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.