Is the Antarctic Ice Melting Or Not?

What kind of scientists do we have working nowadays who can't even figure out if ice in the Antarctic is melting or not?

Here's two different stories saying the exact opposite things about the ice melting, and these articles were released only days apart!

Antarctica Melting Faster Than Expected - January 15, 2008

According to the new findings, snowfall is topping up ice in the continent's interior and East Antarctic has held its own.

But West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula lost nearly 200 billion tonnes of ice in 2006 alone.

That is 75 per cent more than losses in 1996 and the equivalent of a global sea level rise of more than half a millimetre, claim international scientists led by NASA geoscientist Eric Rignot, also with the University of California, Irvine (UCI).

"Losses are concentrated along narrow channels occupied by outlet glaciers and are caused by ongoing and past glacier acceleration.

And here is another article, on the Treehugger website.
Antarctic Ice Grows as Arctic Ice Declines - on 01.10.08

With stories of melting glaciers and sea ice dominating the headlines, it may come as a surprise to some to hear that Antarctica - defying the unlucky fate of its northern cousin - has actually gained over the last two decades. Indeed, while scientists noted declines in the amount of sea ice between 2000 and 2002, satellite records have pointed to a steady half a percent yearly gain since 1978.

These two articles came out only 5 days apart!

If these scientists actually knew what was happening, I think we might be getting better info from them, but conflicting stories like this, in my opinion, sure doesn't help the public to understand exactly what is going on.

So, is the Antarctic gaining ice or losing ice? Who knows, it sure seems like the scientists don't!

[edit on 15/1/08 by Keyhole]

I haven't made a full research on this, but I believe we are just going to a cycle that has been happening eversince. Everything is linked to the solar cycle. More sunspots indicates a much active sun giving higher average temperatures. High temperatures equals global warming equals polar ice melting.

I agree, are we loosing ice or gaining more ice? i read conflicting stories as well. And why hasnt anyone confronted Bob that hes got it all wrong!

Originally posted by Keyhole
Here's two different stories saying the exact opposite things about the ice melting, and these articles were released only days apart!

This is great news for me! Now I can quote the study that backs up what I think, and can also claim the other study comes from those evil types (you know who I mean) who are a bunch of liars out for their own self-interests.

Well, I just read that the penguin population is getting smaller and smaller because of reduced ice, so I would guess smaller!

Hi Keyhole,

from a preliminary reading of your links it appears they are focusing on different regions of antarctica.

The losses are related to the west and peninsula regions of antarctica. The gains to sea ice.

I just finished watching a video from CNN.com about some "ice" men who have mapped a lake 2 miles below the ice in Antarctica. They are now trying to determine if the ice is also melting from the bottom up.

Imagine what could be in this lake, if any eco system survived the millions of years below the ice. Prehistoric creatures alive? Or would the test of evolution come into play here.

CNN.com video

Originally posted by Keyhole
These two articles came out only 5 days apart!

Have you noticed that whenever there is a huge winter storm or a report stating that something is getting colder or that ice is getting thicker somewhere that all the sudden you'll get a news report only days later that is a polar opposite? Its like the IPCC is trying to do PR damage control. You can almost set your watch by it.

Last night the history channel showed a set of two orbiters measuring the total volume. It has dropped 8%. I forget the name I think its alice but the two orbiters each had a different name. They calibrate by shooting a beam between them to check each others measurements. Cool show. I think it was called ice age meltdown or something.

Originally posted by Illahee
Cool show. I think it was called ice age meltdown or something.

I saw that show and thought it was a load of poppycock. It appeared to be yet another in the seemingly endless run of shows that try to get mileage out of the "End of the World" hysteria spawned by the global warming marketers. These generally heavily imply that something horrible is going to happen due to various changes in assorted things like glacier sizes. None of it proven, of course.

I had to turn the channel. If I want sexy doomsday fantasies, I'll watch the fundamentalist Christian channels.

I'm guessing the answer lies in who is supplying the grant money to each group of "scientists."

Where's Algor when we need him?
Oh, wait, I know, he's at the ATM for the bank of Carbon BS stuff....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Great post, I gave it a star.

Thanks.

reply to post by Rhain

Imagine what could be in this lake, if any eco system survived the millions of years below the ice. Prehistoric creatures alive? Or would the test of evolution come into play here.

YES YES YES! These are the aspects I find most interesting. I wish the ice could melt without any adverse effects so we could see what is under all that ice. I find it so compelling, imagine what we could learn...
Alas, I know it would really mess up the rest of the world if it did melt, bummer.

reply to post by Nohup


Yes,I watched the same show and agree, had to change the channel as well.
History channel has some really interesting shows (can't wait for that The World without People next Monday) but they are always obviously biased or claim fact when it is theory.

I am a firm believer that there are underground volcanoes that are heating up and causing a phenomena of natural displacement of arctic ice and replenishing the earth with new and pristine terra firma. The shifts will be evidence of this in the future as we now have the technology to keep records that can and will withstand any and all calamity that in the past has been kept secret and or lost due to inability to withstand the tests of time.

Approximately 70,000 years ago a very primitive man was exposed to the most catastrophic climate changing event since the asteroid killed the dinosaurs. That event being the Toba eruption. This eruption being the largest ever discovered. It dwarfed the Yellowstone eruptions. Through the hell that certainly followed man survived.

Approximately 12,000 years ago a slightly more evolved, yet still primitive man was subjected to another major climate upheaval. This event was known as the Younger Dryas. Without the textiles of today, the heating, and the shelter we now enjoy the slightly primitive man survived.

The Toba eruption and the Younger Dryas events were catastrophic on a global scale. Man didn't have computer models, satellite, weather radar or any other advanced tool at his disposal. He didn't have central heat, insulated homes, or any of the clothing we have today. He wore the skin of the animals he killed and he lived in whatever shelter he could build with his hands and the materials he found around him. With all that he survived.

Forgive me for not being concerned if the Arctic or Antarctic ice grows or shrinks a little.

it depends on location, definitve data is hard to come by of course, but for all it's worth:


www.newscientist.com...

www.gsfc.nasa.gov...

www.timesonline.co.uk...


on top of that, if you asked people about melting that should have aldrady occured, according to theory, they will come up with ludicrously low values of sea level rise, in the millimeter range, which of course cannot be measured with any reliability.