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.

 

SCI/TECH: Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer within 100 years

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
I'm no alarmist whether naturally occuring, man-made or both, something is happening. Wouldn't you agree.


For sure. The causes are, and will continue to be, speculated upon. But it's all just speculation, and there are so many viable theories it will be extremely difficult to know the true cause of what's happening now, but we can look deep into the past and see that the earth has gone through many cycles of change, without man's help. That's why I agree with Indy, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, it was a very warm place, then an ice age, and so on. Is man totally responsible? Looking back we should be able to conclude that he's not. Are all the industrial gasses and pollutants having some kind of effect? That's certainly open for debate, but it's hard to seperate all the true facts from various political and economic biases to be sure, hopefully man will ultimately decide to air on the side of caution and reduce emissions. Better safe than sorry, but regardless of what we change, the earth will not stay the same. It can't.




posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
No one can predict climate changes over the next 100 years and there is no reason to believe that the conditions that contribute to the climate will continue unabated. Computer models are wholly dependent on what infomation they are given to compute and no one has sufficient information to make the claims made in this article. Pure Chicken Little science.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
this is truly tragic
even if it is chiken science or what ever you call it many small island nations like maldives could be submerged with the rising of sea level due to ice melting. country such as Maldives may be insignificent to most people but to think we are facing the hole sale distruction of Nations loosing of cultures that have existed for thousends of years loosing the home land of proud peoplel. it is truly a tragdy as these nation have no power to stop the top polliuters



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Well, you would hope things change slowly enough that they don't disappear all at once.

But that is the possibility with Earth changes such as this.


We could literally wake up, and it could be a different season? Well, that would take something drastic, and I don't think you'd be able to sleep through it


When do you figure was the last time the Earth experienced something on a cataclysmic level? Many people figure about 12 000 years ago there was incredible turmoill.

But not as many people know how crazy things were approximately 3660 years ago. Egyptian civilization experienced a lapse due to it, not to mention the decline of the civilization of the Minoans, which started inexplicably at about the same time

Well, actually, most people know of them in the form of "God's Wrath upon Egypt",
"This eruption of Thera (Santorini) seems to be a pivotal historical moment that triggered a chain of other seemingly unrelated events. It could have effected climate changes for generations after and contributed to the plagues of Egypt that God sent against Pharaoh to force him to let the Israelites go."



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightdeamon
even if it is chiken science or what ever you call it many small island nations like maldives could be submerged with the rising of sea level due to ice melting. country such as Maldives may be insignificent to most people but to think we are facing the hole sale distruction of Nations loosing of cultures that have existed for thousends of years loosing the home land of proud peoplel.

Some people may think others insignificant, but not I. Each and every person or nation has as much right to exist as any other. It is unfortunate that some people put their national interests first, but it appears to be a fact of life.

I don't think ignoring the changing weather patterns is a very good plan for the future. Kind of ostrich-like. I don't know about the whole global warming thing vs. natural cycles, but I do know that arguing over who is right isn't going to help nations like Maldives when the sea starts rising.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightdeamon
...even if it is chiken science or what ever you call it...


Please don't tell me you have never heard of Chicken Little. Certainly, the consequences of such predictions as have been purported in this article will have far reaching implications. The question is will these predictions come to fruition by necessity, or do they ignore the myriad things we don't understand about climate change and all the things that will change in the next one hundred years relative to energy consumption and the resultant pollution, which is to say, the reality of the situation. That is why I called it Chicken Little science.

More information on Chicken Little

Trailer





[edit on 2005/8/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
The fact remains, Grady Philpott, that the melting in the High Arctic is happening at an alarming rate. The consequences of this are going to be far reaching in a lot of ways but the one thing that particularly should stand out is the ability to sail warships up to the North American Arctic shores. Hudsons Bay is not far from populated areas if you look at the map and Russia is definately not far from Ellesmere Island .

