Arctic vs Antarctic Ice

Saigon

Gold Member
May 4, 2012
11,434
882
175
Helsinki, Finland
Following on from another thread about the massive loss of Arcti Ice, SSDD asked:

While at the same time antarctic sea ice is far above normal. Square that with the GLOBAL warming hypothesis.

And I promised to explain that in a little detail. This is a little complicated, so bear with me. I have put most of this in my own words, but also deliberately chosen a source which explains the concepts in terms I think everyone can understand without reading 500 pages of text. I have then linked a scientific study at the bottom for those more interested in the details.

1) The Arctic is an area of ocean surrounded by land. Antarctica is a continent surrounded by oceans. The Arctic is flat; the Antarctic mountainous. The Arctic is sea ice, much of the Antarctic is glaciers and land ice. In geographical terms, they are opposites. Hence, comparing what is happening in one with the other is not comparing like-with-like. The Arctic has lost around 40% of its ice - the Antartic gained around 5%, so the idea that the net result is static is clearly false.

2) Antarctica has two distinct climactic and geogrpahical zones - west and east. The west is warming and shedding massive amounts of ice into the sea. The east is gaining ice. Why this is, is the basis of SSDD's question.

3) During the satellite era (1979-present), no significant net reduction in Antarctic sea ice extent has been measured, although there are significant reductions around the Antarctic Peninsula with compensating increases elsewhere.

4) Temperatures in the Antartic are rising. Bt temperatures are not the only influence on icing. Source: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

The Arctic responds much more directly to changes in air and sea-surface temperatures than Antarctica, because it is ocean surrounded by land. The climate of Antarctica is governed much more by wind and ocean currents. Some studies indicate climate change has strengthened westerly winds in the Southern Hemisphere, and because wind has a cooling effect, scientists say this partly accounts for the marginal increase in sea ice levels that have been observed in the Antarctic in recent decades.

"Another reason why the sea-ice extent in the Antarctic is remaining fairly high is, interestingly, the ozone hole," Serreze told LLM. This hole was carved out over time by chlorofluorocarbons, toxic chemicals formerly that were used in air conditioners and solvents before being banned. "The ozone hole affects the circulation of the atmosphere down there. Because of the ozone hole, the stratosphere above Antarctica is quite cold. Ozone in the stratosphere absorbs UV light, and less absorption [by] ozone makes the stratosphere really cold. This cold air propagates down to the surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic, and that keeps the sea ice extensive."

Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't Disprove Global Warming | Ice Cap Melting | LifesLittleMysteries.com

Conclusions from the British Antarctic Survey:

“Until now these changes in ice drift were only speculated upon, using computer models of Antarctic winds. This study of direct satellite observations shows the complexity of climate change. The total Antarctic sea-ice cover is increasing slowly, but individual regions are actually experiencing much larger gains and losses that are almost offsetting each other overall. We now know that these regional changes are caused by changes in the winds, which in turn affect the ice cover through changes in both ice drift and air temperature. The changes in ice drift also suggest large changes in the ocean surrounding Antarctica, which is very sensitive to the cold and salty water produced by sea-ice growth.

Press Release - Why Antarctic sea ice cover has increased under the effects of climate change - British Antarctic Survey

Antarctic Sea Ice

I am interested in all comments, of course, but I particularly ask SSDD and Westwall to comment on the scientific concepts involved.
 
Last edited:
Also an excellent article here from Washington Post, which has some good graphics and links.

Almost two weeks ago, Arctic sea ice extent shrank to a stunning record low. Yet, at the other end of the planet, Antarctic sea ice is nearing or breaking records for largest extent.

Antarctic sea ice reaches greatest extent so late in season, 2nd largest extent on record - Capital Weather Gang - The Washington Post

And the science:

All About Sea Ice, Arctic vs. Antarctic :: National Snow and Ice Data Center
 
Right...and more and less snow, warmer and colder winters, more and less rain, don't prove that AGW is a hoax either. The models that you trust so predicted shrinking antarctic ice till it didn't cooperate at which time they were tweaked once more in an attempt to get tthem to reflect reality.

That is the nature of an unfalsifiable hypothesis...no matter what happens, it proves the hypothesis. Unfortunately, unfalsifiability is the hallmark of a fraud.
 
Last edited:
SSDD -

Please remember that you did commit to reading the material, and not simply dismissing it out of hand.

You asked for science, and it has been presented.
 
SSDD -

Please remember that you did commit to reading the material, and not simply dismissing it out of hand.

You asked for science, and it has been presented.

That isn't science...it is just an attempt to rewrite history. Alarmists predicted a rapidly shrinking antarctic as recently as 2011...when it became evident that the antarctic wasn't going to cooperate, the story line changed. No admission of a poor understanding of the climate in the first place....no statement saying where they got it wrong when their prediction failed to materialize...just a change of stance and nothing more.

That isn't science. Science involves learning why you were wrong in the first place, not simply changing your predictions and saying that your failed predictions don't prove that you were wrong.

You don't have the first idea what science actually is, do you ?
 
SSDD -

You committed to reading the material.

btw. The OP incudes links to at least three peer-reviewed research documents, conducted by three seperate and independent sources.

.when asked for that evidence, you didn't provide it...when asked again, you began a song and dance pretending that we wouldn't read it even if you provided it...

I promise to read it if you post it

Um....so if you promise something, and you then do the opposite....that makes you....um....what, exactly?
 
Last edited:
SSDD -

You committed to reading the material.

btw. The OP incudes links to at least three peer-reviewed research documents, conducted by three seperate and independent sources.

And not one hint in any of them as to where they went wrong when they first predicted with high confidence that global warming would cause rapid melting in the antarctic.

