Experts: Global warming means more Antarctic ice

Oct 10, 2012 by Seth Borenstein
This handout photo provided by NSIDC, University of Colorado, taken in Oct. 2003, shows the Antarctic sunlight illuminating the surface of the sea ice, intensifying the effect of the fracture lines. The ice goes on seemingly forever in a white pancake-flat landscape, stretching so far it just set a record. And yet in this confounding region of the world, that spreading ice may be a cock-eyed signal of man-made climate change, scientists say. (AP Photo/NSIDC, University of Colorado)

The ice goes on seemingly forever in a white pancake-flat landscape, stretching farther than ever before. And yet in this confounding region of the world, that spreading ice may be a cockeyed signal of man-made climate change, scientists say.

This is Antarctica, the polar opposite of the Arctic.

While the North Pole has been losing over the years, the water nearest the South Pole has been gaining it. Antarctic sea ice hit a record 7.51 million square miles (19.45 million square kilometers) in September. That happened just days after reports of the biggest loss of on record.

skeptics have seized on the to argue that the globe isn't warming and that scientists are ignoring the southern continent because it's not convenient. But scientists say the skeptics are misinterpreting what's happening and why.

Shifts in and the giant over the Antarctic this time of year—both related to human activity—are probably behind the increase in ice, experts say. This subtle growth in winter sea ice since scientists began measuring it in 1979 was initially surprising, they say, but makes sense the more it is studied.

"A warming world can have complex and sometimes surprising consequences," researcher Ted Maksym said this week from an Australian surrounded by Antarctic sea ice. He is with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

Many experts agree. Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado adds: "It sounds counterintuitive, but the Antarctic is part of the warming as well."

This handout photo provided by NSIDC, University of Colorado, taken in Oct. 2003, shows the icebreaker Aurora Australis awaiting the return of the scientific teams and their equipment in the Antarctic. The ice goes on seemingly forever in a white pancake-flat landscape, stretching so far it just set a record. And yet in this confounding region of the world, that spreading ice may be a cock-eyed signal of man-made climate change, scientists say. (AP Photo/NSIDC, University of Colorado)

And on a third continent, David Vaughan of the says that yes, what's happening in Antarctica bears the fingerprints of man-made climate change.

"Scientifically the change is nowhere near as substantial as what we see in the Arctic," says NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati, an ice expert. "But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be paying attention to it and shouldn't be talking about it."

Sea ice is always melting near one pole while growing around the other. But the overall trend year to year is dramatically less ice in the Arctic and slightly more in the Antarctic.

It's most noticeable in September, when northern ice is at its lowest and southern ice at its highest. For over 30 years, the Arctic in September has been losing an average of 5.7 square miles (14.76 million square kilometers) of sea ice for every square mile gained in Antarctica.

Loss of sea ice in the Arctic can affect people in the Northern Hemisphere, causing such things as a higher risk of extreme weather in the U.S. through changes to the jet stream, scientists say. Antarctica's weather peculiarities, on the other hand, don't have much effect on civilization.

This handout photo provided by the British Antarctic Survey, taken in March 2003, shows four scientists being retrieved from research on sea ice in the Antarctic using a buoy. The ice goes on seemingly forever in a white pancake-flat landscape, stretching so far it just set a record. And yet in this confounding region of the world, that spreading ice may be a cock-eyed signal of man-made climate change, scientists say. (AP Photo/David Vaughan, Bristish Antarctic Survey)

At well past midnight in Antarctica, where it's about 3 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 16 Celsius), Maksym describes in a rare ship-to-shore telephone call from the R.V. Aurora Australis what this extra ice means in terms of climate change. And what it's like to be out studying it for two months, with the nearest city 1,500 miles (2,415 million kilometers) away.

"It's only you and the penguins," he says. "It's really a strikingly beautiful and stark landscape. Sometimes it's even an eerie kind of landscape."

While the Arctic is open ocean encircled by land, the Antarctic—about 1.5 times the size of the U.S.—is land circled by ocean, leaving more room for sea ice to spread. That geography makes a dramatic difference in the two polar climates.

