What's the source for the claim Antarctica is gaining ice?

Question

I frequently read doubters claiming Antarctica is gaining ice, yet this is in direct contradiction with the scientific literature I've read. So what is the original source (that doesn't include anonymous posts, or op-ed opinion pieces) of that claim?

Here's the recent information I have that Antarctica is actually losing significant ice mass:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-010

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5768/1754?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=antarctica+ice+mass&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2006/06-03-02.html

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442%282002%29015%3C2740%3ASOTAIS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Answer 1

http://www.physorg.com/news4180.html

Although the actual article shows that saying "Antarctica is gaining ice" is somewhat disingenuous.

Elevation change of the Antarctic ice sheet, 1995-2000, from ERS-2 satellite radar altimetry

Author(s): Davis CH, Ferguson AC

Source: IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING    Volume: 42    Issue: 11    Pages: 2437-2445    Published: NOV 2004  

Abstract: We analyzed Antarctic ice-sheet elevation change (dH/dt) from 1995 to 2000 using 123 million elevation change measurements from European Remote Sensing 2 ice-mode satellite radar altimeter data covering an area of about 7.2 million km(2). Almost all drainage basins in east Antarctica had average dH/dt values within +/-3.0 cm/year, whereas drainage basins in west Antarctica had substantial spatial variability with average dH/dt values ranging between -11 to +12 cm/year. The east Antarctic ice sheet had a five-year trend of 1 +/- 0.6 cm/year, where 13 out of the 14 basins had either a positive trend or a trend that was not significantly different than zero. The west Antarctic ice sheet had a five-year trend of -3.6 +/- 1.0 cm/year due largely to strong negative trends of around 10 cm/year for basins in Marie Byrd Land along the Pacific sector of the Antarctic coast. The continent as a whole had a five-year dH/dt trend of 0.4 +/- 0.4 cm/year. Finally, time series constructed for the Pine Island, Thwaites, DeVicq, and Land glaciers in west Antarctic showed five-year dH/dt trends from - 26 to - 135 cm/year that were significantly more negative than the average dH/dt trends in their respective basins. The strongly negative dH/dt values for these coastal glacier outlets are consistent with recently reported results indicating increased basal melting at these glaciers' grounding lines caused by ocean thermal forcing.

Edit:  mea culpa.  The Science reference below is the paper that everyone cites.  The ones from TGRS above is the remote sensing details.  In case people can't see the Science link:

Science 24 June 2005:

Vol. 308. no. 5730, pp. 1898 - 1901

DOI: 10.1126/science.1110662

Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise

Curt H. Davis,1* Yonghong Li,1 Joseph R. McConnell,2 Markus M. Frey,3 Edward Hanna4

Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year.

Answer 2

It took me awhile to find this again, but here is the data from NOAA.  I know you'll never believe that the ice in Antarctica is gaining, even with proof that it is because you already have your mind made up.  But here it is anyway....

"Meanwhile, the January 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was much above the 1979-2000 mean. This was the largest sea ice extent in January over the 30-year historical period. Sea ice extent for January has increased at a rate of 1.9%/decade."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...

Answer 3

Im not sure about land ice, but sea ice is definately at an elevated level, almost 1 million square miles more than at this time last year.  There are graphs, as well as satellite animations of this.  The sea ice anomoly in antarctica is up well over a million square miles.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

The land based ice, I can only assume, is not going anywhere.  How is ice going to melt in an area that doesnt get above -10*F, even in the summer?  Of course im talking about the west antarctic ice sheet(NOT the peninsula), which accounts for 96% of the land based ice in antarctica.

I clearly stated above, NOT THE PENINSULA, where your 50 degree temperatures occur.  The area in which 96% of the ice resides, only sees your 7*F on the hottest days of the summer.  Most of the continent is shrouded in clouds for most of the year, which reflects sunlight, but also holds in a miniscule amount of moisture/ warmth.  Only relative warmth though, still below freezing.  The southern polar night will begin soon.

Just click my link, its an awesome resource, non biased, but it does mention global warming, acknowledging the existence of it.  Yet it shows we are at 600,000 +/- extra square miles of global sea ice.

Answer 4

Good Question!

One source (no reference, sorry) was a scientist that works at the same place that concluded the ice in Greenland is melting at the rate of a cubic mile per year.

So, how can that be that both sides of the issue work at the same laboratory? I don't know.

His claim was also that the ocean was dropping, not increasing, in level. My guess is that it was a mistake.

I used to work for a government laboratory of similar prestige and also made mistakes but, we had a very tough Editorial Board and nothing ever got published that had a mistake. That was about 50 years ago. Perhaps, this other laboratory needs a stronger Editorial Board, specially since anyone can put anything in the Internet.

The conclusion is based on the very small difference in two very large numbers. What we used to call "noise" in the data. Maybe that's what it was. I have no read reports confirming the contrary finding. He got transferred?

Answer 5

I don't know of any credible source that makes this claim. The main body (East Antarctica) is showing some growth but not enough to offset the loss in West Antarctica. But that may not be attributable to global warming but to geothermal activity. I'm not saying it is, but at least part of the change is due to that factor.

The idea that this is all due to global warming overlooks the fact that most of the ice in Antarctica is miles thick and not in contact with the surrounding ocean which is getting warmer. Nearly all of it is on land, unlike Arctic ice which is already in the ocean. It's possible that the melting is due to geothermal processes underneath the ice, as the later links discuss.

Answer 6

Outside.  The temperature in Washington state has been very cold and I didn't enjoy it much.  Most of the USA has been having colder weather and lots of snow.  In Bremerton normally we get 1 day of snow every 2 years.  This year we go to days and last year we got 3.  If its here why can't it be anywhere.  I don't think you will be able to find anything on-line to offset the ice melting.

Answer 7

Actually there is very much information to suggest that. I have been doing scientific studies on global warming and such and it is very true that Antarctica is gaining ice.

Answer 8

Older, out of date studies such as the ones linked below.

It mostly depends on which part of Antarctica you're looking at.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

Answer 9

Their sources for this are the same ones that they always use: right-wing “Think Tanks”, various non-scientific blogs, or they Will simply make-up their own data. You will almost never see a denier using scientific sources because they are scared of what they could actually learn about global warming.

Answer 10

I've read that the UN panel predicted an increase in mass due to an increase in precipitation. This makes sense to me, although it seems the UN is reluctant to connect this with the AGW theory, maybe because it makes it less catastrophic. Oceans not rising as much.