What is the AGW theory? How do we test it?

The ice that’s broken up isn’t going to ‘ice up’ in any reasonable time, it was 200m thick. Also the ‘pinning points’ that kept the ice in place are gone so I think you’ll see further breakup over the next year or so, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the bridge to Latady go too.

http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMYBBSTGOF_index_0.html

They ought to listen to Greenland too, since the warmers claim that glacial calving has increased.

This also sounds (no pun intended) like a good idea, but a nice, isolated place (Antarctica), away from shipping channels and other noises, is probably not a bad place to start.

I was referring to AGW’s central ‘THEORY’, because that is the obvious first target of skeptic criticism.
As suggested, I looked at two RC articles on Antarctica.
The good news is that they back-up my no-warming-for-East-Antarctica
statement.
The bad news is that there is no mention of my land area argument.

polar amplification: “…the amplified rate of surface warming at the poles compared to the rest of the globe in (a) climate model’s response to increasing (greenhouse gas) levels.”
“Newer climate models generally also have very modest or no polar amplification over the Southern Ocean and Antarctica in hindcasts of the last century. The presence of a deep and circulating ocean component is key becaue the ocean heat uptake increases most in the Southern Ocean as the climate warms.”
“…models have (also) been used to attribute a considerable fraction of the warming on the Antarctic Peninsula and the lack of warming elsewhere on Antarctica to a decreasing trend in stratospheric ozone levels in the past few decades.” 2 Jan 06

“…we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict…and have predicted for the past quarter century.”
“…computer models…continue to show that Antarctica cannot be expected to warm up very significantly until long after the rest of the world’s climate is radically changed.” 12 Feb 08

When it is colder than normal it is weather.

People GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!

I can see the book title now: “Silent Ice Scream”

Besides you know what white knuckle fliers say; “The further I get from the firma, the more the terra ! ”

George

Reply: Terrable. ~ charles the (moderne spelling always use lower case) moderator “”"

Well I chose to anoint you with the title of “Moderator” as distinct from an inanimate object like the moderator in a nuclear reactor; and being properly British (as well as fully American) we always use caps for titles of nobility.
And for the Terabytes; the cap “T” is by international agreement, as the diminutive “t” ; while not a current in use prefix, would be something very small such as “tichybyte”.

George

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/the-antarctic-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse-media-recycles-photos-and-storylines-from-previous-years/

West Antarctica will not start to collapse in at least 100 years, and the collapse will takes thousands of years, according to the best science available — a quite new study in journal Nature:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/study-west-antarctic-melt-a-slow-affair

(Lots of mainstream media which presented this study did that wrong, and told the public the opposite of what the study actually says.)

Antarctica is certainly not as important to AGW theory as, say, its sea ice is to skeptic argumentation.

As a follow up to Graeme Rodaughan’s response, you need to go to RC and tell them they’ve been mistaken in looking at Antarctic conditions. Be sure to come back and let us know how that works out for you.