# Global Warming progressing far faster than previously thought **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056 "2014-01-17T13:47:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/241 "2014-01-29T03:18:51Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Here’s a thought. Accurately predict something and stop posting excuses for why all the past predictions failed. Well, they’ve accurately predicted quite a lot, including rising atmospheric temperatures, warming oceans, etc. You don’t seem to notice except when a prediction turns out to be inaccurate. Also, what you describe as “excuses for why all the past predictions failed” appears to be what scientists call “modifications to a hypothesis in order to better model observed results”; or in other words, “doing science”. The only way to make future predictions more accurate is to re-examine scientific models and propose “excuses”, i.e., explanations, for why past predictions failed. You seem to believe instead that climate scientists ought to be magically attaining accurate predictions _a priori_ without needing any empirical process of trial and error. That’s not really the way science works. It’s true that trends in Antarctic sea ice are not yet fully explained by climate models, although [various](http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00139.1) [explanations](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50578/abstract) have recently been proposed for them. But there’s nothing about them that somehow automatically invalidates other science concerning climate change. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/242 "2014-01-29T03:36:41Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > It’s true that trends in Antarctic sea ice are not yet fully explained by climate models, although [various](http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00139.1) [explanations](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50578/abstract) have recently been proposed for them. But there’s nothing about them that somehow automatically invalidates other science concerning climate change. I agree with your sentiments in general, but I’d put more credibility [in this study published in Nature](http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1767.html) than on those hypotheses with respect to Antarctic sea ice. In any case, the important point that is always confused in the mass media and in denialist diatribes is the really fundamental difference between the Antarctic land-based continental ice sheet and the seasonal sea ice. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/243 "2014-01-29T03:38:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Incidentally, none other than Judith Curry published a paper explaining the apparent paradox of more ice in the antarctic in a warming world. There’s no paradox involved. There’s more ice because it’s colder. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/244 "2014-01-29T03:51:31Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > There’s no paradox involved. There’s more ice because it’s colder. Wow. By this “logic”, I’m generating new scientific evidence against the global warming hypothesis every time I fill an additional ice cube tray and put it in my freezer. Hey, there’s more ice now than there used to be, right? That must mean that the planet’s getting colder! Hurray, I’ve demonstrated that global warming is a myth! Cancel the red alert, everybody, crisis averted! 🆒 …Or maybe, y’know, terrestrial thermodynamics is complicated enough that on some smaller scale—be it the size of my refrigerator or the size of the coastal waters surrounding the Antarctic landmass—it’s possible to have a _temporary net increase_ of ice amounts _even though the planet as a whole is getting warmer in the long term_. Stunningly counterintuitive, I know, but that’s science for you. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/245 "2014-01-29T03:51:55Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, they’ve accurately predicted quite a lot, including rising atmospheric temperatures, warming oceans, etc. You don’t seem to notice except when a prediction turns out to be inaccurate. either they’re accurate or they’re not. You can’t have it both ways. “Well gosh some of them are accurate” is not an argument, it’s an excuse. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Also, what you describe as “excuses for why all the past predictions failed” appears to be what scientists call “modifications to a hypothesis in order to better model observed results”; or in other words, “doing science”. Great, come back when you can accurately predict it. It gets really old listening to a chorus of “the sky is falling” followed by “we’re getting better all the time at being wrong and there’s a valid reason why”. Not only are the models often wrong (for valid reasons here-to-for unknown) but they don’t take into consideration the technological advances being made. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/246 "2014-01-29T03:56:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Wow. By this “logic”, I’m generating new scientific evidence against the global warming hypothesis every time I fill an additional ice cube tray and put it in my freezer. No, by this logic if it’s warming then the massive increase in ice formations wouldn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/247 "2014-01-29T03:56:50Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > There’s no paradox involved. There’s more ice because it’s colder. Thanks for the terrific scientific explanation. Moving on with the facts, we see that [Scientists Report Faster Warming in Antarctica](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/science/earth/west-antarctica-warming-faster-than-thought-study-finds.html?