2013 sea ice thread!!!

[itfitzme]

This one is meaningless because it spans only two years. We aren't talking about weather.

 

[itfitzme]

This one shows an obvious decrease.

 

[itfitzme]

This one is meaningless because it cherry picks two specific years at a specific month. It is shown in the graph that shows all the data.

 

[itfitzme]

This one cherry picks. Never the less, it shows exactly what was predicted, an increase in the antarctic.

 

[itfitzme]

This shows exactly what was predicted, an increase in the antarctic. And, it is otherwise meaningless because is shows only the last two years. We aren't discussing weather.

 

[itfitzme]

This shows exactly what was predicted, an increase.

 

[itfitzme]

So, in short, Walleyes is nice enough to present the data which supports the predictions and AWG.

Good job.

 

[westwall]

This one cherry picks. Never the less, it shows exactly what was predicted, an increase in the antarctic.

Suuuuure it was... And you claim I lie...what a joke you are...

In a report on Monday's NBC Today about declining penguin populations in Antarctica, correspondent Kerry Sanders didn't take long to lay the blame on man-made climate change: "Penguins are most certainly the ambassadors to the bottom of the world....But the ambassadors are also sounding an alarm....ten of the world's 18 penguin species are in trouble....The ice that dominates this landscape is melting faster than ever before." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Read more: NBC Alarmism: Could Penguins Be 'Canary in the Coal Mine' of Global Warming? | NewsBusters


“One of the warning signs that a dangerous warming trend is underway in Antarctica will be the breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic Peninsula, starting with the northernmost and extending gradually southward.” Concluding statement in Mercer (1978)

http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/opens...tic_Peninsula_Canary_in_a_coal_mine_OER_4.pdf

Krill reproduction is wholly dependent on Antarctic sea ice conditions. Seasonal studies have shown that winters with reduced size and duration of winter sea ice coincide with poor krill reproduction. This is because the underside of sea ice is coated with ice-algae which serves as the main food for krill during the winter when phytoplankton is unavailable.

Endless Forms Most Beautiful » Blog Archive » Canary in the Coal Mine: Antarctic Krill



The head of the Wright valley looking across the expanse of Polar Plateau. Taken in 1970. Yoday, this glacier has shrunk dramatically as climate change takes its toll. Photo: Bob McKerrow
For the last two years, one of the largest international research programmes for 50 years has been focusing on the world's most remote regions - the Antarctic and Arctic.
IPY was officially launched in Paris on 1 March 2007, and will run until March 2009.
The International Polar Year (IPY) brings together thousands of scientists, from more than 60 nations, to participate in more than 200 projects.
And the issue at the top of the agenda is climate change.
"This is going to raise the profile of the issue of global warming among the international community," said Sir David King, the UK government's chief scientist at the opening.
"We know that what is happening to ice on the planet is a very clear indication of what is going to happen to the rest of us.
The first IPY, held in 1882-83, saw the world's first co-ordinated international expeditions to the polar regions.



And I can go on and on and on you lying sack of poo. You asshats didn't change your tune till it became obvious the Antarctic wasn't going to support your little tall tale.

And you have the brass to call me the liar? What an asshole you are...

 

[bripat9643]

This shows exactly what was predicted, an increase.

It wasn't "predicted" until it became obvious that the ice sheet in Antarctica was increasing, not decreasing:

Melting Ice Sheets Now Largest Contributor to Sea Level Rise

Ocean Currents Speed Melting of Antarctic Ice

Antarctic ice shelves 'tearing apart', says study

Warm Ocean Rapidly Melting Antarctic Ice Shelf from Below


Click on the NASA link. That's a real hoot.

 

[Abraham3]

I think the problem here is the oversimplification you seem to have applied to the ice processes taking place on the Antarctic continent.

Precipitation, in the form of snow and frost due to temperatures that do not rise above freezing, accumulates on the continent and it's ice shelves. The rate of that precipitation, historically, classed Antarctica as a desert. The same is true at the North Pole. However, over millions of years, that ice has built up to an enormous thickness. Since models first examined what would be the results of global warming, increased precipitation in Antarctica has been forecast. It was never unexpected. It was never a surprise.

That ice slowly slides downhill which takes it, eventually, to the ocean. There, it slides off the coast and becomes a floating ice shelf that often extends miles out over the ocean's surface. Finally, at the outer edge of that shelf, the ice fractures off in large chunks which, at varying rates, disperse northward.

