Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It woul be too much for some to research the SCIENTIFIC explanation for the occurrence, but that is par for the course.
Why Antarctic ice is growing despite global warming
It's the southern ozone hole whatdunit. That's why Antarctic sea ice is growing while at the other pole, Arctic ice is shrinking at record rates. It seems CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals have given the South Pole respite from global warming.
But only temporarily. According to John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, the effect will last roughly another decade before Antarctic sea ice starts to decline as well.
I just knew those warmists would think of something to explain the contradictory FACTS between their predictions based on computer models and the ACTUAL real time growth of ice.
Every phenomenon, one way or the other, can now be gathered under the global warming umbrella, that way the believers are never wrong.
New ice? Do you want to re-think your topic label? How about an extrapolation of ice THICKNESS. Next time read your own link
Quote:
Comparing imagery of January arctic sea ice from 2009 to 2011 sourced from the U.S. Navy Polar Ice Prediction System, it appears as though the ice sheet has thickenedsubstantially.
Not new ice...but thicker ice. It goes on to say...
Quote:
This observation is looking at ice thickness – not surface area – although some retreat of 1 meter ice can be seen in the Labrador Sea.
But let's actually put that to the test as well, shall we?
Arctic sea ice extent averaged over December 2010 was 12.00 million square kilometers (4.63 million square miles). This is the lowest December ice extent recorded in satellite observations from 1979 to 2010, 270,000 square kilometers (104,000 square miles) below the previous record low of 12.27 million square kilometers (4.74 million square miles) set in 2006 and 1.35 million square kilometers (521,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.
Talk about being Pwned. Leave the intellectual stuff to the people who understand it. M'kay?!
Sorry guys two data points mean almost nothing. Do you really think that CO2 is the only thing causing variation in the climate? It is the longer trends that matter to see the big picture.
People on both sides like to point out simple examples of events or even seasonal patterns to prove or disprove warming. It is silly. We all know the climate is too complex to point to single storm or even a single winter or summer as "proof." The patterns play out over longer time periods. The CO2 we have put in the atmosphere will warm the Earth just as surely as a down comforter on a bed in your house. Some nights might be colder or warmer for any number of reasons, but it will always be relatively warmer with the comforter than without it. The truth is the effect of greenhouse gas effect is as predictable as gravity. It is atmospheric physics 101. But that does not really control what you might see at any specific location as any specific time.
Sorry guys two data points mean almost nothing. Do you really think that CO2 is the only thing causing variation in the climate? It is the longer trends that matter to see the big picture.
People on both sides like to point out simple examples of events or even seasonal patterns to prove or disprove warming. It is silly. We all know the climate is too complex to point to single storm or even a single winter or summer as "proof." The patterns play out over longer time periods. The CO2 we have put in the atmosphere will warm the Earth just as surely as a down comforter on a bed in your house. Some nights might be colder or warmer for any number of reasons, but it will always be relatively warmer with the comforter than without it. The truth is the effect of greenhouse gas effect is as predictable as gravity. It is atmospheric physics 101. But that does not really control what you might see at any specific location as any specific time.
If Co2 has such a serious effect then the temperature should continually rise, correct? There is Co2 dissolved into the oceans and when the temperature rises then the CO2 will come out of the water and make the temperature even hotter. Which will create a "snowball" effect with ever rising temperatures until there is no more CO2 that can be added. That is, if CO2 has such a profound influence on global temperature.
Here's the problem, the global temperature has been much higher then it is now, like when the dinasours were alive. Then after millions of years the temperature dropped and we went into an ice age. How the hell could that have happened with all the CO2 in the atmosphere back then?
The truth is we are still coming out of an ice age and the earth has not got up to its "normal" temperature. Before the ice age there were no ice caps at all. The earths temperature goes up and down all the time and we shouldnt freak out every time we see it happen. There is nothing we can do about it.
Even in the Arctic, some of the ice melts in summer, and freezes in winter. The ice cap shrinks in summer and grows in winter. Thats kind of...basic knowledge.
The number 70 trillion is meaningless out of context. How much would normally be added? 50 trillion? 60 trillion? 100 trillion? 150 ?
Also, we'd need to know how much melted last summer, etc. If the climate is stable, a bigger melt needs to be followed by a bigger freeze.
Last edited by Grim Reader; 01-26-2011 at 12:50 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.