This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
The Antarctic Ice sheets are actually growing, which would not 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 simply 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, and the conclusions we have seen of some growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet is such a small amount, that with the uncertainty, it might be shrinking. But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be right. Some very recent results from NASA's GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that in fact ice mass is on the whole being lost.
Secondly, the phenomenon of thickening of an ice sheet is not by itself inconsistent with warming! Such an increase in ice mass in the face of actual warming would be the result of increasing precipitation and this is fully consistent with the Antarctic in a warming world. The Antarctic is actually one of the most extreme deserts on the planet, and warmer climates tend towards more precipitation. So even if you warmed a whopping 20oC from -50oC, you would still be well below freezing and accumulating snow, not melting in the rain.
While on the subject of ice sheets, Greenland is also growing ice in the centre for the same reasons described above, but it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km^3 of ice annually, doubled now from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to what the changes may be in the Antarctic, around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea level rise, any potential mitigation due to the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is wiped out many many times over by Greenland's ice sheet.
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
"Antarctic Ice is Growing" was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.
Environment
Politics
Comments
I've been searching for an explanation of this and I finally stumbled upon a two references that provides some likely mechanisms.
Increasing Antarctic sea ice under warming atmospheric and oceanic conditions
Author(s): Zhang JL (Zhang, Jinlun)
Source: JOURNAL OF CLIMATE Volume: 20 Issue: 11 Pages: 2515-2529 Published: JUN 1 2007
Abstract: Estimates of sea ice extent based on satellite observations show an increasing Antarctic sea ice cover from 1979 to 2004 even though in situ observations show a prevailing warming trend in both the atmosphere and the ocean. This riddle is explored here using a global multicategory thickness and enthalpy distribution sea ice model coupled to an ocean model. Forced by the NCEP-NCAR reanalysis data, the model simulates an increase of 0.20 x 10(12) m(3) yr(-1) (1.0% yr(-1)) in total Antarctic sea ice volume and 0.084 x 10(12) m(2) yr(-1) (0.6% yr(-1)) in sea ice extent from 1979 to 2004 when the satellite observations show an increase of 0.027 x 10(12) m(2) yr(-1) (0.2% yr(-1)) in sea ice extent during the same period. The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity, and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979-2004 and the extended period 1948-2004.
This is one of the reasons I enjoy studying climate change. I would have previously said "if it get's colder you'll get more ice and if it gets warmer you'll have less". But because of the complex dynamics of near surface ocean circulation, it's not nearly that simple.
The other part of the explanation has to do with increases in snow fall. As the Antarctic warms there is more humidity in the air and this tends to fall as snow. Snow on ice will either insulate and increase melt or at a threshold help the ice grow.
Effects of snow depth forcing on Southern Ocean sea ice simulations
Author(s): Powell DC, Markus T, Stossel A
Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-OCEANS Volume: 110 Issue: C6 Article Number: C06001 Published: JUN 1 2005
Abstract: [1] The aim of this study is to investigate the competing effects of a snow layer's insulation and snow-ice formation on thermodynamic sea ice thickness growth in response to changes in precipitation. Using optimal interpolation to assimilate Special Sensor Microwave/ Imager satellite-derived snow depths into a dynamic-thermodynamic sea ice model, we create a daily assimilated snow depth product for the years 1992 - 2003. The assimilated snow depths are used to adjust National Centers for Environmental Prediction/ National Center for Atmospheric Research reanalysis precipitation rates which subsequently force the model's snow depths and freshwater input. These adjusted precipitation rates are used to create a best estimate snow depth climatology. This climatology provides the basis for a series of sensitivity experiments. Precipitation rates are varied from 0.0 to a doubling of the present day precipitation. Initially, sea ice volume decreases with increasing precipitation rate multiplying factor (PRMF) because of the insulation effects of a deeper snow layer. The turning point at which the insulation effect becomes balanced by the snow to ice conversion effect ranges from PRMF = 0.50 to PRMF = 0.75, depending upon the snow thermal conductivity and density. This suggests that with present-day precipitation rates the snow effect on Southern Ocean sea ice is dominated by snow-ice formation rather than the snow's insulation.
Posted by: streamtracker | July 29, 2008 7:34 PM
thanks for those very interesting abstracts, streamtracker! I will point them out in a new post early next week.
Posted by: coby | July 31, 2008 2:11 PM
It's all rather funny and smacks of desparation.