There are numerous mechanisms within that flow that affect the rates at which the ice moves:
o Warmer ocean waters surrounding the continent increase precipitation on the continent. Since it is still well below freezing on average, that precipitation comes down as snow and accumulates on the ice sheet. This tends to thicken the ice sheet, but, since it adds unassimilated mass, also tends to make the glacial flow rate increase, at least at the ice sheet's surface.
o As has been seen in Greenland to a larger extent, surface melting during the warmer Winter months generates melt water which works its way down to the bottom of the ice sheet and lubricates its glacial movement towards the sea.
o Given the lack of slope, the ocean-borne ice shelf is not driven by gravity to continue flowing and thus acts as a barrier, slowing the glacial flow. It is the plug in a tipped bottle that prevents it's emptying.
o The same warmer ocean water that has increased inland precipitation has increased melting and breakup of the floating ice shelf. As you know, several large shelves have catastrophically failed and unbound the ice sheets they had formerly restrained.
o The seaward flow rate in glaciers released by failed ice shelves has accelerated up to five fold.

The end result of those processes is that the rate at which ice formerly on land is moving into the sea, has increased dramatically over the last five decades. This is driving sea level rise. Sea level rise is not a good thing.

You and yours, concentrating on nothing but the precipitation-driven ice buildup on the continent, are blinding yourselves to an ongoing process which presents human society with a serious and imminent threat.

 

[bripat9643]

I think the problem here is the oversimplification you seem to have applied to the ice processes taking place on the Antarctic continent.

Precipitation, in the form of snow and frost due to temperatures that do not rise above freezing, accumulates on the continent and it's ice shelves. The rate of that precipitation, historically, classed Antarctica as a desert. The same is true at the North Pole. However, over millions of years, that ice has built up to an enormous thickness. Since models first examined what would be the results of global warming, increased precipitation in Antarctica has been forecast. It was never unexpected. It was never a surprise.

That ice slowly slides downhill which takes it, eventually, to the ocean. There, it slides off the coast and becomes a floating ice shelf that often extends miles out over the ocean's surface. Finally, at the outer edge of that shelf, the ice fractures off in large chunks which, at varying rates, disperse northward.

There are numerous mechanisms within that flow that affect the rates at which the ice moves:
o Warmer ocean waters surrounding the continent increase precipitation on the continent. Since it is still well below freezing on average, that precipitation comes down as snow and accumulates on the ice sheet. This tends to thicken the ice sheet, but, since it adds unassimilated mass, also tends to make the glacial flow rate increase, at least at the ice sheet's surface.
o As has been seen in Greenland to a larger extent, surface melting during the warmer Winter months generates melt water which works its way down to the bottom of the ice sheet and lubricates its glacial movement towards the sea.
o Given the lack of slope, the ocean-borne ice shelf is not driven by gravity to continue flowing and thus acts as a barrier, slowing the glacial flow. It is the plug in a tipped bottle that prevents it's emptying.
o The same warmer ocean water that has increased inland precipitation has increased melting and breakup of the floating ice shelf. As you know, several large shelves have catastrophically failed and unbound the ice sheets they had formerly restrained.
o The seaward flow rate in glaciers released by failed ice shelves has accelerated up to five fold.

The end result of those processes is that the rate at which ice formerly on land is moving into the sea, has increased dramatically over the last five decades. This is driving sea level rise. Sea level rise is not a good thing.

You and yours, concentrating on nothing but the precipitation-driven ice buildup on the continent, are blinding yourselves to an ongoing process which presents human society with a serious and imminent threat.

The only problem with your new excuse is that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing in size, not shrinking.

 

[Abraham3]

I think the problem here is the oversimplification you seem to have applied to the ice processes taking place on the Antarctic continent.

Precipitation, in the form of snow and frost due to temperatures that do not rise above freezing, accumulates on the continent and it's ice shelves. The rate of that precipitation, historically, classed Antarctica as a desert. The same is true at the North Pole. However, over millions of years, that ice has built up to an enormous thickness. Since models first examined what would be the results of global warming, increased precipitation in Antarctica has been forecast. It was never unexpected. It was never a surprise.

That ice slowly slides downhill which takes it, eventually, to the ocean. There, it slides off the coast and becomes a floating ice shelf that often extends miles out over the ocean's surface. Finally, at the outer edge of that shelf, the ice fractures off in large chunks which, at varying rates, disperse northward.

