NASA says Antarctica is actually gaining ice ( 2 days ago)

[SEA]

The Journal of Glaciology is published six times per year. It accepts submissions from any discipline related to the study of snow and ice. All articles are peer reviewed. The Journal is included in the ISI Science Citation Index.

so arctic ice  level is actually rising which this study says is reducing sea level rise by .23 mm a year . Considering they say average yearly sea level increase for the last 3 years has been right around .43 to .47 that means it is rising by roughly  HALF as much as they predicted .  Hmmm

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071


Abstract:
Mass changes of the Antarctic ice sheet impact sea-level rise as climate changes, but recent rates have been uncertain. Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1. European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data (1992–2001) give a similar gain of 112 ± 61 Gt a–1. Gains of 136 Gt a–1 in East Antarctica (EA) and 72 Gt a–1 in four drainage systems (WA2) in West Antarctic (WA) exceed losses of 97 Gt a–1 from three coastal drainage systems (WA1) and 29 Gt a–1 from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP). EA dynamic thickening of 147 Gt a–1 is a continuing response to increased accumulation (>50%) since the early Holocene. Recent accumulation loss of 11 Gt a–1 in EA indicates thickening is not from contemporaneous snowfall increases. Similarly, the WA2 gain is mainly (60 Gt a–1) dynamic thickening. In WA1 and the AP, increased losses of 66 ± 16 Gt a–1 from increased dynamic thinning from accelerating glaciers are 50% offset by greater WA snowfall. The decadal increase in dynamic thinning in WA1 and the AP is approximately one-third of the long-term dynamic thickening in EA and WA2, which should buffer additional dynamic thinning for decades.



MSNBC :  NASA says Antarctica is actually gaining ice. Does this mean climate is fine?     this came out 2 days ago

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nasa-says-antarctica-is-actually-gaining-ice-does-this-mean-climate-is-fine/ar-BBmHQF3?ocid=ansmsnnews11

[Ichabod Spoonbill]

That means that some odd effect is going on in Antarctica. The CO2 effect on global temperatures is still happening.

One of the things that we should understand about climate change is that there won't be a general, steady rising of temperatures everywhere. Some places, like the arctic, are getting quite warm, so much so that the permafrosts in the taiga forests are melting. Other places, like the American northeast, are having some abnormally cold winters. Then there are the crazy droughts in the West. All are happening because of the same general phenomena, excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

The earth's weather is very chaotic system, and while the long-term effects are predictable, the short term can and will get pretty weird. It's tempting to take one data point, like Antarctic sea ice, and draw a larger conclusion, but it may mean something different.

[eastbound]

well said, icky

last winter was the first in years where i had to heat my house at times to prevent pipe freeze--i have a pond on which i used to skate with friends all winter long ea year while growing up--last year was the first in many, in which the pond froze beyond a thin skin--bet it doesnt freeze this year--bet i dont turn my heat on much, if at all

[PonoBill]

I think the evidence is pretty clear that increasing CO2 levels are not a great thing for the planet, and that we need to move to a much more sustainable power supply. But the general support in the scientific community for more precise predictions of the result of the phenomena is substantially change. I don't know the reasons for that, it's probably as chaotic as the weather is, but it's present.

There have been some convincing arguments that our climate change might be a more stable situation than low levels of CO2. Historically, climate analysis pointed to likely mini ice ages, which would be perhaps as catastrophic as global warming in terms of effect on exposed populations and geopolitical boundaries. Still not out of the question. They are likely triggered by cycles of varied insolation.  The ultimate catastrophe for planets in our "goldilocks" zone is total glaciation, which would lock in strongly because ice reflects solar energy. The only things likely to reverse such a stable situation would be solar changes or volcanic activity.   

I think the bulk of scientists are right, that we need to work hard to manage CO2 levels. There are lots of technical solutions to the low hanging fruit. Increase alternate energy, smartgrids, space-based server farms (high energy demand with lots of reasons to be in orbit), better surface mapping and crop management (lower requirements for fetilizer, water, pesticides, etc.). But the big changes will come in the developing world, and that's tougher to manage. Getting China and idia to give up increasing coal and oil use is going to be tough. Getting rainforest countries to stop ripping out the canopy will be equally hard.

[robon]

I have read studies citing variations in increased and decreased ice in places such as Antartica with the numbers showing a net overall loss of ice in the long term.

"A new NASA study found that Antarctica is gaining more ice than it’s losing. But that isn’t a sign that climate change is slowing down.

A team of researchers from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland in College Park and Maryland-based engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation analyzed satellite data and found that the continent gained 112 billion tons of ice per year from 1992 to 2001. But then that rate slowed down, to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. If the trend continues, it would take only 20 or 30 years for the ice melt in Antarctica to outweigh the ice gains, according to Jay Zwally, a NASA glaciologist and the lead author on the study."

I noticed this above data in one of the provided links, but it provides context, and also proves that other areas contribute to sea level rise besides Antarctica. The world isn't quite as small as we originally thought..