First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is simply dead in the water.
Quite right. Why aren't you attacking people who keep refering to melting of ice in the north 'artic'? [Artic is a term that covers both poles] Perhaps it is because it's useful to selectively use examples that reinforce your beliefs.
PS I'll use it as a skeptic
We need to assess the balance of the evidence.
Quite. Global average temperate anomalies just went negative. On balance there is no global warming
Secondly, the phenomenon of thickening of an ice sheet is not by itself inconsistent with warming!
So what happened to all the alarmism about melting ice caps and rising sea levels? This is an example of an inconvient truth, but strong evidence for the complete unreliability of climate science.
The hard evidence is that when we look at the temperature records from people like RSS who use satelites and not dodgy measurement devices next to air con outlets, the world has cooled.
Secondly, if we compare the forecasts against the temperature record, we can falisfy the forecasts with a very high degree of confidence, on 10, 20 years timescales.
If you can't get things right with a 10, 20 year forecast, you're having a laugh saying you can get it right on a 30, 40, 50 year timescale
Posted by: Nick | August 6, 2008 3:11 AM
So Nick, you think these scientists got a call from Al Gore, telling them to come up with some sort of explanation? Or is it maybe just the fact that nature is complicated?
Global average temperature anomolies did not "just go negative". Just check CRU or NASA GISS temperature records. The smoothed trend anomaly is around .4oC above the 1960-91 global mean (a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/">here). You are probably just refering to the short term plateau we are in, but it is just not long enough to draw the conclusion that anything is different from expectations. Climate is defined as the 30 yr average of weather, so 10 years, (especially 10 years starting with an extreme high data point!) of no rise is not long enough. No record shows 30 yr cooling.
10-20 years is borderline between weather and climate, we are trying to describe the climate. So no, you are exactly wrong that being off on the short term means you can forget the long term.
See also this article about weather vs climate prediction..
Posted by: coby | August 6, 2008 9:44 AM
Growing Antarctic ice may not be evidence against global warming--but it is an argument against rising sea levels, isn't it? A lot of laypeople (like myself) have no quarrel with the concept of global warming--it's the postulated effects that sound extreme. I didn't really have a problem with the global warming thing until people started making obviously absurd statements like 'if we don't change everything this decade we're all doomed.' That actually got me to read the latest IPCC report--not the politician's summary. I must say the more extreme alarmists regarding global warming cost the entire movement a lot of credibility.
Posted by: Tom Fuller | August 9, 2008 11:34 AM
Hi Tom,
Sea level rising is a non-controversial observation, so I don't think any ice observations can "argue against" that. It is however part of the equation of where the rising levels come from. I think it is becoming more an more clear that the loss of ice in Greenland is more than making up for any gains in the Antarctic. There are also two major ice sheets in the antarctic, east and west. The EAIS is thickening and the WAIS may be thinning, findings are preliminary (I am probably a bit out of date about this...)
But regardless of the above, the majority of SLR is the result of thermal expansion due to warming waters.
With respect to the IPCC, I fully applaud going to that source over news reports, alarmist or denialist. I would also observe that due to its nature (large committee style organization, searching for areas of consensus) it tends to be vey conservative in its statements and predictions. What is happening in Greenland and the arctic in general is well off the scale of anything they predicted and the IPCC does not include the latest research and observations.
Otherwise, I can not argue with your observation that "the more extreme alarmists regarding global warming cost the entire movement a lot of credibility"
Posted by: coby | August 11, 2008 10:05 AM
Hi Coby,
Thanks for the quick response. I think if those committed to combatting anthropogenic contributions to global climate change would actually stand up and point to some of the more outlandish statements and say 'the science doesn't suggest this to be the case,' they (and the rest of us) would all be better off.
Posted by: Tom Fuller | August 13, 2008 12:50 AM
Sorry but i am siding with Nick here (no suprise) you make this statement "First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is simply dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe."
How convenient for you that you do not predict uniform GW which of course comes with the added claus "GW means Global cooling which is why the ice is thickening".
The only time i have seen AGW proponents such as yourself make absurd claims like the above is always post facto. Can you please give me a link which shows anyone making the following claims
A symptom of GW is GC (more ice in antarctica)
The temperature will reach a climax in 1998 due to a strong El Nino, the temp will then drop back down to X levels (does not have to be accurate) due to a La Nina but then GW will be back in 2015.
