West Antarctica is melting fast!!!!...... OOPS!, never mind.

Need I say more?

Postglacial rebound is just one of the possible explanations to explain the vertical motion of bedrock of the West Antarctica. There are others. The Alps are still rising, portions of Yellowstone are rising and neither are do to ice loss. New Orleans is sinking but its not do to ice build up. Assumptions that support an agenda only convince those whose opinions have already been made or people that listen to talking point.

Overestimated? That's their method of operation. We can't blame alarmists for being inconsistent.

I see nothing in this report that confirms Greenland is losing ice mass at all.

"Postglacial rebound causes an increase in the gravitational attraction measured by the GRACE satellites and could explain their inferred measurements of recent, rapid ice loss in West Antarctica."

"WAGN researchers do not yet know how large the overestimation was."

Doesn't everyone love reports that mainly stress what they don't know... but continue to make sweeping statements and claims?? GK

Everything associated with AGW is overestimated - The heating effect of CO2, the additive feedbacks from what little warming is actually caused by CO2, sea level rise, actual surface temperatures, polar bear drownings, hurricanes ...

Brett,

Why no mention that antarctic ice loss for the most recent summer period is at a 30 year minimum? The data you quote is from 2006?????

Reply: I think you are talking about sea ice. This is the ice shelf.

Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:
A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008�2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980�2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Ni�o Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008�2009 melt season.

"Antarctica is contributing to rising sea levels, but that the rate is still unclear"

Translation: Nothing unusual happening here!

Seems to me I have seen that statement somwhere before. Hmmmmmmmm.

Even if it's true about ice loss in West Antarctica, it's not true that human CO2 emissions caused the ice loss, since CO2 can't physically ever have more than a very slight effect on atmospheric temperature. Furthermore, the atmosphere, were it to warm, would not heat the oceans. That's not how it works. The oceans are in control; they heat or cool the atmosphere. Since CO2 isn't the cause, then what is?

Western Antarctica has numerous volcanoes. Could volcanism contribute to warming/melting?

Have scientists determined how many undersea volcanoes or vents may be heating up local environments and contributing to perceived ice loss?

Could other factors such as naturally warming seas and shifting wind patterns possibly be contributing to ice loss?

The Antarctic continent comprises a massive area. The area that global warming/climate change alarmists focus on in Western Antarctica is tiny in comparison. It's like saying that Miami is warmer than normal for this time of the year so the rest of the U.S. must be warmer too, and it's all because I use a toaster oven and drive a truck. Nonsense.

"WAGN researchers do not yet know how large the overestimation was. A more definitive correction will be conducted by other researchers who specialize in interpreting GRACE data. Previous estimates of postglacial rebound were made with theoretical models. Assimilation of the direct GPS results into new models will therefore produce significant improvements in estimations of ice mass loss"
Theoretical models ... don't know how large the error was ... what is wrong with the science of climate change ... so often ( too often ) it is found that the science is all wrong & yet the faithful still claim to know the right answer ... and then they wonder why the skeptics remain skeptical!!

"The results of this study still suggest that Antarctica is contributing to rising sea levels, but that the rate is still unclear."

Note that the IPCC, conservative by nature, does not indicate that Antarctica is contributing to rising sea levels and does not project a significant contribution to sea level rise from the Antarctic ice sheets. This is mostly due to the prevailing uncertainties. More recent studies confirm the above - that Antarctica is a net contributor to sea level rise, something that could dramatically increase sea level rise projections. Here is an example of media trying to spin this into good news.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/the_australians_war_on_science_38.php

Fran Kelly: Today, some positive news. Rather than melting, the science shows that ice is expanding in much of Antarctica and that in parts is getting thicker. ...

Ian Allison: We have now new evidence that confirms that on average we are losing ice from both Greenland and Antarctica which is contributing to sea level ...

Kelly: ... but you found something that suggests its perhaps not as rapid a melt as we once thought. Can you tell us about what you've found, the difference in the East and West in Antarctica.

Allison: ... In East Antarctica there might be a slight increase due to increased snowfall. ... on average West Antarctica is losing more ice that the East is gaining

I see alot of talking (or hinting) about things other then the Antarctic ice sheet melting, or not melting. Lets stay focused and tone the rhetoric down people. Again, this is not the end all to the argument for or against global warming. Its one particular item to discuss.

Very basic prediction of AGW: As you warm the world the edge of the big ice caps (where it is close to freezing) will melt. At the same time the warmth in the middle of the ice where it is a long way below freezing will not melt any ice, but will allow the air to hold more moisture and result in increased snowfall.

And indeed melting at the edges (of the icesheets, not the sea ice which is growing in Anarctica) is exactly what we have been observing in Greenland and Antarctica.

As measuring both rates is difficult, there is still some genuine debate over whether the thickening in the middle is faster than the melting at the edge for Antarctica. But no matter whether the melt is currently slower or faster than the thickening, continued warming will push the melt zone further and further towards the pole and the snow accumulation zone will shrink further and further. Any guesses to how this will end?

"I see nothing in this report that confirms Greenland is losing ice mass at all."

I, of course meant Antarctic. GK

MarkB:

Interesting Spin.
However, nowhere do you or they indicate a time frame.

Since we know that the Antarctic Ice has been melting for at least 18000 years and recent melt is about average, it can be projected that sea levels will indeed rise to catastrophic hights but OH.... Say, the year 8500 or so.

Oh wait.
There will be another Ice age before the year 4500.

Never mind!.