_r=0). And I also wonder whether you understand the distinction between the Antarctic ice sheet and the seasonal sea ice, and what you think might happen when coastal waters are inundated with meltwater from the receding ice sheets which has a higher freezing point than the normal seawater. Do facts ever matter to you at all? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/248 "2014-01-29T04:11:07Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Thanks for the terrific scientific explanation. you’re welcome. > [@wolfpup](#): > > Moving on with the facts, we see that Scientists Report Faster Warming in Antarctica. would those be the same scientists whose ship got stuck in the faster freezing ice? Did you actually read the article you cited beyond the title? There wasn’t a definitive statement in the whole thing. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/249 "2014-01-29T04:13:33Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Thanks for the terrific scientific explanation. Moving on with the facts, we see that [Scientists Report Faster Warming in Antarctica](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/science/earth/west-antarctica-warming-faster-than-thought-study-finds.html?_r=0). And I also wonder whether you understand the distinction between the Antarctic ice sheet and the seasonal sea ice, and what you think might happen when coastal waters are inundated with meltwater from the receding ice sheets which has a higher freezing point than the normal seawater. Do facts ever matter to you at all? Incidentally, knowing how cold the south pole was to begin with, even the world warming a few degrees would not mean much for the surface ice over there. The point however that the loss of ice in the arctic is much more than the gain observed in the Antarctic, and still there, as pointed out, there are areas that are not doing so well. > **[Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?](https://theconversation.com/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-growing-19605)** > > Recently NASA reported that this year’s maximum wintertime extent of Antarctic sea ice was the largest on record, even greater than the previous year’s record. This is understandably at odds with the public’s… > [@](#): > > What happened this winter? > > This winter, the maximum total Antarctic sea ice extent was reported to be 19.47 million square kilometres, which is 3.6% above the winter average calculated from 1981 to 2010. This continues a trend that is weakly positive and remains in stark contrast to the decline in Arctic summer sea ice extent (2013 was 18% below the mean from 1981-2010). > > To further complicate this picture, we find this net increase actually masks strong declines in particular regions around Antarctica, such as in the Bellingshausen Sea, which are on par or greater than those in the Arctic. > > So while there is much greater attention given to the Arctic decline and the prediction of “ice-free summers” at the North Pole this century, Antarctic climate scientists still have their work cut out to understand the regional declines amidst the mild “net” expansion occurring in the southern hemisphere. > > Here are some of the leading hypotheses currently being explored through a combination of satellite remote sensing, fieldwork in Antarctica and numerical model simulations – to help explain the increasing trend in overall Antarctic sea ice coverage: > > ``` > Increased westerly winds around the Southern Ocean, linked to changes in the large-scale atmospheric circulation related to ozone depletion, will see greater northward movement of sea ice, and hence extent, of Antarctic sea ice. > > Increased precipitation, in the form of either rain or snow, will increase the density stratification between the upper and middle layers of the Southern Ocean. This might reduce the oceanic heat transfer from relatively warm waters at below the surface layer, and therefore enhancing conditions at the surface for sea ice. > > Similarly, a freshening of the surface layers from this precipitation would also increase the local freezing point of sea ice formation. > > Another potential source of cooling and freshening in the upper ocean around Antarctica is increased melting of Antarctic continental ice, through ocean/ice shelf interaction and iceberg decay. > > The observed changes in sea ice extent could be influenced by a combination of all these factors and still fall within the bounds of natural variability. > > ``` > > **The take home messages is that while the increase in total Antarctic sea ice area is relatively minor compared to the Arctic, it masks the fact that some regions are in strong decline. Given the complex interactions of winds and currents driving patterns of sea ice variability and change in the Southern Ocean climate system, this is not unexpected.** ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/250 "2014-01-29T04:21:22Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > either they’re accurate or they’re not. You can’t have it both ways. So you really think that a scientific model can’t be partly correct and partly incorrect? You’d condemn all of Newtonian classical mechanics, for example, because there are still some flaws in the way its lunar theory models certain highly sensitive perturbations in the moon’s orbit? Science is emphatically **not** an all-or-nothing, “accurate or not” enterprise. It’s a process of refining theoretical quantitative approximations so that over time they do a better job of modeling observed phenomena. There is no magical transition point at which a scientific hypothesis transforms from idle speculation into utter reliability. > [@Magiver](#): > > Great, come back when you can accurately predict it. If you mean that you decline to take climate science seriously until its models can predict precisely what we’re going to observe in every possible manifestation of climate phenomena, then you’ve just removed yourself from the realm of rational debate. Your great-grandchildren