Who says south pole ice is expanding at an "alarming" rate?

[thatguyoverthere]

http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/...reply&p=190516

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

...
Some polar caps are melting at an alarming rate, but others are expanding at an equally alarming rate, somethign the global warming enviro crowd doesn't mention.
...

No ice at the North Pole v.Santa can't swim

Originally Posted by JaJae

...
It's also important to note that while the glaciers are melting at the north pole they're expanding at the south pole at what some consider to be an alarming rate... for some reason we don't get sensationalized news stories about that though.

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Ice in the north pole is shrinking and ice in antartica is growing at an alarming rate, yet all the media focuses on is the north pole. Fantastic...

Who says Antarctic south pole ice is expanding at an alarming rate?

What are we expected to conclude from the fact that Antarctic ice is expanding at an alarming rate?

[JaJae]

I don't recall where I heard the exact word used. However it was in an article referencing to the fact that Antarctic ice contains most of the worlds glacier/ice and stating a predicted increase which in the grand scheme of things was a fairly radical change considering the sheer volume of ice.

Look at it this way, if roughly 15% or so (non-antarctic ice) is slowly melting compared to the massive Antarctic ice which is slowly increasing at let's say the same rate (I don't recall the rate suggested) the results on the global scale would be enormous in comparison. That was the point they were trying to make.

[nbiggershaft]

If I remember right the data I have seen supports this:



Red= expanding
Green = thickening
Blue = receding

And the support I have seen behind this is that there is increased snowfall due to warmer climate that is accumulating on the green area, so not really ice thickening, rather just the whole thing is getting thicker because the snow falls and doesn't melt. The blue is receding, lets say maybe due to global warming or techtonics movements, and the red is growing, who knows, lets say techtonic movements. Ultimately a much greater area is receding than growing, blue>>> red. But it doesn't look like water world is coming.

edit: now that I think about it red and blue may be switched

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Here's an image of the yearly rise in temperature from NASA:

[7960]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

If I remember right the data I have seen supports this:



Red= expanding
Green = thickening
Blue = receding

And the support I have seen behind this is that there is increased snowfall due to warmer climate that is accumulating on the green area, so not really ice thickening, rather just the whole thing is getting thicker because the snow falls and doesn't melt. The blue is receding, lets say maybe due to global warming or techtonics movements, and the red is growing, who knows, lets say techtonic movements. Ultimately a much greater area is receding than growing, blue>>> red. But it doesn't look like water world is coming.

edit: now that I think about it red and blue may be switched

you're saying techtonics but I think the answer is actually global currents. as water warms/cools in different places the currents are changing which is changing a whole bunch of stuff.

Global Warming May Alter Atlantic Currents, Study Says

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by 7960

you're saying techtonics but I think the answer is actually global currents. as water warms/cools in different places the currents are changing which is changing a whole bunch of stuff.

Global Warming May Alter Atlantic Currents, Study Says

Day After Tomorrow

[C4Casey]

Day After Tomorrow

No, Global Warming will strike two days before the day after tomorrow

wait a minute...Oh My God, That's Today!

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I don't recall where I heard the exact word used. However it was in an article referencing to the fact that Antarctic ice contains most of the worlds glacier/ice and stating a predicted increase which in the grand scheme of things was a fairly radical change considering the sheer volume of ice.

Are you sure that you saw someone characterize the Antarctic ice as expanding at an "alarming" rate? I've searched all over the net and I can't find one example.

Additionally, I've contacted four scientists, one of them from NASA, and asked them directly if the expansion of Antarctic ice could be characterized as alarming. None of the four scientists that responded to me would characterize the growth of Antarctic ice as alarming. In fact, the NASA scientist said that the expansion probably wouldn't continue for much longer.

Maybe 6Speed will know, since he said the same thing that you did.

If someone says that Antarctic ice is expanding at an alarming rate, I'd like to see it. If no one is saying that Antarctic ice is expanding at an alarming rate, I'd like to understand why you and 6Speed would say that they did. I'm very curious about this, and I hope you'll help me understand. Thanks in advance.

Additionally, what did you want people to infer when confronted with the fact that Antarctic ice is expanding at an alarming rate? What conclusions about anthropogenic climate change do you think that people should be drawing after being told that south pole ice is expanding at an alarming rate?

Originally Posted by JaJae

Look at it this way, if roughly 15% or so (non-antarctic ice) is slowly melting compared to the massive Antarctic ice which is slowly increasing at let's say the same rate (I don't recall the rate suggested) the results on the global scale would be enormous in comparison. That was the point they were trying to make.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. What enormous global scale results?

Also, it appears that Antarctic sea ice doesn't seem to be increasing at anywhere near the same rate as Arctic ice is decreasing. From what I understand, Arctic ice has been decreasing at about a rate of approx. 45,000 square kilometers per year since the 1970's, and Antarctic sea ice has been expanding at a much lesser rate of roughly 11,500 square kilometers in the same time frame.