That alone (with the Chinese and Russian co-operation lately) should perk our collective heads, don't you agree?

Further to that, if there was the least bit of truth to the possibility that rising sea levels are going to be a threat, think of all the coastel cities, like London, NYC or Amsterdam to name just 3 of thousands. How long should we wait to move things inland if the threat is real?

There's also places like Holland, which basically is below sea level as it is. Not to mention Africa's Great Rift Valley or the Imperial Valley in California.

I think we should be very watchful on this...an increase of just a couple of feet can cause amazing results, especially when you factor in tides and storm surges.



[edit on 24-8-2005 by masqua]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
The fact is that we live on a dymanic planet. All evidence points to a time when there was only one continent, Pangea. There have been several Ice Ages since and there will be changes galore until the sun explodes, devouring planet.

People are working right now to change the way we do almost everything we do, especially in the area of energy. Don't you get those loathesome BP commercials where you live. BP will save the planet.

[edit on 2005/8/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
The fact remains, Grady Philpott, that the melting in the High Arctic is happening at an alarming rate.


Why is it alarming? Maybe it is alarming to some people if you live along the coast line. But I'd bet its not alarming to farmers that would enjoy longer growing seasons. Its not alarming to people that live inland and its not alarming to people who would be living on the new coastline.

Alarming would be a rapidly advancing ice sheet. Alarming would be a rapid buildup of global ice where much of the ocean water was relocated on to land in the form of ice. Water levels would go down and all that valuable beach front property would no longer be beach front. Winters would get longer. Energy consumption would skyrocket and the growing season would shrink and the line at which grain can grow would move further south. That coupled with a growing population would be alarming.

Warming is good. Cooling is bad.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
The Easy Way Or The Hard Way


Originally posted by masqua
The fact remains, Grady Philpott, that the melting in the High Arctic is happening at an alarming rate.

"Alarming" isn't a unit of measure, it's an opinion.

That's a fact.

Evangelism and skepticism are necessarily at odds.

Evangelism requires no thought, only a willingness to repeat a message until it is accepted.

Skepticism requires intense thought, because a skeptic is forever beset by an endless parade of evangelists.

The choice is left to us which path to follow.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FallenOne
You just contradicted yourself. You state the earth is not warming, then you claim it is, only not by CO2 (in the same sentence). I don't understand your logic. Global Warming is VERY REAL. The debate is whether it's man-made or not. But the fact remains that it's one hell of a problem we need to deal with, IMHO.


Fallen One

I'm sorry, you're right.
What I meant with 'global warming' is, 'global warming caused by mankind'. Most people associate global warming with mankinds CO2 emmissions, I didn't made that clear.

What I meant was, I dont think humans are the main cause of global warming. ( you obviously cant deny Earth is warming up). its just a cycle, there were times Earth was much warmer than it is now.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

dsc.discovery.com...


[edit on 24-8-2005 by masqua]


I'm pulling this back out from earlier in this thread because it has the information which backs up what I'm saying.

ie. the trend we're seeing in the warming Arctic could raise sea levels 20 to 23 feet within a few centuries. Also, there are 1.2 billion people that live within 20 miles of the sea.

The study done by 250 scientists, backed by NASA, is a warning that should not, IMO, be ignored. If it takes 200 years for the levels to increase 5 meters (or about 20 feet), going by a steady increase, that means the increase is 2 feet every 20 years.

A 2 foot increase will have effects for Florida, for instance, especially with the storm surges which hurricanes can produce.

Wikipedia has some nice graphics here...

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 25-8-2005 by masqua]



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Some drastic changes in the oceans currents would have to occur before this happens.

Besides, for the all the ice in the artic to melt would mean the temperatures in the temperarate zones to become so unbearable, no mammal life would be able to live in these regions.

Sounds like this researcher has been smoking something illegal.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Some drastic changes in the oceans currents would have to occur before this happens.

Besides, for the all the ice in the artic to melt would mean the temperatures in the temperarate zones to become so unbearable, no mammal life would be able to live in these regions.

Sounds like this researcher has been smoking something illegal.


erm...are you referring to me or the 250 scientists about the smoking?



Anyways, if you need information about the weakening Atlantic Current,

www.nasa.gov...

Oh, and the mammal life is at risk...the Polar Bears are starving for lack of sea ice which they need to hunt seals, among other issues, like the disappearing Cod stocks..



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
[I'm sorry, you're right.
What I meant with 'global warming' is, 'global warming caused by mankind'. Most people associate global warming with mankinds CO2 emmissions, I didn't made that clear.

What I meant was, I dont think humans are the main cause of global warming. ( you obviously cant deny Earth is warming up). its just a cycle, there were times Earth was much warmer than it is now.


Oh, well, in that case...we agree fully! I think the earth's weather was more life sustaining around 20,000 BCE just before the ice age collapsed. I wish we could bring it back there...It's too damn hot here in Florida, USA. I think I'll move to Helsinki, Finland. Avg. temp range from 15F to 70F. Sounds like the perfect climate to me.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Update:


www.eurekalert.org...

Arctic sea ice narrowly missed record low in winter 2007, says University of Colorado team

The Arctic sea-ice extent, which is the area of ocean covered by at least 15 percent ice, was 5.7 million square miles in March 2007, slightly higher than the record low of 5.6 million square miles measured in March 2006. The declining sea ice has been blamed on higher winter temperatures in the Arctic, a result of rising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and strong natural variability in the ice, said researcher Walt Meier of CU-Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center.

"This year's wintertime low extent is another milestone in a strong downward trend," said Meier. "We're still seeing near-record lows (in sea ice) and higher-than-normal temperatures, and we expect this downward trend to continue in future years."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.







posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by valkeryie
The sad thing is without the ice polars bears will either cease to exist or will have to adapt somehow.

news.bbc.co.uk...
The polar bear could be driven to extinction by global warming within 100 years, warns an ecology expert.
The animal, which relies on sea ice to catch seals, is already starting to suffer the effects of climate changes in areas such as Hudson Bay in Canada.


That is another myth. Polar bears have thrived in warmer climates. The populations of polar bears have in fact increased during the current warming.


Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up'
By Fred Langan in Toronto and Tom Leonard
Last Updated: 1:43am GMT 09/03/2007

In pictures: Polar bears thriving in the Arctic
Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study.

A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.

In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml

There is research that proves the contrary to the claims that Polar bears are declining or will decline. Polar bears have adapted in the past and will once again adapt.

Anyways, i would love to know exactly how anyone plans to "stop or mitigate" the warming that is happening "under" the ice sheets in the Arctic... There is nothing we can do to stop or mitigate this.


As Indy said, and this is somthine that apparently not a lot of people know about, the Earth ahs been in the overall warming since the end of the last Ice Age, during the period known as the Holocene.

There is research and data which suggests the current warming in the Arctic, and even in the Antarctic is being caused by warming oceans which have been warming by underwater volcanoes and the increase seismic and magmatic activity which occurs, and which has been occuring for ages, as pressure is released from the poles by the melting of thee ice sheets.


The Arctic shelf is currently undergoing dramatic thermal changes caused by the continued warming associated with Holocene sea level rise. During this transgression, comparatively warm waters have flooded over cold permafrost areas of the Arctic Shelf. A thermal pulse of more than 10°C is still propagating down into the submerged sediment and may be decomposing gas hydrate as well as permafrost.

www.agu.org...


Ocean heat blamed for the mysterious disappearance of glaciers
By Steve Connor
Published: 16 March 2007

A mysterious phenomenon is causing four major glaciers in the Antarctic to shrink in unison, causing a significant increase in sea levels, scientists have found.

The rise in atmospheric temperatures caused by global warming cannot account for the relatively rapid movement of the glaciers into the sea, but scientists suspect that warmer oceans may be playing a role.