There are numerous mechanisms within that flow that affect the rates at which the ice moves:
o Warmer ocean waters surrounding the continent increase precipitation on the continent. Since it is still well below freezing on average, that precipitation comes down as snow and accumulates on the ice sheet. This tends to thicken the ice sheet, but, since it adds unassimilated mass, also tends to make the glacial flow rate increase, at least at the ice sheet's surface.
o As has been seen in Greenland to a larger extent, surface melting during the warmer Winter months generates melt water which works its way down to the bottom of the ice sheet and lubricates its glacial movement towards the sea.
o Given the lack of slope, the ocean-borne ice shelf is not driven by gravity to continue flowing and thus acts as a barrier, slowing the glacial flow. It is the plug in a tipped bottle that prevents it's emptying.
o The same warmer ocean water that has increased inland precipitation has increased melting and breakup of the floating ice shelf. As you know, several large shelves have catastrophically failed and unbound the ice sheets they had formerly restrained.
o The seaward flow rate in glaciers released by failed ice shelves has accelerated up to five fold.

The end result of those processes is that the rate at which ice formerly on land is moving into the sea, has increased dramatically over the last five decades. This is driving sea level rise. Sea level rise is not a good thing.

You and yours, concentrating on nothing but the precipitation-driven ice buildup on the continent, are blinding yourselves to an ongoing process which presents human society with a serious and imminent threat.

The only problem with your new excuse is that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing in size, not shrinking.

Do you realize that simply means that ice is flowing from the land to the sea at an increased rate? All that extra ice shelf came from the ice sheet ashore.

The ice sheet is not growing in extent - it can not - it already occupies the entire continent. If it expands - as it is - it pushes itself off land and on to the surrounding oceans and raises the world's sea level.

And, by the way, I am not making excuses for anything. I have nothing for which to make an excuse. You, on the other hand...

 

[IanC]

Ian, you know better. Yes, the predictions for the Arctic and Anarctic were wrong. For the Arctic, no one predicted the extent of the loss of ice we have seen in the last decade. For the Antarctic, both sea ice and continental ice was predicted to increase. However, do to the wasting of ice shelves and glacial outflow and erosion, the continental ice is decreasing, and the sea ice increase is very small compared to the loss of the ice in the Arctic.

seems like your memory is pretty selective. it wasnt that long ago that you were preaching about how much ice loss there was in both the ice caps and ice shelves of Antarctica. dont you remember your pretty animation of ice flow that was going to add millimeters of SLR per year? and rapidly escalate to at least a meter by 2100? now you are saying the increase was predicted.

pretty damn fishy, if you ask me.

edit- I misunderstood your comment. so you think Antarctic ice is decreasing? you are gullible. claims of massive ice loss have shrunk every year til now even diehard warmers like Zwally have admitted that the overall picture is increased ice mass.

 

[bripat9643]

I think the problem here is the oversimplification you seem to have applied to the ice processes taking place on the Antarctic continent.

Precipitation, in the form of snow and frost due to temperatures that do not rise above freezing, accumulates on the continent and it's ice shelves. The rate of that precipitation, historically, classed Antarctica as a desert. The same is true at the North Pole. However, over millions of years, that ice has built up to an enormous thickness. Since models first examined what would be the results of global warming, increased precipitation in Antarctica has been forecast. It was never unexpected. It was never a surprise.

That ice slowly slides downhill which takes it, eventually, to the ocean. There, it slides off the coast and becomes a floating ice shelf that often extends miles out over the ocean's surface. Finally, at the outer edge of that shelf, the ice fractures off in large chunks which, at varying rates, disperse northward.

There are numerous mechanisms within that flow that affect the rates at which the ice moves:
o Warmer ocean waters surrounding the continent increase precipitation on the continent. Since it is still well below freezing on average, that precipitation comes down as snow and accumulates on the ice sheet. This tends to thicken the ice sheet, but, since it adds unassimilated mass, also tends to make the glacial flow rate increase, at least at the ice sheet's surface.
o As has been seen in Greenland to a larger extent, surface melting during the warmer Winter months generates melt water which works its way down to the bottom of the ice sheet and lubricates its glacial movement towards the sea.
o Given the lack of slope, the ocean-borne ice shelf is not driven by gravity to continue flowing and thus acts as a barrier, slowing the glacial flow. It is the plug in a tipped bottle that prevents it's emptying.
o The same warmer ocean water that has increased inland precipitation has increased melting and breakup of the floating ice shelf. As you know, several large shelves have catastrophically failed and unbound the ice sheets they had formerly restrained.
o The seaward flow rate in glaciers released by failed ice shelves has accelerated up to five fold.

