Wel, that proves you did not even read my response. As I clearly stated:
Then we have a Kiwi (who is more knowledgable since he lives on an island) Indicating that one major method of checking the icecaps, sea level, is not rising alarmingly (that would be necessary if the icecaps were melting). Or how about this Oz Fellow that shows the same thing?
I said BEFORE YOU RE-POINTED OUT that the next 2 links were to sea levels, a symptom of polar ice melting, but not a statement on it. Perhaps you now want to re-read my response before going off on a totally irrelevant tangent?
I read your response, but maybe I misinterpreted it as you meant it to sound. Basically Michael Cook said the ice caps were melting, which you said they were not followed by 3 articles to backup that claim. Yes, I have read each one, do you understand why I say they don't disprove that the Antarctic is melting? The 3 articles were:
I then said that none of those articles actually prove anything about the ice caps not melting. They only go on to show that sea level has not been rising. I've already stated that what first needs to melt in the Antarctic before any sea level rise will result is the ice shelves. These are already floating on the ocean and will not cause any sea level rise. Because of this fact, the ice caps can continue to melt without having any impact on sea level. I am not sure how to make that clearer. Therefore, it is NOT a major method of checking how much the ice shelves have been melting (something that needs to happen before land-based ice makes any sort of impact). It is a major method of checking how much land-based ice has melted, but land-based ice hasn't really been affected yet, but that is what people are most concerned about in the future. The ice shelves can melt to their heart's content and the sea level will not rise much.
Secondly, even if sea-level rise picks up at a quicker pace, there is no way of using that information to determine where what are the main contributors to that sea level rise. The Antarctic could be melting really fast while other areas are growing. Or vice versa, the Antarctic could be very stable, but glaciers elsewhere could be melting increasingly that could contribute to sea-level rise. So sea-level rise is just a symptom, but is no a valid measurement method to determine how much ice loss is actually coming from any specific region on Earth (especially if that ice melt is from sea-based ice).
The other article (not related to sea level rise) talked about the East Antarctic being stable and in some places even growing. This again does not tell the tale of the continent as a whole (more on that later). It is only representative of that region and does not make up for the losses elsewhere.
So I am not sure what your debate was intended to be, but as I read it, none of your articles does anything to show that the Antarctic is not melting. If they do, then it would maybe help if you explained how they do. So I guess it comes down to the fact that you originally claimed that the Antarctic was not melting (in your response to Michael Cook) and how I said the opposite was true (irregardless to whatever the cause may be).
You should check out the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). Information on it can be found here:
You can go to the publications tab to read about some of their findings.
They're able to measure exactly where on Earth water placement is going. It is not a predictive model, but it is a very precise measurement method. So they've been able to use it to determine where exactly water (and ice) is going on Earth. When looking in the Antarctic, they've shown that the continent as a whole has been losing ice and the rate has been picking up recently. They've seen how ice in the eastern region is fairly stable, but does not make up for the fact that the western region is losing ice more rapidly. These measurements are more accurate than looking at sea-levels because it can measure how much sea-based ice is melting.
Like I said, you can argue whether or not it is a natural trend or whether or not the current trends means anything. But, you can't argue that the current trend is the opposite to what it really is...and that is that Antarctica is losing ice overall.