The Arctic ice responds more directly to warmth. In the Antarctic, the main driver is wind, Maksym and other scientists say. Changes in the strength and motion of winds are now pushing the ice farther north, extending its reach.

Those changes in wind are tied in a complicated way to climate change from greenhouse gases, Maksym and Scambos say. Climate change has created essentially a wall of wind that keeps cool weather bottled up in Antarctica, NASA's Abdalati says.

And the wind works in combination with the ozone hole, the huge gap in Earth's protective ozone layer that usually appears over the South Pole. It's bigger than North America.

It's caused by man-made pollutants chlorine and bromine, which are different from the fossil fuel emissions that cause global warming. The hole makes Antarctica even cooler this time of year because the ozone layer usually absorbs solar radiation, working like a blanket to keep the Earth warm.

And that cooling effect makes the winds near the ground stronger and steadier, pushing the ice outward, Scambos says.

This handout photo provided by NSIDC, University of Colorado, taken in Oct. 2003, shows Emperor penguins and researchers working on Antarctic sea ice. The ice goes on seemingly forever in a white pancake-flat landscape, stretching so far it just set a record. And yet in this confounding region of the world, that spreading ice may be a cock-eyed signal of man-made climate change, scientists say. (AP Photo/NSIDC, University of Colorado)

University of Colorado researcher Katherine Leonard, who is on board the ship with Maksym, says in an email that the Antarctic sea ice is also getting snowier because climate change has allowed the air to carry more moisture.

Winter sea ice has grown by about 1 percent a decade in Antarctica. If that sounds small, it's because it's an average. Because the continent is so large, it's a little like lumping together the temperatures of the Maine and California coasts, Vaughan says.

Mark Serreze, director of the snow and ice data center, says computer models have long predicted that Antarctica would not respond as quickly to global warming as other places. Since 1960, the Arctic has warmed the most of the world's regions, and Antarctica has warmed the least, according to NASA data.

Scientists on the cruise with Maksym are spending eight to 12 hours a day on the ice bundled up against the fierce wind with boots that look like Bugs Bunny's feet. It's dangerous work. Cracks in sea ice can form at any time. Just the other day a sudden fissure stranded a team of scientists until an inflatable bridge rescued them.

"It's a treacherous landscape," Vaughan says.

Explore further: NASA sees Genevieve squeezed between 3 tropical systems

4.1 /5 (15 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Declining sea ice to lead to cloudier Arctic: study

Mar 31, 2012

Arctic sea ice has been declining over the past several decades as global climate has warmed. In fact, sea ice has declined more quickly than many models predicted, indicating that climate models may not be correctly representing ...

Winter Sea Ice Fails to Recover, Down to Record Low

Apr 06, 2006

Scientists at NSIDC announced that March 2006 shows the lowest Arctic winter sea ice extent since the beginning of the satellite record in 1979 (see Figures 1 and 2). Sea ice extent, or the area of ocean that ...

Recommended for you

Symbiotic survival

2 hours ago

One of the most diverse families in the ocean today—marine bivalve mollusks known as Lucinidae (or lucinids)—originated more than 400 million years ago in the Silurian period, with adaptations and life ...

User comments : 53

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

marble89
3.4 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2012
It is also interesting to note that last December,the south pole station recorded their warmest temperature ever - by a long shot - since records began in 1959. At the same time they recorded something else very rare at the south pole - a real snowfall, flakes and all ! Normally the extreme cold allows only "diamond dust" to fall. This snowfall increased the albedo(reflectivity) of the ice sheet surface which contributed to a colder than normal rest of the summer at the pole.

So in antarctica at least
1)Initial warming due to greenhouse gases leads to more real snow on the plateau
2)More snow leads to higher albedo ( old snow and ice is less reflective)
3)Higher albedo creates negative feedback leading to colder air over the plateau.
4)These colder air-masses sweeping out over the antarctic ocean result in more sea ice.