The end result of those processes is that the rate at which ice formerly on land is moving into the sea, has increased dramatically over the last five decades. This is driving sea level rise. Sea level rise is not a good thing.

You and yours, concentrating on nothing but the precipitation-driven ice buildup on the continent, are blinding yourselves to an ongoing process which presents human society with a serious and imminent threat.

The only problem with your new excuse is that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing in size, not shrinking.

Do you realize that simply means that ice is flowing from the land to the sea at an increased rate? All that extra ice shelf came from the ice sheet ashore.

The ice sheet is not growing in extent - it can not - it already occupies the entire continent. If it expands - as it is - it pushes itself off land and on to the surrounding oceans and raises the world's sea level.

And, by the way, I am not making excuses for anything. I have nothing for which to make an excuse. You, on the other hand...

Yeah, right. So if the ice sheet shrinks in size, it's proof of global warming. If it expands in size, it's proof of global warming.

When warmist cult members spout obvious idiocies like that, they demonstrate what total nutburgers they are.

 

[mamooth]

Yeah, right. So if the ice sheet shrinks in size, it's proof of global warming. If it expands in size, it's proof of global warming.

You're a 'tard for thinking that.

When warmist cult members spout obvious idiocies like that, they demonstrate what total nutburgers they are.

But no one on the rational side said such a thing. You're just raving.

Oh, the Antarctic ice sheet has been losing mass. Probably. Look it up. One scientist (Zwally) disagrees, but his is the minority opinion. But since he kind of agrees with them, he's the only scientist denialists will cite. Except when he disagrees with them everywhere else, at which point he turns back into a dirty warmer.

Antarctic ice mass is projected to probably grow in the future, due to increased precipitation, but the growth there will not override the melt elsewhere and the thermal expansion of seawater, so oceans will keep rising.

 

[itfitzme]

This one cherry picks. Never the less, it shows exactly what was predicted, an increase in the antarctic.

Suuuuure it was... And you claim I lie...what a joke you are...

In a report on Monday's NBC Today about declining penguin populations in Antarctica, correspondent Kerry Sanders didn't take long to lay the blame on man-made climate change: "Penguins are most certainly the ambassadors to the bottom of the world....But the ambassadors are also sounding an alarm....ten of the world's 18 penguin species are in trouble....The ice that dominates this landscape is melting faster than ever before." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Read more: NBC Alarmism: Could Penguins Be 'Canary in the Coal Mine' of Global Warming? | NewsBusters


“One of the warning signs that a dangerous warming trend is underway in Antarctica will be the breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic Peninsula, starting with the northernmost and extending gradually southward.” Concluding statement in Mercer (1978)

http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/opens...tic_Peninsula_Canary_in_a_coal_mine_OER_4.pdf

Krill reproduction is wholly dependent on Antarctic sea ice conditions. Seasonal studies have shown that winters with reduced size and duration of winter sea ice coincide with poor krill reproduction. This is because the underside of sea ice is coated with ice-algae which serves as the main food for krill during the winter when phytoplankton is unavailable.

Endless Forms Most Beautiful » Blog Archive » Canary in the Coal Mine: Antarctic Krill



The head of the Wright valley looking across the expanse of Polar Plateau. Taken in 1970. Yoday, this glacier has shrunk dramatically as climate change takes its toll. Photo: Bob McKerrow
For the last two years, one of the largest international research programmes for 50 years has been focusing on the world's most remote regions - the Antarctic and Arctic.
IPY was officially launched in Paris on 1 March 2007, and will run until March 2009.
The International Polar Year (IPY) brings together thousands of scientists, from more than 60 nations, to participate in more than 200 projects.
And the issue at the top of the agenda is climate change.
"This is going to raise the profile of the issue of global warming among the international community," said Sir David King, the UK government's chief scientist at the opening.
"We know that what is happening to ice on the planet is a very clear indication of what is going to happen to the rest of us.
The first IPY, held in 1882-83, saw the world's first co-ordinated international expeditions to the polar regions.



And I can go on and on and on you lying sack of poo. You asshats didn't change your tune till it became obvious the Antarctic wasn't going to support your little tall tale.

And you have the brass to call me the liar? What an asshole you are...

And, as usual, you don't address what was said, that the presented graph is cherry picking. It captures two years, 2012 and 2013. That would be weather, not climate.

And, I am not calling you a liar, I am calling you a fucking moron. As usual, you simply can't focus on the actual details or reality. I specifically said in a previous post that you actually believe the bullshit that you present. I didn't call you a liar, I called you psychotic . Do you see how stupid you are? You can't even recall the actual insult.

