
According to NASA, Antarctica is actually gaining ice - prostoalex
http://qz.com/538902/according-to-nasa-antarctica-is-actually-gaining-ice/
======
ovis
Previous discussion of the NASA release:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10487680](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10487680)

------
Arnt
Some people appear to believe that if the average temperature of the globe
increases by two degrees, then the average temperature in May in Munich must
increase by 2.00 degrees, the average temperature in Timbuktu in June must
increase by 2.00 degrees, the average temperature in Panjim in July must
increase by 2.00 degrees, the average temperature in Valparaiso in August must
increase by 2.00 degrees, and so on and so forth.

Then these people are astonished when it doesn't work that way. "Oh! Some
places heat up more, others less, or actually don't heat up!" or "Oh! The
summers and winters don't change in the same way?"

Depressing.

~~~
usertaken
And some people refuse to give in when their theory was just disproven. Really
depressing.

~~~
usertaken
Why did the narrative change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?
Because you can't prove the climate changes. The climate has been changing
since the earth was created and it will continue to change. Can someone tell
me when Miami will be underwater like you tell me it will be? Give me a date
range...something specific. Since it's science and it can be "proven" then
someone should be able to tell me that. And if that date comes and goes and it
doesn't happen do you promise to back down or will you make up an excuse? Of
course you won't back down. You'll just tweak your theories. Until then why
take issue with taxing U.S. companies w/ carbon taxes or whatever you're
calling it nowadays and focus on the real carbon polluters....China, Latin
America?

~~~
csallen
You sound like you haven't ready any of the leading evidence or arguments for
climate change at all.

~~~
jotux
What's sad is 60 seconds of googling would point him to a paper answering the
exact question he believes cannot be answered:
[http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf](http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf)

>Analysis based on previously published relationships linking emissions to
warming and warming to rise indicates that unabated carbon emissions up to the
year 2100 would commit an eventual global sea-level rise of 4.3–9.9 m

~~~
usertaken
I've heard different years and that's why I bring it up....because the
"science" has been disagreeing on this point. Does this take into account the
emissions deal w/ China? Because that should push that figure out a couple
years or decades from that 2100 figure, no? How much? It's science.

Boils down to if you believe the authors are giving an unbiased viewpoint.
They receive funding from someone, no? Do those sources benefit from taxing
emissions?

~~~
jotux
[https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-
predictions....](https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-
predictions.htm)

------
rquantz
Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy has a good response to this story:
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarcti...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/11/03/antarctic_ice_still_losing_mass.html)

~~~
caseysoftware
What would it mean if this increase in ice was the beginning of a reversing
trend? Similar to how a company loses money for years and then loses less and
less and eventually turns a profit.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Profit analogy aside, its clear we are pushing the planet into different
operating realms. What is unclear is how it will respond. Contextually its
called "Global warming" because the planet gets warmer, but the _response_
could be a global glaciation. One of the early papers talked about increasing
atmospheric and ocean temperatures leading to massive amounts of snowfall.
(more moisture is held by the air and can be carried farther inland before
dumping) leading to layers of inland snow that freeze into ice (glaciers).

~~~
thaumaturgy
Do you have any links for this? That would be interesting reading.

------
tete
Really wild guess, but if Antarctica isn't the source of the rising ocean
wouldn't it make sense to consider the Arctic as source?

~~~
cjensen
Just to be clear: when floating sea ice melts, it does not change the ocean
level. Usually land-based Arctic ice is enumerated as Greenland and other
glaciers.

~~~
schiffern
>Just to be clear: when floating sea ice melts, it does not change the ocean
level.

Unless you consider thermal expansion due to albedo change. Sea ice is one of
the whitest surfaces on the planet, and open water one of the darkest.

------
jkot
There is another article claiming that ice albedo changes in Greenland are
caused by camera degradation over time:

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065912/full](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065912/full)

[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151030220525.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151030220525.htm)

~~~
madaxe_again
This one isn't based on albedo though - it's grace2 data - gravimetric - and
the paper is rigorous, even compensating for the minuscule crustal movement
due to ice mass shifts.

------
grayfox
Ah, phew. Let's start polluting again and de-vest in clean energies.

~~~
reitanqild
Na, know you are making a point here but let me jump off and make another
point:

If you want to brimg the Fox News audience along to reach the goal try talking
about conserving oil instead of talking about climate change.

A lot of people are deeply sceptical about agw without being neither stupid,
paid by big oil nor wanting to destroy this planet. Some of us like me even
want to stop using oil faster, -we just think this whole agw thing stinks fish
when we see politicians arriving in private jet planes to climate conferences.

So again stop trying to sell agw to the fox news crowd and try sell conserve
oil (for future generations or to be less dependent on the Saudis or whatever
.)

(Full disclosure : I work in renewable energy now and has worked in recycling
earlier and at some point I worked with communication and radar for oil and
gas companies, helping them to save tons of fuel although imo that doesn't
matter as it just meant more fuel to sell )

~~~
fooscience
>> If you want to brimg the Fox News audience along

>> to the fox news crowd

Are you suggesting the Fox news audience are a generalized group of people who
care nothing about the planet or the future?

~~~
thaumaturgy
I'll take the bait. Even if that were what he was suggesting, it wouldn't
necessarily be wrong.

Fox News is as politically biased as the worst of left-wing media. Part of its
bias is that "global warming remediation is bad for business". Emphasizing the
continued use of cheap fossil fuels over continued funding for renewable
energy R&D is a short-term strategy; it absolutely requires caring more about
the now than about the future.

There are probably lots of people with similar beliefs who don't watch Fox
News, and there are probably lots of Fox News viewers who don't share all the
same beliefs, but as a generalization, it's no more wrong than any of the
statements you see these days that includes the word "liberals".

------
intopieces
Let's be clear: mainstream client change deniers are not "scientific
skeptics." They are resistant to implement policies that upset the their
monetary interests. If we examine the intersection between people who be deny
evolution and people who deny anthropogenic climate change, this becomes
clear. There is room for skepticism regarding the details and appropriate
responses to climate change. There is no room for wholesale denial.

------
hellofunk
I can already see how this will play out on Fox News.

~~~
usertaken
And I can see how it will play on CNN and MSNBC....with virtually no coverage.
Bias plays both ways.

------
njharman
Bet ya this is some climate change science the right-wingers won't be denying.