That's why the correct term is "Climate Change" and NOT "Global Warming"
Sean_W
2.3 / 5 (25) Oct 10, 2012
More ice at the South Pole equals evidence in favour of global warming. Got it. Now, if there had been less ice at the South Pole would it have been considered evidence against global warming?
Sean_W
1.9 / 5 (23) Oct 10, 2012
It's called climate change in the winter. It's called global warming in the summer.
marble89
4.2 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2012
More ice at the South Pole equals evidence in favour of global warming. Got it. Now, if there had been less ice at the South Pole would it have been considered evidence against global warming?


That's not what they said. Read it.
They said more SEA ice in the antarctic ocean.
Jitterbewegung
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2012
"5.7 square miles (14.76 million square kilometers) of sea ice for every square mile gained in Antarctica."

My what big miles you have, said Goldilocks to Manbearpig.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2012
"5.7 square miles (14.76 million square kilometers) of sea ice for every square mile gained in Antarctica."

My what big miles you have, said Goldilocks to Manbearpig.


"Funny, but stupid", said Caliban to Jitterbewegung.

PinkElephant
4.7 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2012
@marble89,

To your chain of events, you need to add:

5) This entire cascade would grind to a halt IF NOT for MORE ongoing warming outside of Antarctica.

Thus on balance, the small bit of temporary cooling over Antarctica is more than compensated for by extra warming outside of Antarctica (thus continuing to feed the heat engine responsible for those strengthening winds -- and as no engine operates without losses, this means net energy within the system is increasing: basically it's continually accumulating solar energy at the Earth's surface, with the increased accumulation caused by strengthening atmospheric greenhouse.)

Hence, your conclusion needs to be modified thus:

Both "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" -- are simultaneously correct. Global warming refers to a GLOBAL AVERAGE. Climate Change refers to localized (regional) climate effects and transient dynamical perturbations. They are both correct and real, but apply at different scales and thus in different contexts.
ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (21) Oct 10, 2012
Temper all the data presented with the fact that Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is biased in favor of global warming.

Since it's necessary to temper the data, then the data is unreliable, therefore worthless - just more wasted money.

marble89
3.6 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2012
@pinkelephant

You are of course completely correct.
But I was being intentionally provocative.

No one disputes the fact that increasing the concentration of tri-atomic and heavier molecules will trap more energy within a planetary atmosphere.

How that energy will manifest itself is open to genuine debate. There can be no doubt that this energy will eventually manifest itself in ways that affect our lives.

Using the term "Global Warming" implies this energy will be thermal energy you can measure with a thermometer. Thus, skeptics will then point that if you can't find a thermal signal Climate Science must be a bunch of hogwash
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2012


...

Using the term "Global Warming" implies this energy will be thermal energy you can measure with a thermometer.


Which is exactly the case.

... Thus, skeptics will then point that if you can't find a thermal signal Climate Science must be a bunch of hogwash


Which isn't an issue this side of crankville. Rising global mean temperature, increasing ice loss, increasing severity of extreme weather events, increasing ocean acidification, etc, are not caused by increased wind speed, or increased wave height, or longer days, anymore than they are by increased solar neutrino emissions, current position in the Milankovic Cycle, or the cycle of solar activity --or any of the other unsupported claims of causality waved about by the Deniers who claim to be "Skeptics".

The "thermal signal" is there. Its amplitude continues to increase.

marble89
4 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2012
It is going to hit us in one way or another over the coming decades so why waste our time debating if we can see it yet in a "thermal signal". Lets do something.
Sort of like here we are sitting on the poop deck of our ship. We all agree the ship is taking on water. But here we sit with our delicate instruments arguing about whether we can measure the list of the ship yet. LOL
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 11, 2012
AGW: If it gets hot, we can blame AGW. If it gets cold, we can blame AGW. If things grow more, we can blame AGW! If the same things decline, we can blame AGW! It's a can't lose science/scheme!

"Melting sea ice threatens emperor penguins, study finds (w/ Video)"

http://phys.org/n...tic.html

Lex Talonis
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2012
Ummmm speaking of shit journalism, why is this ONE paragraph repeated about 5 or 6 times through the article....

Like "Oh Duh...."

