Inconvenient

[steve 9atx]

Interesting article......

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story....00.html

Steve

[bubba]

Steve,That is shocking.My guess is certain Government Bureacrat's around the world together with Climatologists and for that matter those who derive income from this idiotic hoax are sitting on their cards hoping no one find's out.How dramatically sad to them if it is shown that the entire sylogism is found to be Bull Shirt and they have been sitting on it like backwards dynamite.

I have always thought another Ice Age is more likely than Global Warming.That stated,the implications of Professionals sitting on the facts is outrageous fraud.And where is our Good Press to announce the findings?Could they be part of the group sitting on their cards sweating more than a little bit?

[amazondk]

Steve,

Thanks for the article.  At least around here it has been on this cool side this rainy season.  La Nina has been strong this season.  I listen to a Brazilian news radio station frequently while driving around during work here in Manaus.  Whenever they get some expert on global warming on I now switch to music.  It gets old listening to so much assumed truth.  Time will tell one way or another.  I haven't really figured out how the propsed changes in human behavior to mitigate climate change could make much of an impact yet either.

dk

[Jerry@TreeZoo]

Golly!

Who'da thunk it?

Jeremiah

[_Keith]

(bubba @ Mar. 23 2008,14:16)

QUOTE

Steve,That is shocking.My guess is certain Government Bureacrat's around the world together with Climatologists and for that matter those who derive income from this idiotic hoax are sitting on their cards hoping no one find's out.How dramatically sad to them if it is shown that the entire sylogism is found to be Bull Shirt and they have been sitting on it like backwards dynamite.

I have always thought another Ice Age is more likely than Global Warming.That stated,the implications of Professionals sitting on the facts is outrageous fraud.And where is our Good Press to announce the findings?Could they be part of the group sitting on their cards sweating more than a little bit?

Global Warming in the short term or not, another Ice Age is an inevitability.  It is only a matter of time.    We humans think in terms of centuries.  The earth has a totally different perspective on time.

[sonoranfans]

The corruption of the scientific process my politics and money, its the way it is today.  Well meaning scientists absorbed into the political process will be treated like the boy who cried wolf when the "wolf" really is at the door someday.  The CO2 boogeyman is being debunked by empirical facts, but that doesnt mean that some global green strategies arent important to conservation.  A nobel prize has already been awarded for crapsakes, this is going to be a tough pill to swallow, along with the now growing icecap.  Men can be pretty arrogant, and smug in their own perceived abilities.  The involvement of a serious dose of politics will make this one much harder to correct, admit.  The penalty is that future scientists will be treated by the public like the boy who cried wolf.

[DoomsDave]

Gee . . . .

Okay.  We're in a global warming phase of the climate.  There are almost no glaciers left in Glacier National Park, the icecap is melting.

Deny that, I'll smack your head (rhetorically) and hold a mirror under your nose to see if it fogs.

Okay, there's a plausible theory that greenhouse gasses, caused at least in part by emissions from burning fossil fuels might be the cause.  It's plausible, but not proven.

The big proponents of the GW theories fail to cite any statistical evidence.  Because there isn't any.  

Which the fossil-fuel purveyors have been busily making  a big deal of.  They fear that they'll be taxed, or otherwise censured for their role in all of this.  While they get fatter and richer.  Do I have a problem with that?  Depends on when you ask.  Ask me on the day I've divested myself of some oil stocks, where's that baseball bat?

Notice that?  Someone please note.  

If you pull up in your SUV and complain about the price of gas -- Mother!  Where's the baseball bat?  The one with the spike driven through it!?  Oh yeah, here it is, thanks, dear -- you're part of the problem.  

Bitch about the price of gas while you drive a hog (a Ford Exhibition, etc.), complain about rising energy costs while you stubbornly refuse to use public transport (which won't end the problem, just make it slower in manifesting itself) you are the problem.

We all are.  I am, too, as drive in the Mad Max which is good on gas, but . . . .

Sooner or later the fossil fuels will be gone.  

GONE.  

How many times does anyone have to say that?  The tar sands will be de-tarred, the deep depths will be drilled and depleted, the coal mines will all be dug.  Eventually, gone.

Long, long before then, they'll be too expensive to burn and instead be used to make the pots I love to plant my palms in so much . . ..

And don't start that BS about "CLEAN CHEAP HYDROGEN".  The byproduct is only water vapor -- the ultimate greenhouse gas.  Tell me that it won't matter, and I'll tell you to stick a black widow spider down your shorts and see what matters.

Who cares about Al Gore?   I don't.

This is much bigger.  

I hope someone notices . . . . .

[_Keith]

For over 100 years technology has saved our butts time after time, and everyone is sitting back betting it will do so again.  

No one knows exactly what technology, they are just betting that in our capitalistic society, when the stakes get high enough, a technological solution will emerge.  

And as you say, the fossil fuels have a finitie life span after which they will be gone, thereby self limiting their long term affect.  The second they are gone, nature will immediately begin the rebalance.  Likely, it will do so with ice.

And if not, well then there is poplulation control, manifested historically two ways, war and famine.

But,,,,odds are, we can no more fathom the solutions of the future, than could a person in the year 1900 fathom society of today.

Evolution cannot be paused, stopped, or controlled.  It will happen with us, without us, or to us.  

We get to ride along for a nano-second of a ride of eternity.  Respect your sphere of influence and do what you can, but in the end don't forget to enjoy every second of the ride, for it will be a short one indeed.

That is my philopshy lesson of the day.  

[amazondk]

Dave,

The article mentioned above cites exactly that the climate has not warmed in the past decade in reality, that parts of the ice caps have melted, but the ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland are actually growing.  And, that there is growing evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not corrosponding directly to increased temperatures.  None of this means that it is not wise to look for alternative sources of energy and conserve our resources in my opinion.  We certainly have a lot to gain by making our planet a more sustainable place for ourselves and the rest of life we share the place with.  There are many that say that this is the opposite and they are the ones making all the noise.  If indeed their argument is not what is happening this may even hurt the cause of conservation and sustainablity.  I agree with Keith's view.  I have dug up all kinds of data in past threads showing climate trends over the past hundreds of thousands of years.  And, eveything points to the fact that we are still in an ice age, just the interglacial part where the planet warms.  And, the likelyhood is that it will get a lot cooler at some time in possibly the near future.  Geologic records show that the climate takes longer to warm than to cool and that drastic climate change to a colder state has happened before and that it likely will again.  If indeed this does happen again in the near future the impacts will be far greater than global warming as it will directly impact in  a drastic way food production on the planet affecting even further the billions of people who are not doing too well today to begin with.  I think the number that I saw the other day was that 2 billion people on the planet are living below the poverty level.  Now that is a real problem. But then on the other hand every person that gets lifted out of poverty will consume more resources and contribute in another way to the problems we face from increased resource use.  

So, as far as I can see the best we can do is make that small sphere of influence we can impact better and hopefully that will improve things on a larger scale.  And, in the meantime try as best as possible to enjoy life and live in peace with those around us.  It is 3 AM here now.  I guess with in the process of aging one finds it harder to sleep all night so I end up breaking up the night many times by taking a look at the computer and contemplating the future of life on our planet.  

dk

[falcon1988]

What I find  out is interesting is non of these climatologists never mentation La Nina years. So i went digging around

in 1998 1999 2000 2001 2007-2008 are all La Nina years and La nina does cool certains area of the climate bring heavy snow fall to the

northeast each La nina is different there was one article mentation La nina and said that caused the cooling and once La nina is gone the temps will recover. sounds like to me these climatotogists have too much time on there hands Fully agree with you Dave all about money and taxes which equals BS

[sonoranfans]

There seems to be some confusion here and about alot of green issues.  The apparent cooling of the globe for the last decade coincides with unprecedented buring of fossil fuels(the chinese economy alone ensures it), meaning that the longer term global warming trends are very likely not due to CO2 greenhouse gas effects as some would have you believe.  There are apparently other much more dominant factors.  That means that our global thermal models are way off base and need to be refined to advance the science past the lobotomy stage.  If ice melts in glacier national park and the icecap thickens in greenland by 30% in two years, what does it mean about global warming?  The models must be continually refined to advance the state of understanding using empirical facts.  All science uses empirical facts to develop theories, not the other way around and it needs to happen to the thermal modeling efforts.  Problem is that politicians are now envolved, and they cant admit error, so the scientists will be hamstrung by their involvement..  

If we do accept that CO2 contributes, why the use of oxygenated fossil fuels?  Oxygenated fossil fuels deliver less gas mileage(its a fact, they have lesser energy content as they are preburned), and that means more CO2 emission for a fixed commute, and thus and bigger carbon footprint.

What just perturbs me is the absence of any continuity of the philosophy.  If fossil fuels are bad for global warming, oxygenated ones are worse!  ANd yet the same people who support reduced fossil fuels support oxygenated ones.  There is a lot of money changing hands here, and the american public is being played for stupid.  Did you ever wonder why europeans dont oxygenate their gas?  Because they KNOW it means a bigger carbon footprint.  It appears that archer daniels midland owns both parties OR a good number of our elected officials are stupid!

[_Keith]

I have read and listened to both sides ad nauseum.  Crap, these people can't tell me for sure if it is going to rain tomorrow, so I got a lot confidence (sarcastic) in global warming or global cooling predictions dealing with decades and centuries.

[PalmatierMeg]

Gee. I remember, long, long ago: Nuclear Winter (a-a-a-i-i-i-e-e-e!)

Humankind always magnifies its abilities in the scheme of things. When global warming has run its course, good ol' Nuclear Winter will be back, stylishly updated as "Global Freezing" (brrrr) and people will pray the all the hot air will prevent a catastrophe that will wipe out everything but amoebas. Live long enough and what goes around, comes around (unless an asteroid gets us first, but that's another crisis entirely).

[gsn]

(keiththibodeaux @ Mar. 25 2008,12:23)

QUOTE

I have read and listened to both sides ad nauseum.  Crap, these people can't tell me for sure if it is going to rain tomorrow, so I got a lot confidence (sarcastic) in global warming or global cooling predictions dealing with decades and centuries.

DITTO!

In the 70's we were headed for global cooling according to all the sceintist. Now we are headed to burn ourselves UP!  With some on the fringe still advocating global cooling!

I'm with keith on this,

when the meterologists/climatologists can tell me what the weather is REALLY going to be like tomorrow, with a 99 percent accuracy rate.

Then ,and ONLY then, when they tell me we are either going to FREEZE,or BURN UP,  will I start getting nervous!

[Charles Wychgel]

(gsn @ Mar. 25 2008,18:29)

QUOTE

 will I start getting nervous?

No sirree not me.

Call me a cynic... my motto :APRES MOI LE DELUGE

[siafu]

Another little bit of Antartida chips away...

Maybe we should ask the penguins if they are getting nervous...

Antartida getting shorter!?

[Gileno Machado]

(siafu @ Mar. 25 2008,19:09)

QUOTE

Maybe we should ask the penguins if they are getting nervous...

...and polar bears too...

[Gileno Machado]

Candid camera:

[elHoagie]

Awesome pictures Gileno! The NW passage does exist...

[koolthing78]

(siafu @ Mar. 25 2008,18:09)

QUOTE

Another little bit of Antartida chips away...

Maybe we should ask the penguins if they are getting nervous...

Antartida getting shorter!?

I saw that too, and I immediately thought of this thread.  I think it's safe to say that at this point it's way too early for either side to be saying "I told you so."  And maybe I'm generalizing, but it seems that a lot of people who are so vocally opposed to the global warming alarmists (and I'm not putting quotes on alarmist because yes, I do believe there has been overreaction (but to be fair I would have overreacted too, if in my research I saw what looked like the very beginning of a rapid (and potentially-irreversible)exponential increase, and people were looking to me for advice on what to do)) tend to skew more towards the affluent and comfortable, and that they take pleasure in every piece of evidence that points towards fossil fuels as not being a causative agent, so they can keep driving their gas-guzzling landboats guilt-free.  But as others have said, what difference does it make whether or not fossil fuels have anything to do with global warming, or lack thereof?  We're still going to run out of them sooner or later, and wouldn't it make more sense if we started taking drastic steps to prepare now?  Because what seems drastic today would pale by comparison to the "drastic" we'd all feel on the day our oil-dependant infrastructure comes to a screeching halt.