There are also instances of Glaciers in certain places of the world that have gained in ice flow, but this is the exception and not the norm.

[starman]

A good explanation of that study;

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass.html

[SuppaTime]

I would not read too much into that report, at least not in regards to global warming. Ice formation is dependent upon precipitation (i.e., snow) or rime formation. Increased snow can be due to either more moisture in the air to form ice, a longer snow season, or less melting. Which is it?

Even if the increased ice is due to colder temps for longer periods of time, global warming is an integrative effect - the globally averaged temperature is what matters. There will be pockets of higher temps and areas of lower temps. What matters is the total of all that, over the entire globe.

[eastbound]

thx, starman---the links to the vice and hotwhopper pieces made for good reads, too.

[SUPcheat]

I got back in Santa Cruz from Maui last night and the temperature got into the mid 30's last night.  This  must mean we are going into another era of glaciation.

[eastbound]

so this means you think climate change is a joke??

[eastbound]

so this means you think climate change is a joke??

[PonoBill]

I think people's response to it is hilarious. People believe what they want to believe.

Ultimately global warming response comes down to politics, self interest, economics, and technical feasibility of solutions (economics again). I don't think scientific evidence will ever appear on the list.

I took a lot of grief for saying that the US had good reason not to sign the kyoto accords. People still act as if the US is responsible for global warming and it's up to us to fix it. Here's the latest data on global greenhouse gas emitters:



duh.

[pdxmike]

That graph brings up another whole issue about who is responsible, in regard to global warming and other pollution.  Countries with tighter environmental laws import things from ones with looser laws, because those things are cheaper (in part because of the looser regulations).  So, Europe or the US can cut emissions and other pollution by cutting manufacturing at home, and importing more.  But the world isn't any better.

Reason I thought of this is Portland and Oregon are always praised for its land use laws that discourage urban sprawl, better urban design, etc.  The reality is there's huge sprawl here, but it's across the river in Vancouver, so it doesn't show up in Portland's or Oregon's statistics.  And the urban design rules lead to higher costs, which drive development across the river and make the sprawl even worse.  The total actual sprawl and environmental impacts might be lessened by loosening the regulations here instead of tightening them further.

Same argument with farming--US farmers have costly regulations, so food gets imported and US farmers can't compete.  Now food people eat here is made in countries with poorer environmental regs and shipped here. Is that better?

Sometimes regulations just move pollution from one place to another, unless they are universal.

[covesurfer]

PDX, I don't disagree with your conclusion about sprawl in Vantuckey but there is more to it still. WA does not have an income tax, while OR has a hefty one. Additionally, housing is cheaper in the 'couve, at least it used to be. I think the reasons for that include but go beyond Portland's byzantine development rules. Bottom line, you can get more house and lot for your money across the Columbia. Then, you shop in tax free Oregon and get even more benefit.

The results and policy problems, especially with regional transportation issues, that the steam valve in Vancouver creates are unbelievably difficult and expensive for Oregon. The bridges and freeway systems are heavily impacted by the commuter traffic from and to the bedroom refuge of the couve. And, because of Oregon's lack of a sales tax, WA residents are sure to not leave much behind when shopping in Oregon. If they buy gas in Portland, they will pay some gas tax though but it's not enough to offset the impact to the regional system. And Vancouver doesn't want to pay for what can conveniently be thought of (north of the river) as Portland's problems, even though Vancouver is responsible for helping create those problems.

Sorry, this scratched an old sore for me. For a significant part of my career, I watched as the City of Portland continually congratulated itself on it's forward thinking transportation policies, all while Rome appeared to be burning or at least smoldering. I love Portland, and it's quirky ways, but I question how in touch with reality some of it's chief policy architects are.

Anyway, PDX, sorry for the rant. I think your analogy is very on-point and the presence of the 'safety valve' that is Vancouver allows Portland to continue with policies that might otherwise be challenged and/or amended if the pressure increased.

[pdxmike]

Cove--no apology for rant needed.  Everything you said is right on.  I know many people who have moved from Portland to Vancouver with taxes as a central reason.  One client bought a condo and said the entire, huge complex is filled with people like them who retired and moved from Portland because of taxes, even though they otherwise preferred Portland.

Your comments about Portland congratulating itself are so true also.  Portland always brags about its food carts, but doesn't mention (because almost nobody understands) that food carts grew out of insane "system development charges" that made it almost impossible to open new restaurants in spaces that hadn't already been restaurants.  One pizza place moved across the street and got hit with a $20K tax for "traffic generation".  Even worse, the City's solution wasn't to change the tax, but to set up a fund to help qualifying restaurants receive City grants to offset some of the tax--taxing the general public to create a fund to give to restaurants to pay their taxes.  Problem solved!    Food carts are great, but not for people operating them because they can't open an indoor place. 

Portland is currently trying to increase housing affordability by taxing new residential construction. 

And like you said, it all relates back to when you have a "safety valve" for regulations or anything else, people will go that way, and regulations that don't recognize that will backfire.