"This handout photo provided by NSIDC, University of Colorado, taken in Oct. 2003, shows Emperor penguins and researchers working on Antarctic sea ice. The ice goes on seemingly forever in a white pancake-flat landscape, stretching so far it just set a record. And yet in this confounding region of the world, that spreading ice may be a cock-eyed signal of man-made climate change, scientists say. (AP Photo/NSIDC, University of Colorado)"
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2012
And speaking of SANITY where the NAME of the place indicates it's location, the South Pole is no longer called the Antartic, it's called Soupole, and the North Pole is no longer called the Arctic, it's called Norpole.

Idiot.
Egleton
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2012
"This is Antarctica, the polar opposite of the Arctic."
No sh1t, Sherlock.
physyD
2 / 5 (12) Oct 11, 2012
But Al Gore said Antarctica would melt!! I'm so confused now.
rubberman
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2012
"But scientists say the skeptics are misinterpreting what's happening and why."

As sure as the sun rises.....
And conveniently evidenced above. Thanks to the usual suspects for your ever consistent drivel. You complete me.
ScooterG
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 11, 2012
AGW: If it gets hot, we can blame AGW. If it gets cold, we can blame AGW. If things grow more, we can blame AGW! If the same things decline, we can blame AGW! It's a can't lose science/scheme!



AGW FAQ's

Q. I have a hang-nail. Could it be caused by AGW?

A. Yes. AGW computer models indicate elevated CO2 levels in the atmoshphere have caused massive sea ice melting, higher atmospheric temperatures, and can and will cause hang-nails.

Q. My dog seems more listless than normal. Could this be caused by AGW?

A. Yes. AGW computer models indicate elevated CO2 levels in the atmoshphere have caused massive sea ice melting, higher atmospheric temperatures, and can and will cause listlessness in many types of animals.

rubberman
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2012
As opposed to the denialist FAQ: Is there any possible way anything else could cause what we are observing? If the answer is yes than it can't be AGW....
ScooterG
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2012
If the answer is yes than it can't be AGW....


Wrong.

If the answer is yes, then let's find out what it is and be sensible in our attempt to remedy it. Imposing enormous additional expense on the American public unnecessarily and prematurely will be extremely destructive to every aspect of society.
rubberman
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2012
If the answer is yes than it can't be AGW....


Wrong.

If the answer is yes, then let's find out what it is and be sensible in our attempt to remedy it. Imposing enormous additional expense on the American public unnecessarily and prematurely will be extremely destructive to every aspect of society.


OK. The answer is always yes dude. There is always more than one potential cause for an observed effect. Scientific investigation is required for the most likely answer. When you have several observed effects which can all be explained by one cause, it is more likely that IS the cause than a whole host of different ones. When there is a cyclone over the arctic ocean in the same summer that a blocking high is large enough and hangs around long enough to melt the entire greenland ice sheet, it's a good bet they are connected in some way even though they are completely separate events.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2012
Temper all the data presented with the fact that Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is biased in favor of global warming. Since it's necessary to temper the data, then the data is unreliable, therefore worthless - just more wasted money.


I've come to the conclusion that you are deliberately obtuse
(ob·tuse: adjective 1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull).

You are the worst kind of denialist,deliberately stupid. Its idiots like you and your ilk (and, unfortunantly mostly American) that have left us in a position that it's too late to stop what's coming.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2012
Experts: Global warming means more Antarctic ice
These "experts" always emerge just AFTER the same finding is done in completely unexpected way. After battle everyone is a general.
Jeddy_Mctedder
1.7 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2012
global warming is indeed occurring the only giant LIE that the 'scientists' cannot cover up is that they have no damn clue how 'bad' it will be. the alarmism is a giant fraud. so yea, global warming is happening, so what?.

guys like bill mckibben go on tv talking about how iowa farms will be X% less productive. please, wtf does bill mckibben even know about farming? let alone exactly how much precipitation there will be in 30 years from now versus how the increased temperatures will influence the productivity of the farmland.

total fraud. go home. if you want to sell your alarmism, perhaps start focussing on something real, like unpunished fraud on wall street and the potentially destructive effects it will have upon the entire economy in the next decade, as opposed to the next 100 years of climate change.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2012
You are the worst kind of denialist,deliberately stupid.
You mean people like you who deny the science?

