The Other Half Of The Big Antarctica Lie

This is big. Bookmark it.

“It has nothing to do with climate”

Last week, NASA announced that the IPCC is wrong about East Antarctica, which is gaining ice, not losing it.

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.

Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”  Zwally added that his team “measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas.

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

It didn’t require millions of dollars to figure this out. Researchers in East Antarctica have known for decades that they are gaining ice. The fact the IPCC (and John Cook) didn’t know, is a smoking gun of extreme incompetence and corruption.


But the fraud is much worse than it seems. The claimed “collapse of the west Antarctic Ice Sheet was occurring during the cold 1970’s, and scientists knew that it had nothing to do with climate.

“We’re seeing the west ice sheet on its way out. It has nothing to do with climate, just the dynamics of unstable ice.” 
– Dr. Richard Cameron
NSF Program Manager for Glaciology


23 Jan 1977, Page 13 

This story of Antarctic fraud gets much worse though. The Ross Ice Shelf in West Antarctica has been rapidly retreating more than four feet per day since at least 1830, and possibly for centuries. It has nothing to do with CO2, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

ScreenHunter_2820 Sep. 01 05.17

21 Jul 1932 – A Warmer World.

But just when you think this story of fraud and corruption at the IPCC can’t get any worse, it does. Eight years ago, the IPCC knew that Antarctica was gaining ice.


10.6.5 Projections of Global Average Sea Level Change for the 21st Century – AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections

They changed their story in 2013 under extreme pressure from governments, which cut almost all of the scientists out of the process.



Top climate expert’s sensational claim of government meddling in crucial UN report | Daily Mail Online

You can’t make this stuff up. it is straight out of Orwell’s 1984. Only worse.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Other Half Of The Big Antarctica Lie

  1. tomwys1 says:

    Professor Stavins rowboat has a new passenger – Philippe Verdier

    • Steve Case says:

      I was in France when that happened a few weeks ago, and I was able to conduct my own mini opinion survey. Either they hadn’t heard about it or they did and were concerned about the right to free speech.

  2. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:

  3. Steve Case says:

    Thank you for posting Table 10.7 from the IPCC’s AR4 report (-: Yes in all six scenarios Antarctica contributes negatively to sea level rise out to 2100. So far I haven’t seen this factoid in the IPCC’s AR5 report. It must be disguised and well slathered with academic gobbledygook or just plain missing.

    I am pleased to see this blog address sea level rise. I think it’s the biggest scare they have and it must trouble them that it isn’t increasing like they want it to. In fact since the satellites have gone up the rate of sea level rise has slowed some. That is to say it shows negative acceleration.
    This link

    Click to access 04%20Nerem%20ostst_2011_nerem.pdf

    is a few years old now, but the negative accelreation that Dr. R. Steve Nerem was complaining about continues. Scroll down to the last page in the pdf to see an unfettered illustration.

  4. daveburton says:

    It is not clear whether the net ice/water flux in Antarctica is negative or positive. Ice accumulation and loss are very, very close to being in balance there.

    Based on GRACE, Shepherd 2012 concluded that Antarctica ice mass change since 1992 has averaged -71 +/- 83 Gt/yr, which means they couldn’t tell whether it’s actually gaining or losing ice mass.

    Based on ICESat, Zwally 2012 found that Antarctica is gaining ice mass: +27 to +59 Gt/yr (over five years), or +70 to +170 Gt/yr (over 19 years). Ref:

    Based on CryoSat, McMillan (2014) found Antarctica is losing 79 to 241 Gt/yr of ice, though that’s based on only 3 years of data.

    A few days ago, this latest NASA study reported that Antarctica is gaining 82 Gt of ice per year.

    The range from those various studies, with error bars, is from +170 Gt/yr to -241 Gt/yr, which is equivalent to just +0.47 to -0.67 mm/yr sea-level change. That’s equivalent to less than 3 inches of sea-level change per century.

    In other words, although we don’t know whether Antarctica is gaining or losing ice, we do know the rate, either way, is so tiny that it’s having a negligible effect on sea-level.

    More importantly, there’s no indication that increased GHG levels have caused an increase in the rate of grounded ice loss from the world’s ice sheets. The rate of sea-level rise hasn’t increased in over eighty years, in spite of an increase in average CO2 level from 0.03% eighty years ago to 0.04% of the atmosphere today.

    • The East Antarctic ice sheet is gaining mass, which is the topic of this post.

    • DD More says:

      I’ll go with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner’s data and studies, or are you using pre 2003 data before the adjustment?

      So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.
      Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend
      Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

      That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!

