The article discusses ice flux – or the rate of ice addition to ice subtraction. Some ice is added in the form of snowfall, while some ice is subtracted (usually at the edges). One must be careful when reading the article to understand precisely what is being discussed. The issue is not overall ice loss, it is the rate of ice flux.

What Eric clearly says is that there is basically a zero flux in the eastern part of Antarctica (meaning that ice loss is balanced by ice addition.

In western Antarctica, there is increasing ice flux due to increased acceleration of some of the glaciers.

As Eric explains:

“Mass losses in the Amundsen Sea and the northern Peninsula are caused by ongoing acceleration, not by a change in snowfall because snowfall increased in 1980–2004, especially in the Peninsula. Fast flow is explained by the ungrounding of glaciers owing to the thinning or collapse of their buttressing ice shelves6 or to a reduction in backforce resistance at the ice front as glacier fronts thin because of warmer air or warmer ocean temperatures.”

But when you look at the global anomaly maps, it is clear that there is a local warming trend which would be the cause of mass loss in that portion of the Antarctic.

But one cannot infer that all of Antarctica is going to melt. Indeed, Eric clearly states that there is no loss in east Antarctica, and there has been increased snow fall during the study period.

Furthermore, it must be noted that 2007 was the highest level of Antarctic sea ice extent (almost 2,000,000 square miles above the mean) http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/ cryosphere/ IMAGES/ current.anom.south.jpg

If one looks at the anomaly trend, the ice appears to be slightly *increasing* since about 1990.

So, while there is increased ice loss in certain areas, there is also increased ice addition (through increased snowfall), and in some parts, no net ice loss at all.

[JR: You are mixing apples [ice mass] with oranges [sea ice]. The article is quite clear — as is Rignot (and others) more recently — that Antarctica is losing significant net ice mass some 100 years faster than the climate models said they would.]

I do believe that you’re right that the interior of Greenland under the ice is 300 feet below sea level…

That scares the H*** out of me, because I read quite a long time ago that the interior is being depressed by the weight of the ice on top.

What will happen as the ice melts? Will the land not rise? The resultant earthquakes and increased ice flow downslope to the ocean could be disastrous, with Tsunamius and rapid sea level rise…

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21204

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Is is very entertaining reading the “sound science” comments critiqing the science of global warming. Our president would certainly agree. Good to have such scientific expertise weigh in on your side, Bob and Peter.

Do you have any knowledge regarding my questioning the use of Mercator projection distorting models and peoples perceptions?
Is anything I stated about the flimsy data pre satellite era regarding the temperature grid incorrect?
Obviously I’ m on the other side of the aisle when it comes to political issues (Most people that work for government naturally think more government is better–People that pay for government treat it like the weed it is and constantly fight to reduce it), but we ought to be able to come to the same conclusion from the same set of complete science facts.
Face it you missed the mark on the rate of ice gain(loss) of Antarctica. Just how did those 200000 year old ice cores make through the last warm period? I expect more rigor from a MIT grad with a doctorate in Physics. Again I welcome any correction of fact, method, or any other relevant area, but no dogma please.