Rising temps of the past have been caused by the M Cycle effect
prior to lets say 1995? i will even accept 1998 OK
Posted by: Crakar14 | December 9, 2008 5:19 PM
Sorry but i am siding with Nick here (no suprise) you make this statement "First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is simply dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe."
How convenient for you that you do not predict uniform GW which of course comes with the added claus "GW means Global cooling which is why the ice is thickening".
The only time i have seen AGW proponents such as yourself make absurd claims like the above is always post facto. Can you please give me a link which shows anyone making the following claims
A symptom of GW is GC (more ice in antarctica)
The temperature will reach a climax in 1998 due to a strong El Nino, the temp will then drop back down to X levels (does not have to be accurate) due to a La Nina but then GW will be back in 2015.
Rising temps of the past have been caused by the M Cycle effect
prior to lets say 1995? i will even accept 1998 OK
Posted by: Crakar14 | December 9, 2008 5:20 PM
Crakar14- There isn't global cooling. The overall trend since the industrial age has been warming. Please see here for more information: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ . You'll note that, while 2008 has been the coolest year since 2000, the trend still increases. One year is simply too small a time frame to measure. It is this point that the post was trying to make: Regional phenomena does not disprove a global trend. One year of cooler temperatures, along with more snow in Wagga Wagga, does not prove that the planet isn't warming.
Second, global warming increases precipitation, since more water is available for evaporation. This also causes an increase in snow. However, Antarctic ice has been compacted over hundreds of thousands of years, so three inches of snow doesn't replace three inches of Antarctic ice. This is apparent because ocean water levels continue to rise, even while more snow falls. You should also note that, as Coby points out, half is accumulating snow but the other half is losing ice. There is currently a net loss of ice.
Posted by: Mrs. W | January 3, 2009 10:58 AM
There isnt global cooling? Since 1998 the USA has cooled by 0.78F and yes i know that is only the USA but this type of cooling can be seen in all parts of the world. So therefore the planet is cooling no matter what type of spin you put on it.
My reference to GW =GC is based on the spin doctors at the IPCC which made the claim that the Arctic sea ice is melting as expected due to GW but the Antarctic sea ice is increasing (record levels in 2007)which is also caused by GW. Which is why the name was changed from AGW to climate change,
but now we discover the Arctic sea ice levels are back where they were in 1979!!!!! so now i am very confused we know that GW causes the Antarctic to increase in sea ice extent (because the IPCC said so) but does GW cause the Arctic to increase or reduce in sea ice extent?
If you bother to reply please dont give me gobble de gook nonsense answers just straight scientific facts will suffice.
I had a look at your ever reliable GISS data and it only goes back to 1880 which is about where the warming starts. Its a shame you cant see back any further to see when the warming really started, maybe you can find a more accurate data set to show me. Also even though the planet is cooling you still say it is warming so let me ask you this. What is the level of cooling required by you to be convinced that the planet is actually cooling? ie back to 1900 temps for example? or 1940? what level do you require?
Posted by: Crakar14 | January 7, 2009 7:24 PM
Crakar,
The Arctic sea ice extent is decreasing quite clearly - see http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/arctic-sea-ice-recovered-in-2008.php
Please get your facts straight before criticising others. The fact that you use the 1998 argument for cooling isn't helping your credibility either.
Posted by: Bookie | January 28, 2009 2:40 AM
Let's not forget that Antarctica is ice covering land, the Arctic sea ice ice on top of water. Ice can form much easier on land because solids retain their temperature better than liquids. Based on these very simple principles it should be very easy to see why ice would stand a chance at being retained in the south pole and not the north pole. If we look at regions of Antarctica that have no landmass beneath it then we begin to see that the ice is indeed melting there.
Ice is also much more dense than snow so a three inch layer of ice does not equal (in terms of molecules of volume of water) three inches of snow.
Polar regions aside it is muchmore useful to pay attention to desertification of inland regions such as the expanding deserts of North America and the Sahara. Granted, rapid desertification is also caused by salt deposits due to irrigation, however rainfall measurments in desert regions is not effected by salt deposits. Looking above you may find it odd that I would point to lower rainfall when above it clearly says the reason for Antarctic ice growing is due to increased prcipitation. Its important to understand that the Antarctic desert is very cold year round while the inland deserts of North America and Africa are very hot. The shift in temperature in antarctica pushes it to a level where higher levels of precipitation can fall. Warmer trends in already hot reagions push the circumstances outside of a range where clouds form and precipitation falls.
