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.

 

Dramatic Arctic ice reduction

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Between the years of 2004 and 2005 a NASA satellite documented a 14% reduction of the "perennial" ice layer (The thick ice that last all year) this loss equates to losing an area the size of Pakistan or Turkey. While this dramatic loss may be partly due to unusual wind patterns in 2005 rising temperatures within the Arctic region are also a possible contributory factor.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
A Nasa satellite has documented startling changes in Arctic sea ice cover between 2004 and 2005.

September 2005 saw the lowest recorded area of ice cover since 1978, when satellite records became available.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This seems to be yet another clear sign that Global warming is having a very significant impact, but will our political masters actually take notice and respond, or will they yet again seemingly totally ignore the facts that seem to becoming more and more obvious by the day, that we need to take action soon to avoid some Global catastrophe and not just something that affects one nation or state?

[edit on 14-9-2006 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I dont know I wouldn't be so quick to scream global warming when other factors could be at fault. I doubt global warming could have such an impact by itself by the course of one year. If the temperature even raised a whole degree (which would be nuts), I still doubt it would melt 14% of the ice, simply because 1 degree isn't that much. The wind pattern may more likely be at fault. It sounds more reasonable and sounds like it could raise temperatures a great deal more then global warming, causing such an impact.

Im not saying global warming isnt effecting, I just highly doubt its the cause. Global warming is a slow process, its not going to suddenly boost the temperature like 10 degrees, it just doesn't work that way. it raises like part of a degree a year, not even close to a whole degree. I dont have any stats, and im busy so I won't look at the moment, but I do know its a very slow process, and doesn't sound like the suspect for this ice loss.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Here in Canada, it's doing the same thing. The perennial ground is getting ``hotter`` and you just touch it, and it's wavering. It's like water. The houses that were built there are going under the ground level... it's very weird. Global warming...is making winds hotter and then affecting perennial ground... so global warming anyway.


[edit on 14-9-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   
I think it is becoming more and more obvious to most people that a drastic change is happening before us, and in reply to grim it only take's as much as a one degree rise to take us over a tipping point where thing's start to advance far more quickly, the report also stated that the ice helps reflect energy into space while open water absorbs it and speeds up the warming process even more



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   
I was convinced of global warming about 25 years ago, and since then have seen many predictions about it come to pass. It has been slower than they thought, but not much. At 14% loss a year, that's 7 years until theres no more ice. I don't think anyone can say what this will mean, but I bet it will be dramatic.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Theres a report just been released in the Uk link that states the Uk must reduce it's co2 emissions by 70% within 30 years and that we have to make significant reductions within 4 years just to do "our" part in keeping global temperatures below danger levels.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
All 14% might not all be due to climate change, but even if it isn't it still shows how quickly things can change. Next years results will be interesting to see. And 1 degree isn't much, but that can be all the difference between water and ice, particularly water in ice.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   
This story has been oversensationalised by the GW obsessed media.

Yes, its unprecedented, but it's not in itself a sign of accelerating global warming.

With all these stories it's always best to try and track down the original paper or news release. In this case it's from NASA

Unreported by the media is the comment that:-


Data from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Boulder, Colo., suggest that winds pushed perennial ice from the East to the West Arctic Ocean (primarily located above North America) and significantly moved ice out of the Fram Strait, an area located between Greenland and Spitsbergen, Norway. This movement of ice out of the Arctic is a different mechanism for ice shrinkage than the melting of Arctic sea ice, but it produces the same results - a reduction in the amount of perennial Arctic sea ice.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   


news.bbc.co.uk

September 2005 saw the lowest recorded area of ice cover since 1978, when satellite records became available.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Right in the article it says this quote above.
So, was it global warming 28 years ago (?), then the global warming "went away"?

Being they say in the article that the ice cover had receeded this far before, as recently as 1978, and then the ice cover came back and is now receeding again, doesn't that suggest that this is a natural occuring phenomenon?


[edit on 15/9/06 by Keyhole]



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Keyhole


news.bbc.co.uk

September 2005 saw the lowest recorded area of ice cover since 1978, when satellite records became available.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Right in the article it says this quote above.
So, was it global warming 28 years ago (?), then the global warming "went away"?

Being they say in the article that the ice cover had receeded this far before, as recently as 1978, and then the ice cover came back and is now receeding again, doesn't that suggest that this is a natural occuring phenomenon?


[edit on 15/9/06 by Keyhole]

What they mean is that they started measuring it in 1978, and this is the lowest they have ever seen since then, in other words, they are just saying they don't know about any time before 1978, but that they do know that since they started measuring it, it has never been this low.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

What they mean is that they started measuring it in 1978, and this is the lowest they have ever seen since then, in other words, they are just saying they don't know about any time before 1978, but that they do know that since they started measuring it, it has never been this low.


Your right, I may have not interpeted the info. right, that is what happens when you comment on an articles quote without actually reading the article.

I myself though, still believe that this may still only be the Earth's natural life cycle.
Some enviromental groups would still say it's mankinds fault.
When countries around the two poles start to experience colder winters , I'm sure Global Cooling is not what they will be calling it

Way back when the ice age occured, was that mankinds fault too?

Let the Earth and its weather do what it wants to, there is nothing we can do about it anyway, if it is nice weather, enjoy it, if it is bad weather, seek shelter. We have such a small history of actually being on this planet with a written history, there is no way we can know the actual life cycles of the earth.

[edit on 16/9/06 by Keyhole]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   
I personally suspect there was as little or less sea ice during the Medieval Warm period, and certainly the Holocene Climatic Optimum around 8,000 years ago - when Greenland's temperature - as measured by the ice cores - was defintely warmer than today.

Notwithstanding which, I am also quite certain that human activity is changing some regional climates, and possible so on a global scale.

The problem is figuring out what would have happened regradless of us.... IMO attributing everything to human activity actually weakens the argument for AGW.

(btw - sea ice has only been measured by satellite since '78 - we have only historical records from ships etc to gauge its extend prior to then)



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I just read "Superstorm" by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber, so I've taken an interest in these types of threads.
From what I get from this book, other than an obvious bias for believing that man is accelerating global warming, is that the earth goes through these cycles anyway. Stopping all discharge of fossil fuel waste, CO2, aerosols, and cow farts isn't going to change a thing IMO. What man has done to influence these cycles in the couple of hundred years we've been discharging this stuff into the atmosphere is no more than a decent-sized volcanic eruption.
In the book, a major part of the "trigger" for a superstorm that would supposedly bring us into another ice age is the melting of polar ice disrupting currents with the introduction of so much fresh water, changing salinity levels and weakening the North Atlantic flow. By their own admission, Art and Whitley are amateurs.
The only conclusion I could draw from this book is that they really enjoyed the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" because the fictional account they included very closely parallels the movie!
I guess it comes down to this: WHOSE RESEARCH DO YOU TRUST? Nearly every scientist in our modern world has a need for funding, and thus, has an agenda. I guess it depends on what their supporters want. Oil companies I imagine fund a lot of scientists. So do liberal organizations and countries.

I wish someone could find satellite photos all the way from 1978 to support this concern. Heck, I wish we had satellite photos from 10,000 years ago. Maybe we can ask Whitley Strieber to contact his aliens again and ask them if they can provide them!



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
I had gotten this in Febuary of 04 and will look for the source to see if it was real or ant follow up since then.

News via RSS

Science - AFP

Leaked Pentagon report warns climate change may bring famine, war: report
Sun Feb 22, 5:17 PM ET Add Science - AFP to My Yahoo!



LONDON (AFP) - A secret report prepared by the Pentagon (news - web sites) warns that climate change may lead to global catastrophe costing millions of lives and is a far greater threat than terrorism.


Pentagon Photo



The report was ordered by an influential US Pentagon advisor but was covered up by "US defense chiefs" for four months, until it was "obtained" by the British weekly The Observer.


The leak promises to draw angry attention to US environmental and military policies, following Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) on climate change and President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s skepticism about global warning -- a stance that has stunned scientists worldwide.


The Pentagon report, commissioned by Andrew Marshall, predicts that "abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies," The Observer reported.


The report, quoted in the paper, concluded: "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life.... Once again, warfare would define human life."


Its authors -- Peter Schwartz, a CIA (news - web sites) consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of Global Business Network based in California -- said climate change should be considered "immediately" as a top political and military issue.


It "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern", they were quoted as saying.


Some examples given of probable scenarios in the dramatic report include:


-- Britain will have winters similar to those in current-day Siberia as European temperatures drop off radically by 2020.


-- by 2007 violent storms will make large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable and lead to a breach in the acqueduct system in California that supplies all water to densely populated southern California


-- Europe and the United States become "virtual fortresses" trying to keep out millions of migrants whose homelands have been wiped out by rising sea levels or made unfarmable by drought.


-- "catastrophic" shortages of potable water and energy will lead to widespread war by 2020.


Randall, one of the authors, called his findings "depressing stuff" and warned that it might even be too late to prevent future disasters.


"We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years," he told the paper.


Experts familiar with the report told the newspaper that the threat to global stability "vastly eclipses that of terrorism".


Taking environmental pollution and climate change into account in political and military strategy is a new, complicated and necessary challenge for leaders, Randall said.


"It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat," he said.





Coming from the Pentagon, normally a bastion of conservative politics, the report is expected to bring environmental issues to the fore in the US presidential race.

Last week the Union of Concerned Scientists, an influential and non-partisan group that includes 20 Nobel laureates, accused the Bush administration of having deliberately distorted scientific fact to serve its policy agenda and having "misled the public".

Its 38-page report, which it said took over a year to prepare and was not time to coincide with the campaign season, details how Washington "systematically" skewed government scientific studies, suppressed others, stacked panels with political and unqualified appointees and often refused to seek independent expertise on issues.

Critics of the report quoted by the New York Times denied there was deliberate misrepresentation and called it politically motivated.

The person behind the leaked Pentagon report, Andrew Marsall, cannot be accused of the same partisan politicking.

Marsall, 82, has been an advisor for the defense department for decades, and was described by The Observer as the author of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plans for a major transformation of the US military.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   
The Pentagon Report was not secret. It was commissioned by the Pentagon as a 'worse case scenario' exercise.

The point of the exercise was if the events described in the report happened, what would theglobal political consequences be?

Even the report's authors acknowledged that the sequence of climate events they describe is highly speculative and probably wouldn't happen in the time frame suggested, if indeed it happened at all.

www.worldchanging.com...



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I am a bit confused and have a question. Is this an across the board 14% reduction in a year, or a projection based on how much the ice layer would have increased?



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Just more media hype to get funding for science programs is all it is.


There is a book out called Meltdown. It explains why the exaggerations continue time and time again, and what you/I can do about them.

Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Just more media hype to get funding for science programs is all it is.


There is a book out called Meltdown. It explains why the exaggerations continue time and time again, and what you/I can do about them.


I did some research on the author of Meltdown:


from source article
Funding
Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."[2] (dieoff.org...)
www.sourcewatch.org...


$115,000 over the last 4 years from coal and energy interests. I wonder why he downplays global warming huh?

No offence, but considering this guys backers I wouldn't put any merit into what he is saying. The fact is global warming does exist. Humans do play a role in affecting our climate. All you have to do is look at the amount of forest coverage over the US and how it has declined over the last 100 years. That is one small part of a HUGE equation (both natural and manmade mind you) that is global warming. We are speading up a natural process, period. Coal & energy companies would have to invest billions to reverse the damage they are causing, let alone just to stem the flow....THAT is why books like this are written. You see, when the $&*% hits the fan in regard to the environment, we most likely wont be alive. Future generations however, will look back at our ignorance and we will go down as the era of blindness & ignorance.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
More on the Author of Meltdown:


from source artilce
Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science." [9] (stephenschneider.stanford.edu...)
www.sourcewatch.org...


Dr. Tom Wigley, lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climate scientists, was quoted in the book "The Heat is On" (Gelbspan, 1998, Perseus Publishing): "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading." [10] (www.pacinst.org...)

But Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, said "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence." [7] (www.pacinst.org...)




Bias can be found anywhere, so can misinformation. I strongly urge people who are skeptical about global warming to do some research on their own and dont let politics influence a belief on something which you know nothing about. Deny ignorance.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogansRun
I strongly urge people who are skeptical about global warming to do some research on their own and dont let politics influence a belief on something which you know nothing about.


I did some research and what I found for the antarctic, claims the ice there is getting thicker, so where does that leave us? Right back where we started from, one group says one thing the others say another and I happen to agree with those that claim it is not as bad as the other side is trying to convince you.

For all any of us may know this may be the start of a pole shift that some scientist think happens x years a part. If that is true this could be nothing more then a normal variance. Pole Shift & Pole Reversal in 2012

More pole shift theories

New Clues to Earth's magnetic flip flops



[edit on 10/10/2006 by shots]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join