At this point, you are providing pretty convincing evidence that the peer review system is terribly flawed and corrupt.
 
SSDD -

You committed to reading this material.

You are now refusing to look at the material, which includes three peer-reviewed research studies.



I rest my case.
 
SSDD -

You committed to reading this material.

You are now refusing to look at the material, which includes three peer-reviewed research studies.



I rest my case.

I looked at the material which is how I know that they made no mention of where they were wrong when they first predicted rapid melting of the antarctic. I looked at the material which is why I know that the made no mention of new information gathered which explains why their first predictions were so pathetically wrong. I looked at the material which is why I know that they have done nothing more than now claim that global warming isn't going to melt the ice when as recently as 2 years ago, they expressed high confidence in their predictions that it was. And finally, it was only by looking at the material you posted that I could point out that your claim that any of them, much less all three are peer reviewed is a bald faced lie.

This one is nothing more than a blog. This one is a press release. It may come as a surprise to you but press releases are not peer reviewed, and this one is nothing more than a self published web page. None of them are peer reviewed. This one may or may not be peer reviewed, but in the second sentence the author states that it represents nothing more than the output of a computer model.

The author goes on to state that the "model" shows an increase in downward long wave radiation. Isn't that just the most interesting thing ever since no actual measurement of downward long wave radiation has ever been made at ambient temperature. It can't be measured at ambient temperature but the model shows more of it. Laughable...

His model shows that a decrease in sea ice growth leads to less melting of sea ice. Aint that grand?

It is only by reading the material that I could see how abjectly pathetic and totally lacking in anything resembling the scientific method that it is.
 
SSDD -

You committed to reading the material.

btw. The OP incudes links to at least three peer-reviewed research documents, conducted by three seperate and independent sources.

And not one hint in any of them as to where they went wrong when they first predicted with high confidence that global warming would cause rapid melting in the antarctic.

At this point, you are providing pretty convincing evidence that the peer review system is terribly flawed and corrupt.
Careful...He has deemed calling the "science" flawed and corrupt to be "spamming". :lol:
 
Careful...He has deemed calling the "science" flawed and corrupt to be "spamming". :lol:

I said that the peer review system was flawed and corrupt. The "science" is just laughable in its incompetence.

That's just a cheap way of dismissing all evidence you don't like. I'll take the peer review system "warts and all" over people who simply dismiss it on a political basis.
 
Careful...He has deemed calling the "science" flawed and corrupt to be "spamming". :lol:

I said that the peer review system was flawed and corrupt. The "science" is just laughable in its incompetence.

That's just a cheap way of dismissing all evidence you don't like. I'll take the peer review system "warts and all" over people who simply dismiss it on a political basis.

The output of computer models isn't evidence, and it isn't data konradv. It is fiction. You may as well get your science from Tom and Jerry.
 
Careful...He has deemed calling the "science" flawed and corrupt to be "spamming". :lol:

I said that the peer review system was flawed and corrupt. The "science" is just laughable in its incompetence.

That's just a cheap way of dismissing all evidence you don't like. I'll take the peer review system "warts and all" over people who simply dismiss it on a political basis.
No, it's how we recognize charlatans, frauds and hoaxers. :lol:
 
I said that the peer review system was flawed and corrupt. The "science" is just laughable in its incompetence.

That's just a cheap way of dismissing all evidence you don't like. I'll take the peer review system "warts and all" over people who simply dismiss it on a political basis.
No, it's how we recognize charlatans, frauds and hoaxers. :lol:

Talking to siagon has given me an interesting insight as to what passes for science among warmers. I am surprised that they haven't produced some sort of trading card scheme (climate cards) that they could offer up as unequivocal evidence that man is the primary driver of the cliamte.
 
I said that the peer review system was flawed and corrupt. The "science" is just laughable in its incompetence.

That's just a cheap way of dismissing all evidence you don't like. I'll take the peer review system "warts and all" over people who simply dismiss it on a political basis.

The output of computer models isn't evidence, and it isn't data konradv. It is fiction. You may as well get your science from Tom and Jerry.

You get your science from your political bent. I'll take the computer models, since they can get updated as new info comes in. You, on the other hand, are committed to your biases regardless of the data.
 
You get your science from your political bent. I'll take the computer models, since they can get updated as new info comes in. You, on the other hand, are committed to your biases regardless of the data.

Most of what I post is peer reviewed and published in respected journals. And computer models are constantly being updated because they are constantly wrong. They just keep tweaking the results rather than look at the fact that they have the physics wrong and that is why they are never right.
 
You get your science from your political bent. I'll take the computer models, since they can get updated as new info comes in. You, on the other hand, are committed to your biases regardless of the data.

Most of what I post is peer reviewed and published in respected journals. And computer models are constantly being updated because they are constantly wrong. They just keep tweaking the results rather than look at the fact that they have the physics wrong and that is why they are never right.

You post things you think are "flawed and corrupt"? :eusa_eh: At least the computer models are updated, one would hope the same could be said about your flawed understanding of physics.
 
That's just a cheap way of dismissing all evidence you don't like. I'll take the peer review system "warts and all" over people who simply dismiss it on a political basis.
No, it's how we recognize charlatans, frauds and hoaxers. :lol:

Talking to siagon has given me an interesting insight as to what passes for science among warmers. I am surprised that they haven't produced some sort of trading card scheme (climate cards) that they could offer up as unequivocal evidence that man is the primary driver of the cliamte.
That whack put me on iggy because I supposedly wouldn't address the "science", when the "science" leads you right back to anthropogenic sources for Goebbels warming, no matter what the weather does.

He seemed to have a great challenge in Googling "unfalsifiable" :lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top