It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 01:59 AM

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 01:59 AM
Well I'll be darned!

To and fro would be the best phrase to describe climate science at present. I just don't know who to believe anymore... does anyone really know what is going on?

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

I guess climate systems are so complex the only time we will actually agree on warming or cooling will be when there is no ice or we are one giant snowball.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:09 AM
Thickening at the core, more heat makes more evaporation, worse storms, makes more snowfall. Warmer ocean currents thawing out the exterior! No prob it is confusing! It seems to be on purpose sometimes,
(so the status quo will keep prevailing.....)
I swear I answered this same thread a few days ago!

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:12 AM
I am so confused,I thought I just heard a big piece just broke off from the ice shelf.There is so much disinformation out there and it seems like the fear mongering is never ending.

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:20 AM
reply to post by debz325

It did, there is a thread on it already. I will find a link and post it here.
I believe it is part of the Larsen B Ice shelf. It is huge and it has been happening awhile now. This will allow warmer water deeper into the continent and will also speed up the thawing process.
Something this big and complex is bound to be confusing!
It takes alot of studying to even realize all these different factors and
we are not even aware of some of these interactions I'm sure!
Heres info about Larsen B:
I know a narrow ice bridge broke off recently, I will find that one too.
Here it is:

[edit on 18-4-2009 by dodadoom]

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 02:23 AM
No real to and fro. It's been known for a while that antarctic sea ice isn't reducing and probably increasing overall.

However, the ice sheet is a different story. So the author is being cute here...

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap

and I think he is with Dr Allison's quotes as well. There are studies that show recent ice mass loss in antarctica.

Published Online March 2, 2006
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1123785
Science Express Index

Submitted on December 13, 2005
Accepted on February 21, 2006

Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica
Isabella Velicogna 1* and John Wahr 2*
1 University of Colorado and CIRES, UCB 390, Boulder, CO 80309-0390, USA; Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Mail Stop 300-233, Pasadena, CA 91109-8099, USA.
2 University of Colorado and CIRES, UCB 390, Boulder, CO 80309-0390, USA.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Isabella Velicogna , E-mail:
John Wahr , E-mail:

Using measurements of time-variable gravity from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites we determine mass variations of the Antarctic ice sheet during 2002-2005. We find that the ice sheet mass decreased significantly, at a rate of 152 ± 80 km3/year of ice, equivalent to 0.4 ± 0.2 mm/year of global sea level rise. Most of this mass loss came from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Nature Geoscience 1, 106 - 110 (2008)
Published online: 13 January 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo102

Subject Categories: Climate science | Cryospheric science

Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling

Eric Rignot1,2,3, Jonathan L. Bamber4, Michiel R. van den Broeke5, Curt Davis6, Yonghong Li6, Willem Jan van de Berg5 & Erik van Meijgaard7

Large uncertainties remain in the current and future contribution to sea level rise from Antarctica. Climate warming may increase snowfall in the continent's interior1, 2, 3, but enhance glacier discharge at the coast where warmer air and ocean temperatures erode the buttressing ice shelves4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Here, we use satellite interferometric synthetic-aperture radar observations from 1992 to 2006 covering 85% of Antarctica's coastline to estimate the total mass flux into the ocean. We compare the mass fluxes from large drainage basin units with interior snow accumulation calculated from a regional atmospheric climate model for 1980 to 2004. In East Antarctica, small glacier losses in Wilkes Land and glacier gains at the mouths of the Filchner and Ross ice shelves combine to a near-zero loss of 461 Gt yr-1. In West Antarctica, widespread losses along the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas increased the ice sheet loss by 59% in 10 years to reach 13260 Gt yr-1 in 2006. In the Peninsula, losses increased by 140% to reach 6046 Gt yr-1 in 2006. Losses are concentrated along narrow channels occupied by outlet glaciers and are caused by ongoing and past glacier acceleration. Changes in glacier flow therefore have a significant, if not dominant impact on ice sheet mass balance.

The Australian is known to have issues with presenting the science in a robust fashion. Comparable to the Telegraph in the UK.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by melatonin]

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:15 AM
This is actually consistent with the Data that has been formulated through Observations over quite a long period of time. Sections of Antarctica are in fact experiencing their coldest Average Temperatures in nearly 1,500 years. The extreme cold has in fact dried up already frozen lakes, due to the loss of Moisture brought forth as an effect of such (Sustained Temperatures at any extreme typically lead to a loss of Moisture Holding Ability).

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:29 AM
So instead of building dikes around Manhattan, we build staircases?

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 04:04 AM
So it is cooling down and heating up at once? This has me confused. Also I read about the mini ice age and global warming which is seemingly happening at the same time. So yeah only time will tell what is actually happening.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:26 PM
Apparently there is this thing called "Global Climate Change", where parts get cold (but are ignored), and other parts warm up (reported and twisted to hell).

Then reports such as these appear, where the amount of ice is increasing, not decreasing.

I call this lot NATURE. Everyone else will tell you it is "dangerous climate change".

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:38 PM
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

Good post. Starred.
The first problem, as you pointed out, is that people, such as Al Gore, who know nothing about the dynamics of climate, cherry pick the items that fit their preconceived theory.
The bigger problem is that scientists still have no idea of:
1.) All of the factors that constitute climate change
2.) The interactive effect of factors.
3.) A history of data for all of those factors(many of which they haven't even identified yet!)

What these "experts" are doing is the equivalent of a person who comes upon a car accident, involving a blue 4 door sedan, with a driver who is wearing a gray shirt and black pants, and sneakers, and concludes that blue 4 door sedans, gray shirted, black pants drivers wearing sneakers are solely responsible for causing accidents.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by ProfEmeritus]

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:38 PM
Ice will continue to break off of Antarctica. That's because the ice continues to flow and grow in Antarctica.

These global warming nuts never, ever considered precipitation in their calculations.

Think about it.

You take a pan of water. As you heat it up, what happens? It evaporates faster, and in a closed system, increases precipitation. Precipitation has a cooling effect as anyone who has experienced a rainstorm knows.

And with global air currents, this increased precipitation increases as snow and ice on the arctic regions. It takes twice the heat to melt a pound of steel, as it takes to transport one pound of ice to the polar regions. Heat. Heat increases the polar regions.

Our magnetic field is weakening, possibly preparing for a shift. As our magnetosphere weakens, more radiation hits the surface, creating heat.

When I light my charcoal for a steak, or get in my truck, I don't created global warming.

One volcanic explosion spews more CO2, sulpher, and noxious fumes in the air in a day than humanity can expel in a century.

If the ice on the cap is growing, that concerns me as it would appear that we are actually cooling, which could be more disastrous than global warming.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:43 PM
How many people actually realize that ice in large quantities, such as with glaciers, actually flows? So this means ice formed at the cap, will eventually flow towards the coasts thereby replacing the ice currently calving off.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:43 PM
reply to post by Shere Khaan

Is there any doubt still that Global warming is a sham orchestrated by the elite who want to further enslave us while simultaneously making their coffers richer?

The world might be experiencing a warm spell, but it isnt as bad as Gore and others would have you believe, wonder why that is? HMMMM

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:03 PM
Climates alter. Vegetation alters to match the climactic changes to the local environment.


That is the one constant.

Al Gore forgot Grimsley's First Rule of Bull$h***ing: Never start believing your own Bull$h**.

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:29 PM
reply to post by dooper

Excellent point! Not only that, it leads to mass extinction sometimes!

If you look at
You will see that extinctions happen at certain intervals.
Such a massive and increasingly faster change is happening now,
it may be a self induced extinction this time!
Do we dare think about the bigger picture that we should worry about?
Regardless of whos fault it is, if anybodys! Blame an asteroid!

Anyway if you look at each interval for extinction you will see that the first
interval was from the Ordovician-Silurian extinction 439 million years ago, to the Late Devonian extinction, about 364 million years ago, which is 75 million years right? (working from bottom to top)
Then the next gap was from the Late Devonian extinction, about 364 million years ago to the Permian-Triassic extinction, about 251 million years ago, which leaves 113 million years.
Then the next gap was from the Permian-Triassic extinction, about 251 million years ago to the End Triassic extinction, roughly 199 million to 214 million years ago, which is around 50 million we'll say here for easy math.
That leaves 130 million from the End Triassic extinction to the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, about 65 million years ago.
Guess what happens when you subtract 65 million years from 65 million years what do you get? A big zero! I think we are out of time.
Give or take a mill!
Is that pretty good reasoning? Or, no.....

Just a curious pattern of interesting, huge-ish numbers I thought was worth posting.

Also was interesting to read about what they think caused them!

Didnt we bout get hit by an asteroid not too long ago?
Maybe we should spend our energy loving others while we still have it....

[edit on 20-4-2009 by dodadoom]

posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:22 AM
reply to post by dodadoom

I don't see any logic or patterns in your math... There are four time gaps: 75 million years (my), 113my, 45my, 141my. I see no pattern in these numbers at all, nor do I get where you got the 65-65 math from... Perhaps you should consider revising your hypothesis?

posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:43 AM
reply to post by Highground

Thanks for you post! I know it is confusing!
I was pulling out whats left of my hair just posting it!

Um, the 2nd to the last extinction was 135 million years ago.
the last extinction was 65 million years ago!
Take 65 away from 135 what do you get, 65. Then take 65 away from 65.
You get zero time left. Give or take a million!