Here's the science:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Its idiots like you and your ilk (and, unfortunantly mostly American) that have left us in a position that it's too late to stop what's coming.
Stop what? Stop modern agriculture and transportation, which feeds the world? ...stop modern medicine? ...communications? ...education? ...entertainment? ...freedom?

What is it, exactly, you want stopped, and what result do you expect?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2012
After battle everyone is a general.
Well said.

I too find it interesting that only after a contrary climate fact becomes apparent, the "scientists" claim, "Oh, we saw it coming, all along."

And yet they STILL wonder why so many people don't believe them!

Get a freakin' clue!

VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2012
UbVonTard is fundamentally anti-Science.

He has repeatedly shown that he finds the basic concepts behind statistics to be unfathomable.

Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2012
Here's the science:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend


I mean people like you who have been told several times, over and over again, how that graph IS NOT the science, and have been shown, again and again, WHY it does not represent the science, and yet you continue to spout the same tired, old, disproven crap. That makes you either deliberately obtuse, or stupid. (or possibly both)

The only other alternative is that you are a liar.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2012
I too find it interesting that only after a contrary climate fact becomes apparent, the "scientists" claim, "Oh, we saw it coming, all along."And yet they STILL wonder why so many people don't believe them!

Get a freakin' clue


Typical of your deliberate obtuseness. The article ValariaT referred to was published in 2009.

Perhaps you should take your own advice?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2012
Here's the science:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend
I mean people like you who have been told several times, over and over again, how that graph IS NOT the science, and have been shown, again and again, WHY it does not represent the science,
Really? Maybe you ought to tell that to the thousands of scientists who gathered the information, and the folks at the Met Office Hadley Centre who compiled it.

But that would be admitting it's real science, and I suppose it's useless to expect a science denier, like yourself, to accept any real science.

Seriously, what's up with that?

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2012
I too find it interesting that only after a contrary climate fact becomes apparent, the "scientists" claim, "Oh, we saw it coming, all along."And yet they STILL wonder why so many people don't believe them!

Get a freakin' clue
Typical of your deliberate obtuseness. The article ValariaT referred to was published in 2009.
So? What's your point? It's an article describing the surprise scientists had when the Antarctic sea ice disagreed with their models.

Lots of scientists still deny the Antarctic sea ice is healthy:

Melting sea ice threatens emperor penguins, study finds (w/ Video)

Perhaps you should take your own advice?
Sure. Here's some real science (probably invisible to you):

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Caliban
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2012
All this understanding didn't just magically appear after the fact, as various of you morons would like to convince us.

The fact that Antarctic sea ice has been on the increase has been well remarked and increasingly well understood for some time, and "after the battle, every man is a general" --while being a nice turn of phrase and a useful description of other issues-- just doesn't apply here, so take your Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Apologist theory and blow smoke up your igloo:

http://psc.apl.wa...2515.pdf

http://www.agu.or...24.shtml

http://www.scienc...abstract

http://www.scienc...abstract

The last two have more to do with annular circumpolar circulation's effect over the continental interior, but since land ice flows to the sea, it's still a contributor.

I remember reading as much right here, just like the rest of you.

Clowns conveniently forget.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2012
All this understanding didn't just magically appear after the fact, as various of you morons would like to convince us.
Actually, it did:

"Antarctic sea-ice volume is predicted to decrease by 25% or more for a doubling of CO2, with sea ice retreating about 2 degrees of latitude." -IPCC

The fact that Antarctic sea ice has been on the increase has been well remarked and increasingly well understood for some time,
Really?

"Antarctic sea ice extent is also projected to decrease in the 21st century." -IPCC

So the (supposedly all-knowing) IPCC apparently wasn't aware of it.

And both of your ice extent area references are relatively new and therefore late to the party (2006 and 2009). Even so, they aren't exactly the best examples you might have provided. And your second reference actually predicts decreasing Antarctic sea ice!

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2012
Your first reference fails out of the gate. They claim the model shows Antarctic sea ice increasing "in warming atmospheric conditions." which simply isn't true:

"Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show interannual variability and localised changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region." -IPCC

...and it also claims: "Note, however, that there may be other mechanisms that can be used to explain the paradox." meaning they really haven't a clue as to why it's happening.

