Jump to content

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


AURaptor

Recommended Posts

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.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Interesting, and it was discussed and considered in the IPCC reports.

You might ask Dr. Zwally about his opinion on climate change. He's not a skeptic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't have to ask any doctors anything.

More ice = more ice.

Deal w/ it.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally.

Or it might not.

Seriously, these guy's are banking on hope that things ' MIGHT' go their way. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't have to ask any doctors anything.

You're the one citing his research, doofus.

More ice = more ice.

Deal w/ it.

A possibility that was discussed in the IPCC assessment reports.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally.

Or it might not.

Seriously, these guy's are banking on hope that things ' MIGHT' go their way. :laugh:

They're not "hoping" anything. If Zwally had a nefarious agenda, why even publish this paper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raptor is, shall we say, confused.

Nope. More ice = more ice.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raptor is, shall we say, confused.

Nope. More ice = more ice.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

That's because, once again, nuance escapes you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raptor is, shall we say, confused.

Nope. More ice = more ice.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Think globally. Is there more ice on the globe?

Don't know , don't care. The issue at hand is the antarctic.

the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001

I thought we were told that the ice was melting.

Net ice of 112 BILLION tones isn't 'nuance'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The raptor troll strikes again!

more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice= more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice= more ice = more ice = more ice= more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice = more ice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raptor, seriously man, you know words don't really mean what they mean...more actually means less ; except when it doesn't; and of course, only they can determine when it doesn't....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raptor, seriously man, you know words don't really mean what they mean...more actually means less ; except when it doesn't; and of course, only they can determine when it doesn't....

Clearly, we don't get the " nuance " of it all.

Science is tricky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ilulissat Glacier in Western Greenland...stats reported at the 4:25 minute mark in the video: "It took a hundred years (1902-2001) to retreat 8 miles. From 2001 to 2010 it retreated 9 miles."

(Politics aside, an awesome video! ...the equivalent of all of lower Manhattan falling into the sea in 75 minutes! ...or imagine hundreds or thousands of World Trade Towers collapsing at once!)

Global climate change refers to global climate change, not local effects or events. Neither Ilulissat nor the opening link tell the whole story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is more " local ". The continent of Antarctica, or a single glacier ?

I take it back, this looks more like stupidity than it does confusion.

And there we have it, the standard insult accompanied by a classic avoidance dodge. Bravo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is more " local ". The continent of Antarctica, or a single glacier ?

I take it back, this looks more like stupidity than it does confusion.

Looks like willful ignorance to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is more " local ". The continent of Antarctica, or a single glacier ?

I take it back, this looks more like stupidity than it does confusion.

And there we have it, the standard insult accompanied by a classic avoidance dodge. Bravo.

Your posts on this matter do appear to be stupid: "Which is more local, the continent of Antarctica or a single glacier?" That's nonsensical.

There's more ice in Antarctica. So what?

Do you have a point or conclusion you would like to share?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is more " local ". The continent of Antarctica, or a single glacier ?

I take it back, this looks more like stupidity than it does confusion.

Looks like willful ignorance to me.

Like I said. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is more " local ". The continent of Antarctica, or a single glacier ?

I take it back, this looks more like stupidity than it does confusion.

Looks like willful ignorance to me.

Like I said. ;)/>

Oops. Yeah it was redundant. Cut me some slack. I'm still soaking wet from trick or treating. Nasty out tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had a thought... and it makes me sad.

I had been using logic and knowledge and saying that makes me root against raptor.

But by rooting against raptor in this thread, am I rooting against the earth?

....Is Raptor actually captain planet? setting to right what once went wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ilulissat Glacier in Western Greenland...stats reported at the 4:25 minute mark in the video: "It took a hundred years (1902-2001) to retreat 8 miles. From 2001 to 2010 it retreated 9 miles."

(Politics aside, an awesome video! ...the equivalent of all of lower Manhattan falling into the sea in 75 minutes! ...or imagine hundreds or thousands of World Trade Towers collapsing at once!)

Global climate change refers to global climate change, not local effects or events. Neither Ilulissat nor the opening link tell the whole story.

Some of the linked videos with this post are quite disturbing. Greenland losing 3X the Chesapeake Bay in Ice every year now is very disturbing.

I know there is a Human and Cyclical components to all this but we can do much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...