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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Why do you think hurricane katrina grew, so strong, so quick?
The heating water in the gulf is why.


Really then kindly explain why this year all the predictions turned out to be wrong?

What you are seeing is nothing more then normal variance from year to year with some exceptions. Yes in some areas it does appear to be getting warmer but there is no solid scientific evidence that proves there is a definite trend all we have is speculation, but again you knew that didn't you?

As for your constant attacks on bush I find that totally uncalled for the topic of the thread is not Bush it is about allegations that global warming is taking place.

Now let me ask you this since you appear to know so much. Kindly explain why the Green Jeans community cannot come up with a ten year study that counters these claims made by Goddard and NASA?




posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
The debate was what has this GOVERNMENT done,
and Bush is a part of this government.
Its not exactly rummsfield banning these reports is it.

There was little hurricane activity, true...
so is global warming getting better??
Should there of been one that crossed the gulf, it would of increased in size.. AGAIN.

or is it going to take another dramatic incident to prove this to you?

And NASA seems to agree, that bush is stopping HONEST research
www.msnbc.msn.com...

"He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway."
www.cbsnews.com...

Warming expert: Only decade left to act in time
‘We have a very brief window of opportunity,’ NASA scientist says
www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I'm concerned about the reduction in ice coverage in the arctic and sub-arctic regions of Canada. Not that I don't care about the rest of the world, but my worries are more along the lines of challenges to sovereignty in the region. Some countries don't recognize the 200 nautical mile law when it comes to northern Canada.



To determine if there was any quantitative trend to this pattern, the Ice Service digitized the weekly ice charts it has produced for the Canadian Arctic since 1969. By totalling the ice coverage on these charts for each summer season (June 25 to October 15) from 1969 to 2001, meteorologists were able to study differences in total accumulated coverage from one year to the next.

Their studies confirmed that the total coverage of sea ice in summer had decreased by about 15 per cent in the Arctic (north of 60° latitude), and by about 40 per cent in the sub-Arctic area of Hudson Bay. The data were then further divided to look at differences in trends between the Eastern and Western Arctic. In the Eastern Arctic, a 15-per-cent decrease in coverage was detected overall, while the three sub-regions of the Western Arctic showed declines of 10 per cent (Viscount Melville), 12 per cent (Beaufort Sea), and 36 per cent (Western Arctic Waterway). Not surprisingly, the shipping season in these regions had increased by three to nine per cent during this same period.

While confidence was lower that the trends observed in the first two sub-regions of the Western Arctic were statistically significant, confidence in the figure for the Western Arctic Waterway was 95 per cent. This is of particular importance, because ice in the Waterway is believed to be driven mainly by local thermodynamics—in that it does not circulate into or out of the area on any large scale, but rather tends to form in winter and melt each summer in situ. This may indicate that the ice decline observed in this sub-region is more reflective of rising surface temperatures than in the Beaufort Sea sub-region, where a large flux of multi-year ice from the Arctic Ocean enters and exits.

www.ec.gc.ca...



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The debate was what has this GOVERNMENT done,
and Bush is a part of this government.


Excuse me global warming did not happen in just the last 8 years if it is in fact global warming so again I ask you not to lay the blame on one man alone.



And NASA seems to agree, that bush is stopping HONEST research
www.msnbc.msn.com...

"He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway."
www.cbsnews.com...

Warming expert: Only decade left to act in time
‘We have a very brief window of opportunity,’ NASA scientist says
www.msnbc.msn.com...


Excuse me again, that is not NASA who made the statements, that is one man that works for NASA making those statements and a somewhat controversial one at that :shk:



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
your asking something u full well know cannot be produced.
This is not evidence of your statement.

It is simply a lack of ability to comprehend that ur government.. may just be lying to you.!



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
your asking something u full well know cannot be produced.
This is not evidence of your statement.


Just which statement are you talking about? I am no mind reader. Also did you know or were you aware that Hansen no longer works for NASA??? Hmmm the plot thickens towards the green jeans doesn't it?




James R. Hansen is a professor of history at Auburn University. A former historian for NASA, Hansen is the author of eight books on the history of aerospace. He lives in Auburn, Alabama.

Source








[edit on 10/17/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
"Hansen WAS director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming. He was also one of the first government scientists tasked with briefing congressional committees on the dangers of global warming, testifying as far back as the 1980s."

HE MAY BE now, but what he was has merrit.

honestly but, I can see how youve been duped shots. dont take it personally.
If the government is going out of there way to limit what people are tellling the world on global warming.. you'd expect the easily fooled to beleive its not a problem.

I like ya shots, and ATS is fun, even if ya do fail to convince the fooled of the truth.
Unforunately your not going to realise the truth until ur knee deep in water in your living room!



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
"Hansen WAS director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming. He was also one of the first government scientists tasked with briefing congressional committees on the dangers of global warming, testifying as far back as the 1980s."

HE MAY BE now, but what he was has merrit.

honestly but, I can see how youve been duped shots. dont take it personally.


Oh do not worry I will not take it personally, but from my view point it has been you that has been duped by the Green Jeans Crowd and do not take that personally, I am sure you mean well, but I have spoken in front of our state senate several times on behalf of the mining industry and trust me I know the lies they tell, but they are not climate related so that is a whole new topic.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Scientists were warning for years though, that the increase in water temp in the gulf would effect any hurricances then ventured that way.

And what happened?

Was that a lucky guess?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Scientists were warning for years though, that the increase in water temp in the gulf would effect any hurricances then ventured that way.


Yes I know and many also claimed the warming was nothing more then a normal variance so those claims are highly disputed. So once again you are back to differing opinions.



The study, published today in the journal Science, is the second in six weeks to draw this conclusion, but other climatologists dispute the findings and argue that a recent spate of severe storms reflects nothing more than normal weather variability.
Washington Post


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



As for being a guess, well I would say yes it was an educated guess that is all weather forecasting is or didn't you know that?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
A regular hurricane that was dying, dramatically increased in size and strength purely because of the heated waters in the gulf.

this had been predicted for years, but no one headed the warnings.

I watched a speach by Dr Suzuki last night, and I tell you waht, he's now a man id love to meet and talk to.

he said something that I feel I might put in my quotes section

" Mankind is supposidly the smartest being on the planet, we are the intellegent rulers. Yet, how intellegent are we?.. our lives rely on the air we breathe, the water we drink and the soil we rely on for food, yet we decide to put all our pollution into the air, into the water and the soil... how intellegent is that? "

Your correct, differing opinions.
But when it comes to mining groups, industrial comittee's and petroleum companies.. they all have a REASON and a interest in making it appear that they ARE NOT polluting our world, its in there interests to make you believe this..
Yet, the greenies... its in there interests because they live of this planet, the same way everyone else does.. tey dont get money from it, they dont make profits..

and to me, money speaks louder than words.

You say you spoke FOR a mining commitee or somethign as such?

If you had of known your companies were wrecking the earth..

would you REALLY of been employed to stand up there and tell the truth if it was nothign but negative ?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If you had of known your companies were wrecking the earth..

would you REALLY of been employed to stand up there and tell the truth if it was nothign but negative ?


I was not employed by any minning company I did that on my own time after I retired. I did work for one for one year over 45 years ago does that count?

I will admit though my wife just completed 45 years working for one and that is where I gained my interest in opposing the Green Crowds that like to spread lies. Oh wait they paid for my hotel at Mine expo in Vagas two years ago but even that was not really for talking on theiir behalf it was for helping compile a huge instruction manual for company employees who worked the show for the time and effort I spent writting and putting it together
ops I forgot to address this part


A regular hurricane that was dying, dramatically increased in size and strength purely because of the heated waters in the gulf.

this had been predicted for years, but no one headed the warnings.


The normal hurricane could just have been a variance

As for predicting it for years, well many have been predicting Yellowstone would erupt yet that never came true. I am sure if one tried we could find tons of examples right here on ATS where predictions naver have come thru.

[edit on 10/18/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Not to be nosey dood,

But your saying you received no payment, or incentive to stand up there and defend these companies AGAINST the greenies of the world?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Check your u2's.

we were drifting off topic ok



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
All good, appreciate the reply.
comforting to know, your opinions stead from personally desire, not monetary value.

I dont want to say your blinded or being led, because well.. I dont know what you heard or said...
you obvioulsy beleived in it enough to follow up in your own 'precious' time.. hats of to you.

Would you say the mining sector contributes to enviromental degredation and the artic ice sheet issue similar to say...

ocean dredging?
Industrial output?
or say...
engine emissions?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Would you say the mining sector contributes to enviromental degredation and the artic ice sheet issue similar to say...

ocean dredging?
Industrial output?
or say...
engine emissions?


Not from the US market but most certainly from the foreign markets where safety, water and environmental issues have not been addressed.

Again that is drifting to far off topic and best left for another thread we are discussing ice reduction with counters of proof that says it is not true.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Stupidity:

Waiting for the effects, and the evidence before you act


There must first be a effect before you can assume a cause; acting on something based on no observed affect is irrational.


Responsiblity:

Understanding your actions are changing the world, and using every means at your disposal to protect your fragile economy


Well i don't see how we can understand something that does not seem to be happening at all. I am all for action but lets wait for something to act on and at least some evidence that we should destroy the lives on hundreds of millions to keep a few as wealthy as they are now?


Unfortunate:

We allowed a corporate enticed government to retain control and ignore global warming.


They are the one's spreading the rumours by method of their science establishments so how on Earth can they be ignoring it?


US Government:
Heartless, they care more for money in there pockets.
Why would they BLOCK reports on global warmining?


They care only for control and the money is but something that accrues to them due to the nature of the system they have set up... The US government are and have hidden bigger secrets for far longer so if they wanted to keep human inspired ( or global warming itself) global warming from the public they could most certainly have consider the relatively small temperature changes involved. This is just another clever way of making the people who oppose government actions hate government instead of policy imo as the science most certainly do not support global warming and most certainly not human caused global warming.


I hope you nay syers are happy, your allowing your government to sacrifice the futures of your childeren, simply to keep there rich friends ' happy '


The current rulers of the world are most certainly interested in doing that but it will be by restricting our development due to the creation of wars, false environmental fears ( inspiring guilt - religion for the more enlightened)) and generally creating scarcity paradigms.

The best thing we can do for our children is to develop the world as best we can as six billion people just barely surviving will kill the environment a hundred times faster than anything industrialization can manage imo. Do you know that London had it's worse air pollution back in 1650? More people are doing better than at any other time in recorded history ( that might not be true if you go back far enough but i suspect that stuff got burned long ago ) and if despite all the forces arrayed against us we are improving our own lot in life slowly but surely.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Maybe it is part of the natural cycle,but Siberia is melting now,and it wasn`t before.


Until we have some reason to believe that we are somehow managing to cause global warming ( despite almost overwhelming evidence as to the insignificance of our current contribution) why should we inhibit growth and progress that will almost certainly cause in the long run more and not less damage to the environment?


So that part at least is happening and is real.


How extensive is the melting and is there evidence that it is not seasonal or generally unheard of?


I`m not sure how much the activities of humans have contributed to the current events there but i do accept we MAY be contributing to destabilisation of the environment by our actions.


Well if you go investigate this question you will quickly find what we know really does not suggest that normal human industrial activity ( beside the military programs such as HAARP and high altitude nuclear 'testing') is causing levels of pollution that is going to destroy the environment any century soon. We surely have the weapons and general means to do so in short order but they have absolutely nothing to do with 'normal' coal,nuclear,oil based economy.



That would be a bit late,waiting until the problem is upon us....Oh it is.


Well we should surely do whatever we can to protect what we can as long as it does not inhibit human progress or standards of living. We discovered how to extract, from the vacuum, copious free energy more than a century ago and arguing that we should do away with technological progress ( as our science establishments and their government sponsors are desperately attempting ) in the hopes that it 'saves' the environment is showing that few can or have learned anything from a falsified historic and scientific record.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Until we have some reason to believe that we are somehow managing to cause global warming ( despite almost overwhelming evidence as to the insignificance of our current contribution)




You need to brush up a bit there.

There is NO evidence and NO "debate." It's all illusion, created by marketing pseudoscience.

Global warming is real - and human activity plays a significant role.


The Denial Industry

Backgrounds of Global Warming Skeptics


.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
A regular hurricane that was dying, dramatically increased in size and strength purely because of the heated waters in the gulf.


Ummm.... almost all hurricanes restreghten as they go over the warm waters of the Gulf. Where do you think the Gulf Stream gets it's energy from? It's not like it's a new sudden development. Just cause Katrina went over Florida and back out into the Gulf does not mean it was "dying", it was just weakened as it was removed from it's warm water fuel until it entered the Gulf and powered up again.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join