Your second reference only acknowledges increasing sea ice in the Ross Sea, and predicts: "Projections of the climate for the rest of this century ...suggest a large decrease (approximately 30%) in Antarctic sea ice by 2100."

And as you admitted, you're other references are irrelevant to sea ice extant.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2012
so take your Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice Apologist theory and blow smoke up your igloo:
Maybe you ought to actually read your references before posting them. Perhaps then, you might actually find something which supports your position?

but since land ice flows to the sea, it's still a contributor.

I remember reading as much right here, just like the rest of you.
Right. It was a claim made by Vendibot that even PinkElephant admonished him on for being false.

Clowns conveniently forget.
Indeed.

astro_optics
1 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2012
1. It's definitely not "Global Warming"
2. Climate Change... NAH
3. Climate Cycle... YES
astro_optics
1 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2012
Caliban ... Taliban!
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2012
Nice try, uby,

The claim you and yer pals were trying to make stick was that no one has foreseen this possibility and, by extension, that there wasn't any peer-reviewed publication of observations documenting it.

Wriggle all you want, but that just isn't the case --and the IPCC predictions are entirely beside the point in this regard-- and since the publication dates of the articles I cited are PRIOR TO the publication of this article --and by a considerable margin-- whining about how lately they went to press is also entirely beside the point.

I haven't made a search in the physorg archives, but it was a memory of reading that increased Antarctic ice was likely to be an effect of AGW that started me looking for the source articles.

Revisionism only works if there is no record, or no memory of the facts. And you jumped on a glib wagon that you wished would haul your revisionist claim --and wound up in the ditch.

Regardless, you are flat wrong. Further denial won't change that.

Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2012
Caliban ... Taliban!


astro optics, astro optics, astro optics...

You are really crackin' my shit up!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2012
The claim you and yer pals were trying to make stick was that no one has foreseen this possibility and, by extension, that there wasn't any peer-reviewed publication of observations documenting it.
When did I supposedly make that claim? The statements I made in this regard were:

"I too find it interesting that only after a contrary climate fact becomes apparent, the 'scientists' claim, 'Oh, we saw it coming, all along.'" - uba

...and:

"Lots of scientists still deny the Antarctic sea ice is healthy:" - uba

Both of your papers failed to meet the test of the first, as they clearly came out long after increasing Antarctic sea ice became apparent. And, as I've already described, they're hardly even relevant, anyway.

Additionally, your first paper simply acknowledges it's a surprise, and puzzled over the causes.

And the second paper fails the test of my second statement, as it only acknowledges increasing ice in the Ross Sea and predicts additional melting.

cont...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2012
the IPCC predictions are entirely beside the point
As the IPCC claims to represent the general "scientific consensus," their predictions are entirely the point.

the publication dates of the articles I cited are PRIOR TO the publication of this article
Red herring. When did I suggest my complaints were strictly in regards to this article?

I haven't made a search in the physorg archives, but it was a memory of reading that increased Antarctic ice was likely to be an effect of AGW that started me looking for the source articles.
You probably mean this:

http://phys.org/n...096.html

...which came out long after sea ice growth became apparent.

Revisionism only works if there is no record, or no memory of the facts.
Indeed.

And you jumped on a glib wagon that you wished would haul your revisionist claim --and wound up in the ditch.
LOL. It seems you are the victim of your own accusation.

cont...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2012
An interesting aside - I found this, from February 15, 2007, while performing a search:

Antarctic Temperatures Disagree with Climate Model Predictions

"A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models."

...It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years.

'...What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down,'"

It's a bit dated, but still relevant.

Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2012
The claim you and yer pals were trying to make stick was that no one has foreseen this possibility and, by extension, that there wasn't any peer-reviewed publication of observations documenting it.
When did I supposedly make that claim? The statements I made in this regard were:

"I too find it interesting that only after a contrary climate fact becomes apparent, the 'scientists' claim, 'Oh, we saw it coming, all along.'" - uba

...and:

"Lots of scientists still deny the Antarctic sea ice is healthy:" - uba

[...]