I guess Im just really bored on here tonight is all.
That means we are exactly due for something according to the last
two extinctions anyway at 65 (my) apart. Granted we may never go extinct.
Not that I have alot of faith in man to save himself without help, hence the name.
I do believe peace will come eventually, it just wont be pretty gettin here.
I guess in all this what I am saying is we are pretty small creatures in the big realm of things. We could get hit by an asteroid and we would be toast. I'm just saying instead of worrying about icebergs we cant save,
maybe we should take care of and conserve what we have and spend our time and energy helping and appreciating each other!
Guess I should of just made it easy, kept it to myself and
just said - Peace out everyone, I'm going to go back to
sleep and dream some more.
Its so much easier!
Thanks again!

[edit on 20-4-2009 by dodadoom]

posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 12:54 AM
It makes sense in a wierd kind of way. Common sense would dictate that it contradicts the idea that global temperatures are increasing causing glaciers to recede and the arctic ice rapidly disappearing (which we know is occurring). . It WOULD make sense though so far as the recent cracking of Antarctic ice sheets.

See a thread on one of these here:'

More ice would mean more weight on the ice sheets (or at least some of them). If the ice isn't thick enough at key load-bearing points, logic tells us that the weakest part of the shelf will inevitably crack and eventually cause the shelf to collapse into the ocean. So, at least in a way, more ice/weight in certain areas could cause the Antarctic ice to start disappearing faster.

The dynamics of the ocean currents, themselves, would almost seem to account for the ice buildup in theory. Antarctic ice is basically an isolated oceanic system surrounded by a giant rotating current of water. In this way it is unique in that it is mostly a closed system. Scientists refer to this as the
"Antarctic Convergence"

Illustration of the currents surrounding and rotating around Antarctica:

Map provided by:

The problem with this new data being discovered by Australian scientists though is this..

Since Antarctica belongs to no nation, it has been basically sectioned off into territorial claims belonging to different countries. Australia researches and documents scientific data they gather from their territorial claim in the eastern portion of Antarctica as this image from wikipedia illustrates.

So just because we hear from the Aussies that the ice is thickening in their territory doesn't mean that it isn't melting rapidly elsewhere. In fact, we know that the Western areas of Antarctica are thinning/melting. It is even touched on in the OP's news story. I would think that international collaboration would've cleared this up. But you never know.. Some might look at all the data the Aussies are providng about thickening ice and use it to argue their own side of the issue by claiming that since it is thickening in one spot it must be thickening elsewhere (even though we know that is false).

But the overall scientific consensus, from what I can tell, seems to be that since Antarctic ocean currents are, largely, disconnected from the more climatologically-impacting ocean current systems in the mid to northern latitudes that Antarctica seems to have been much less affected by the warmer global temperatures and warmer "warm ocean currents" elsewhere.

This doesn't mean that Antarctica doesn't play a key roll in global climate. It absolutely does. But as the OP's news story states..

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

But there is no telling what will happen within the next 50-100 years. Scientists are now saying things like this...Ice-free Arctic Ocean possible in 30 years, not 90 as previously estimated from the University of Washington. We know that arctic sea ice is disappearing at an incredible rate. I talked about this a little in a different thread, but It has even opened shipping routes that weren't previously open (in an area referred to as "The Northwest Passage").
Melting Arctic Ocean opens shipping frontier

I bring up the issue of arctic sea ice because of the key role it plays in the bigger picture of ocean currents in what is basically a transfer of energy. If that factor of Arctic ice is completely removed from the equation, what results might actually accelerate the melting of the Antarctic ice. I only say that because if there is nowhere else for the cold water to come from, the warmer ocean currents would almost theoretically "draw-in" the colder water from wherever it can. Since Anatarctica would be the last place left for the cold water to come from, it would make sense in a way. Eventually, new currents might form in such a way that rapidly accelerate the melting of Antarctic ice.

My larger point is that this is good news and bad news. It doesn't mean that global temperatures won't continue to rise, and it doesn't mean that ice everywhere else won't disappear. But it would definately play a role in that even after all the other ice is gone, the Antarctic ice would still remain to somewhat balance out the system. My worry is that this would cause the Antarctic sea-ice to melt/recede much like it has in the Arctic. Cold Arctic water is directly tied-in to a massive system that basically cancels out the warmer currents. Antarctic ice isn't as directly affected by the overall oceanic current system as Arctic ice. There ARE other factors though too that are dictating what is currently unfolding. Not just ocean currents.

I would liken this recently-discovered thickening of Antarctic ice in this region to the fact that some glaciers are continuing to build-up and become larger (even if only an extremely small number of them). This contradicts the rapid rate of glaciers receding everywhere else due to the warmer climate system in most other locations.


posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 05:11 PM
Nice post Blaster

Just on the Australian scientists finding this information and the location thereof, it is important to note that this section from the original article.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

The article is Australian so it mentions the Australian territory as part of the findings and not the source. It is actually the international organisation Scientific Committee on Antartic Research and compises all the countries present in the Antarctic (and some).

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in