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.

 

Sea Ice May Be On Increase In The Antarctic

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Another interesting article on global warming and the strange effects of it;

www.sciencedaily.com...

Sea Ice May Be On Increase In The Antarctic: A Phenomenon Due To A Lot Of 'Hot Air'?

A new NASA-funded study finds that predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic’s Southern Ocean. This adds new evidence of potential asymmetry between the two poles, and may be an indication that climate change processes may have different impact on different areas of the globe.

"Most people have heard of climate change and how rising air temperatures are melting glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic," said Dylan C. Powell, co-author of the paper and a doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. "However, findings from our simulations suggest a counterintuitive phenomenon. Some of the melt in the Arctic may be offset by increases in sea ice volume in the Antarctic.

Entire Article...

As I've said before in other threads, I'm beginning to believe global warming is just a natural cycle, our CO2 emissions aren't the primairy cause of it, IMO.




posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
of corse global warming is a natural cycle, ice ages have been comming and going scince before people have been about



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
ZM,

I read a study on this a couple of weeks ago in which the scientists had modeled global warming cycles and their model showed that as the ice melted at the north pole it would increase at about the same rate at the south pole. It's very interesting!

So, just assuming this model could be accurate:

What happens when we get all bottom-heavy??? Serious? That's my question.

[edit on 8-22-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   
How long has man been studying global warming and the climatic changes associated with it?

If you take this article to a Russian scientist, undoubtedly, he or she would say it is because the Earth is not going thru global warming but global cooling. Then there are those who would say that global warming causes global cooling.
Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

Anyhow, I find it interesting that NASA has long reported and cited that Mars is going thru global warming with no man-made caused CO2 being the culprit.




seekerof



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Okay, so in an effort to further the discussion lets just call it

"the current warming trend"

and leave the phrase "global warming" out because apparently when we use that it is mandated that human affects be included in it.

Let's further restrict the definition of "our current warming trend" to the past 140 so years that the data shows there is indeed a warming trend taking place. With that further restriction we can now leave open that this could be a transitory warming spike within a greater cooling trend so that we, the Russians, and Newton for that matter can all come to the same table and talk about the "current warming trend".

Furthermore, for the sake of this thread, let's assume the scientists' model is correct and Antartica's ice cap will increase at almost the same rate the northern ice cap melts.

Since we're now back on topic, my question was:

I wonder if there could be some tectonic instabilities that could arise if this "current warming trend" persisted to the point we became bottom-heavy?



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   

as posted by Valhall
I wonder if there could be some tectonic instabilities that could arise if this "current warming trend" persisted to the point we became bottom-heavy?


Sure and a possibility, Valhall. According to Richard Noone and his book 5/5/2000, he cites all kinds of 'evidence and findings' for a past polar shift and/or earth flipping due to one pole having a build of more ice than the other, but his theory also incorporated a planatary alignment and the gravitational effects from such. His research was impeccable, but his reputation suffered greatly due to making his book and speeches given after the book into a firm fact that such would occur on 5/5/2000. His prediction may be bunked, but his findings and research certainly should not be entirely dismissed as irrelevant and having no merit, IMHO. If such has occurred before, it is likely that such will occur again. The time/when is the only thing in question, based upon that 'if such has occurred before.'




seekerof

[edit on 22-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


Sure and a possibility, Valhall. According to Richard Noone and his book 5/5/2000, he cites all kinds of 'evidence and findings' for a past polar shift and/or earth flipping due to one pole having a build of more ice than the other, but his theory also incorporated a planatary alignment and the gravitational effects from such. His research was impeccable, but his reputation suffered greatly due to making his book and speeches given after the book into a firm fact that such would occur on 5/5/2000. His prediction may be bunked, but his findings and research certainly should not be entirely dismissed as irrelevant and having no merit, IMHO. If such has occurred before, it is likely that such will occur again. The time/when is the only thing in question, based upon that 'if such has occurred before.'


[edit on 22-8-2005 by Seekerof]


I have Richard Noone's book as well as Graham Hancock's book Fingerprints of the Gods which also takes into account possibilities of the "great tree turning about its axis" (i.e. the polar shift). In addition, I have read what I guess is the original book (other than possibly Velikovski) John White's Pole Shift.

It is my interest in this area, and my inability to dismiss the theory of possible past polar shifts, that leads me to ask the question. The minute I read the release of the model results I thought - well, darn, that's how it could happen!



[edit on 8-22-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I'm always entertained by some of these news stories. If ice melts its global warming. If ice forms its global warming. If glaciers retreat its global warming. If glaciers advance its global warming. If the winter it bad its global warming. If the winter is mild its global warming. This is the problem when science has a political agenda.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
I'm always entertained by some of these news stories. If ice melts its global warming. If ice forms its global warming. If glaciers retreat its global warming. If glaciers advance its global warming. If the winter it bad its global warming. If the winter is mild its global warming. This is the problem when science has a political agenda.


