Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking

Source: Cryosphere Today

Source: Cryosphere Today

Greg Roberts | April 18, 2009

Article from: The Australian

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent’s western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth’s ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week’s meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown “significant cooling in recent decades”.

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

“Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally,” Dr Allison said.

The melting of sea ice — fast ice and pack ice — does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.

Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. “I don’t think there’s any doubt it is contributing to what we’ve seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica,” he said.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. “The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west,” he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

“Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off — I’m talking 100km or 200km long — every 10 or 20 or 50 years.”

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia’s Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.


Sponsored IT training links:
Pass 642-902 exam using up to date 70-642 study materials including latest dumps and 220-702 practice exam.


46 thoughts on “Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking

  1. Now it will be the Southern Hemisphere’s turn to experience the winter the North had.
    With the Sun currently passed out from a 2.5 year dead drunken binge, the headlines ought to be bracing.

  2. Wow… those poor Polar Bears!

    Oh wait, I mean those poor Penguins! More ice down there shrinks their habitat, right? We should do something to save them!

  3. You can fool some of the people all of the time ….. and all of the people some of the time …… but you can’t fool all the people all the time.

    With this continual cracking of the so called consensus on AGW, it is going to be fascinating to watch how the Copenhagen meeting unfolds (craters ?) in December …. all I can say is thank god this ridiculous nonsense is almost over ….

  4. Ok so if the extent has increased and the average thickness has increased then that would be a clear increase in volume of seaice and therefor another indicator of cooling in the Antarcti. Lets see AGW theory states that warming would first be felt at the poles right ????????? JG

  5. Meanwhile, back at the funny farm, aka the US Gov, administrators are going to regulate suspected GHGs as pollutants. Where did that line about being innocent until proven guilty get hidden?

  6. Now let us see where this shows up in the MSM !!!! I will alert Drudge-let’s see if it shows up there.

  7. It’s certainty. Antarctic ice is growing in spite of the global heat wave.

    Also, some claim that the growth isn’t statistically significant. Turns out that’s not the case.

  8. Jeff, the only thing not statistically significant is the Mannomatic version of Steig et al.

  9. Jeff Id (19:54:53)

    No, no, no. The ice is growing because of global warming! Don’t you know that any change from the arbitrarily defined norm is caused by AGW regardless of the direction?

  10. Contributors may or may not be aware that the pleasant and sincere Australian Environment Minister, Peter Garret’s previous training and experience has been as a popular rock musician. Also that the prime minister, perhaps wary of Mr Garret’s sincerity and demonstrated propensity to say what he believes rather than what is politically expedient, excluded ‘climate change’ from his portfolio and appointed a sepecific Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong. Ms Wong’s background is in law, the trade union movement, the Labour Party and the Uniting Church, which would appear to align her far more closely with prime minister Kevin Rudd’s intentions and purposes.

    What shocks me though is the complete lack of any scientific background or expertise in the people appointed to these positions. Without even a basic training in scientific method, nor any specific scientific background, how could such people be expected to judge the validity of the advice that they are being given? Without any scientific background, the tendency to evaluate and choose advice on the basis of whether it confirms their previous public positions and whether it suits their political purposes must be fairly compelling.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/15/2543797.htm

  11. And the picture is the same, yet they are representing it as though it is a new picture. Notice that it says “as it began to break apart.” in the caption. What a crock of……..

  12. Sorry to give you some extra work moderator, but that article Ron linked to is making me wonder how we can trust the ice shelf actually broke up. That is a major credibility hit.

  13. Ron,
    Holy crap, good spot. That picture is a year old!!

    Figures the alarmists have to find the one spot in antarctica where the ice isnt growing, out on the penninsula.

  14. “Ron de Haan (20:25:12) :
    Climate Fraud in the Antarctic:

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AntarcticWilkinsIceShelf.htm

    Wow Ron… Great find, and the scientist is named Scambos? That is almost too good to be true.
    From the article {Ted Scambos said something similar in 1999: “On the southwest side of the peninsula, the Wilkins ice shelf retreated nearly 1,100 square kilometers in early March of last year [1998], said Scambos. … Within a few years, much of the Wilkins ice shelf will likely be gone”}

    Ha, “much of the Wilkins ice shelf will likely be gone”… or it just might refreeze and then break up, and then refreeze, and then… ad infinitum…

    Mannnnn… Don’t Catlin me AGAIN, dude…
    Thanks,
    Mike Bryant

  15. Is it possible, even a little bit, that Ted Scambos changed his name to match his profession?
    Before the name change he may have been Ted “True Blue” Steadfast. I wonder if he is part of the Catlin science team?

