‘Antarctic ice is growing’—Well, probably not, but even if it were, we are not off the hook 8

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which wouldn't be happening if global warming were real.

Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument.

First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.

In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.

But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some recent results from NASA's GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.

Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees -- say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C -- would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn't melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.

While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice annually, doubled from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to changes in the Antarctic -- around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many times over by Greenland's melting.

Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer. Same old story…

I have been blogging about climate change since 2006 at A Few Things Ill Considered.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Zarkov Posted 7:51 am
    06 Nov 2006

    Confused dataAs I have repeatedly stated,

    Greenhouse (Global) Warming is not well supported.
    Actually a more accurate term is "global cooling"  due to global drought.
    Yes it appears to be getting warmer... but if you remove clouds it appears to get warmer, but that is not a real warming.  Because the air is getting dryer, it is cooler than it would otherwise be.
    Confusion throughout the literature, and many mouths speaking total crap.
    Well when you really understand what is happening, then maybe something can be done.
    Until then the problem is progressing on as it should, with no one standing in its way.
    We are truly fortunate that climatic changes are highly buffered, and change, even though it is accelerating at a great pace, is nevertheless a slow process for human beings.  Insidiously slow.

    Permalink

  2. wiscidea Posted 8:05 am
    06 Nov 2006

    So...... what you are saying is that it is not the heat it is the humidity?
    Let me get this straight... A global drought is causing cooling? Which is recorded as globing warming because drier air contains fewer clouds, therefore letting more sunlight in and warming the air? So what we perceive as warm temperatures are actually cooler. And as the air further cools and loses moisture, it will get warmer? But this is because it is getting cooler.
    I see... well, no. I don't see.
    I'm afraid I have to accept the consensus of the scientific community, who might have a better handle on climatology, physics, and science in general.

    Permalink

  3. Zarkov Posted 11:50 am
    06 Nov 2006

    Deserts>> And as the air further cools and loses moisture, it will get warmer? But this is because it is getting cooler. >>
    LOL, well you almost closed the logic loop, but not quite.
    Lets look at deserts, what we get is a blistering day temperature... no clouds, full clear sky sun.

    BUT we also get freezing nights..... clear skies, the heat loss is dramatic.
    The air becomes dry and does not heat up as much as it would if there was a high humidity AND also a clear sky.
    So if that region of land was not a desert, then with clouds, both maximum(down) and minimum(up) air temperatures would be moderated.
    Now because there are no clouds, the desert land has actually warmed, but the air is less hot that it would be if...... both land and air are just gaining a no weather temperature,

    just as at night a similar logical situation arises.
    But to us the desert is both much warmer and colder.
    The ground may approach 90 or more degrees centigrade, the air 50C during the day, at night there could be frost formed from the little water in the air.
    You may now appreciate, when you don't know what is happening, the initial climatic picture can be very confusing.
    Remove water vapour and we travel towards a Moon climate.  We may only know this once we arrive.  This is not good enough.

    Permalink

  4. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 4:58 am
    03 Mar 2007

    You can't keep doing this

    Look, this the second time you've hedged.  You can't say "I absolutely know why" and set out to disparage everyone else with name calling, and then write this Be All and End All guide and then suddenly punt at the end and say "well, this isn't well understood".
    All we are saying is that Yes, It's Hotter than in the past 200 years.  Agreed.   Yes, we should not "pollute".   Agreed.  But is CO2 the main driver of global warming?  We need to know more!
    And the reason is this:  We may overlook the forest for the trees.  All the time we are buying hybrid cars to reduce CO2, we may not be applying attention to some more powerful cause of Global Heating, and hence be sideswiped.

    The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.

    Permalink

  5. hank Posted 10:55 am
    02 Aug 2007

    There's a chicken and egg argument hereWhen the comment section to the 'Antarctic' thread is just used by s(k)eptics to repost other stock talking points, ignoring the fact that those have been addressed in other threads, this whole collection gets recursive really fast.

    Permalink

  6. TheKidSalami Posted 11:14 pm
    01 Jul 2008

    Having your ice and eating it"Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees -- say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C -- would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn't melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass. "
    So, glaciers melt, this is evidence for (or at least not against) global warming. Antarctica gets bigger - this is also evidence for global warming. What could happen that ISN'T evidence for global warming? Any chance of any predictive hypotheses that could be verified in the future?