will be long dead by the time climate science models can predict **everything** determinable about climate systems. (And, of course, that’s not even taking into account the fact that many things about chaotic dynamical systems such as climate will always remain by their very nature impossible to predict in a deterministic way.) > [@Magiver](#): > > Not only are the models often wrong (for valid reasons here-to-for unknown) but they don’t take into consideration the technological advances being made. For one thing, you seem unaware that climate-change predictions **do** involve considering different scenarios incorporating different possible technological impacts in the future (in both mitigation and reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions), so the idea that models aren’t considering technological advances is simply wrong. For another, you seem unaware that a lot of climate-change predictions are focused on the impacts of anthropogenic changes _that have already been made_. Even if by some miraculous means we never added another part-per-million of CO2 to the earth’s atmosphere ever again, there is a hell of a lot of science required to figure out how the atmospheric changes _already made_ are going to affect climate systems in the coming decades and centuries. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/251 "2014-01-29T04:22:20Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > you’re welcome. would those be the same scientists whose ship got stuck in the faster freezing ice? Speaking of Anthony Watts, that remains one of his most reprehensible use of the misfortune of others in order to score cheap shots. > **[The really ugly side of Anthony Watts and his science deniers at WUWT](https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/the-really-ugly-side-of-anthony-watts.html)** > > Global warming & climate change. Eavesdropping on climate science deniers, their weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy theories. > [@Magiver](#): > > Did you actually read the article you cited beyond the title? There wasn’t a definitive statement in the whole thing. Funny, I saw them mentioning the warming areas and linking to this: [http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n2/full/ngeo1671.html](http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n2/full/ngeo1671.html) > [@](#): > > Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth > > There is clear evidence that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is contributing to sea-level rise. In contrast, West Antarctic temperature changes in recent decades remain uncertain. West Antarctica has probably warmed since the 1950s, but there is disagreement regarding the magnitude, seasonality and spatial extent of this warming. This is primarily because long-term near-surface temperature observations are restricted to Byrd Station in central West Antarctica, a data set with substantial gaps. Here, we present a complete temperature record for Byrd Station, in which observations have been corrected, and gaps have been filled using global reanalysis data and spatial interpolation. The record reveals a linear increase in annual temperature between 1958 and 2010 by 2.4±1.2 °C, establishing central West Antarctica as one of the fastest-warming regions globally. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/252 "2014-01-29T04:29:06Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Did you actually read the article you cited beyond the title? There wasn’t a definitive statement in the whole thing. Is this “definitive”? > [@](#): > > The temperature at a research station in the middle of West Antarctica has warmed by 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1958. That is roughly twice as much as scientists previously thought and three times the overall rate of global warming, making central West Antarctica one of the fastest-warming regions on earth. But no, I didn’t read the whole article because I’m familiar with the original research. There are in fact a lot of geographical and seasonal variations, and there are even isolated areas where land ice mass has increased. But the overall evidence, as one might expect from the global trends, is warming, and there is overall loss of ice mass from the continental ice sheet. So your statement that “there’s more ice because it’s colder” is, I am afraid, unsubstantiated bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/253 "2014-01-29T04:37:06Z")
Incidentally, contrarians always forget about the volume, that is why they like to stick with the surface area, but even there there is not much for them to grab on. > **[Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering](https://skepticalscience.com/sea-ice-volume-not-recovering.html)** > > This is a re-post from Climate Crock of the Week > [@](#): > > Andy Lee Robinson has updated his indispensable animation of sea ice volume – which makes the point yet again how dramatically northern sea ice is declining – despite the inevitable efforts of distorters and deniers. > > Also worth remembering that for total area of ice, we are at a low that is historic over not just the satellite era, but at least 1450 years into the past. Look at the figure below, derived in 2011 from temperature proxies which were then compared to ocean sediments – (different critters live in iced-over ocean vs open water) and consider that the so-called “recovery” of sea ice is just a tiny squiggle at the bottom end of a 150 year long slide. > > Below, Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC discusses the techniques of evaluating ice cover before the satellite record. Explanation at 2:53, if you’re in a hurry. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/254 "2014-01-29T05:10:02Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > So you really think that a scientific model can’t be partly correct and partly incorrect? We’re sure the sky is falling, maybe. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/255 "2014-01-29T05:13:07Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Is this “definitive”? Gosh, one station shows warming. Real definitive, for that station, during the short period the records were made. Thanks for sharing. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/256 "2014-01-29T06:03:55Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Gosh, one station shows warming. Real definitive, for that station, during the short period the records were made. > > Thanks for sharing. Of course, if the record had gone the other way then it would had been very important for your side. And of course, scientists do not only rely on that record alone, there is also the paleorecord reporting from other regions of the Antarctic: [http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/04/antarctica-is-warming,-but-two-new-studies-show-ice-melt-varies-across-continent](http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/04/antarctica-is-warming,-but-two-new-studies-show-ice-melt-varies-across-continent) > [@](#): > > Antarctic Peninsula > > Satellite data shows from 1992 to 2011, Antarctica lost more than 70 billion tonnes of ice, and the rate of loss is now twice as high as it was in the 1990s. But ice isn’t being lost at the same speed across the continent. > > The first new paper examines changes in ice melt in the Antarctic Peninsula - the northernmost part of the Antarctic mainland. The research, led by Nerilie Abram from the British Antarctic Survey, is published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience. > > As temperatures rise above zero degrees in summer on the Antarctic Peninsula, the surface of the ice melts and refreezes. To look for changes in the rate of ice melt over time, the scientists examined the thickness of individual melt layers in a 1,000 year old ice core. > > Scientists don’t have temperature records extending back that far but the chemical composition of the ice can also act as a proxy - or natural record - of past temperature. > > The data showed that 600 years ago, temperatures were about 1.6 degrees Celsius below what they are now. During this period - which was the coolest in the 1,000 year record - just 0.5 per cent of the ice that accumulated on the peninsula melted in summer. > > That’s in sharp comparison to now. According to the research, summer melting rates are about five per cent - that’s a ten-fold increase in 600 years. > > Importantly, most of this increase in the speed of surface melt happened in the second half of the 20th century in response to rapidly rising temperatures. Dr Robert Mulvaney, co-author on the paper told us the results show unequivocally: > > “that the melting we observe at this site in the past few decades has no similar analogue in the past 1000 years - here we can say the level of melting observed today is unique in the context of the past 1000 years.” ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/257 "2014-01-29T19:06:00Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Gosh, one station shows warming. Real definitive, for that station, during the short period the records were made. > > Thanks for sharing. Thanks for forgetting what the discussion was about. Your statement was “there is more sea ice because it’s colder”. That is categorically false. The Antarctic is clearly losing land ice mass as I showed, and the balance of evidence is that it’s warmer overall, not colder. Sea ice is seasonal and the reasons that more of it can form during the winter months have already been discussed. Reading a few scientific papers like the two I linked would go a long way toward improving your understanding and might help to stem some of your denialist-fueled misconceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/258 "2014-01-29T19:14:01Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > There’s no paradox involved. There’s more ice because it’s colder. This may be the single most wrong-headed remark I have ever heard. The reason we speak of a paradox is because _it’s not colder_. It’s warmer. But of course, there’d \*have \*to be a strict correlation between temperature and ice extent… …In a continent constantly locked at temperatures far below zero. Once you have successfully removed your foot from your mouth, please leave the thread until you actually have a damned clue what you’re on about. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/259 "2014-01-29T19:31:19Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > There’s no paradox involved. There’s more ice because it’s colder. Good luck getting through with that sort of logic. First it’s cold leads to more ice, the next thing you know cold will lead to colder winters, then more snow, there is no stopping how crazy things will get. You have to keep in mind that warming means colder, and more ice means it’s warming. Or you could look at the evidence, which clearly shows the great bulk of Antarctica is cooling, and has been for a while now. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/260 "2014-01-29T19:43:46Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > This may be the single most wrong-headed remark I have ever heard. The reason we speak of a paradox is because _it’s not colder_. It’s warmer. But of course, there’d \*have \*to be a strict correlation between temperature and ice extent… > > …In a continent constantly locked at temperatures far below zero. Once you have successfully removed your foot from your mouth, **please leave the thread** until you actually have a damned clue what you’re on about. Hahaha. Please leave the thread because you don’t agree with **Budget Player Cadet**. Seriously? The last time I checked, you can’t have a debate without an opposing viewpoint. A debate without an opposing viewpoint is a speech. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=14)