It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA finds Antarctic ice shelf a few years from disintegration

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I will explain it to you. Very simple actually.

Not all, but most "climate change deniers" do not deny climate change...only the extent in which man is involved.

Nothing a "climate change denier" does or says is stopping them or anyone else from being more environmentally friendly.

I will fix your post for you. We need to switch out the term climate change for AGW(man made climate change or global warming).

If AGW is false, and we do nothing, the environment still changes. **True story here...mother nature doesn't care whether we are here or not. The incoming asteroids, super volcano explosions, CME's from the sun don't care about people.**

If AGW is true, and we do nothing, we're pretty well boned.

If AGW is true, and we do something about it, we save ourselves until the natural climate change cycle takes affect.

If AGW is false, and we do something about it, saving ourselves isn't necessary, but we STILL create a better world for our children.

In regards to the last statement I totally agree with you. Here is where logic takes over. What is stopping someone who believes in AGW from making the environment a better place? NOTHING

What is stopping someone who doesn't believe in AGW from making the environment a better place? NOTHING

As a person who believes that man can have a negative effect on the environment, but you would consider a "climate change denier", I bet I have a smaller carbon footprint than almost any AGW supporter.

I have spent a lot of my time volunteering and cleaning up other people's messes over the years. I work from home, have an electric lawn mower, turn off my lights when I leave the room, have all high efficient appliances, avoid using plastics when I can, etc..etc.. I don't talk the talk, I walk the walk.

It doesn't take an AGW sheep to make a change in the environment, they aren't mutually exclusive.




posted on May, 16 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Ancient Champion

Not at all...but if ocean levels rise its pretty obvious that rogue waves would be able to reach out further....let alone normal waves.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
There may be a person that relies on truth that comes along and says....

"The North Pole will be ice free by now."

Then they will say, "Oh, it isn't?" Al Gore must have been wrong.

To which the AGW proponents will say, "Oh, Al Gore isn't a scientist."

I hope the freaking shelf does collapse.
I hope both Poles are ice free tomorrow.
I hope all the polar bears die of heat prostration.
I hope all the fish in the ocean die.

Then all you people on both side will shut the hell up.

Please forgive me, I am in an extremely bad mood today and have been depressed for a long time.

To clarify, I would say that the sea ice-free Arctic (during the summer) prediction was the worst-case estimate put forth by U.S. Navy researchers. Al Gore mentioned a range in his speech - from as early as 2014 to as late as 2029, as I recall.

Rush Limbaugh was the first to jump on the earliest, worst-case scenario as the only date and so Gore must be wrong and global warming must be a lie if (and eventually when) the most dire prediction didn't happen.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
If climate change is false, and we do something about it, saving ourselves isn't necessary, but we STILL create a better world for our children.

So, my question is, why don't we just run on the assumption that it's real, and make changes for the better? A more environmentally friendly world is a win/win, no matter whether climate change is real.


because 'doing something' means paying more for petroleum products, adjusting my thermostat so I freeze in winter and roast in summer, getting forced to take public transportation instead of being free to drive around, paying tax $ so a bunch of idiots can install inefficient solar junk, etc etc.
and we can be sure the Al Gores of the world will not change their lifestyle one bit.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
If you don't trust NASA with their doctoring photos of UFOs then why trust the same NASA's about glacier melting. Wasn't there a OP here on ATS about NASA's doctoring global warming temperatures?



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
There is? Where? All I ever see from the AGW denial camp is just repeating of the same buzzphrases over and over again. Never a scientific study. If you know of some then by all means, post them.


I personally have posted many scientific papers and articles that discuss that there are bigger forces happening than human influence, that we are definitely in the midst of a normal climate cycle, that any measurements taken pre-satellite era should be taken with a grain of salt (they are the least-accurate way to measure things on a global scale), that the sun has the largest effect on warming (as if that should even be debated), that increased CO2 levels would actually be a good thing for the earth (even if changes to flora and fauna were to occur), that climate data has been manipulated and tampered with to the point of needing to be completely discarded in some cases (yet people still cite the studies and conclusions, even with proof that they are not accurate to the raw data), that CO2 levels (at least in ice core samples) are shown to follow warming and not cause it...and, I'm certain, quite a few more.

But it's all available for you to find on your own without it needing to be spoon-fed to you. If you truly have been researching the AGW side of the argument, I fail to see how you could not have discovered things like what I just wrote out, unless you are just purposefully ignorning it all. And yes, just like much of the AGW science, the skeptical science can be debated, too. That stems from the undeniable fact that climate science is, for all intents and purposes, in its infancy--we have maybe a toddler's understanding of the true overall system that is the earth's climate. That fact alone should tell people that there is zero possibility that we know the true driving forces of climate changes, meaning that we should remain skeptical of groups who make claims such as 'there's an over-95% probability that man is causing the current increases in global temperature.' (I'm looking at you, IPCC)


What parts of AGW do you think are truthful? The most I can get out of the denial camp is this, "I believe that climate change is real, I just don't think that man is causing it." That is STILL science denialism, because science has pretty much confirmed that yes, man IS causing it.


I believe that humans have a very high tendency to do more harm than good to the earth's environment, even when taking all of the good that we do on its behalf into account (such as replanting forests, or conservation efforts, or recycling efforts), and I fully agree that this needs to change (and I think it will as technology continues to make it more possible and affordable). I agree that, at least locally, humans are having a measurable impact on the environment--hell, think about London back in day when the air was so full of ash and soot that people didn't even want to go out of their houses. Or oil spills that occur and cause damage to the environment, or all of the low-level ozone and pollutants put out by cars in big cities (this is the cause of my asthma, I'm convinced). But like I mention--I believe that these issues lend themselves to localized problems that do not equal out to becoming globalized issues.

I guess I just come in and can get behind the push and desire for people to clean up their act and not be so flippant and apathetic towards the earth. But like you said--but I base this on science and global history that negates AGW scientific findings--I know the climate is changing, but I think that the vast majority of it is natural. I'm sure that humans may be having a added effect, but if we could list out all of the ingredients of climate change, I think "human contributions" would be listed in the "contains less than 2% of the following" portion of the ingredients.

Hopefully that helps.

I used to have a folder in my 'favorites' on my browser that had all kinds of links concerning science that supported natural causes over man-made causes for climate change, but I deleted it years ago because I got tired of answering the call for data and then still getting argued against on the grounds of ideology, or the school-yard argument that my-science-is-better-than-your-science. I'm at the point now where I just tell people to look it up for themselves (for the most part), and if they don't, I'm just unwilling to debate with them, because that shows me that they're unwilling or too lazy to research the whole of climate change science and are willing to just settle for the mainstream viewpoint.

As I've told many others on here--I used to be an AGW proponent for years. It's the overall collection of climate science that guided me to the skeptic's path. I walk this path out of knowledge and heavy research, not adherence to an ideology or political side. But, I guess we all come to our own conclusions, I just hope that you and others have done so through research of all sides of the puzzle, and not just one because it sounds good.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Well...I'll say this...you can find articles that reading causes cancer...and there have been "studies". My point being...data is fun to manipulate by anyone...especially when both sides are paid by someone who wants a result. You can manipulate variables any way you want...especially when there are probably 1000s affecting climate change. I suppose we could both argue that there is evidence then on both sides correct? We both could throw all kinds of evidence back and forth.

So lets ignore all that but listen to people instead. If you interview someone from the midwest, USA they may not have a lot to say about climate change. Some farmers may say this or that...whatever. But if you go to certain coastal areas...in Bangladesh or some Inuits in Alaska...many will tell you amazing stories of what they have observed.


I don't disagree with this at all, and I'll tell you that in my neck of the woods (around Cincinnati), our winters are getting colder and our summers more mild (overall). But this is the point that I just argued to Krazysh0t--I think that climate change is happening, but at the same time, I think if humans are affecting it (possitively or negatively, one can't really say), it's on a more localized scale. I think the naturally occurring changes are the ones that we see happening globally...and even then, it's not truly global.



Oh and one more thing...the ice you are talking about is sea ice...not land ice...land ice takes 1000s of years to accumulate where sea ice can change by season....you can have more sea ice for 10 years but if the land ice underneath is reducing then that is a big deal.


Right (and I noted that in a different posting), but riddle me this--if, say, that Antarctic land ice is 'only' about 10k-15k years old, doesn't this indicate that 15k-20k years ago, that continent was ice-free? That's not an inappropriate deduction to make, assuming the age of the ice is estimated correctly.

This indicates that an ice-free Antarctica is a naturally occurring phenomenon, as is an ice-covered one. It's cyclical--naturally.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: SlapMonkey
That same argument is used again and again and again...

We get it. There is natural climate variation but that evidence alone is not strong enough. Consider the fact that there are scientists taking ice cores from both poles, doing field work, correlating evidence...What are the debunkers doing? pulling out the same graph over and over and over.


The argument is used because it's a valid one. What isn't a valid argument is the alarmist-AGW crowd who tries to make those too lazy to research for themselves believe that occurances like an ice-free arctic or antarctice region is a precursor to the demise of the planet, or that elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere with destroy earth, or that the farts of cows will make the planet bake us all alive.

You want to talk about ice core samples? I could show you a graph--derived from ice core samples--that shows that CO2 levels in the atmosphere lag about 300-ish years behind temperature fluctuations. But, if I showed that graph, would you just complain I'm showing a tired old graph, even though its derived from the evidence gathered by scientists taking ice core samples?

It's disappointing how you use the term "debunkers" to describe those of us who use scientific data to argue an opposing viewpoint. It really shows a lack of integrity and an abundance of ignorance on your part.

And just for S&G:




posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: buddah6

NOAA/NASA



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Well...I'll say this...you can find articles that reading causes cancer...and there have been "studies". My point being...data is fun to manipulate by anyone...especially when both sides are paid by someone who wants a result. You can manipulate variables any way you want...especially when there are probably 1000s affecting climate change. I suppose we could both argue that there is evidence then on both sides correct? We both could throw all kinds of evidence back and forth.

So lets ignore all that but listen to people instead. If you interview someone from the midwest, USA they may not have a lot to say about climate change. Some farmers may say this or that...whatever. But if you go to certain coastal areas...in Bangladesh or some Inuits in Alaska...many will tell you amazing stories of what they have observed.


I don't disagree with this at all, and I'll tell you that in my neck of the woods (around Cincinnati), our winters are getting colder and our summers more mild (overall). But this is the point that I just argued to Krazysh0t--I think that climate change is happening, but at the same time, I think if humans are affecting it (possitively or negatively, one can't really say), it's on a more localized scale. I think the naturally occurring changes are the ones that we see happening globally...and even then, it's not truly global.



Oh and one more thing...the ice you are talking about is sea ice...not land ice...land ice takes 1000s of years to accumulate where sea ice can change by season....you can have more sea ice for 10 years but if the land ice underneath is reducing then that is a big deal.


Right (and I noted that in a different posting), but riddle me this--if, say, that Antarctic land ice is 'only' about 10k-15k years old, doesn't this indicate that 15k-20k years ago, that continent was ice-free? That's not an inappropriate deduction to make, assuming the age of the ice is estimated correctly.

This indicates that an ice-free Antarctica is a naturally occurring phenomenon, as is an ice-covered one. It's cyclical--naturally.


How mild was it last week in Cincinnati? 87 degrees in May and snow in late March. Do you recall the winter of 1977&78? But they said back then it was global cooling. That was the most bitter winter in my memory...-20 for 20 days straight.

I think people rely on their memories not weather records and then theorize it's something man-made. This is exploited by politicians for nefarious reasons.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: buddah6

NOAA/NASA


That's the bunch. Government employees with government agendas!



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
If the Ice Shelf is already floating on the ocean, then there will be No rise in sea level world wide. But if this Ice shelf is on the actual land mass of Antartica then of course we would see a rise in Sea levels. I believe these are all naturally occuring global temp changes, and earth goes through this process over and over Heating and cooling. It would explain why maps exist today from long ago, showing the coastline of antartica before the Ice was even there.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Glassbender777
If the Ice Shelf is already floating on the ocean, then there will be No rise in sea level world wide. But if this Ice shelf is on the actual land mass of Antartica then of course we would see a rise in Sea levels. I believe these are all naturally occuring global temp changes, and earth goes through this process over and over Heating and cooling. It would explain why maps exist today from long ago, showing the coastline of antartica before the Ice was even there.


I agree! The changes are naturally occurring events. Just don't ask Al Gore...lol. He may try to sell you some carbon credits. He knows it's scam or he'd park his $30 million dollar jet that produces more carbon than a hundred cars.



posted on May, 20 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The extent is expanding 2-dimensionally. However 3-dimensionally (volume) is actually decreasing. This is because old ice melts and breaks apart, it floats away, then new ice forms that reconnects it which then melts when it gets warmer out again.


You'll need to back that up with some data, because everything I have read discusses that land ice is shrinking in volume whereas sea ice is increasing.


Under-ice volcanoes haven't done the sort of damage to the arctic ices that we are seeing.


That's probably because there isn't any land underneath the arctic ice--I'm talking about Antarctica, and you can't say with certainty what you just said because the discovery of this volcanic activity is far from mature, yet.

But if you're trying to imply that, because there are not volcanoes under the arctic sea ice that we shouldn't be seeing as much melting, that's poppycock--poppycock, I say! It's relatively well documented that the poles seem to alternate in ice loss and gain. If one is losing, the other seems to gain. How accurate and predictable this assessment is of historical happenings, I can't pretend to know, but that has been stated in scientific papers and studies.


