A NEW Nasa study of the Antarctic from space has thrown the case for climate change into disarray after finding that more NEW new ice has formed at the Antarctic than has been lost to its thinning glaciers.

The US space agency research claims 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 melting glaciers.

Global warming theories have been thrown into doubt after Nasa also claimed current horror predictions into future sea-level rises may not be as severe.

Major studies previously made the case for global warming being a man-made problem, including the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which said that Antarctica was overall losing land ice.

But a Nasa spokesman said: "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."

The study analysed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on Nasa’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.

It had been argued by the climate change lobby the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica were due to recent increases in snow accumulation. But the Nasa team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods.

They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.

The spokesman added: "Extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimetres) per year.

"This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise."

The Antarctic and its huge area of ice as seen from space

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616356/What-global-warming-Nasa-Antarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year

Our heat comes from the sun and cooling from space. The earth has it's own thermostat. luckily we have little control over it.

I've always blamed the dirty hippy tree huggers for global warming.

The amount of chemicals and energy expended to make a single solar panel, isn't just astounding, it's downright offensive.

... and the bonfires at their little dirty hippy cumbaya drum circles.
Well... the smoke from those dirty hippy bonfires, is a pollutant that effects all life on earth.
Allergens, eye irritants, sinus irritants.

the dirty hippies would be ok if they had a job and could afford the good weed instead of that home grown chit...

this isn't surprising to me, I do my own research, and don't rely on talking heads reading something off a teleprompter...of which many have a problem with basic reading skills.

Global Warming was a political fear tactic to get us to hand over our money ti those in charge. It's been a scam from the beginning.

I find NASA's pov hysterical! The rate of decrease in Arctic sea ice far exceeds the rate of increase in Antarctic sea ice.

The more Arctic sea ice melts, it exposes more and more dark land mass and dark waters as opposed to light, white color. The sun heats up the darker far more than the white color, obviously. This in turn heats up the ocean waters, increases water levels, and alters the jet stream (will cause more stationary extreme weather events such as droughts already seen in Texas, etc.)

Plus, a significant factor is melting of mountain ice like in Alaska and Canada. Alaska temps have warmed significantly. For example, a certain beetle has had a population explosion due to warm weather and eaten up a lot of Alaska's forest;

One theory for the Antarctic ice increase, albeit small, is that the mountain ice in Antarctica is melting and running into the ocean, then freezing; as fresh water freezes faster. So this may not be a good sign at all.

I just want a front seat if/when things turn upside down. Thank goodness they have that secret seed vault prepared. Its called the doomsday vault. I wonder where the other secret vaults are. They probably have one with humans; you never know.

so... why haven't the seas been rising then?... where is it at if all this ice you say is melting?

*shrug*

Again, I point at the dirty hippies, for the filth and pollutants they create.



"Low lying coastal areas".
It wasn't all that long ago, that most of Florida was under sea level.

Most of Texas was under the sea.

'And', New Orleans, still under sea level. New Orleans wouldn't even exist, without the dikes, dams, levies, and pump stations.

Seems, sea levels have fallen substantially over the years.

The global sea levels are rising which results from warmer climate creating ocean thermal expansion (as opposed to contraction from colder climate) and glacial melting (small glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets).

You may think you have a pause or flux(dip/or spike) but it most likely due to La Nina (decreases water temp), El Nino (increases water temp), or other weather event. The levels are still rising.

Florida, Texas, and North Carolina should be concerned; and obviously some others.

Louisiana's ship sunk before it set out to sea. Sorry, Louisana, but I just don't get it. Why would anyone build there in the first place? Reminds me of SC coast, I think if a storm takes your house you are not allowed to rebuild.

I think what I am trying to say is that there is a constant sea level rise but these variable weather events cause the constant level to decrease or increase. If you factor out the variable weather events you will see a constant rise in the sea level.

Same idea could probably be applied to laws of gravity (constant), space & time (variables) or celestial events as the variables, to see if the constant is stable, increasing or decreasing. Constants can change/evolve/devolve or remain static.

Well, this is a tricky subject when it comes down to trying to establish what data is correct, and who's cooking the books.

Climategate a couple years back showed a paper trail of emails amongst climate researchers that showed a conspiracy to fake data, and to simply create the existence of global warming. Instructing colleagues to delete previous memos, delete data, and even delete the information on the original collection sites was suggested. Centered out of East Anglia University, those who participated in the fixing of the data thought that because they were working on a UN project, their files were beyond the Freedom of Information requests being submitted from their own countries. They were wrong.

I took to heart the information provided by a man named Lord Monkton in the UK. He had worked for Margaret Thatcher when she was PM. His point was not to believe or deny in global warming, so much as to gather useful data, and analyze it with integrity. He had been sort of the face of the 'skeptics' crowd in the UK, and then started getting calls from the U.S. with people complaining about the junk science used by Al Gore and his cronies as well.

Digging a little deeper he found flaws in the U.S. data. For example, the U.S. Weather Service data is collected via a network of weather 'stations'. These are little white wooden boxes with slats that can be found at airports, on top of buildings, in the middle of farm fields, etc. The data is gathered, and in part used for forecasting, as well as the basis for a lot of global 'warming' data. When he investigated, it was found about 40% of these boxes were in some state of disrepair. Slats broken off, entire sides fully exposed to the elements, etc. In addition, many boxes were moved to poorly placed collection sites so as to jack up the readings. Placed in the corners of asphalt parking lots, or next to walls painted black the temperatures would of course be 10,15,20 degrees higher during the day, and then stay slightly elevated at night as these sources bled off their heat. In high enough numbers, it would only take a small percentage of these stations to up the 'average' temperatures, and show a year to year warming trend.

Now, if you follow the proposed solutions, you follow the money. One of the great solutions is 'carbon credits'. If I'm a high polluting company, I can buy 'credits' such as planting trees in the rainforest to offset my global warming emissions. Where do I buy these 'credits'? Through a carbon credit exchange. Really? Well who runs these exchanges?

The CCX or Chicago Climate EXchange has among its investors, Al Gore. He also registered a company in England to trade carbon credits there as well. The exchange has an official bank called Shorebank. It's just a small institution, almost got wiped out in the 2009 crash, but for a bailout from the Obama administration. On the board of this little bank? Jan Piercy, roommate of Hillary Clinton at Wellesley College. Seems Billary are investors in the bank. Mary Houghton a friend of Obama's mother. Mary had worked for Tim Geithner, father of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Bob Nash is a Vice Chairman. He was the Deputy Chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. Nash also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Barak Obama and Bill Ayers. Nash was also a member of the Obama White House transition team. Adele Simmons is a Director at the bank. She's a friend of Valerie Jarrett an Obama advisor. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a Chicago Civic Organization.

There are more friends of Obama, Cinton, and even Jimmy Carter who are on the bank board, invest in it, or helped to found it.

So, anyone else see why there has to be a global warming 'crisis' that requires a carbon trading solution?

I don't think they are.

At best NASA is saying they don't know everything, can't make absolute blanket statements as to cause, and they'd like more and better funding to spend more time looking at it.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

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

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum


You notice the author of the article only really names the IPCC?
Doesn't say anything about NASA's "tune."
It's very vague "the case, theories, major studies, argued by the lobby."
Doesn't say anything about NASA theories.
It only uses NASA's data.