This is a copy of the article here as articles that disprove global warming have had a tendency to disappear.

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

A new NASA study says that Antarctica is overall accumulating ice. Still, areas of the continent, like the Antarctic Peninsula photographed above, have increased their mass loss in the last decades.

Credits: NASA’s Operation IceBridge

Map showing the rates of mass changes from ICESat 2003-2008 over Antarctica. Sums are for all of Antarctica: East Antarctica (EA, 2-17); interior West Antarctica (WA2, 1, 18, 19, and 23); coastal West Antarctica (WA1, 20-21); and the Antarctic Peninsula (24-27). A gigaton (Gt) corresponds to a billion metric tons, or 1.1 billion U.S. tons.

Credits: Jay Zwally/ Journal of Glaciology

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.
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.
“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “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.”
Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
The study analyzed 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.
Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that 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.
“At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.
The 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 centimeters) 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.
Zwally’s team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
“The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica,” said Ben Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally’s study.
“Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to be done independently to understand what’s happening in these places,” Smith said.
To help accurately measure changes in Antarctica, NASA is developing the successor to the ICESat mission, ICESat-2, which is scheduled to launch in 2018. “ICESat-2 will measure changes in the ice sheet within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil,” said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. “It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica’s mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes.”

This has got to be one of the biggest joke articles seen on climate. The title reads: The Growing Republican Rift Over Climate Change
but knowing De Smug, I just knew it would be a load of carp, but little did I realise what a cart load of carp it was:

11 Republican Representatives have put forward a resolution, H. Res. 424, “Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to conservative environmental stewardship,”

So, something that almost every sceptic I know would be willing to sign (as long as people like De Smug had no involvement), amounts to a “rift”. Next they’ll be saying that unless they all have Xmas together it will be a “rift” – or that unless they share wives and children, it’s a “rift”. Maybe worst of all – sharing toothbrushes! What jokers!
And compare their joked up “rift”, to the real rift of the whistle blowers at NOAA, and the way one side of NASA are saying the Antarctic ice is growing whilst the other fabricates warming. Compare it to the growing number of academics who are coming out in support of the science and sceptics.

As I watch the poor deluded greens and ecos talking about COP21, it is becoming more and more obvious to me that they are just being used by those attending cop21. Even at a very modest ~£30,000 salary for each attendee, the total cost of those employed is ~£1,000,0000,000/yr, when added to the cost of putting on COP which is estimated at another ~£1,000,000,000/yr this cost of this charade is far more than any commitments.

Green really does equal gullible!

The world has in effect created a monster consuming £1billion a year – and all it need do, to keep the pig swill coming, for those with their snouts in the trough attending year after year, is for them to proclaim how serious “the problem” is year after year, to tell the world how useful their contribution to solving “the problem” has been year after year, and how necessary it is for them to all attend next year. And every year it’s the same!
And so long as they don’t seriously suggest anything tangible or costly, global politicians appear more than happy to play along with the sham to get a few “green=gullible” votes.
But now it’s in no one’s interest to admit the truth. Those attending don’t want to give up these yearly free holidays. Politicians don’t want to admit that there is no real money on the table. The eco activists don’t want to hear any talk of failure – so who is going to tell them that these climate talks have been, and always will be, a total failure. Nothing will ever be achieved except a few non-binding commitments that are then broken or a few bungs of cash – which certainly were already earmarked in other budgets.
This cop-monster is nothing but “green-wash” – allowing politicians who are far from green to have a world stage every year in where they are ritually “green-washed” by the acclamation of the idiots greens too foolish and gullible to know they are just being used to kid a diminishing number of green=gullible voters or activists back home.

When I first coined the term “the pause” back in 2007, it was an attempt to include in Wikipedia article on “Global Warming” a section comparing forecasts with actual results.
Then came Climategate – whereby the world got to see inside the corrupt arena of climate for the first time and no one was happy with what they saw. That didn’t stop the corruption, but it certainly did force them to be more circumspect as they knew they were being watched. As a result we had around 5 years in which the reported “temperature” from the human-adjusted metrics could not be so easily changed, it started to diverge massively from their (failed) predictions.
Finally, after I began winning the online duals time and time again by asking them to show me one single temperature series that had warmed as predicted (which they could not) … it seems they had had enough. And once we sceptics won the debate on the pause, they then had little choice but to introduce the new totally bogus, fabricated temperatures  – ones which are so far from reality, that they are not supported by the satellites, by growing Antarctic ice, by the normal levels of global sea ice, or even Greenland surface ice (which has grown since 1990).
However, whilst we sceptics know these surface temperatures are bogus, we lacked something that could take it to the next stage which is a legal case. Because whilst Tony from Steven Goddard has done a sterling job highlighting the numerous stations with “unaccountable” adjustments, as a heating engineer – even though it’s not that difficult to detect these adjustments – a judge with no knowledge would be presented with a heating engineer and supposedly “the greatest climate ‘scientists'”. So most judges would be reluctant to convict without a similarly statused expert for us sceptics. But now that has changed:

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
See more at: NoTricksZone

As NASA gets huge amounts of money off the back of this work and as those involved benefit hugely from this work, this evidence of falsifying the data appears to amount to proof of fraud. So, no doubt the Congressional hearings into NOAAgate will now be able to look at NASA as well as NOAA.

Strange what you see on the internet:

And sure enough when I looked at (un)realclimate.org I found:

…. More than likely it’s just another one of those Chinese hackers or he’s done what I did with one of my sites and forget to renew the domain name!

A great take down of the PC hatred and intolerance of the BBC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=184&v=ag3GF2sfkiA

Large Mug 20 Oz Large Ceramic Coffee Mug by ScottishSceptic
View other Climate Mugs

VISIT SHOP TO SEE OTHER PRODUCTS

NOAAgate is about to erupt as NOAA officials are confronted with the evidence proving that the reason they illegally and unconstitutionally refused to abide by the Congressional subpoena. And that they broke the law because they had both been instructed to fabricate research “proving” the pause did not exist and presumably also to hamper the inquiry.
More importantly, that smoking gun appears to come from the “Whitehouse window”. Which means the trail leads to Obama. We have yet to see how closely NOAAgate will involve Obama himself, but it is almost certain it will show Democrat interference in NOAA, in the global temperature, and that “science” was being corrupted to fit a democratic political agenda.
Except for two things, this might have remained a minor spat about science:

1. Obama had made a tenet of Democrat policy that the world was ending in doomsday warming, had led a campaign viciously and maliciously attacking republicans who dared to investigate or comment, had misled those like the Pope (who are now looking foolish & misguided), and basically held a gun to the US public and said: “if you don’t vote Democrat you are siding with evil climate deniers”. That is tantamount to racketeering or at least using false “evidence” to arm-twist voters to wrongly support the Democrats.
2. Obama has repeatedly bypassed the constitution, by for example throwing the dictionary out the window and redefining the word “pollution” to mean “plant food”. This meant laws intended for real pollutants could now be used for any “unwanted substance” from CO2, to water, to traffic, to overpopulation – anything could be redefined as “pollution” and left to Presidential decree. And CO2 wasn’t the only issue where he bypassed the constitution. There is immigration, on gun control**and no doubt that are many other ways he has been subverting the US constitution to gain “monarchical” power by decree.

So firstly, NOAAgate will expose the lie being used to force people to vote Democrat, and secondly it will show that Obama’s monarchical power grab was not only against the US constitution, but it was wholly unwarranted.
If you add to that, the pathetic “ISIS have been contained” speech the day before Paris, the illegal use of personal computers and destruction of emails by Clinton, NOAAgate is going to make the Democrats unelectable.

The Next President of the US

Continue reading →

In the Washington times there is another article on NOAAgate. What is important is not what the title suggests: Congressman now threatens to subpoena commerce secretary over global warming report instead it’s this first paragraph:

saying a groundbreaking global warming study was “rushed to publication” over the objections of numerous scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration … Smith says whistleblowers have come forward with new information on the climate study’s path to publication in June …. Whistleblowers have told the committee, according to Smith’s letter, that Thomas Karl — the director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, which led the study — “rushed” to publish the climate study “before all appropriate reviews of the underlying science and new methodologies” used in the climate data sets were conducted.

OK, I can now say, I already knew pretty well, that Lamar had been contacted (I didn’t want to suggest it because I assumed he was going to ambush them at the investigation). So, what appears to have happened is that NOAA now know that Lamar knows they are lying.
But this clearly shows that Lamar was not on a fishing trip trying to find evidence, he already had evidence and thus it would seem to me that those refusing the subpoena did so for illegal reasons and are no open to prosecution.
(Hence the time preparing the #NOAAgate hashtag ready for the scandal to break)