For someone talking to me about facts and belief in parts of AGW, you just got done repeating several denialist fallacies.


No.

No I didn't--my reference to cow farts was tongue-in-cheek. The rest is sound, even if the study of things like under-ice volcanoes in the [I]antarctic[/I] is in its infancy. But, we know they're there and we know it's contributing to ice melt. And if you're going to tell me that the air above the ice compared to the exhaust from a volcano below the ice is going to cause faster melting, I'd have to suggest you retake some physics classes.
edit on 20-5-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)


ETA: Sorry for the late response--I never got the notification of a reply.
edit on 20-5-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Right mate..agree with everything you said...it is a natural phenomenon. But I also think humans can affect areas too. Even something as simple as litering can change an ecosystem...chopping down forests can change an eco system...building sky scrappers can change wind patterns. Pollution can change the weather in an area...more pollution means more particles which could create clouds that create rain.

All of these are things humans do to change the weather....is it all doom and gloom..? Probably not. But to say humans don't change climate is judging wayyyyy too quickly when I can see evidence of humans changing not only the climate but damn near everything if you single out areas.

I just think its something we have to study...we should be careful...the main issue is groups are slapping on their agenda and trying to cash in.

As someone who believe humans are affecting the planet's climate I will concede that there is a possibility I am wrong....but how many people who think humans are not affecting the planet will concede that they could be wrong? We only have theories for the most part to work with which means...it could go either way...and this is why it is so fun to debate haha!



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
The argument is used because it's a valid one. What isn't a valid argument is the alarmist-AGW crowd who tries to make those too lazy to research for themselves believe that occurances like an ice-free arctic or antarctice region is a precursor to the demise of the planet, or that elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere with destroy earth, or that the farts of cows will make the planet bake us all alive.

You want to talk about ice core samples? I could show you a graph--derived from ice core samples--that shows that CO2 levels in the atmosphere lag about 300-ish years behind temperature fluctuations. But, if I showed that graph, would you just complain I'm showing a tired old graph, even though its derived from the evidence gathered by scientists taking ice core samples?

It's disappointing how you use the term "debunkers" to describe those of us who use scientific data to argue an opposing viewpoint. It really shows a lack of integrity and an abundance of ignorance on your part.

And just for S&G:


Pardon me, but are you not familiar with the old skeptic argument about ice core samples - that they aren't good for measuring because of uncertainty?

Here's the deal: CO2 is a gas. It does not freeze naturally on Earth, so it remains a gas in the ice cores. It can get trapped in layers of ice, but it can also move around better than ice crystals on a fresh layer. Hypothetically, it could move down, but it's more likely to rise up. This is why there is a rather large uncertainty on CO2 dates - it is not set in stone.

Once upon a time, the skeptic argument was that CO2 measurements were uncertain - and they are. That is a pretty valid argument. However, some skeptics realized that CO2 was being dated after temperature rises. A new argument was realized - that CO2 rises because of increased temperatures - based on ice core data. Suddenly, the old valid argument hinders the new argument.

See the problem? Also, you might notice in that image you linked that the CO2 concentrations on the chart are well below current levels. So here's a question for you: if CO2 precedes temperature rise... what do you think that chart is going to show for future temperatures?



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Its an ice shelf, which means its resting on water, therefore displacing all the water it can, whether in the frozen state or a liquid state. It cant contribute to sea level rises . It can only dilute the salt content of the sea water.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: lostbook

Its an ice shelf, which means its resting on water, therefore displacing all the water it can, whether in the frozen state or a liquid state. It cant contribute to sea level rises . It can only dilute the salt content of the sea water.


Sort of, in a limited scope of view.

An ice shelf is a maritime extension of a glacier and as such, plays a role in slowing a glacier's advance. The collapse of an ice shelf can accelerate the movement of a glacier into the ocean. The result being an increase in water displacement.
nsidc.org...
edit on 5/23/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

That really depends on the ice shelf. Some are as you say resting on the water already displacing the same amount they would if they were broken off ice burgs while others are not. The ones found at Antarctica are generally being supported to some degree by the ice sheet they are attached to.

Once the waters below the surface erode away the support(grounding zone) gravity provides the force necessary to break them off.

See illustration.


Oce the ice shelves breaks off then that also accelerates the glacier flow of the ice sheet because there is less holding them back. If the grounding zone continues to be eroded further back then the process repeats.



posted on May, 24 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Just a few questions.

Is the ice supoosed to be there forever?

Also if the ice has been there for about ten thousand years, then how long is it supposed to last?

It seems we are coming out of the last ice age, starting at approximately 11,0000 years ago




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join