This is a big chunk of grounded ice, and has been under study. I draw your attention to: “Sustained increase in ice discharge from the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica, from 1973 to 2013” Geophysical Research Letters 41: 1576–1584. DOI: 10.1002/2013GL059069 It says that ice-loss rates are increasing, hit the street on 5 March, and the full report is available in all the normal ways. Rather than delve into details yet, I want you to imagine that you are (a) a blogger in the employ of Heartland or Koch, or just enthusiastically volunteering in that direction, or (b) a blogger in the employ of Realclimate or Skeptical Science, or just enthusiastically volunteering in that direction. So whaddyagonnado? If (b) just say ”We already knew this to be a sensitive area deserving close attention, it appears to be accelerating, deserves continued close attention, and even loss of the entire WAIS would only increase sea level by (insert reasonable number) centimeters”. Not so hard. However, if (a) your work is much harder. You would first assail data related the current range of sea-level rise with standard, discredited blog talk. This is easy but not enough. You also need to show (at least say) that Mouginot and co authors have used bad data, or have done bad analyses, or are befuddled by the huge grants they will later obtain by simply “saying so”, and that the GRL editors and reviewers are complicit or perhaps just simple minded. Not nearly as smart and neutral as you. That altogether looks like a BIG JOB, and I hope you set aside a lot of time for the work. Of course there is also (c), don’t know and don’t care. By no means is this the only study of WAIS dynamics. But, because it paints such a clear picture I expect it to draw criticism. From elsewhere, support. But the difference in work required for (a) and (b) are large and (IMHO) getting larger. This might be the future of internet climate-change discussions. We’ll see. Better still to hope that the WAIS finds a way to throw down an anchor.
I'm a little more interested in Arctic and lower latitude glaciers. The Arctic because it has commercial impacts and lower latitude glaciers because I understand they have a watershed effects that impact humans like my west coast relatives. As for sea level, it will take care of itself. North Carolina passed a law that their coastal sea level is not rising and I'm amused. Of course I live 600 ft. above sea level and about 450 miles from the nearest coasts. Bob Wilson
Um, not much glacial contribution to western US hydrology. That's an Asia and S. Amer. thing Even if the WAIS undergoes heavy loss, the Southern Ocean will still ice up every year. So fishing and 'tourist vessels' should proceed with caution. First detail from this study is that it did not use GRACE. This may be a test/confirmation/disagreement to consider later. Second is that there are many looks at Antarctic mass balance. Maybe we'll get a new review of the entire continent's mass balance one of these days. I think it's interesting because (a) it is the largest non-saline water box on earth (b) it is changing (regionally, and with spatial and temporal variability) (c) the long ice cores are libraries we are still learning to read (d) under all that ice there appear to be vast mineral resources -perhaps it will be 'dig baby dig' or perhaps cooler heads will prevail.
Really the opposite voice to Realclimate is the more popular wattsupwiththat. Neither seems to have picked this up. In their last posts about WAIS Realclimate seemed to say see its accelerating even faster than we predicted. In its last post on WAIS WUWT talked about there being no consensus on how fast that its melting and its only adding around 10% to global sea level rise. Now Heartland I don't read, but they probably are saying its growing (surface area). Its opposite radical environmental groups grey liturature seem to be following Hanson's theory that its melt is increasing exponetially which will lead to rapid sea level rise (see illustration in inconvient truth). How Environmentalists Created the Koch Brothers, and How the Heartland Institute Radicalized Environmentalists | Bill Shireman To me the new study helps understand how fast they are calving, which seems within the uncertainty. Maybe it will help us zero in on the rate, but this will probably take another decade of studies given the natural variation of the melt. Our 98% confidence range should be smaller today then before the study though. Its an easy job, its just that only your supporters will believe you, and they make it harder for the rest of us. Neither side needs science they have belief. You would think that they would at least mention grace, and how agreement/disagreement would depend on measurement methods, and if these can be improved.