You left out one...

What do you call it when the globe warms?

When the surface temperature increases? When the ocean surface temperature increases? Or the Great Lakes thaw an average of 2 days earlier for every decade since 1846? Or when tropical species are now residing in southern Texas?

[edit on 8-22-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
@ val, could it be Global Warming?


regardless of what you want to call it, climate change is occuring, some of it is probably cyclical, but some it could cause the cycle to change which is what I think is occurring. If we get bottom heavy, wouldn't that dramatically affect how the earth wobbles?



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Erm, an over-active sun [ie: sunspots, solar activity, etc.]?






seekerof



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Erm, an over-active sun [ie: sunspots, solar activity, etc.]?


seekerof


That might be the cause...but I'd call it global warming.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
@ val, could it be Global Warming?


regardless of what you want to call it, climate change is occuring, some of it is probably cyclical, but some it could cause the cycle to change which is what I think is occurring. If we get bottom heavy, wouldn't that dramatically affect how the earth wobbles?


That's one of the questions in my mind ww. That and could this be a possible scenario of the polar shift theory?

eek!



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
That might be the cause...but I'd call it global warming.


I, on the other hand, would simply call it the process of climate change.
Was it not back in the early to mid 70s that the word of the day was global cooling, now roughly 30+ years later, the trumped word of the day is global warming?

The earth has gone thru periods of being warmed and cooled, and for quite an imaginable time [ie: Ice ages, etc.]. I'm almost sure that their have been dramatic climate changes that have destroyed majorities of the earth occupants, man and animal alike. As such, since the study of global climate changes is still in its infancy, per se', how do we not know that this is not simply a part of the earth's natural process? I'm alomost of the opinion that even if the entire world stopped polluting, in all its forms, that the process would continue on.

Bear in mind also, that I find it somewhat dubious, that the Antartica ice shelf was retreating [which occurred before roughly 9500 years ago] then thinning [both reported earlier this year], all due to global warming, and now, this article is again insinuating that the increase of sea ice is attributed to global warming. Maybe it is the earth's natural way of getting rid of excess ice build-up?





seekerof

[edit on 22-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

I, on the other hand, would simply call it the process of climate change.
Was it not back in the early to mid 70s that the word of the day was global cooling,

[edit on 22-8-2005 by Seekerof]


But in the 1970's they were looking at an extremely small cooling trend - a bit of a blip, not 140 years, but a few consecutive years. Furthermore, the "freak out" that occurred in the 70's has long been dismissed as "junk science". Only a few went off the deep end of a few years of cooler weather.

Such is not the case with the more than decade of work, and the almost century and a half of data showing a significant global surface increase.

Luckily, your confidence that you know exactly what is going on won't stop the scientists who are charged with monitoring the situation. It's a sad deal that we can't decide to adjust for the short term to assist in minimizing what is clearly a sustained warming trend. And it's even sadder that most of the reason we won't assist are for monetary reasons.

[edit on 8-22-2005 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   

as posted by Valhall
Luckily, your confidence that you know exactly what is going on won't stop the scientists who are charged with monitoring the situation.


Totally uncalled for and unwarrented, Valhall.
My assertions and postulations were given in question form, thus indicating quite the opposite of that which you have asserted, as quoted above.






seekerof



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I took your continued arguing that there might not be a global warming trend - which has been proven with 140 years of data - to be that you know something the scientists don't know.

I apologize.

Apparently it was for some other reason. It can't be about the "man-made" portion because we put that aside in the first three or four posts, didn't we?

So what exactly are you arguing? Can you clarify that please?



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Your intense sarcasm, as par, is noted.
I will kindly bow out of this topic and allow you to continue to express your own beliefs and opinions.
Apparently, if one has any difference, especially as myself, it is meet with the attitudes of one such as yourself.

Please, by all means, carry on, for I know you will.






seekerof



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
This whole semantics and cause and effect argument is detracting from the real issue. That is Man as the highest lifeform on the Food chain is the most distructive on said food-chain. We disrupt ecosystems where ever we go, we don't co-habitate, we dominate not to the point where we have had our fill, but to the point where no one else can have their fill on that land either. The way we are acting is like a neiboring farmer salting his rivals plots just down the road. In the Cities the air is getting so thick you can cut it with a knife, even in "The Wilderness" they are having more frequent smog days. Overfishing and Illigal dumping is continuing to stress a foodsource that billions depend upon. Our whole Laisse Faire attitude is really making a mess of things, and unless we stop this right and left bull# and get off our collective asses and do something for a change, we are going to end up handing a very bleak world to our grand-children, and they'll probably curse our names as they clean up our mess.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   
very true sardion, there's no denying that the human populaton is adding much more stress to the earth than in any other previous cycle that may have occurred. If those who believe this is cyclical and normal climatology must admit that the past 200 years has rapidly increase the deterioration of many ecological systems and have affected weather patterns.



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join