  16. On the previous thread (@12:22:30, Zeke H.) raised an interesting question about how many years make a trend of sea ice. I assume he is talking about straight lines, in which case, my answer is none or 3. A straight line can be drawn between any two points, so nothing is gained by doing so. If three line up then it seems interesting; 4, 5, 6 and it seems note worthy. However, with the variables being dealt with, such as ice area, sea surface temperatures, and “global temperature” the thing we haven’t had is a mechanism that can explain why every few years the “trend” changes. When the plot turns the search is on for a specific reason why it did so, such as, an exploding volcano or an El Nino event. So the assumption seems to be that there is a trend and something interrupts it. What if the assumption were “there is no trend”?
    Say the measure of variable Y is up one or two or ten years and then it is down for a few and then up for a few and 100 years later it finishes just where it started. Assume you have 6 up and 6 down and you go back and find “reasons” for each of them – or so you think. The reason has to occur before the Y variable changes. So you note that on “n” occasions when X happened, Y followed. Your knowledge of physics and chemistry suggest to you a mechanism of causation. Then the next time X happens you can make a prediction that Y will happen. You don’t yet have a data point to check, but you do have an expected inflection point to a new trend, which you expect to last “m” years. This is why, above, I wrote that “none” is acceptable to me as the start of something new.
    Now consider GHG induced global warming. The mechanism to explain this is rigid. GHG concentrations go up, then temperature must go up, ice extent goes down, oceans warm. If any of these things do not happen you have to find a compelling reason why the failure occurred. How many failures must occur before your supposed mechanism is useless as a predictive instrument? Again, I will say none or 3. If the physics and chemistry do not support your mechanism then the answer is none. Not only don’t you need a failure to throw the thing out, you should never have proposed it. But say it does seem to have some physical mechanism as a basis. It then fails. You search and find something that overrides it. It fails again for a different reason. When it fails again it is time to reassess.
    AGW cannot explain any decrease in global temperature (without an ad hoc reason). AGW cannot explain how sea surface temperatures can go down (without an ad hoc reason). AGW cannot explain how ice extent in the Arctic can increase (without an ad hoc reason). Throw it out!
    Now consider 1998 and the three years that followed when the energy released by the large El Nino event worked its way out of the atmosphere. Cooling began as La Nina and neutral Pacific waters predominated. Then last fall the PDO switched to a cold phase. Significant mechanisms came into being for lower temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere. Lower temperatures mean more Arctic sea ice. It is mid-April and we have more ice. I’ll take all this to mean we have a trend even though the season isn’t over.

    Go read this and see if the above doesn’t make more sense:

    http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/04/stunningly-stupid-comments-from.html

  17. Global warming theory states that Antarctic ice would grow with warming.
    I’m pretty sure I read that on this site. It is too cold in Antarctica for the ice to melt under any global warming scenario. Instead the water gets warmer, and there is more precipitation and more ice. The sea level rise comes form the thermal expansion of water and not melting ice sheets.

    So your facts are still consistent with AGW.

    • That’s the Problem MikeN. Nothing is inconsistent with AGW theory. Whether Antarctica is cooling or warming, AGW proponents claim “we predicted that” (That’s a real quote from realclimate btw)

      If anything that can happen is consistent with the theory it is not science. Science leads to testable and falsifiable predictions. If anything that could possibly happen is “consistent” with AGW, then it is not science. It is faith.

  18. There’s much more in this morning’s edition of The Weekend Australian:

    More on Antarctica “Change is a cold certainty” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25347937-11949,00.html

    An interview with Ian Plimer about his new book Heavan + Earth “The climate of disastrous consensus” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25348271-11949,00.html

    Comment on Plimer’s book “Sceptic spells doom for alarmists” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25348644-7583,00.html

    And finally, the paper’s own editorial “More heat than light” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25348908-16382,00.html

  19. So your facts are still consistent with AGW.

    Yes, except for the fact that it probably isn’t getting any warmer in Antarctica in the first place. It’s warmer on the peninsula, but cooling elsewhere.