Posted by: Porter1983 | February 13, 2009 8:13 PM
Hi, if the last post is correct whey then does the Australian government believe that the reason for their latest forest fires was that the sea temperature in the adjacent Pacific was colder than usual meaning no evaporation and therefore no precipitation causing the fires to rage out of control.
[Hi David,
I am not aware of this claim being made by the Australian government. Do you have a link? Given the 12 year drought that region has experienced, it is hard to think one cooler year in the Pacific merits all the blame!
I deleted the rest of your several hundred word comment because it was off topic, rambling and unsubstantiated
- coby]
Posted by: David Wells | March 13, 2009 1:18 PM
David Wells -
Accusing scientists of defrauding taxpayers and willfully misrepresenting data is a pretty serious accusation. I presume you have some evidence to back up your claims?
Posted by: Adam | March 13, 2009 7:16 PM
This is the main reason why I cannot buy into the whole GW movement. Everywhere we see claims of doom from melting Antarctic ice. Most scientists and this web site instruct us that Antarctica is not melting. But here we go on to conclude that this is somehow consistent with GW theory. So if it is melting, it supports GW, if it is not melting it also supports GW.
Further, your philosophy of looking at many indications to discern an imminent global catastrophe runs out of steam quickly when this type of logic is employed. Makes one wonder about all the other assertions.
Posted by: RS | March 24, 2009 5:27 PM
RS,
Dont get confused between these two statements;
"Antarctic ice is melting and sea levels are rising"
and
"Antarctic ice will melt and sea levels will rise"
You see every scary story tells you what WILL happen its just not happening yet, get it?
Cheers
Crakar
Posted by: Crakar14 | March 24, 2009 5:40 PM
OK Crakar, so whatever happens GW is supported? And everything is always future so there is no data...
R
Posted by: RS | March 24, 2009 6:06 PM
Crakar your global cooling idea expressed above has yet more support:
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/108731.html
Posted by: RS | March 24, 2009 6:12 PM
Everywhere we see claims of doom from melting Antarctic ice.
Correction: most discussion about melting and sea level rise revolves around Arctic ice, because the trend there is clearer and better understood. As Coby mentions in the post, and which you can read at other websites, the Antarctic trend is a lot more unclear, and reports that indicate ice increase tend to be localized.
Furthermore, studies show that Antarctic temperatures are increasing overall.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=91
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/#more-625
Further, your philosophy of looking at many indications to discern an imminent global catastrophe runs out of steam quickly when this type of logic is employed. Makes one wonder about all the other assertions.
When you fabricate facts, look at localized effects, and misrepresent research, you can say pretty much whatever you want. I don't know if you're willfully misrepresenting the research, or are fundamentally ignorant of the actual arguments, but when you "employ this type of logic", it's very easy to take apart your arguments.
Crakar your global cooling idea expressed above has yet more support:
First sentance from that article:
"Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, ..."
Bam, right off the bat, epic fail. Article can be disregarded. Keep swinging, slugger, you'll hit one out of the park eventually.
Posted by: Adam | March 24, 2009 6:42 PM
Further correction, melting Arctic ice does not increase sea levels, it is already in the sea. My observation comes from various documentaries on GW. Specifically Gore's AIT, are you asserting that reference is not made?
As for your second comment note I did not represent any facts or research just pointed out a contradiction in the GW theory. You however, support my overall assertion that logic takes a holiday in "GW think". You misrepresent what I said and finish off with ad hominen irrelevance, without those rhetorical tools there would be no GW movement.
Posted by: RS | March 24, 2009 7:22 PM
RS you should take 10 minutes and read the links that Adam provided. Unlike the TV weathermen at SPPI, Eric Steig is an actual climate scientist and is very good at explaining the science to the rest of us.
Posted by: mikatollah | March 24, 2009 8:55 PM
You mean read his when he refused to read mine?
this one might be more interesting, instead of simply playing dueling websites lets look at the way the GW theory is being advanced, mainly duplicitous assertions and cover ups, and of course endless ad hominem attacks, only Nietszche gets away with that.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
Posted by: RS | March 25, 2009 5:56 AM
Ok so i read them. You cannot be serious about using this as supporting anything. The Steig report has already been discredited, that was fast. And little wonder, here is the description of the method from the NY Times:
"In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations."
read: weather stations are sparse in Antarctica so we made up the data. Among the scientists in this group was none other than Michael Mann, well known for fabricating the hockey stick graph. Very helpful inofrmation. My claim that GW theory is insidious and dishonest now has new support thanks to these citations. Have a nice day.