And the second paper fails the test of my second statement, as it only acknowledges increasing ice in the Ross Sea and predicts additional melting.


Wriggle, wiggle, squirm, squiggle.

Win a few, lose a few.

Just admit that you are wrong and be done with it --or, at the very least-- stop maundering about it.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2012
Wriggle, wiggle, squirm, squiggle.

Win a few, lose a few.

Just admit that you are wrong and be done with it
LOL. Now there's a well considered and brilliantly written argument (Not!).

--or, at the very least-- stop maundering about it.
It's only "maundering" to you, because you don't understand science.

Caliban
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2012
Wriggle, wiggle, squirm, squiggle.

Win a few, lose a few.

Just admit that you are wrong and be done with it
LOL. Now there's a well considered and brilliantly written argument (Not!).

--or, at the very least-- stop maundering about it.
It's only "maundering" to you, because you don't understand science.


Maundering on is the last refuge of the wriggler, uby.

I would say that I thought you were better than that --except that I don't.

Maunder on.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2012
Maundering on is the last refuge of the wriggler, uby.

I would say that I thought you were better than that --except that I don't.
Actually, what you're doing is the very definition of maundering:

maun·der
1. To talk incoherently or aimlessly.
2. To move or act aimlessly or vaguely; wander.

Why don't you try talking about the science? ...Oh wait, you tried that ...and failed.

Now your maundering makes sense. You don't have a valid argument, but you're unwilling to admit it. That's disingenuous of you.

VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2012
Poor UbVonTard. He keeps posting graphs as sources that continue to contradict what he is claiming.

http://www.woodfo...99/trend

Global Temps up 0.1'C since 1998

"Really? Maybe you ought to tell that to the thousands of scientists who gathered the information, and the folks at the Met Office Hadley Centre who compiled it." - UbVontard

Maunder on Tard boy... Maunder on...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2012
Poor Uba. He keeps posting graphs as sources that continue to contradict what he is claiming.

http://www.woodfo...99/trend

Global Temps up 0.1'C since 1998

"Really? Maybe you ought to tell that to the thousands of scientists who gathered the information, and the folks at the Met Office Hadley Centre who compiled it." - Uba

Maunder on... Maunder on...


There you go, falsely attributing substituted data to me again. Why don't you stop lying?

Here's the real science:

http://www.woodfo...99/trend

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2012
Oops, bad edit.

Here's the real science:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2012
Maundering on is the last refuge of the wriggler, uby.

I would say that I thought you were better than that --except that I don't.
Actually, what you're doing is the very definition of maundering:

http://www.thefre.../maunder
1. To talk incoherently or aimlessly.
2. To move or act aimlessly or vaguely; wander.

Why don't you try talking about the science? ...Oh wait, you tried that ...and failed.

Now your maundering makes sense. You don't have a valid argument, but you're unwilling to admit it. That's disingenuous of you.


Very good of you, uby, to provide the definition of your behavior.

You got caught making/adopting a bullshit claim, which I debunked.

Therefore, you are wrong. Continued maundering won't make you right.

Maggnus
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2012
An interesting aside - I found this, from February 15, 2007, while performing a search:


A perfect example of your deliberate obtuseness. Do you even read the articles you post? I am starting to think its not deliberate.

"In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion," he said. "The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic." Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong. "It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp


Let me guess. You're now going to show the graph that you don't actually understand again.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2012
A perfect example of your deliberate obtuseness. Do you even read the articles you post?
Of course.

What do you think is so special about the portion you quoted? It's merely a speculation as to why the models and climate might disagree (it's essentially meaningless filler).

Let me guess. You're now going to show the graph ...again.
Why not?

No Significant Global Warming in 15 Years.

Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2012
A perfect example of your deliberate obtuseness. Do you even read the articles you post?
Of course.

What do you think is so special about the portion you quoted? It's merely a speculation as to why the models and climate might disagree (it's essentially meaningless filler).

Let me guess. You're now going to show the graph ...again.
Why not?

http://www.woodfo....7/trend



uby,
You need to replace those denial-colored glasses so that you can see the true colors of Reality:

https://docs.goog...it?pli=1

Global mean temperature continues to rise.