Antartic Sea Ice Actually Increasing?

I'll be right up front with everyone, I'm not a big proponent of man-made global warming. I always think that if a politician is really pimping something hard then it's probably a crock. I do believe in climate change, though. The only thing constant about the climate is change. Anyway, I was browsing around this afternoon and I came upon this website:

National Snow and Ice Data Center

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but what this website shows is that Antartic sea ice has actually increased about 45% since 1980. Lately, one of the big stories in the news is about some ice sheet of the other in Antartica breaking off and how bad it is and how it's all tied to global warming. I'm not saying this disproves global warming or anything.

The obvious questions are if the amount of sea ice has been increasing why is this happening if global warming is real and why is this not being reported on?

[edit on 10-4-2009 by sjag9]

thanx for posting that link.

too bad it won't stop anyone from claiming otherwise because it's not part of a scientific paper. either way there are contradictions and they are not being adressed. no amount of brow beating will change that. of course when it doesn't suit anyone, sea ice is no longer important, it's glaciers. i wonder for how long, though.

also see ourl atest and greatest melting thread, they're a dime a dozen

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2009.4.10 by Long Lance]

Give us 7 trillion dollars, and we might be able to stop it from growing.

If we don't do it now, our childrens children, will be captivated in sheer ice.

Do you want that on your concious.



-The Next Al Gore.

I just did a search on the average temperature of the polar ice caps, and I got -30c or -22 fahrenheit. how could these things be melting in sub-freezing climates?

Global Warming is a bunch of BS. It is a natural occurance and is also a billion dollar industry. However I dont think we should just pollute our world which we are doing. We still need to be conscious of the air we breath. However, to say man is causing the artic to melt is complete BS.

Actually in the middle of the continent it IS increasing.
Around the edges, well thats a different story....
the scientists figure its from a warmer current underneath.
Good reality check here:survivalacres.com...
With global warming there is more water being evaporated,
leading to bigger storms from warmer oceans and more
water vapor in the air. We still dont believe it and its already too late
to change even if we had the will! Smart, very smart.
Lots of good links on this site, unless you think the earth is flat.
Then dont worry your little head too much about it.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by dodadoom


i see - only stupid, scared and bigotted people would take a look at data.

why is it that any data will be viewed negatively? i mean if you say it's increasing via precipitation, doesn't that imply that glaciers are not a good indicator of temperatures?

well, they are as long as they're melting...

can you change the weather just because you want to? do you have actual temperature indicators, like seasonal ice? let me see

Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover

Parkinson examined 21 years (1979-1999) of Antarctic sea ice satellite records and discovered that, on average, the area where southern sea ice seasons have lengthened by at least one day per year is roughly twice as large as the area where sea ice seasons have shortened by at least one day per year. One day per year equals three weeks over the 21-year period.

confirming link: visibleearth.nasa.gov...


last posted at

www.abovetopsecret.com...

let me put it this way all i have ever seen from proponents of GW like you is alarmist innuendo, no solutions just self-accusing pseudo-religious subliminally agressive and manipulative PR.

While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

all you'd really need to do is to use that tool provided by the OP's link and plug in 2005, 2000, 1995 and 2009 and vary the months a bit. what have you done? you have implicitly accused all of us who disagree of being flat-earthers.

good to see the inquisition is alive and kicking .. NOT. just for the record, it's called diffamation.

[edit on 2009.4.11 by Long Lance]

d/p
---------------------------

since it's here i might as well write something.

well, your survivalacres link throws around a lot of senseless assumptions and non-sequiturs.

So far, we’ve seen just .48°C temperature shifts in the past fifty years, and the results on a global scale have been tremendous (desertification, droughts, flooding in some regions, sea level rise....

how does that follow? deforestation is done by fire and chainsaw, what does the weather have to do with these causes? it does not follow.


deforestation btw, is an argument AGAINST the use of biofuel, because forests are being cut down to make room for fuel crops. deforestation does of course perceptibly change the weather, but don't tell that to anyone.

[edit on 2009.4.11 by Long Lance]

one of the big stories in the news is about some ice sheet of the other in Antartica breaking off and how bad it is and how it's all tied to global warming. I'm not saying this disproves global warming or anything.

The Antarctic ice sheets are braking off because they were fractured by the Indonesian Tsunami in DEC 2004 and are now separating from the main ice sheets as they are being pushed out from land where they were bottomed out and anchored.

The PTB know this but are hiding this fact so that they can push global warming.

reply to post by Long Lance


Like I said, dont worry your little head about it! (Or your kids)
None of its real, we will live forever!!! Weehoo! That better?
Who cares anyway? We dont obviously. You plan on moving there soon?
Easier to deny and blame, than fix anything......kinda like politics!
Lets just kick back, enjoy the storms, Eh?
Climate change is mother natures conspiracy against us!

P.S. I'm right cuz I say so!
I'm more right than thousands of scientists!


[edit on 11-4-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by dodadoom


i never said any of that.

i will say that politicised science in conjunction with business interest pose a greater threat to our wellbeing and even survival than all these gloom and doom scenarios which need to be amended constantly. what was the line a bout sea level rise again? how much of an increase has been reported? none or 0.2mm? well predictions from 1990 went nowhere it seems. a conincidence?


besides ecological problems are swept under the rug by almighty GW. heavy metals? snoozer. deforestation? cue crickets. plastic in the ocean killing bird and fish? silence. soil depletion? yawn...

got my drift. CO2 is obviously one of the least problematic substancs in the ecosystem, right after water, yet media can demonize it at will. believe whatever you want but don't expect anyone to bow before your superstition. let me give you a hint scientists around 1900 endorsed gas lighting instead of electric. why? less hazardous (!!). that was long before grants made up the lion's share of every science budget.

reply to post by Long Lance


I think we agree, we're screwed one way or another....
Nuclear weapons, nah we'd never light one of those off!
Our money is strong, etc, etc.
We can try to paint a rosy scenario but one only needs to
watch the news to see, we aint got a clue.
We're in denial, like an alcoholic. Our booze is consumerism.
We poison and pollute and endanger our very existence.
Smart, very smart! We really are primitive!

Does not matter whos fault it is, we need to deal with it.
A mass extinction of nature is underway and we're next.
www.time.com...
We can continue to naysay, but will do us(or our children)no good.
As long we are in denial, we seal our fate.
Why should we care about this, we wont be around. Right?


[edit on 11-4-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by dodadoom


we need to deal with causes, not superstion or strawmen erected for the sole purpose of diversion. if the money that's even now going into the carbon tax was used to preserve the rainforests, i think real progress could have been achieved.

the issue is not a lack of money or power, it's the will to use it positively. markets work by scarcity and the best way to achieve that is denial of resources. it's a simple concept and at the risk of repeating myself, ivory hunting is probably one of the best examples: wouldn't maintaining a maximum sustainable elephant and rhino population maximize harvestable ivory? don't elephants seek out particular places to die and doesn't ivory last a lot longer than even ordinary bone (tusks grow longer with age, too).

wouldn't the best model to harvest ivory be one of gathering it? yes if you wanted to maximize production it would be, but if you optimize for revenue and markup, destroying the source means both a higher share and less competition in the market. if ivory was fossil and could no longer be replaced wouldn't it surge in nominal value and make current owners a lot richer? on paper at least.

the same applies here, destruction leads to scarcity leads to profit. land use is not an exception. food is not an exception. GW has so far given justification for burning food as fuel as well as extending land use. who wins?

PS: regarding consenus: 30k scientits sued Gore over fraud

[edit on 2009.4.12 by Long Lance]