  5. sfx2020 says:

    Unlike in the 1984 world, pointing out things now won’t get you arrested.

    Fired, maybe. But not arrested.

    • Gail Combs says:

      SO Far……
      An attorney asks: Are Climate Skeptics Legally Liable for Criminal Negligence?

      Aussie government proposes unlimited speech regulation, names climate skeptics and Labor critics as targets Jo Nova has to do much more censorship than Steven does because of this.

      Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change ‘Deniers’

      US academics asking for prosecution of those questioning consensus climate science under the RICO legislation: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

      The UK Guardian World Court should rule on climate science to quash sceptics: International Court of Justice ruling would settle the scientific dispute and pave the way for future legal cases on climate change

      Medicalization attempts of climate skeptics by psychiatry professionals

      The last is the one that is so very dangerous since it can be used to ‘jail you’ in an institution and ruin your employment prospects for life.

      I have looked into it and one nurse warned not to talk about politically sensitive issues or you will end up under psychiatric care. She said she was required to report such conversations. Birthers and 9-11 truthers are already targets so it would be very easy to add us to the list.

      Alexander Feht had a good comment on this a few years ago at WUWT

      June 20, 2013 at 12:03 am

      In the twentieth century, systematic political abuse of psychiatry took place in the Soviet Union.[1] Psychiatry was used as a tool during the reign of Leonid Brezhnev to eliminate political opponents (“dissidents”) who openly expressed views that contradicted official dogma.[2] The term “philosophical intoxication” was widely used to diagnose mental disorders in cases where people disagreed with leaders and criticized them using the writings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin.

      First two sentences in this Wikipedia paragraph are true. The last one shows, again, how people who grew up in the West totally misunderstand what was going on in the USSR.

      It had almost nothing to do with “the writings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin,” to which even “leaders” themselves gave no more than a lip service. Political abuse of psychiatry was just a tool of oppression, used by the gangsters-in-power against anybody who said or did anything undesirable; practical things, not ideological or philosophical, were given the most attention.

      Protesting the corruption, refusing to serve in the Soviet Army, refusing to sign a letter supporting Nelson Mandela, refusing to pay your 1 ruble into the legal fund of Angela Davis, going against some crazy government’s project (like turning great Siberian rivers to Central Asian deserts by using nuclear explosions), telling political jokes in public, not attending a street rally on May 1st, expressing doubts in the sanity of senile Kremlin rulers, refusing to join Young Communists Union (Komsomol), or even simply expressing an outrage at not being able to find anything edible in the food store — would get you threatened with a seclusion in a mental hospital. If you persisted in being different, and did not shut up, they would diagnose you as mentally ill and “treat” you with special “medications” until you really became mentally ill.

      One of my childhood friends ended up this way, and I barely escaped the same fate. In the society of slaves, if you are different (not a happy slave), you are not normal, therefore mentally ill. It is that simple. Marx, Engels, and Lenin are just names that have nothing to do with the substance of the problem. These names could easily be Keynes, Hansen, and Obama, as far as we are now concerned, the U.S. being almost indistinguishable from Venezuela these days.

      An article by Phillipa Martyr who sums up Gramscian Marxism in Quadrant is good too.

      How is the Green movement ‘watermelonish’? Because it uses tactics of social engineering that were pioneered by socialism over a hundred years ago and refined throughout a century of totalitarianism. You take an innocuous term like ‘sustainability’ and make sure that what you mean by ‘sustainable’ is completely different from everyone else’s idea, and you thus happily recruit people who would in fact be diametrically opposed to you if they had the faintest idea what you were really talking about. You infiltrate and eventually control what Delingpole calls the ‘heavy weaponry’ of the cultural wars: the schools, the universities, the media, the publishing companies. Eventually, as one of his questioners put it, you oversee the pathologising of ‘denialism’, so that those who disagree with the prevailing wisdom are marginalised and branded as mentally unstable.”

      Think about it.

      We can no longer use the N-gg-r word or it’s more polite form. It is now more acceptable to use the word f–ck, b–tch, or what ever, and is now common place on the radio in songs. Sports teams are having to change their names. General Lee’s battle flag is cause for ‘Political Action’ and removal.

      Free speech? You have to be kifdding!

  6. ducdorleans says:

    Steven, as always, great finds, and logic of steel …

    thanks !

  7. HarpoSpoke says:

    I couldn’t believe NASA would actually say the IPCC was wrong. So I wasn’t surprised to see them cover all the bases with the “Well….in 30 years the trend could reverse” bit. Doomsayers will cling to that part and ignore the rest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s