a thermometer in there, right? Because derived data is no real data …
Some goes for AndyG55 “assumption driven models and simulations”. Everything is based on assumptions! Lots of axioms in science and math and the rest is just models derived from them …
The change in the temperature of the ocean skin [0.1 mm “thick”] is one of cooling, and IR changes are predominantly due to factors other than 0.000001 changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. That’s why CO2 isn’t even mentioned as a factor in discussions of the radiative factors contributing to changes in ocean heat (as the papers below indicate). So, uh, yes, I’ll need more evidence that “a ball bouncing behind a wall” in a neighborhood.
“Differences between surface and subsurface water-temperature are caused by evaporation, long-wave radiation and exchange of sensible heat. The relative importance of these three components is discussed, especially with aid of observations under neutral conditions. … While short-wave radiation will warm both surface and subsurface layers, long-wave radiation will cause a cooling of the surface [skin] depending on the temperature and humidity of the air“.
“The cool skin represents a few tenths of a kelvin cooling by radiative and turbulent fluxes in the upper millimeter of the ocean; the warm layer [beneath] may be several kelvin of solar-induced warming in the upper meter.”
Incoming solar radiation and latent heat flux are the two dominant components that control net surface energy fluxes. Wind speed, cloud cover, and the gradient of specific humidity are the three most important meteorological parameters in determining surface flux.
Observations of the Infrared Radiative Properties of the Ocean
“[I]t is necessary to understand the physical variables contributing to sea surface emitted and reflected radiation to space. The emissivity of the ocean surface varies with view angle and sea state, the reflection of sky radiation also depends on view angle and sea state, and the absorption of atmospheric constituents such as water vapor, aerosols, and subdivisible clouds affect transmittance.”
You’ve got to be kidding me. You are doing it again. Picking quotes from papers without understanding what was actually written in those papers.
I’ll leave it to you to find that out. Hint: the longwave radiation mentioned in the first one isn’t just the downwelling radiation.
Poor seb, did you know that evaporation from the oceans surface causes a skin about 1mm thick with is about 0.3ºC COOLER than deeper water?
LW causes evaporation , which causes the water surface to COOL. !
There are so many things you are just ignorant of..
and basically everything you think you know, is incorrect.
And seb .. that’s for concurring that the whole AGW scam is built from erroneous assumptions built into models.
WE ALREADY KNOW THAT. !!
““we know how water reacts to LW and SW and we even measured the change in surface temperature when the downwelling IR radiation changes.”
Yes seb.. WE do know.
…you seem to still need to start your education on that topic…
… on most topics, actually.
“Please produce the measurements for the ball I threw behind the big wall in the neighborhood”
And poor seb drifts off into his FANTASY world of meaningless analogies….. YET AGAIN !!
SebastianH thinks it is too much to ask him to provide actual evidence from a scientific experiment showing that CO2 changes cause cooling and heating in water bodies. So maybe we should be content with his “ball behind a wall” analogy, AndyG.
Hey, let’s be fair…
… that simplistic fantasy analogy is more than he usually has to back up his rants.
Pierre, I would like to report Sebastian H. for micro-aggression. I am extremely offended whenever I read the word’denier’ and it just happened again. Please, I want this person censured severely! (alliteration!)
Have you seen the insults hurled at sebastian or me?
Yes, I also am offended by the term “denier” because of the obvious connection to those who deny the Holocaust occurred. It’s bigotry.
[…] – See more at: notrickszone.com […]