    Permalink

  7. Ron Lambert Posted 2:11 am
    19 Jul 2008

    Antrctic Ice is GrowingIs it really all that unclear whether Antarctic ice is increasing or decreasing? Please note the following:
    "And down south last September, NASA satellites showed the Antarctic Ice Field to be the largest it has ever been in the 30 years it has been observed by satellite (based on an analysis of 347 million radar altimeter measurements made by the European Space Agency's ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites)."
    This is from an anti global warming site:

    http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

    Permalink

  8. naught101 Posted 3:54 pm
    26 Nov 2008

    TheKidSalamiNo, no-one has ever said that increasing ice mass in the Antarctic is evidence for global warming. They have just said that it is not inconsistent with global warming.
    That is, increasing ice mass in one area of the globe proves and disproves nothing about the global climate, especially while evidence from elsewhere (ie. everywhere with ice) means that the general trend of global ice levels are downwards.
    You try to point out a logical fallacy. You fail.

    check out http://www.envirowiki.info, the knowledge database for environmentalists and activists.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Series Intro
'There is no evidence' -- Yes, there is 59
'Mauna Loa is a volcano' -- CO2 rise is measured on top of a volcano! 8
'Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect' -- No, it isn't 25
'One hundred years is not enough'--Yes it is 18
'The scientists aren't even sure' -- No scientist ever is 33
'One record year is not global warming'--Luckily, there are plenty more years to consider 19
'Glaciers have always grown and receded'--A few glaciers melting does not mean global warming 14
'The temperature record is unreliable'--But temperature trends are clear and widely corroborated 8
'It's cold today in Wagga Wagga'--Weather and climate are different 2
'The satellites show cooling'--No, they don't 15
'What about mid-century cooling?'--No one said CO2 is the only climate influence 11
'Antarctic ice is growing'--Well, probably not, but even if it were, we are not off the hook 8
'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick 170
'But the glaciers are not melting'--Except ... they are! 3
'Antarctic sea ice is increasing'--Yes, but ... 14
'Sea level in the Arctic is falling'--Sea level is a surprisingly complicated thing 11
'Climate sensitivity is not very high'--Thermal inertia of the oceans means the jury is still out 2
'Some sites show cooling'--But you can't draw global conclusions from individual sites 0
'Global warming is a hoax'--I wish James Inhofe were just a hoax ... 12
'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? 109
'Position statements hide debate'--True enough, but that is not the whole picture 5
'Consensus is collusion'--Is climate science maturing, or should we reach for our tinfoil hats? 8
'Peiser refuted Oreskes'--In a poor piece of work that has been retracted by its author 4
'Models don't account for clouds'--Clouds are complex and uncertain, but unlikely to stop warming 6
'Climate models are unproven'--Actually, GCM's have many confirmed successes under their belts 13
'Aerosols should mean more warming in the south'--More North. Hemisphere warming is well-understood 1
'We can't even predict the weather next week'--But weather is not climate 11
'Chaotic systems are not predictable'--Sure, but who says climate is chaotic? 13
Understanding what is happening right under our noses does not require paleoclimate perfection 1
'They predicted global cooling in the 70s'--But that didn't even remotely resemble today's consensus 29
'Hansen has been wrong before'--Maybe, but not about the climate! 13
'It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum'--This period was not global and not like today 4
'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'--Repeating this point does not make it true 216
'Greenland used to be green'--Don't judge a book by its cover, much less a land by its name 23
Yes, the last ice age started thawing over 20,000 years ago, but that stopped a long time ago 5
'The hockey stick is broken'--Well, no ... but who's playing hockey anyway? 6
'Vineland was full of grapes'--Or was it an early advertising campaign? 4
'Global warming is part of a natural cycle'--This idea is one short step above appealing to magic 39
'Mars and Pluto are warming too'--No they aren't -- and what if they were? 24
'Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans'--Not even close ... 31
'The null hypothesis says warming is natural'--An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway 4
'Climate is always changing'--That doesn't mean it isn't different today 5
'Natural emissions dwarf human emissions'--But emissions are only one side of the equation 5
'The CO2 rise is natural'--No skeptical argument has been more definitively disproven 12
'We are just recovering from the LIA'--Why should we expect this to happen? 4
'Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor'--No, they really don't 4
Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas, but there is plenty of room for CO2 to play a role 29
There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence 78
'CO2 doesn't lead, it lags'--Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming 43
'Geological history does not support CO2's importance'--Just not true 0
'Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change'--Not so 19
'It's the sun, stupid'--Very bright, yes, but not getting brighter 18
The problem is not how high the temperature may go, but how fast it is changing 14
'Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing'--Kyoto is only in its first phase 16
China and India have joined Kyoto, they just have different obligations, as is morally appropriate 3
'Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster'--Not really, but this may be lesser of two evils 6
Only if you ignore fossil fuel emissions 10
In 2008, did temperatures drop as much as they rose over the whole 20th century? 71
Is the IPCC so wrong their theories contradict a basic laws of physics? 23
Is the American Physical Society a crack in the climate change consensus? 3
Summer ice in the Arctic has recovered--Was the Arctic ice retreat a climate anomaly? 7
'Global warming comes from within'--Is heat at the Earth's core the real cause of global warming? 10
Was there another breathless announcement of another phony record, and another quiet retraction? 1
Hansen wants the skeptics thrown in jail--Did James Hansen really want to try the climate skeptics? 6
Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement