The Arctic Is Losing Ice while the Antarctic Is Gaining Ice. Why?

[flogger]

I have.

Antarctic sea ice volume is not smashing any records. It has increased somewhat, although not nearly as much as arctic ice has diminished.

Short version of a long discussion: it is very clear that global ice volume is decreasing significantly.

So you read those studies and the Cryosat info in the couple of minutes since your last post

Impressive stuff ! :roll:

But I thought you were trying to claim Antarctic volume had actually decreased ? You even started a thread to that effect

 

[gslack]

I have.

Antarctic sea ice volume is not smashing any records. It has increased somewhat, although not nearly as much as arctic ice has diminished.

Short version of a long discussion: it is very clear that global ice volume is decreasing significantly.

LOL, nice backpedal dude.. Increased somewhat? It's increased, and if it has increased it can't very well be decreasing which was your previous tune..It's increased in volume as well as coverage, thanks...

 

[Fisher]

I have.

Antarctic sea ice volume is not smashing any records. It has increased somewhat, although not nearly as much as arctic ice has diminished.

Short version of a long discussion: it is very clear that global ice volume is decreasing significantly.

The arctic is suffering from tropospheric ozone depletion events that are unrelated to human activity, but the sea meadows make it kind of worth it.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The Antarctic temperatures are highly variable, whos to say todays conditions havent often been the norm during other heating/cooling phases post glaciation . The plain fact is we just dont know.

Ice Cores

Correct, and when those variable temperatures are consistently below freezing, no matter how far below, the thickening of the ice sheets depends not on temperature, but on precipitation.

 

[flogger]

Correct, and when those variable temperatures are consistently below freezing, no matter how far below, the thickening of the ice sheets depends not on temperature, but on precipitation.

Until we know more about past precedents theres no reason to call this out as something other than a normal natural variation be it increasing or decreasing

 

[Lord of Planar]

The last year or two is cut off of all your graphs. If sea ice returns then there was no downward trend, it's probably part of a cycle. You just choose to ignore the last years.

The climate models are all rubbish, so no one can predict what will happen next year or explain why the ice came back this year.

1979 is the starting year because that's when satellite measurements were started. Before that measurments of sea ice extent were very inexact. We don't know exactly what the natural variablity was before that. (Your last graph is pure BS.) It could be that the current changes fall within that range.

Not only that, but there is no reliable data before the 80's. It's all just an educated guess, but less educated in those earlier years.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The Antarctic temperatures are highly variable, whos to say todays conditions havent often been the norm during other heating/cooling phases post glaciation . The plain fact is we just dont know.

Ice Cores

Don't forget geothermal variations. This variable doesn't exist at the Norther ice cap.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Until we know more about past precedents theres no reason to call this out as something other than a normal natural variation be it increasing or decreasing

Correct.

So, why bring it up a evidence that global warming isn't real?

 

[flogger]

Correct.

So, why bring it up a evidence that global warming isn't real?

Both global warming and cooling are real and always have been . Its the alleged human component claimed to drive it that isnt sustainable

 

[Dittohead not!]

Both global warming and cooling are real. Its the human component claimed to drive it that isnt

I see.

And whether the Arctic or Antarctic is losing or gaining ice relates to the human component, how again?

 

[flogger]

I see.

And whether the Arctic or Antarctic is losing or gaining ice relates to the human component, how again?

Go figure ? I dont support the current agenda claiming that it ever has

 

[Dittohead not!]

Go figure ? I dont support the current agenda claiming that it ever has

Then this thread is not about AGW at all, is it?

 

[flogger]

Then this thread is not about AGW at all, is it?

Correct . Though many in the past here have tried to use such poorly understood phenomena to advance that agenda especially with Arctic fluctuations

 

[Dittohead not!]

Correct . Though many in the past here have tried to use such poorly understood phenomena to advance that agenda especially with Arctic fluctuations

Yes, they have, on both sides of the argument. The opening post starts out with a debate about AGW, and yet the subject is not about that at all.

 

[flogger]

Yes, they have, on both sides of the argument. The opening post starts out with a debate about AGW, and yet the subject is not about that at all.

Would anyone remotely care about the icecaps and what they were doing were it not for the AGW agenda ? It would simply be a subject of mild academic interest nothing more

 

[Dittohead not!]

Would anyone remotely care about the icecaps and what they were doing were it not for the AGW agenda ? It would simply be a subject of mild academic interest nothing more

That's what it is, isn't it, a mild academic interest? The Antarctic ice mass is dependent on precipitation anyway, and, even if it does show changing global climate, it has nothing to do with the argument about causes.

So, the thickening of some of the ice masses in the Antarctic is just of academic interest, much like the discovery of a new fossil or an insect previously unknown to science.

 

[flogger]

That's what it is, isn't it, a mild academic interest? The Antarctic ice mass is dependent on precipitation anyway, and, even if it does show changing global climate, it has nothing to do with the argument about causes.

So, the thickening of some of the ice masses in the Antarctic is just of academic interest, much like the discovery of a new fossil or an insect previously unknown to science.

And I completely agree with you (now theres a first !) :shock:

I've certainly never tried to argue that its fluctuations were ever related to AGW

 

[Dittohead not!]

And I completely agree with you (now theres a first !) :shock:

I've certainly never tried to argue that its fluctuations were ever related to AGW

It has finally happened, and no, this is not the result of AGW either:

 

[Deuce]

So you read those studies and the Cryosat info in the couple of minutes since your last post

Impressive stuff ! :roll:

But I thought you were trying to claim Antarctic volume had actually decreased ? You even started a thread to that effect

I've pointed out that you guys have focused on area instead of volume. I've not made a solid claim on volume trends, as I do not have good data on that. It's strangely hard to find.

How do I tell google to stop giving me results for arctic when I search for antarctic!? :2mad:

 

[gslack]

I've pointed out that you guys have focused on area instead of volume. I've not made a solid claim on volume trends, as I do not have good data on that. It's strangely hard to find.

How do I tell google to stop giving me results for arctic when I search for antarctic!? :2mad:

In other words, you might have been wrong in your previous claims so now you are trying to quietly disassociate from it.. Got it..

 

[garyd]

Easy The Northern hemisphere has more land mass and more densely populated land mass and is more heavily industrialized and is therefore slightly warmer because air does not distribute heat very well...

 

[flogger]

Easy The Northern hemisphere has more land mass and more densely populated land mass and is more heavily industrialized and is therefore slightly warmer because air does not distribute heat very well...

According to the ice core record this has happened many times in recent millenia minus industrialisation. I'm not convinced it has much if anything to do with human activity

 

[Lord of Planar]

According to the ice core record this has happened many times in recent millenia minus industrialisation. I'm not convinced it has much if anything to do with human activity

I agree.

As much as people like to believe we have power over a planetary body, we really have so little.

 

[gslack]

I agree.

As much as people like to believe we have power over a planetary body, we really have so little.

Agreed,it's like the george carlin stand-up routine. The planet isn't going anywhere, we are.. Soon it will shake us off like water from a dogs back, and start again..

 

[Lord of Planar]

Warning...

Lots of 4 letter words: