Item — HN Reader

Wouldn't want to spoil your enjoyment but why isn't it a problem in the Antarctic?

As a scientist brought up to value Karl Popper's writings on the practice of science, it's disturbing to see a hypothesis (CAGW) making a whole series of failed predictions and each time some new excuse brought out to explain that failure together (from some) with choice epithets for those who remark on that failure.

Feynmann made the point here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

"If it (theory/hypothesis) disagrees with experiment - it's wrong"

1 comments

> Wouldn't want to spoil your enjoyment but why isn't it a problem in the Antarctic?

Wouldn't the fact that the arctic and antarctic are geographically quite different have an effect here? The arctic ice in question is largely ice sitting atop water. Thus the feedback mechanism described in the article. Light colored ice thins, darker water is exposed to sunlight to warm and thin more ice or not freeze as rapidly the next winter.

See a similar effect in Greenland as pollution (mostly from North America?) is covering the ice sheet with a darker soot, leading to heating of the ice sheet and faster than normal melts.

The Antarctic is sitting away from pollution and the ice sheet is largely atop a landmass, not just water. In particular, the central ice sheet is on land. So any water warming affect would be going outside-in, not inside-out. No internal feedback loop to destroy itself. Regarding pollution, as a contrast to Greenland, its air currents aren't pulling in heavily polluted air from industrial centers and setting it down on the ice sheet.

Why it's grown? I haven't got a clue, but why it hasn't shrunk like the Arctic? It's not the same configuration, it shouldn't be expected to react the same way.