Posted by: RS | March 25, 2009 6:14 AM
Gee, what a surprise, you don't like satellite data in the antarctic that indicates warming. Are you similarly wary of the satellite data that indicates tropospheric warming is less than models predict? The satellites are by far the preferred data set for the denial side of this debate.
Posted by: coby | March 25, 2009 11:02 AM
RS -
I read the link to the article you provided, and I'll reiterate my claim; it's complete bollocks.
quoted from above:
First sentence from that article:
"Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, ..."
Bam, right off the bat, epic fail. Article can be disregarded.
Blatant disregard for basic scientific information means I don't take them seriously. Nor should you, if you're being honest.
re: that Watt's up with that post:
This again? Sigh, I'll just post what someone who actually bothered to contact Hansen said:
"John Theon never had any supervisory authority over me. "
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/02/hansen-strikes-back-more-on-john-s.html
And besides, people who say things like "Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released..." are also completely misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) the difference between weather and climate. To reiterate, for the slow: Weather is short term, Climate is long term.
The Steig report has already been discredited, that was fast.
Interpolating measurements using a separate data-set is not the same as making data up. Are you getting those claim's from Watt's Up With That? I have yet to see a post from there that isn't misleading.
Posted by: Adam | March 25, 2009 12:19 PM
Bam, most graphs will show you that 98 peaked and temps have been dropping since, so he is not that far off nor disingenuous. But you might as well stop reading, just in case you dont like what you read.
Posted by: RS | March 25, 2009 12:29 PM
I have no problem with satellite data in the Antarctic or elsewhere. I struggle with "interpolated" satellite data when Michael Mann is doing the interpolating. He is, or should be, an embarrasetment to the GW movement but here he is again... Many real scientists are, lets say disappointed.
Here is a source for the critique
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4332784/Despite-the-hot-air-the-Antarctic-is-not-warming-up.html
and here is the report
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html
This web site indicates that Antartica is not melting. The bogus study concludes that parts of it have warmed almost 1 degree in fifty years, so -35 is now -34? melting? I think not.
And assuming that I accept satellite data in certain instances but not others brings me back to my original point, you made that up, it is not an argument. This happens too often with defenders of the faith.
Posted by: RS | March 25, 2009 3:33 PM
Ah, yes! Christopher Booker, that paragon of scientific virtue and honestly. And surprise, surprise, he ends his column with that most scientific of arguments, arguing against big government and government spending!
Let's examine what else Mr. Booker considers scientific:
Intelligent Design
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1495664/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html (Talking with Dinosaurs section, scroll down)
Second Hand Smoke doesn't cause cancer;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1556118/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html
White asbestos not dangerous:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1381270/Christopher-Bookers-Notebook.html
Seriously, if you're going to quote a journalist, at least don't insult everyone's intelligence by referencing some right-wing hack.
Posted by: Adam | March 25, 2009 5:43 PM
I read Booker's articles. Nothing to do with GW. So if you don't like the journalist's politics you do not feel compelled to address the opinion of the scientists quoted in his article? Cop out.
Posted by: RS | March 28, 2009 6:48 AM
Harry Wanless presentation:
www.broward.org/climatechange/wanless.pdf
Great presentation by Prof. Wanless, UMiami. Good description of the sea level fluctuations without anthropogenic (sic) influence.
120,000 years ago at 20 feet ABOVE present sea level, then 360 BELOW our present SL just 18,000 years ago, to just 3 feet below our present level just 3000 years ago. All that without human influence.
Prof Wanless is an adamant supporter of AGW. I can't understand why when his own presentation refutes it as man made.
I guess Ford has been around longer than I had recalled.
That GW "might" be occuring has nothing to do with humans, but 99% to do with nature.
Posted by: brecman, ft laud | May 5, 2009 8:34 PM
brecman,
Please see this article:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/01/climate-is-always-changing.php
Yes, the climate has changed for various other reasons before, that says precisely nothing about what is the cause today.
Posted by: coby | May 5, 2009 9:56 PM