How can you accept conclusions based upon the assumption that ice is increasing and decreasing at the same rate when it's not even close?

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I'm very curious about this, and I hope you'll help me understand. Thanks in advance.

Looks like I was a little premature for thanking in advance! I was genuinely curious, and was hoping for some insight into the thought processes being used, but I guess that's way too much to ask.

As much as I hate to arrive at a conclusion before the opposing side has fully explained their position, I guess that I'll have to, since those who have claimed that Antarctic sea ice is declining at an alarming rate have declined to clarify or to cite sources for their comments when given plenty of time to do so.

There is no scientific source that claims that Antarctic ice is expanding at an alarming rate. By saying that they are, both JaJae and 6Speed have engaged in dishonest, alarmist propaganda, and from now on each and every one of their scientific claims regarding climate change should be regarded as highly suspect.

I just wonder, what do they think gives them the right to be so intellectually dishonest when discussing the issue? I can't be the only one wondering that. They seemed to assume that they can make the false assertion that some say Antarctic ice is expanding at an alarming rate, and not expect anyone to ever question them on it.

Sad, really. I guess it's partly my fault for giving them the benefit of the doubt. It appears that global warming deniers can't engage in an honest give and take discussion. For them, it seems ideology trumps reason.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I just wonder, what do they think gives them the right to be so intellectually dishonest when discussing the issue? I can't be the only one wondering that. They seemed to assume that they can make the false assertion that some say Antarctic ice is expanding at an alarming rate, and not expect anyone to ever question them on it.

You're not the only one. I even have questions on the very statement, not just the underlying evidence. What makes it "alarming" and according to whom? That statement is far too subjective.

Sad, really. I guess it's partly my fault for giving them the benefit of the doubt. It appears that global warming deniers can't engage in an honest give and take discussion. For them, it seems ideology trumps reason.

Most opposition to the scientific consensus of climate change is ideologically driven.

[motivez]

I've heard people repeat this several times in recent days, anyone have any idea where this thing originated?

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by motivez

I've heard people repeat this several times in recent days, anyone have any idea where this thing originated?

Nope, and those that say it refuse to say where they got it from. I'm surprised they think they can just make stuff up and not be called on it, but that's the way it is.

[Sir John]

This is a reality, contact the National Wildlife Federation about the dying off of the polar bears.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Sir John

This is a reality, contact the National Wildlife Federation about the dying off of the polar bears.

I don't have their number. How about you link to a credible story on the issue, because the articles I keep reading are all sensationalist pieces of shit.

[Sir John]

National Geographic has done tremendous research on this issue.

[7960]

Originally Posted by sir john

national geographic has done tremendous research on this issue.

THEN LINK TO IT

Yet, the WWF report itself found that most bear populations are either stable or increasing (see page 9 of the report (this is a PDF)). And remember, polar bears evidently survived when Arctic temperatures were warmer 6000 years ago. Of course, if predictions that the entire Arctic Ocean will be ice free in 100 year turn out to be right, then the polar bears will have a problem.

An Inconvenient Truth: Gore as climate exaggerator - Reason Magazine

[ricardofuatues]

The answer to this is basic climate science which (used to be) taught to school children.

The North Pole is a water mass. The South Pole is a land mass. Basic fact- oceans cool and warm at a much slower rate than land. Thus, the oceanic temperatures (especially deep oceans) are a poorer indicator of current temperature trends than land masses.

The present increased shrinking of the arctic ice cap during summer melting does reflect a global warming trend. One which began in 1975 and ended in 1998. However, the antartic ice cap more closely mirrored that global warming period, decreasing by about 1.8% during the period 1980-1998.

Since 1998, global tempertures have cooled. As a result, antartic ice has begun once again to expand, demonstrating the tendancy of the southern polar ice cap to align itself with current trends. By contrast, the oceans are still warm after a period of warming, and so the current arctic melting retreat reflects that prior warming trend.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ricardofuatues

Since 1998, global tempertures have cooled.

Huh?

[ricardofuatues]

This one shows the recent trend I mentioned. Temperatures have not cooled to anywhere near the pre-1970s levels shown in the above graph during which antartic ice retreated, nor has the ice returned to anywhere near those levels. But the trend has slowly gone the other way in recent years. It may be an anomaly (wrapped up in an anomoly) in a period of overall warming, and once that warming resumes so too will the antartic ice resume its retreat because, as I mentioned above, it is aligned to actual temperature changes. Arctic oceanic ice-pack exhibits a lag-time in its response to global temperatures (about 20-30 years) and the slower warming / cooling of the oceans means that arctic ice is less subject to anomalies such as the one currently being experienced.