Personally, I have had no information regarding the Antarctica and was a surprised as any that it was expected to increase in extent.

I see that, while I was writing this, others have said the same thing. The short of it is you don't seem to get the difference between net and gross, ice volume and ice extent, sea ice vs land ice, etc.

The difficulty you are having is an inability to distinguish between specific individuals, organizations, events, and other details from generalities. Just as well, you can't seem to distinguish between a specific glacier and the entire continent. This leads you to get all distracted by one detail or another, completely losing the direction of the initial concept.

To help, I present your bolded statements "The ice that dominates this landscape is melting faster than ever before." "this glacier has shrunk dramatically as climate change takes its toll" and " Seasonal studies have shown that winters with reduced size and duration of winter sea ice"

The first one is a bit ambiguous because it really doesn't say what "ice that dominates the landscape" is? Is that glaciers? Sea ice? Volume? There is no data that is labeled "ice that dominates the landscape". There is data called "Ice volume" and "sea ice extent".

Even then, there is a difference between net and gross. If the sea ice is melting and calving while the volume is being added to by precipitation, then the "ice that dominates the landscape" can certainly melt "faster than ever before" while the volume is increasing.

The second one is pretty obvious in terms of your error. "this glacier has shrunk dramatically" refers to a specific glacier. It doesn't refer to the entire continent.

But, as of yesterday, I found no statements to indicate that the IPCC expected it to increase.

The AR5 says "There is low confidence in projected near-term decreases in the Antarctic sea ice extent and volume."

AR4 gives us two statements

Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios. In some projections, arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century. {10.3}

"Current global model studies project that theAntarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance.

So, we see that, in fact, contrary to your small minded perception, the IPCC expected the Antarctic to increase in volume while simultaneously decreasing in sea ice extent.

You will notice that the specific details are; "too cold for widespread surface melting" and "gain in mass due to increased snowfall". These are general statements regarding the net effect on the entire southern ice mass. Nothing about that is contradictory to "breakup of ice shelves on both coasts of the Antarctic Peninsula" or "The ice that dominates this landscape is melting faster ". If increased snowfall is resulting in a gain of mass, the entire system can have a net increase while simultaneously having melting and breakup of ice shelves.

The Antarctic is, after all, a huge glacier on top of a continent. There is both land ice and sea ice. These have both extent and volume. The ice flows from higher elevations to lower elevations and it is pretty easy to grasp that this flow is outward to the ocean. As precipitation deposits new snow on the ice mass, it flows outward to the ocean.

While the land mass gains ice due to snowfall, the ice flows towards the sea. The surface doesn't melt. Rather, the ice flow hits a warmer ocean and then calves off.

I'm just carefully reading what they have published and putting it into other words. It is fairly simple except you have to have some mental control over the connection between the general idea and the specific details. If you read "this glacier has shrunk dramatically" and then assume that generalizes to "all ice", you are obviously going to get it wrong.

To help you clarify things, the statement "latter part of the 21st century" means the latter part of the decades, 2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s 2040s, 2050s 2060s 2070s 2080s 2090s. It is currently 2013, which is the beginning of the 21st century. 2070 would be more like the latter part.

I see nothing in your presentation except an inability to grasp the difference between a trend and a specific year, between climate and weather, between general and specific.

Your just upset because the concept of "net" vs "gross", "volume" vs "extent", "surface" vs "mass" are all too complicated for you.

You are upset because you have personally defined language in accordance to what you want it to be and other people don't follow your conventions. You job is to figure out what people are talking about. It's not your job to define language. It isn't anyone else's problem if the language is to complicated for you.

I can't help but be reminded of SSaDhD with his inability to grasp the difference between net and gross in heat flow.

And the bottom line is that you are just a fucking idiot without the capacity for intelligent thought. So when you don't understand something, due to your own stupidity, your knee jerk reaction is to conclude "oh, they are lying". How convenient for you. You don't have to learn that way.

 

[itfitzme]

This shows exactly what was predicted, an increase.

It wasn't "predicted" until it became obvious that the ice sheet in Antarctica was increasing, not decreasing:

Melting Ice Sheets Now Largest Contributor to Sea Level Rise

Ocean Currents Speed Melting of Antarctic Ice

Antarctic ice shelves 'tearing apart', says study

Warm Ocean Rapidly Melting Antarctic Ice Shelf from Below


Click on the NASA link. That's a real hoot.