The game is over get ready to shut down this year lost 20% support to 57% next year another 20% and finally by 2011 support for AGW = 0 get out while you can is my advice.
http://news.google.com.au/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=au&cf=all&ncl=dY_rUBuA67p-52Ms9qasm3ZBFNAYM
those promoting it (AGW) by fraud may be liable in the future if heavy useless costs are incurred on individuals or populations in general

I was on the USACE publications website looking for something and tripped over this recent USACE policy (July 2009)on evaluating the potential impact of sea level rise on projects: http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-circulars/ec1165-2-211/ec1165-2-211.pdf

It has interesting info on regional variability of measured sea level rise. Appendix B has a good discussion on the history of available sea level dat, including a good chart (Fig B-2) of the standard error in sea level trend measurements over different time periods.

USACE recommends that a measurement history of at least 40 years is necessary to get usable trends. They note that measurements taken over different 10-yr periods can even show differing directions of sea level change from one decadal period to another. It is also clear that the standard error does not start to go asymptotic at a low error level until you hot a history of about 80 years. This goes back to the point often discussed here that 30-years is a relatively short time-frame for evaluating climate related data sets.

I forgot to put this in my previous comment. This is more new USACE policy on "project datums" which are basically the vertical benchmarks for projects to define the elevations that structures are built to: http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-circulars/ec1110-2-6070/entire.pdf

This is basically the evaluation that they are doing in West Antarctica described above. If you don't know where your ground surface actually is and how it is changing, then it is vertically impossible to understand much else related to ice volumes and sea level change.

Project datum issues were a major issue during Hurricane Katrina. Many of the project datums were lower than believed because of subsidence of the Mississippi Delta among other reasons.

Is global warming real or fake? People need to ask this question. Start researching for yourself and make your own decision. Start with sites that are fair and balanced and move on from there. For an objective starting point, go here:
http://www.globalwarmingtrends.org

The more you know the more you know you don't know

Just how many "PEER REVIEWED" articles can any "science" publish and then have to retract...sorry revise their findings before you question the veracity of the entire field?
LOL The field of Climate studies is a JOKE.
WHY?
It is not a science but a fledgling field of study that wants Sooooo bad to be taken seriously but continues to allow CRAPPY Studies to be passed off as SCIENCE.
Allowing a fatally flawed "Peer review" process to continue to put their stamp of approval on garbage proves the process is not working.
It believes in making (sorry adjusting) the data until it fits the theory and using said nonsense to make wild unsubstantiated claims.

Just how many prognostications that turn into straight out prevarications does a rational thinking person need to read before realizing that this field is NOT A science but a means to a political agenda?
AGW and Climate studies is a FARCE!

MarkB posted...

Note that the IPCC, conservative by nature...

__________

No need to read the rest...all I'll say is thanks for giving me the best laugh I've had all day!

The Alps are still rising from the convergence of the African and Eurasian plates, so that's well understood. You're trying to create mystery where it doesn't exist. Vertical rebound is well-understood.

Here is an interesting warning about the potential for a tsunami hitting coastal communities on the Oregon coast. http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/10/22/US-tsunami-evacuation-buildings-proposed/UPI-37571256232296/

There are both far-away earthquakes and nearby earthquakes from the subduction faults along the Pacific Northwest coast (its why they have volcanoes there) that can cause these tsunamis.

Once again, everybody is bleating about a foot or two of sea level rise from global warming while very little attention is paid to these types of risks. The damage from a tsunami here would be something similar to a 1938 hurricane hitting the NJ-NY area again today.

In other Breaking News, Dog bites man.

"Rate of W. Antarctic Ice Sheet Loss Slightly Overestimated"

Yeah, instead of 6 ppm per year, +/- 5 ppm, the new estimate may be 4 ppm per year, +/- 5 ppm. Big deal.

Just more blathering about miniscule changes in total ice in the Antarctic.

RE: Comment #6, by Bill and the inline "correction" reply by Brett.

Bill means what he said -- record low snowmelt.

The sea ice around Antarctica continues to grow, but Bill is referring to a different metric.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/ is a blogpost with a link to the original peer-reviewed article in GRL; and some comments on how record low snowmelt receives little press while NASA in the past has gotten lots of press when announcing larger than normal snowmelts.

TO G.Karst.
I see nothing in this report that confirms Greenland is losing ice mass at all.

The report is about W. Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Geography 101, that's near the south pole.. not quite close to Greenland.

Or i really missed something.

Regg | October 23, 2009 10:57 PM

When I was writing my comment I was thinking that this error probably applies to Greenland as well. Sorry, if you became confused but the mistake was probably valid anyway. Thanks for your proof reading contribution. GK

Related...

"The authors conclude that this ‘dynamic thinning’ of glaciers now reaches all latitudes in Greenland, has intensified on key Antarctic coastlines, is penetrating far into the ice sheets’ interior and is spreading as ice shelves thin by ocean-driven melt. Ice shelf collapse has triggered particularly strong thinning that has endured for decades."

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=989

Study:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08471.html

Gary | October 22, 2009 9:45 PM --- Even baring AGW, the next attempt at a stade (massive ice sheets) would not be for another 20 to 30 thousand years.

Nature: "Dynamic thinning of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet ocean margins is more sensitive, pervasive, enduring and important than previously realized"
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/26/nature-dynamic-thinning-of-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-glacier/

the ice will start coming back, over the next 2 years south and north

so don't be happy,the earth is fixing it self,just wanted to let you now

Putting the recent Antarctic snowmelt minimum into context
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/putting-the-recent-antarctic-snowmelt-minimum-into-context/