"There is a possibility that heat from the ocean is somehow flowing in underneath these glaciers, but it is not related to global warming," said glaciologist Duncan Wingham of University College London. "Something has changed that is causing these glaciers to shrink.

"At this rate the glaciers will all be afloat in 150 years or so."
......................
However, it would take about 200 years for extra heat from the ocean to reach the underside of the glaciers, which makes it difficult to believe that the present shrinkage is due to global warming, Dr Wingham said.

news.independent.co.uk...


Two Large Lakes Discovered Under Antarctic Ice

By LiveScience Staff

posted: 25 January 2006
09:10 pm ET


Antarctica has at least 145 small lakes buried under its ice and one large one called Vostok. Now scientists have found the second and third largest known bodies of subsurface liquid water there.

Exotic ecosystems frozen in time may thrive in the lakes, untouched for 35 million years, scientists said.

Vostok has a surface area of 5,400 square miles. One of the newfound lakes measures 770 square miles in size, or roughly the size of Rhode Island. The other is about 620 square miles.

Both sit under more than 2 miles of ice and are about a half-mile deep based on observed differences in gravity.
.................
The combination of heat from below and a thick layer of insulating ice above keeps the water temperature at the top of both lakes at a balmy 28.4 degrees Fahrenheit, the researchers say, despite outdoor temperatures that can drop to –112 in winter.

The lakes are bounded by faults, Bell said, and the evidence suggests there is circulation and that they receive flows of nutrients that could support unique ecosystems.

www.livescience.com...



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
BTW, there are theories that in about 2 decades or so tmeperatures will actually decrease and the Earth will go through another Little Ice Age.

We can't even predict the weather for next week and at times not even for tomorrow...yet there are people who think we know for certain what will happen 100 years from now?...

If anyone is going to have any say on what the climate is going to be like 100 years from now, that will be nature and all the natural factors which affect the climate.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, there are theories that in about 2 decades or so tmeperatures will actually decrease and the Earth will go through another Little Ice Age.



This 'cool down' would be due to the warming, correct? Eventually the influx of fresh water shuts down the convection cycle, eventually resulting in a cooling. A feedback loop? Or are you going somewhere else with this?

Melatonin helped steer me in the right direction but I haven't had the time to read (take notes on) anything yet... I also have yet to give a proper read to the .pdf link you gave me in the other thread.




We can't even predict the weather for next week and at times not even for tomorrow...yet there are people who think we know for certain what will happen 100 years from now?...


Isn't the trend real? The 100yr prediction is just an extrapolation of that trend, no? Why do you disagree... too small a data set/sample size?

I'm not trying to argue with ya here Muaddib, I couldn't. I'll have some free time (no kids/work) this weekend so I'm trying to get a list of stuff together to read... on climate change more-so than AGW.



If anyone is going to have any say on what the climate is going to be like 100 years from now, that will be nature and all the natural factors which affect the climate.


Sure... who would/does argue with that? Even if AGW is false the melting of the arctic is still happening and [looks to me like it] will continue to, no? Or are you saying that the theory of AGW is tied to the 'melting arctic forecast'?


Thanks for the post and links, Muaddib.

~Rren



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by valkeryie
The sad thing is without the ice polars bears will either cease to exist or will have to adapt somehow.


While sad it is hardly suprising. Polar Bears as a species have been around for only about 200,000 years as an offshoot of Brown Bears. They developed to take on a region of the globe where there was plentiful food, harsh conditions and no competition. They filled a niche that was open.

They will hopefully adapt again, as they move from a Sea Ice based existance to a more land based, if the current melting of their habitat continues. It's not like they will just stay as a species on the ice till it melts all around them, they will migrate to where they can find food. Probably they will interbreed with brown bears more as they enter the brown's living area and form a hybrid of the two. Life is a constant state of change.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join