[amazondk]

There is evidence that the Norse actually visited what is now British Columbia about 1000 years ago by sailing through the Artic Ocean which was then much freer of ice than today.  This was in what was known as the Medievel Warm Period.  The Artic Ice has melted frequently in the past and the present Interglacial periods.  It is important to take history into account when looking at present conditions.

dk

[_Keith]

(amazondk @ Mar. 25 2008,20:41)

QUOTE

There is evidence that the Norse actually visited what is now British Columbia about 1000 years ago by sailing through the Artic Ocean which was then much freer of ice than today.  This was in what was known as the Medievel Warm Period.  The Artic Ice has melted frequently in the past and the present Interglacial periods.  It is important to take history into account when looking at present conditions.

dk

Don, I remember the heating/cooling cylce graphs you put on this board a while back.  Looking at this stuff in 100 or 200 year periods, even 500 or 1000 year periods is pretty much a joke as far as trends go.

[amazondk]

Keith,

That data was mostly from NOAAs climate information on their web site.  Regarding the ice caps in Antarctica this information is interesting - Antarctica Ice . While portion of Antarctica is warming the majority is cooling and gaining in ice cover.  

dk

[amazondk]

This information from the same source on peleo climate data for the recent past is pretty interesting as well.

Paleo climate data recent past

[sonoranfans]

There is a natural damping of the cooling and warming cycles that appears to have been missed here.  Its in alot of the climatological assessments, but rarely makes it to the lay public for some reason.

As the earth warms, water evaporates, leading to further warming and evaporation byt he greenhouse gas effect.  Next clouds form and these clouds block the radiative energy of the sun that heats the earth in the black body model, at which point the earth cools naturally and water condenses further from the atmosphere, thereby allowing more sun in for heating.  Its a natural cycle as water in the atmosphere first heats the earth and then causes cooling as water concentration goes high and condenses naturally.  In the condensed form(clouds), water causes global cooling, while in the non condensed form it causes warming.  There is a natual balance here and global warming and cooling will occur regardless of man.

To understand this one must first understand that the sun heating the earth must happen first for the greenhouse gas to take place.  Then the earth re-radiates infrared energy which is trapped by greenhouse gases(water and to some extent CO2) resulting in atmospheric heating.   Note that the sun does NOT emit infrared energy that is absorbed by greenhouse gases, only the earth does.  If clouds are blocking the suns heating of the earth, greenhouse gases will not have infrared energy to trap and heat the atmosphere.  

The cooling and warming of the earth is a natural cycle, and water is the greenhouse gas that makes it cycle, both by causing heating(as a light scattering condensate) and causing warming, as a gas.  the degree to which the earth warms and cools naturally is at least an order of magnitude(10x) greater than any effects that have been observed during the petroleum age.

In the end, I suspect that sun spots, or an orbital shift will be the effect what really shifts the long term thermal mean of the earth temperature and we have no control over them.

Frankly, I dont need a global warming argument to consider many green issues as very important.  Pollution of the earth is factual and can cause species extinction, no theory, just facts(DDT and the eagle is just one example).  Even human DNA is corrupted by our own pollution of the atmosphere, perhaps leading to immune system dysfunction and cancer.  The massive petroleum consumption by man is detrimental to hydrocarbon pollution levels and NOx's that cause depletion of ozone, no theory, just a fact.  The earth has a limited ability to cleanse itself when man pumps millions of tons of acid rain down on the plant and animal life, and dumps toxic chemicals into the ground, no theory, just a fact.( I used to intern at the EPA).

[elHoagie]

I agree Tom, there are quite a few damping (or negative feedback) mechanisms with regard to climate change, and the one you mention regarding water is the dominant one... at least in the tropics. Because of this strong mechanism, the temperatures near the equator are probably about the same right now as they were during the last ice age.

The problem is that near the poles there are positive feedback mechanisms with regard to climate change. Snow and ice reflect most of the sun's radiation back to space, but grass and trees absorb most of the radiation. So, if there is less snow cover then more energy is absorbed by the earth, the earth gets warmer, more snow melts, which means the earth absorbs more radiation, etc. That's why there can be HUGE changes in the polar climate, from ice ages with glaciers extending down to 40-50 degrees latitude to warm periods when the only glaciation is at very high latitudes.

[sonoranfans]

(elHoagie @ Mar. 26 2008,15:21)

QUOTE

I agree Tom, there are quite a few damping (or negative feedback) mechanisms with regard to climate change, and the one you mention regarding water is the dominant one... at least in the tropics. Because of this strong mechanism, the temperatures near the equator are probably about the same right now as they were during the last ice age.

The problem is that near the poles there are positive feedback mechanisms with regard to climate change. Snow and ice reflect most of the sun's radiation back to space, but grass and trees absorb most of the radiation. So, if there is less snow cover then more energy is absorbed by the earth, the earth gets warmer, more snow melts, which means the earth absorbs more radiation, etc. That's why there can be HUGE changes in the polar climate, from ice ages with glaciers extending down to 40-50 degrees latitude to warm periods when the only glaciation is at very high latitudes.

This is a good point, that the CO2 greenhouse gas effect would, at least in principle, not be damped by water effects at the poles as water has a low vapor pressure there.  However recent studies have led to the conclusion that the melting of polar icecaps are dominated by thermal halines, which are largely influenced by wind friction(and direction) against the ocean surface.  This effect was not even included in the global thermal models and its contribution was assumed to be greenhouse gas related(CO2).  The science is still evolving and it needs alot more development.  The problem as I see it is that politicians will not allow it to evolve, they want to make public claims and want research to produce short term results for political purposes.  Each time the predictions(the ice cap is actually increasing in greenland over the past few years) are refuted by some empirical facts, the public loses faith in the science(the public cant handle the truth about science and its evolution).  The politicians force the science to predict(in order to be refunded you need results), and when errors are made, the work and the science are discredited.  I fear that will mean that the science will not fully develop for a long time.  Politicians do influence the distribution of the funding of projects and when they whipsaw the funds back and forth, ther is no continuity of effort that is necessary to solve the more difficult science problems, like global thermal modeling.

What I see now is that the public is increasingly skeptical about global warming because they believe they have been lied to.  My position is to support the research, but not public proclamations regarding the prediction of the future, or radical political reforms that are suggested by the extremists.  Unfortunately extremists frequently do long term harm to their favored science projects by forcing conclusions of the science in the early stages for political gain.  Continuity in science is necessary for good science that benefits mankind, and the nature of politicians is to use the funds for their short term benefit.  Actually I try to caution the disbelievers of global warming where I work, that the science is still evolving and that oil companies would like nothing better than to discredit the science to kill it.  They would also like to kill funding of alternate energy research.  Right now I think that alternate energy research is much more likely to benefit the world int he short term, and it will go along way to limiting petroleum consumption and the unrest in the middle east.  Funny thing is, alternate energy research is not really in the public conciousness, dont hear much about it anymore, even as war rages in the middle east over energy/economic issues.  I believe that both should be pursued, but alternate energy research is apparently not considered an "attention getting issue" by the politicians.  I wonder why that is?

[amazondk]

Tom,

I always learn a lot from your posts.  It appears that there are some pretty direct relationships between the cycles in human history over the past 2,000 years and the ups and downs of world temperatures.  If you look at the time frames of the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages Cold Period, The Middle Ages Warm Peiod, the Little Age, and the warming that has taken place since it's end it is quite interesting.  Cultural and technological development coincides with warm periods and decline and often chaos with the cold periods.   During the Roman Warm Period the Alps were much greener than today with the glaciers having retreated beyond their current levels.  The Romans expansion into more northern parts of Europe matchs this period.  The invasion of the Vandals and others to Rome coincides with colder times.  It is likely that they invaded Rome in part to escape the cold as well.  Since there were no flights to Miami at the time this must have been the best option.  

There also was less CO2 in the atmosphere during these warm periods, which appear to have been warmer than the current one.  So, that sort of puts some doubt on the CO2 theories.

dk

[_Keith]

(amazondk @ Mar. 28 2008,06:09)

QUOTE

Tom,

I always learn a lot from your posts.  It appears that there are some pretty direct relationships between the cycles in human history over the past 2,000 years and the ups and downs of world temperatures.  If you look at the time frames of the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages Cold Period, The Middle Ages Warm Peiod, the Little Age, and the warming that has taken place since it's end it is quite interesting.  Cultural and technological development coincides with warm periods and decline and often chaos with the cold periods.   During the Roman Warm Period the Alps were much greener than today with the glaciers having retreated beyond their current levels.  The Romans expansion into more northern parts of Europe matchs this period.  The invasion of the Vandals and others to Rome coincides with colder times.  It is likely that they invaded Rome in part to escape the cold as well.  Since there were no flights to Miami at the time this must have been the best option.  

There also was less CO2 in the atmosphere during these warm periods, which appear to have been warmer than the current one.  So, that sort of puts some doubt on the CO2 theories.

dk

Famine didn't hurt either.  With the cold came crop failure.   Hunger is a great motivator to kill your neighbor and take their  food.  Kind of a recurring theme in history.

[amazondk]

Here is a comparision of the Alps glacial level at different times.

[amazondk]

keith,

Could you imagine the problems today with massive crop failures and all the billions of already hungy people around the world.  A warmer world certainly is easier to deal with than a colder one.  

dk

[Coloradoboi]

Interesting article.

It should be noted that it is an editorial - In other words, Biases are inevitable.  

Take everything with a grain on salt...

[steve 9atx]

Coloradoboi

Finally, someone who gets the gist of the article!

The article is something of the author's fanatasy about preparing the table for serving up the "just deserts" to those who substitute editorial for science and force feed it like crop milk to us squabs.

Here's my own personal table setting: Algore, a at white tie ceremony in Olso is forced to make an apolopgy broadcast worldwide.  He is made to turn in his Nobel in exchange for the more deserved IgNobel Prize.  At the same ceremony, the Nobel committe itself is disbanded in shame for the offensive joke that it is (I mean, Arafat, El Baradei, Carter, Gore,  terrorists,  and their codependent enablers are you kidding???).

After this, there is a caning.  I mean one of those real good canings, Singapore-style, where the guy gets a running start......

Ahhhhh, such are the editorial pages, you get to say whatever you want and call it "the truth"......

Steve

[sonoranfans]

(steve 9atx @ Apr. 07 2008,00:44)

QUOTE

Coloradoboi

Finally, someone who gets the gist of the article!

The article is something of the author's fanatasy about preparing the table for serving up the "just deserts" to those who substitute editorial for science and force feed it like crop milk to us squabs.

Here's my own personal table setting: Algore, a at white tie ceremony in Olso is forced to make an apolopgy broadcast worldwide.  He is made to turn in his Nobel in exchange for the more deserved IgNobel Prize.  At the same ceremony, the Nobel committe itself is disbanded in shame for the offensive joke that it is (I mean, Arafat, El Baradei, Carter, Gore,  terrorists,  and their codependent enablers are you kidding???).

After this, there is a caning.  I mean one of those real good canings, Singapore-style, where the guy gets a running start......

Ahhhhh, such are the editorial pages, you get to say whatever you want and call it "the truth"......

Steve

Thanks steve for the laugh, hilarious!

"the inconvenient truth" is not known or distributed by any of these people.   Is there anyone less credible in telling the truth than a politician?

[steve 9atx]

Tom

Now hear this:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs....arthers

Thanks for joining me on the good 'ol flat earth.  Our population is growing.

Steve

[sonoranfans]

(steve 9atx @ Apr. 07 2008,23:26)

QUOTE

Tom

Now hear this:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs....arthers

Thanks for joining me on the good 'ol flat earth.  Our population is growing.

Steve

Wow, I am stunned by the 30K annual utility bill!  I guess that politicians and hypocrisy go hand in hand.  Gore has the biggest carbon footprint -for an individual- I have ever heard of.

[Cycadcenter]

Here is another article from The Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story....00.html

Bruce

[steve 9atx]

Oi! Oi! Oi!

Steve

[putu enjula]

Here's an article from 2004...   seems that no one ever knows what the heck is going on.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/05mar_arctic.htm

I can't believe that some people expect the earth to be static...  as if temperatures have always been constant !!  It is always cooling or warming. The fact that we are not in a major ice age proves that.  What amazes me is how much we are at the mercy of the sun...  it is so huge that even a relatively small fluctuation in its activity  could have a devastating outcome for us.  No wonder the ancient civilizations worshipped it.

[Coloradoboi]

(amazondk @ Mar. 25 2008,02:24)

QUOTE

parts of the ice caps have melted, but the ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland are actually growing.  

small portions of the ice in Greenland and Antarctica are thickening.  A much larger portion has receded.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/index.html