And where is the evidence that it was predicted to be smaller? As of 2007, the prediction was an increase in volume due to increased snowfall with melting of sea ice.

The third assessment report reads "Most of the Antarctic ice sheet is likely to thicken as a result of increased precipitation."

That would be 2001. So 2001, 2007 and now 2013 say the same thing.

 

[itfitzme]

I think the problem here is the oversimplification you seem to have applied to the ice processes taking place on the Antarctic continent.

Precipitation, in the form of snow and frost due to temperatures that do not rise above freezing, accumulates on the continent and it's ice shelves. The rate of that precipitation, historically, classed Antarctica as a desert. The same is true at the North Pole. However, over millions of years, that ice has built up to an enormous thickness. Since models first examined what would be the results of global warming, increased precipitation in Antarctica has been forecast. It was never unexpected. It was never a surprise.

That ice slowly slides downhill which takes it, eventually, to the ocean. There, it slides off the coast and becomes a floating ice shelf that often extends miles out over the ocean's surface. Finally, at the outer edge of that shelf, the ice fractures off in large chunks which, at varying rates, disperse northward.

There are numerous mechanisms within that flow that affect the rates at which the ice moves:
o Warmer ocean waters surrounding the continent increase precipitation on the continent. Since it is still well below freezing on average, that precipitation comes down as snow and accumulates on the ice sheet. This tends to thicken the ice sheet, but, since it adds unassimilated mass, also tends to make the glacial flow rate increase, at least at the ice sheet's surface.
o As has been seen in Greenland to a larger extent, surface melting during the warmer Winter months generates melt water which works its way down to the bottom of the ice sheet and lubricates its glacial movement towards the sea.
o Given the lack of slope, the ocean-borne ice shelf is not driven by gravity to continue flowing and thus acts as a barrier, slowing the glacial flow. It is the plug in a tipped bottle that prevents it's emptying.
o The same warmer ocean water that has increased inland precipitation has increased melting and breakup of the floating ice shelf. As you know, several large shelves have catastrophically failed and unbound the ice sheets they had formerly restrained.
o The seaward flow rate in glaciers released by failed ice shelves has accelerated up to five fold.

The end result of those processes is that the rate at which ice formerly on land is moving into the sea, has increased dramatically over the last five decades. This is driving sea level rise. Sea level rise is not a good thing.

You and yours, concentrating on nothing but the precipitation-driven ice buildup on the continent, are blinding yourselves to an ongoing process which presents human society with a serious and imminent threat.

The only problem with your new excuse is that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing in size, not shrinking.

The only problem is that you are completely oblivious to the fact that both the IPCC and Abraham said that the growth was expected. You are the only one that thought it would shrink.

So, have you figured out photosynthesis yet?

 

[itfitzme]

Controversial Climate Change Debate: Is Earth's Ice Growing or Shrinking?

Sea ice is shrinking at the northern pole, but at the southern pole it is actually increasing, a point often used in the climate debate by those on the opposing side.

Because of the many sources for surface ice across the globe, reports and debates on the growth or loss of ice can often be misleading. What may be true for ice in one particular location is not always indicative of the state of global ice as a whole, nor is an individual example of loss or growth able to provide any substantial information on the topic of climate change, for either side of the debate.

The University of Washington's Hannah Hickey explained that the thickness of the ice is also a factor. Remarkably strong Antarctic winds push ice together to create a thick, rigid quality to the ice. Despite rising water temperatures, this ice is able to reform together in this way and, because of its structure, will also last longer.

Meanwhile, though the Antarctic sea ice is increasing, land ice is consistently decreasing. This has led to confusion in the climate change or sea ice loss debates, as some will cite an increase in Antarctic ice to support their claims and others will cite its losses.

Dr. Chris Forest, an associate professor of climate dynamics with Penn State University, emphasized to AccuWeather.com that climate trends are about the long term.
"Sea ice has certainly been in decline since the observations by satellites, and if you look at the records of sea ice over the past 10 years, sea ice grew with respect to the previous year but is still much lower than it was 20 years ago. So the sea ice area is a great example of how you have to look at long-term trends. You can't look at just year-to-year variability; you have to look at long-term changes in the climate, long-term changes in the sea ice as a result.

Damn you, you complicated physics and climate......Damn you....

 

[SSDD]

The great 2013 Arctic ice "death spiral" just surpassed the amount of ice present in 2005. Want to bet that the amount of ice present is even greater this time next year?

You people are victims of a hoax.