    But it is hard to tell. Satellite sensors are in pole-to-pole orbit and thus face east-west to take in the greater sweep. That means they cannot measure MW reflection at the poles. (There are also problems with using MW as a temperature proxy when they are reflected off ice.)

  20. From the desk of any news media outlet editor:

    Antarctic sea ice reforming … no news here … time to turn our attentions to the melting Arctic ice … let’s get some Catlin photos showing open water and how the ice is melting faster than ever … don’t let the facts get in the way of a sexy scare story … it’s melting – it’s melting!!

  21. If you look at the Arctic Sea Ice graph in the right hand column you will see that it has reached a 7 year high.

    Don’t tell the Catlin team, though – their morale seems to be low enough as it is.

  22. Mike N:
    I have the IPCC report with projected ice loss graphs and BOTH poles should lose the ice, Arctic at faster rate then Antarctic.

  23. Robert Bateman (19:40:20) :

    Now it will be the Southern Hemisphere’s turn to experience the winter the North had.

    Do you mean temperatures at least half a degree above the 1979-1997 average? Why don’t you try looking at the data before making such statements?

  24. Robert Bateman:

    What exactly is the reason behind 1979-1997? Why not 1978-1996 or 1930-1940 or 1900-2000?

  25. You know what?

    Could you guys bribe the Head at Sasha and Malia’s new school(s) to teach this stuff to them?

    Then they could be 21st century gals standing up to the evil bad man wolf (daddy!) and say: ‘Daddy: your climate change policy sucks! We learned all about this at school today and you’re talking shit out of your arse!’

    Course, that might lead to bad language punishments from big bad momma wolf, but hey: they might learn the lesson that Daddy won’t answer questions when he doesn’t feel like it. So maybe they shouldn’t either. And when big bad momma wolf calls them spoilt little children for being like that, then they can say: ‘But we learned it from Daddy!’

    I do but jest, since no loving family will behave like that….but just a thought…….

  26. Juraj V.

    “I have the IPCC report with projected ice loss graphs and BOTH poles should lose the ice, Arctic at faster rate then Antarctic.”

    I may have overlooked them, but could you direct me to these graphs. The IPCC 4th assessment seems to be very cautious about the reliability of modelling sea ice, particularly in the Antarctic.

    “Even in the best case (NH winter), the
    range of simulated sea ice extent exceeds 50% of the mean, and
    ice thickness also varies considerably, suggesting that projected
    decreases in sea ice cover remain rather uncertain.”

    IPCC 4th Assessment 2007, Chapter 8 p616

  27. Why is it a reason to be excited that the Antarctic ice area is growing at the moment? It should be growing shouldn’t it, since the SH is entering winter.

    I don’t see the significance of this graph.

  28. Antarctic sea ice is growing.
    No wonder I have yet to find a simgle alarmists who will bet on their own dire predictions!!

    I can’t find a single scientist that will bet sea levels will rise 6 cm or more in the next 10 years (60 cm in 1 century, which is far below what many of these crackpot alarmists insist on).

    If anyone here in this forum finds a sucker willing to bet $1000 on the above scenario.
    LET ME KNOW!

  29. “The other reason is that if the world warms, the seas around Antarctica will warm and the models show the warming surrounding seas increasing precipitation on the continent and actually increasing snow pack. In fact, increases in Antarctic ice pack actually exceed decreases forecast in ice packs around the rest of the world. The entirety of the IPCC ocean rise scenario is driven by the thermal expansion of water, not net ice melting.

    From climate-skeptic.com

  30. (1)…AGW theory suggests that polar warming would be greater in the hemisphere that has more land area. That is the northern hemisphere. And its probably relevant that the Arctic is mostly surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is entirely surrounded by water. (2)…East Antarctica (with its ice averaging about 6500 ft in thickness) gets the cooling effect of altitude. The Arctic Ocean is, of course, at sea level. (3)…Warming can be global without being everywhere. There’s nothing contradictory about parts of East Antarctica cooling. (4)…Incidentally, The Australian is owned by Rupert Mordoch.

