# Antarctica gaining ice cover? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 21, 2009, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265 "2009-01-21T05:00:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/1 "2009-01-21T05:00:18Z")
Hi guys. As I have mentioned (possibly ad nauseum), I am a grad student in public policy and every year my school has an Integrated Policy Exercise, a sort of policy LARP. This year we had a three day mock climate change conference. We had loads of speakers, including a representative from the UN and Bush’s senior climate change representative, come talk to us. (Reputable people, is the point.) One of the speakers - I think it was a corporate representative - told us that he’d heard on the radio that morning (this was between January 3-5) that Antarctica was _gaining_ ice cover. We were forbidden from using computers while guests were speaking, or that statement would have sent a hundred people off to Google. I forgot about that until just now, but after googling a bit, I have _no_ idea what this dude was talking about. There do seem to be a lot of people claiming that global warming isn’t happening and Antarctica has more ice now than its ever had in recorded history, but all of the URLs are things like [climatechangeskeptic.com](http://climatechangeskeptic.com) or whatever. Was this guy full of it, or what? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/2 "2009-01-21T06:25:17Z")
AFAICT, climate scientists generally are in agreement that the ice pack around Antarctica is increasing in size, and also agree that this doesn’t invalidate conclusions about global warming. [Here’s](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/#more-529) the response at [realclimate.org](http://realclimate.org), a site run by professional climate scientists who support the majority hypothesis that anthropogenic warming is having a significant impact on global climate: > [@](#): > > Despite the recent announcement that the discharge from some Antarctic glaciers is accelerating, we often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century. […] > > After all, the Southern Hemisphere is mostly ocean, whereas land occupies a good part of the Northern Hemisphere. A model constructed by Stephen Schneider and Thompson, highly simplified in modern terms but sophisticated for its time, suggested that the Southern Hemisphere would experience delays decades longer than the Northern. […] > > In the twenty years since, computer models have improved by orders of magnitude, but they continue to show that Antarctica cannot be expected to warm up very significantly until long after the rest of the world’s climate is radically changed. > > Bottom line: A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming. For a long time the models have predicted just that. ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/3 "2009-01-21T14:05:10Z")
Thank you! That makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/4 "2009-01-21T16:54:35Z")
Even without the internet though, you should be aware that there is nothing inherently contradictory about a small section of the planet getting colder while the rest of the planet gets warmer. ---
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/5 "2009-01-21T17:18:34Z")
[This](http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50I4G520090119) doesn’t seem like they’re gaining much. ---
**Author:** ![dre2xl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@dre2xl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dre2xl)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/6 "2009-01-21T17:25:39Z")
IIRC, Antarctica isn’t gaining ice cover necessarily because it’s colder, but because it’s snowing more where it used to snow very little there. ---
**Author:** ![Turble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Turble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turble)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/7 "2009-01-22T16:45:39Z")
> [@](#): > > … Antarctica cannot be expected to warm up very significantly until long after the rest of the world’s climate is radically changed. > > Bottom line: A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming. For a long time the models have predicted just that. This link [Antarctica is warming, not cooling: study](http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE50K5BM20090121) and the one provided by chacoguy would seem to indicate that those computer models could use some tweaking. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/8 "2009-01-22T17:07:58Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Bottom line: A cold Antarctica and Southern Ocean do not contradict our models of global warming. For a long time the models have predicted just that. [/QUOTE] > [@Turble](#): > > This link [Antarctica is warming, not cooling: study](http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE50K5BM20090121) and the one provided by chacoguy would seem to indicate that those computer models could use some tweaking. The real bottom line: Belief in current models of climate change and their causes, and particularly behaviour patterns of believers in AGW, is very like the behaviour of believers in (any other) Religion. To wit: There is obvious evidence for it. Leaders who have examined the evidence are uniformly confident of its accuracy. More people should believe. More should listen to those leaders. Non-believers are foolish, and blind to the evidence. Only recruitment of new believers and a change in their behaviour is the path to salvation. And most importantly (with the topic at hand as the example): Like any successful belief paradigm, the Religion of AGW readily accommodates and accounts for contradictory evidence, morphing as necessary to keep the Great Cause alive. I take no position regarding AGW (other than my general, unscientific, uninformed skepticism based on the general principle that what drives AGW is hysteria and the human need for a Great Cause). But I am fascinated by the behaviours of its believers and how closely it parallels religious beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/9 "2009-01-22T17:19:07Z")
> [@Turble](#): > > This link Antarctica is warming, not cooling: study and the one provided by chacoguy would seem to indicate that those computer models could use some tweaking. Computer models are never perfect, of course, but I don’t think there’s an actual contradiction between the cite I posted and the new study you linked to. The claim is that **parts** of Antarctica are getting colder (as the study in your link acknowledges too), which doesn’t invalidate the finding that the continent **as a whole** is warming. Nor does **chacoguy** ’s link about the crumbling of Antarctic ice shelves invalidate the data about an increase in the amount of winter sea ice **around** Antarctica. Sea ice is a seasonal phenomenon that forms in the winter and (almost entirely) melts in the summer, and the Antarctic winter sea ice pack has been increasing. Ice shelves are extensions of sort-of-permanent land-based ice sheets sticking out into the sea, and the Antarctic ice shelves have been diminishing. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/10 "2009-01-22T17:23:56Z")
> [@Chief Pedant](#): > > I take no position regarding AGW (other than my general, unscientific, uninformed skepticism based on the general principle that what drives AGW is hysteria and the human need for a Great Cause). I see: you espouse a “principle that what drives AGW is hysteria and the human need for a Great Cause”, but you “take no position regarding AGW”. Got it. And while skepticism is a good thing, uninformed skepticism isn’t as good as the other kind. ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/11 "2009-01-22T17:28:59Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The real bottom line: Belief in current models of climate change and their causes, and particularly behaviour patterns of believers in AGW, is very like the behaviour of believers in (any other) Religion. Well, I think that the difference is that religion is based on faith and AGW is based on scientific evidence that has undergone peer review. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Turble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Turble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turble)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/12 "2009-01-22T17:56:11Z")
Something you can believe in: There is no debate about global warming … if you will just believe. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/13 "2009-01-22T18:19:03Z")
> [@Turble](#): > > Something you can believe in: There is no debate about global warming … if you will just believe. I’m not getting the impression that any of the vast majority of climate scientists who accept the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change are asking anybody to “just believe”. On the contrary, they’re putting out vast quantities of peer-reviewed research explaining the details of why they think the observed data supports that hypothesis. The trouble seems to be that so many people are confused about the details—like the distinction between sea ice and ice shelves mentioned above, for example—and thus find it hard to follow the explanations. Climate-change science is fundamentally different from faith-based hypotheses such as creationism, or the “NASA moon landing hoax” belief, in several important ways. For example, in the case of creationism and moon-landing-hoaxism, the skeptics who dispute those beliefs tend to be better informed about the facts and the science involved than the believers who promote them. In the case of AGW, it’s the other way around: most of the self-described “skeptics” about climate change are much less informed about the science than the scientists who advocate the climate-change hypothesis. The skeptics have pretty much just fallen back on sneering “ah, it’s just a religion” and nitpicking apparent inconsistencies generally based on elementary misunderstandings, rather than seriously addressing the issues and arguments. After all, if you’re disputing the views of people who are much better informed about the subject in question than you are, there’s not much else you **can** do besides sneering and nitpicking. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/14 "2009-01-22T18:31:44Z")
[http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/11649825](http://gmy.news.yahoo.com/v/11649825) Link goes to a video Reuters report on the nearly detached Wilkins Ice Shelf. Also, an annoying Dunkin Donuts ad. ---
**Author:** ![Turble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Turble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turble)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/15 "2009-01-22T18:59:48Z")
The vast majority of climate scientists accept the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change … Fact or leap of faith? [Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming](http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=122) > [@](#): > > Klaus-Martin Schulte examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. While only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/16 "2009-01-22T19:12:12Z")
> [@Kyla](#): > > Well, I think that the difference is that religion is based on faith and AGW is based on scientific evidence that has undergone peer review. > > YMMV. For specific scientists, perhaps. I’m not so sure that’s true for the masses. What the masses believe is that the scientists are correct. I would say that to an extent the masses buying into a Great Cause have more faith in the infallibility of the scientists than the scientists have in the infallibility of the science. In the interest of focusing on the issue about the Antarctic, my observation is that once the core belief–AGW is a problem requiring our immediate attention–is established, the psychology of needing to continue to believe that parallels faith more than an analysis of evidence (particularly for those for whom the core belief has become part of their value system). Conflicting data and or models for whether and why the Antarctic is warming or cooling, for example, are psychologically absorbed not in the light of whether they diminish the core AGW belief–that, like a belief in God, has become unassailable–but how they should be interpreted within the accepted framework. Mankind (including Science) has a long history of these sorts of paradigms, accepted slowly and skeptically, perhaps, but then becoming so pervasive that any conflicting data is seen as either erroneous or actually fitting in somehow within the current paradigm. None of this means AGW is incorrect, of course. It does mean that if the Antarctic is really warming (or if any other ((superficially)) contradictory item is discovered that conflicts with AGW), it’s much more likely to be regarded as an anomoly or else actually quite consistent with AGW somehow, rather than being seen as a substantive challenge. Consider two examples from other paradigms in the past: Planetary epicycles to accommodate observations which conflict with a geocentric model, or the concept of Free Will to explain away the Problem of Pain within a universe ruled by a benevolent God. A surprising amount of what we believe is actually faith-based–that is to say, we don’t personally have the wherewithal to examine the evidence critically. And the behaviours of believers, I find, is not so different whether the authority in question is Religion or Science. Where Religion and Science conflict on matters of fact, of course, Science is gonna win. That is not the same thing as saying Science itself is always correct, and what I’m suggesting is the psychology of why we hold and cling to beliefs is the same underlying psychology. It is also why even ultimately incorrect scientific paradigms can long outlive contradictory observations. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/17 "2009-01-22T19:20:27Z")
> [@Turble](#): > > Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming The rest of them think it’s a pretty bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/18 "2009-01-22T19:27:37Z")
> [@Turble](#): > > The vast majority of climate scientists accept the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change … Fact or leap of faith? > > [Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming](http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=122) What are you trying to say with this post? You quote an argument, and link to a page explaining why it’s wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/19 "2009-01-22T19:29:22Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > A surprising amount of what we believe is actually faith-based–that is to say, we don’t personally have the wherewithal to examine the evidence critically. And the behaviours of believers, I find, is not so different whether the authority in question is Religion or Science. Where Religion and Science conflict on matters of fact, of course, Science is gonna win. That is not the same thing as saying Science itself is always correct, and what I’m suggesting is the psychology of why we hold and cling to beliefs is the same underlying psychology. It is also why even ultimately incorrect scientific paradigms can long outlive contradictory observations. [Moderating] I don’t think this thread really needs to be sidetracked into a discussion of the psychology of belief. If you have something factual to add regarding Antarctic Ice, go ahead. Otherwise, please take this discussion to another formum. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265/20 "2009-01-22T19:38:41Z")
Pertinent current stories: [New evidence on Antarctic warming](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7843186.stm) [Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real](http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html#cnnSTCText) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/antarctica-gaining-ice-cover/482265.md?page=2)