http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.109.3
Sea ice at Antarctica is up over 43% since 1980 and we hear nothing in the news, yet Arctic ice is down less than 7% and they're all over it! We've been waiting for the main stream media to pick up on the increase of Antarctic ice but so far they're been totally absent. Guess its doesn't fit the plan.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/
New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain

Misleading.

http://www.countercurrents.org/burbeck100108.htm

The recent fracturing of the ice shelf was caused by too much ice?

I suppose all those eyewitness accounts and comparative archival photographs are all part of the huge global socialist conspiracy too.

wobbles your link is wobblyquote>>The Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Growing?

By Denny Burbeck

10 January, 2008
Countercurrents.org

The climate change deniers>>

oh dear the holocost deniers/global warming deniers..lol [such e-motive language]

>>never miss a chance to tell us that research is showing the Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing>>yeah because their models are rebutted by the ACTUAL FACT

see that we see dionosaurs walk on tv
[because computer modeling can make even the dinoSAW live again

models are great mate,a model does just about any delusion into vision the model maker choses

>>That sounds like the total amount of ice is increasing and things are just fine>>> its more than sound mate..[its observable FACT

>>......the globe isn't heating up if it's not happening there......right?<< yeah right, rebut the fact[dont quote a 5 year old obsolete 'model'

i downloaded their out dated model study [revised two times lol
5.95 meg of speculative mays and likelies presented to their modal addicted greenie audiance[who cheered]lol that their delusions finally got a vidio presentation[

and the neo con cartel globilists,industrialists finally get their new global tax to sell the sheeple[based on computer models[bring in the hollocost deneyers now...[rebut the fact not with a model.but real fact,..what about the other point?

or the other points [see linked 3 de post]
http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=1017

please feel free to rebut with fact [not models]

<<<""The collapse underscores that the [Wilkins Ice Shelf] region has experienced an intense melt season. Regional sea ice has all but vanished, leaving the ice shelf exposed to the action of waves."

David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey noted that the larger formation from which the chunk detached—the Wilkins Ice Shelf—could itself collapse in 15 years.

"Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on West Antarctica yet to be threatened," Vaughan said in the statement. "This shelf is hanging by a thread." >>>
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080325-antarctica-photo.html

As we head into winter it is unlikely that further melt will occur until next summer.

OUG

Instead of just dredging up the same old arguments and dismissing anything you disagree with as untrue (as you have done in the past) why don't you suggest ways we can live in harmony and sustainably within our natural environment? You don't have to accept AGW or even GW to apply a rational approach to living within our ecosystem (planet earth) instead of exploiting it.

More biased and closed minded ranters searching for anything they can twist to fit the world as they want it to be and bugger reality.

Try these for a bit less biased view and some facts and maybe even the truth.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-increasing.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14724
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050630064726.htm

:There are none so blind as those who WILL not see".
The North West Passage- the legendary passage, the death of many explorers, now has cruise ships running through it.
The retreat of the snowline and the die-back of the glaciers, world-wide.
The shrinking of the ice-caps at both ends of the planet.

Until the deniers can show how these are a "cunning plot" I'll stick with the obvious answer- it's getting warmer.
Works for me.

Fractelle>>dredging up the same old arguments..?>>you want solutions[good idea]..thing is the solutions we get are the biggest problem!

see that a special cleaner[to clean solar cells is 1000 time more bad than co2]so solution one is to forgo solar cells..till we get them for no extra[co2]cost to the environment!

they want a new global tax...[well give the tax to the poor[as compsation for the poor of the world to use as they see fit..[not to the same cartel that speculated us into armogeddon,the bankers and futures traitors,who's think tank blames carbon as the big polutant

because its easy to tax[then once a martetable product to speculate on knowing we will be tied into buying them whatever their[speculated]cost]my demands dont caUSE THIE CO2[but by my breathing]i buy secondhand,dont drive a vehicle[walk most places[am surrounded by trees i did plant[and god did make grow[dont be saying im a useless eater,im living with-in the natural-system

alL-gore leaves home with his heating/systems still going then fly's to the other side of the globe[telling me im the problem[i think people like him are the problem]

if i dont have the cash i dont buy,but those who want it all now spent the future,they get too greedy..[how much carbon will a tax on carbon remove?..[none its only a new tax]those who will speculate on the value of the carbon credit will get the proffits,...then use the profits to make more polution...lol..[via creating the new industry,..we need to be content with what we got[not look for more cash to pay for the next industrial revolution]

lets build billions of new things..[how much pollution[and more co2 that cost?

the cheapest cost..if co2 is the problem...is shut down industry

[but its not the problem,..the powers that be's,lies are the real problem...[how much co2 building billions of electric cars going to CAUSE?]

the sun puts in more energy in one day that all the petro-vehicles in a whole year...if we got a problem shut industry down[not fire it up again to generate a fake cure..[to make more co2]and take ever-more tax from our poketts

A good site to start with is the one bequeathed to my by my rellie.
http://www.realclimate.org/
As they say it is for real climate scientists for the same.
Their 6th April effort has satellite photos of the collapse.
They also note that this is the latest of 9 such collapses of other ice shelves.
They also in other posts discuss that when an ice shelf collapses it exposed the glaciers behind it to speeding up and disintegration/retreat.
Also in other posts they talk about the extra ice is an extra layer not area. The implications of this are significant. One canvassed it the lessening of the algae that grows under ice shelves. This is because less light and water chemistry changes. The algae feeds the Krill which feeds (the baleen whales and) fish which feeds the penguins both feed the seals etc.
The site notes the decrease in krill beyond normal fluctuations too.
Perhaps those who believe in God should pray for divine intervention now rather than dredging up sites with no scientific credibility at all. Well at least praying won't do any harm.
As for the atheists they tend to be captive of their own dogma.ie the posts listed please get up to date “2005?" come on! Their is a difference between sceptical and bloody minded.

The link I posted from 2005 was a study to see what would happen if temperatures were to increase in the Antarctic. One of the results of the models was an increase in sea ice, exactly the same as what has come to pass and the topic of this thread. I included it to show that not only is there information on the reasons for increased sea ice but that it was totally expected and vindicates the climate model/s used back then.

A section from one of those links for the other lazy folk here.

"the predominant reason that sea ice is increasing is due to a decrease in upward ocean heat transport. Eg - less heat is being carried up by ocean convection to melt sea ice. The reason for this is a complex chain of events.

When surface temperature increases, the upper ocean warms and ice growth decreases. This leads to a decrease in salt rejection from new ice. The salinity of the upper ocean falls. Lower salinity and warmer water results in lower water density in the upper ocean. With fresher, less dense upper water, there is now increased stratification of ocean layers which weakens convective overturning. Less ocean heat is transported upwards. This leads to a decrease in ice melting from ocean heat. Hence we observe an increase in net ice production - sea ice increases.

While all that is a bit of a mouthful, it's actually a simplification of the process as there are various feedbacks along the process. Warming air increases upper ocean temperature which affects air temperature through air-sea interactions. Warming temperature leads to increased precipitation which increases sea ice growth. More sea ice means less atmospheric heat can penetrate waters."

Yep,that was the thinking then but the point sceptic always make is that climatologists' models don't reflect accurately the observations on the ground/sea.
Logically you can't have it both ways either global warming prognostications are accurate in which case AGW is real or they prove nothing in which case your argument is emperor's clothes.
However I agree guestimates back then were and are still are a little embryonic. What you do need to know to bring you up to date is on the realclimate.org/. The scientists recently presented a paper published in 'nature' in which case the gave substantive data that covered the area to which you refer.
They identified that the unevenness of temps in the two sides of the Antarctic can be explained by the hole in the ozone layer through which the Anthropomorphic heat is escaping therefore skewing the whole Antarctic average. They now maintain that with the hole closing the warming will increase to match the other half hence greater melting etc.
If you read the last of UOG's URLs be advised that the reporting is over edited and misses the above assumed parameters.
I strongly suggest you start with this very readable site and follow the links on specifics.
Happy reading

It all depends upon who manipulates the statistics.The reality is that we have various interest groups painting a picture to enhance either their personal bank balance or their personal profiles.

I remember much hotter times in my childhood in Sydney in the mid sixities.I do not see the oceans rise at all,in fact we had more coastal degardation due to storms in the mid 70'S.

In the realm of improbability,believe in nothing of what you hear and only in half of what you see.

Why do so many people have a problem grasping the meaning of the word "average"?

Some places can be cooler at the same time that other places can be hotter.

During the last Ice Age, the entire planet wasn't covered in ice and central Australia was tropical.

from
http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-hoax-of-the-century/

The thickness of these snow fall layers is then assumed to be an indication of global temperature.There are numerous errors in this assumption,which have been presented in a more technical analysis, but for now pretend that this evidence is true.

The hoaxers then show graphs over time with a near perfect match of CO2 levels and snow thickness and by implication the earth’s temperature.The second bit of “proof” of human caused global warming is the Global Climate Model which is available to all at Wikipedia.

By their own admission,this model was developed for SHORT RANGE weather forecasting and we all know how accurate that is.This formula though not given on this web site,has a hundred parameters each with its own coefficient and exponent.

By manipulating these numbers the hoaxers are able to“prove”that an increase of CO2 will raise world temperature.


The whole concept of “greenhouse gas” is absurd.The earth receives a full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation by day(Duh!)but by night only a portion, the infrared stored on the surface,is radiated back into space.

There is no gaseous one way control of this energy.

The atmospheric gasses can absorb or reflect some of this energy but can not increase the incoming amount.Carbon dioxide is a three-atom molecule that cannot possibly determine that all radiation should be allowed in by day,but none can escape by night.

Consider the insulation or radiant barrier in your home’s attic.The radiant barrier bounces solar radiant energy away from your living space in the summer and bounces radiant energy trying to exit back into your house in the winter.

Insulation does the same thing with convective energy,keeping heat out in summer and heat in during the winter.The atmosphere behaves the same way.

To claim that any gas,whether CO2 or methane or any other,can simultaneously allow energy in by day but block energy exit by night is absurd.

To think that the hoaxers claim of a change in 10 parts per million of CO2 molecules could effect the earths climate in any way is insane

I have to agree with you. one under god.

However the western world is now ruled bt people who clain a belief in this rubbish. Not only a belief, but have a plan to spend billions of our money on it.

This being so, are they;

1/ Insane?

2/ So feeble minded that they have been convinced of it's truth?

3/ So dishonest that they have read the polls, & gone with what they think will gain most votes?

4/ Or all three of the above, which does not say too much for the people who voted them in to office.

"Logically you can't have it both ways either global warming prognostications are accurate in which case AGW is real or they prove nothing in which case your argument is emperor's clothes."

Not so, eAnt. Most science is based on the balance of probabilities, not absolute findings. If the models are sufficiently predictive, even with a margin of error, then they should be the basis for action.

It goes on and on;
Here is another finding that needs explanation.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/fossil-fuels-fail-to-explain-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-levels/

This finding by a Prof Quirk illustrates that while emissions being
greater in the northern hemisphere take some 6 months to show up in
the southern hemisphere, changes in CO2 levels occur in both hemispheres
at the same time.
As a comparison he used isotopes generated by nuclear explosions
which took six months to show up in the southern hemisphere.

In comments someone critises his method saying that a 12 month delay
would get covered up.

But that does not explain a six month delay.
Anyway plenty to argue about.

Sancho,
You're right of course but what I meant was either the prognostications tend to be indicate that AGW is real or they are invalid in which case they can't be used to prove AGW doesn't exist. To do so they have to be valid. You can discredit the prognostications but that doesn't discredit AGW just the the educated guesses (models aka balance of probabilities). Logic.

The point is made I was responding to posts that weren't thought through in short posts that were logically inept and contain only bluster, opinions have or give no substance( a cohesive scientific alternative proof).
Those that based on the age old fingers in the ear and la la technique to cover lack of understanding or fear of complexity they can't understand simply.

been doing research re the tax, interesting discoveries are being revealed..like bying a potatoe, will have its carbon credit added for the cooking, pre paid[in its purchase price]

so they figure it will cost 15 carbon credits to cook it so the potatoe has that cost added to iots price [neat scam eh]you pay on the carbon credits via electricity and the potatoe

i heard it explained by dr winn parker, in googling his name found this interesting link
http://www.magnesiumforlife.com/waterpolution.shtml

but unable to find him saying it[it was on republic broadcasting network, john stadmillers show, its in the archive but it costs 1.33 cents [via pay pal to listen to the re broadcast]
http://republicbroadcasting.org/?cmd=archives
thus my search goes on

interesting search result's
http://organictobe.org/index.php/2007/07/20/uhhh-explain-that-carbon-credit-deal-again-please/
http://www.erb.umich.edu/Research/Student-Research/VoluntaryCarbonConfusionformatted-MLedit-2-22.pdf

http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/quality-insider-article/treat-carbon-symptom-not-disease.html

but hey its a long search
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGklnszOdJlbkAEG6l87UF?p=carbon+credit+value+on+a+potatoe&fr=sfp&fr2=&iscqry=

and have no doudt its going to be the biggest scam[i understand even growing your own food will result in govt finning you [even animals need to be registered[$5 for a chicken[so selling your home grown chicken cost 5 bucks [before you factor in what you are selling the actual chicken for]

but hey get back to your tv...lol
govt is trying to screw us into the ground so the speculators can speculate the neo carbon credit con derivitive for their imf banker mates, but hey thats how they sold us on drug wars and bikie wars, and the global [cabal cooling

[oops global warming]warning and the y2k computers failing [and sars/birdflue, and mercury vacinations, and fluerided water [and tax on cigarettes, and tax on alco pops, and private pensions that stole your super...[its the same old elites sukking you dry..[but hey you love it right

lol
shoot the messenger