  31. Bart van Deenen,

    Look at the red line, not the black line. Of course the black line is rising – it is indeed a seasonal effect. The red line is “current ice – average ice” though, so any time the red line is above zero we have “above average ice” for this specific date of the year.

    It would be interesting to see how wide the variance is on the anomaly though.

  32. >And its probably relevant that the Arctic is mostly surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is entirely surrounded by water.

    Water is surrounded by land and land is surrounded by water. Why is that relevant again?

  33. To MikeN…”And its probably descriptive of this situation that the Arctic Ocean is mostly surrounded by land, while the Antarctic continent is entirely surrounded by water.”…improves only that sentence…To be more explicit: AGW theory suggests that polar warming would be greater in the hemisphere that has more land area. Since land can absorb less of the heat from the sun, the atmosphere above becomes warmer. Below the equator there is a greater expanse of oceans. The water can better absorb the heat from the sun, by moving it into the depths. So, the atmosphere in the southern hemisphere will be relatively cooler. And therefor there is less heat to move (thru the Westerlies) to Antarctica.

  34. Laurence Kirk (20:48:48) :

    Contributors may or may not be aware that the pleasant and sincere Australian Environment Minister, Peter Garret’s previous training and experience has been as a popular rock musician. Also that the prime minister, perhaps wary of Mr Garret’s sincerity and demonstrated propensity to say what he believes rather than what is politically expedient, excluded ‘climate change’ from his portfolio and appointed a sepecific Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong. Ms Wong’s background is in law, the trade union movement, the Labour Party and the Uniting Church, which would appear to align her far more closely with prime minister Kevin Rudd’s intentions and purposes.

    What shocks me though is the complete lack of any scientific background or expertise in the people appointed to these positions. Without even a basic training in scientific method, nor any specific scientific background, how could such people be expected to judge the validity of the advice that they are being given? Without any scientific background, the tendency to evaluate and choose advice on the basis of whether it confirms their previous public positions and whether it suits their political purposes must be fairly compelling.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/15/2543797.htm

    Laurence,

    This is how it works.

    The idea to promote AGW comes from the UN.

    The IPPCC digests the scientific reports, cherry picks the data and creates models in order to deliver the proof of the hoax so to say.

    At the same time they create a closed circuit of conferences.

    These conferences are visited by scientists who are paid to follow the “UN party line” and advise the Governments.

    The external consulting bureaus are also infested and biased in favor of the UN IPCC.

    What is going on is nothing more but a coup against humanity.

    Some people believe that the current world population needs five planets to sustain and expand the current consumption patterns.
    Via the control over CO2 emissions they control every aspect of our civilization, our industry, our transportation systems, our consumption including food production and population growth/reduction.

    We all know we don’t need five planets to maintain and or expand our life styles.
    We have sufficient resources and we will be able create much more prosperity for all of humanity.

    The idea’s are sick. The science is wrong, the motovation is based up on lies and deception.
    We have all the reasons to stop the entire process at any price.

    Hope you dig it.

    Read http://green-agenda.com and Agenda 21 of the UN (this Agenda is already ratified by most of the countries in the world.
    If a country that has not signed this Agenda is in need of Word Bank Support, the first document they have to sign is the Agenda 21 treaty.

  35. It appears that, “The Australian’s ongoing war against climate science,” has won one….The source cited does not agree with the conclusions of the newspaper article….Despite the AGW diminishing of ice in the Arctic, Greenland, and Western Antarctica….Ian Allison’s, “only claim is that Eastern Antarctica is cooling, with anecdotal evidence confirming a ‘slight increase’ in sea ice. Moreover, this could be explained by the fact that the Antarctic is acontinent surrounded by the Southern Ocean, which may be absorbing global heat. The Antarctic also has an ozone hole above it…”….See scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ and following.

  36. Seems to me AGW has alot of people chasing their tail. Theres evidence to show man-made global warming is causing it and theres evidence to show its natural. I think we need to look away from the ice and look to a paper trail showing this was a pre-meditated scam. Also the link that Ron posted is not correct for me does anyone have a different URL for it? I also belive innocent until proven guilty- so if it is still in debate how can they implement taxes on us, any lawyers able to answer this?

Comments are closed.