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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
You need to brush up a bit there.


Doing my best and what i have claimed so far is what i made of the information....


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


Just the other way round imo.


Global warming is real -


Prove it.


and human activity plays a significant role.


If by 'significant' you mean maybe a few % then fine but i do not see how humanity can be blamed for something that is not observed to be happening; to say nothing of the almost complete absence of evidence that we are directly responsible for the non event...


The Denial Industry


Ringing your own bell loudly....


Backgrounds of Global Warming Skeptics


Interesting read ( did not read all the links but i will get to that) but i am unsure how receiving money from corporate backers such as those makes you plainly wrong. I understand that it makes the data suspect but i consider information that comes from the main media channels far far more suspect than 'facts' i have to go search for on sometimes relatively obscure websites. I most certainly do not believe or disbelieve something based entirely on who pays the salary as i do my best to evaluate the question based on what i already investigated and believe to be true.

As far as i can see the global warming scam ( it used to be global cooling; also blamed on human industrial activity) is being run for the same reason as the peak oil one and both are designed to trap those who dig just a little deeper than mainstream norm. One of the problems with people is that they do not really want to change their minds and would rather only do it once on any issue hence all the quasi-intellectuals backing these relatively easily disproved scams that lurk just beneath main stream attention.. Most governments realise quite well that pushing these ideas themselves would get them voted out of office rapidly and are thus trying to avoid the issue thus lending credibility to the would be do gooders who want to save the planet by destroying the industrialized west in favour of a industrialized east which is apparently somehow logical and 'better' for us all.

I don't buy into either scams and i have already shown that there is simple no truth to peak oil and global warming based on human activities is a hundred them less defensible than the peak oil lie. You can not do much worse science that those employed by the global warming crowd and it's relatively easy to see that the environmental lobbies are funded by corporate interest thus restricting investment in the energy sector and driving up their profits while serving the government need for social control by means of massively restricted energy availability.

Stellar




posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Considering that mankind has only partial records for the last few hundred years of temperatures around the globe is is really hard to assess global warming objectively without more data.

Why wasn't there a corresponding temp increase after WWII with all the industrialization that went on if greenhouse emissions from mankind are solely to blame? No clear answer for that because we do not have enough solid data to go back 1000's if not tens of thousands of years to see the natural patterns and where we are currently in that pattern.

Everything is relative to your position in the system. Current thinking on global warming is there is beyond a reasonable doubt, warming occurring. Whether this is part of a natural cycle or not has not been proven one way or the other yet. Mankind has undergone a deep industrial cycle during parts of this period of warming, so we link the two as obvious interrelated events, even though warming was occurring prior to this massive scale of industrialization.

More data and for that matter, accurate computer models need to be developed until either competing theory is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Both are lacking as of now.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I think its getting more and move obvious every month...

this month, we seem to have large ice burgs floating between NZ and Australia.

Thast not normal... is it ?


historical data is good for comparison..
but ultimately will tell us NOTHING About the weather we are experiencing.

People say hot seasons, dry seasons rah rah rah are mearly cycles the earth goes through every 1000 yrs or so
your correct, ''claps hands for you''

but what hapens when you add a couple of 100 years worth of pollution, chemicals, toxic waste into that 'cycle'

its going to drastically change it... in ways no one knows.

which is why we are expericning heated oceans.
large hurricanes
bad droughts.
wierd weather
and ice burgs off nz.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
which is why we are expericning heated oceans.
large hurricanes
bad droughts.
wierd weather
and ice burgs off nz.


No. None of what you just mentioned, is a first time occurrence. It has happened multiple times in the past. Joining together two events without solid evidence linking the two with verifiable data is just sloppy science IMO.

I'm sure Icebergs traveled very far south in the Medieval warm period but there was no one there to record or see them. The Medieval warm period was during the Vikings exploration of Greenland and Iceland, I say the Vikings caused the Medieval warm period. See how silly that sounds without data to back it up?



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I agree,

understandably I agree.......
has it happened in the last decade?

What about diminishing ice caps..... have they been at such an accelerated and devestating effect in the last decade?

These ' natural ' events that happen every so many decades/thousands of years...

have been occuring for millions of years more than likely...

but millions of years ago, thousands of years ago.. hell even a few DECADES ago..

We did not have the amount of CRAP, being pumped into the atmosphere..
to join more CRAP, floating around our planet.

heating up our oceans...
causing weather patterns to get more extreme....



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
What about diminishing ice caps..... have they been at such an accelerated and devestating effect in the last decade?

What devestating effects so far? And yes there have been times with reduced polar ice in the past.




but millions of years ago, thousands of years ago.. hell even a few DECADES ago..

We did not have the amount of CRAP, being pumped into the atmosphere..
to join more CRAP, floating around our planet.

heating up our oceans...
causing weather patterns to get more extreme....



And still these events occurred in the past without human intervention. I'm not saying that the Industrialisation of the planet by mankind is a great thing, only that it is not the only thing or even the major thing responsible for global warming.

As for weather being "more extreme" isn't perhaps just a little due to mankind being able to more accurately record weather events now than they could in even the recent past. As for extreme take a look at the drought that occurred in the S.W. U.S way before Europeans came and tell me weather wasn't extreme then too.

Was there a hole in the ozone over Antarctica sometime in the last 10,000 years? I don't think we actually know the answer to that, do we? I would be curious as to the answer to that.
For example in the 1800's how many hurricanes formed out at ocean that never touched land? We don't know. We do know how many now do, mainly due to satellites. This is just one example. The measurement of winds inside a hurricane is another example. Are there more Cat 4 and 5 storms now or could we not accurately measure those sized storms in the past? Investigate that one if you are curious, you will be surprised with the answer I think.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I think its getting more and move obvious every month...

this month, we seem to have large ice burgs floating between NZ and Australia.

Thast not normal... is it ?



In a study just published in the Annals of Glaciology, Claire Parkinson of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center analyzed the length of the sea ice season throughout the Southern Ocean to obtain trends in sea ice coverage. Parkinson examined 21 years (1979-1999) of Antarctic sea ice satellite records and discovered that, on average, the area where southern sea ice seasons have lengthened by at least one day per year is roughly twice as large as the area where sea ice seasons have shortened by at least one day per year. One day per year equals three weeks over the 21-year period.

Overall, the area of the Antarctic with trends indicating a lengthening of the sea ice season by at least one day per year was 5.6 million square kilometers (2.16 million square miles), about 60 percent the size of the United States. At the same time, the area with sea ice seasons shortening by at least one day per year was 3 million square kilometers (1.16 million square miles).

“The Antarctic sea ice changes match up well with regional temperature changes,” Parkinson said. “The one region in the Antarctic where the temperature records have shown prominent warming over this period is the Antarctic Peninsula, and indeed it’s immediately to the west and east of the Antarctic Peninsula, in the Bellingshausen/Amundsen and western Weddell seas, respectively, that the sea ice seasons have been shortening rather than lengthening.”

The Arctic also shows a mixed pattern of sea ice trends over the 1979-1999 period, but in contrast to the Antarctic, the area with shortening seasons in the Arctic is far greater than the area with lengthening seasons. The Arctic patterns suggest some connections with major oscillations in large-scale atmospheric pressures, called the Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation, and it is possible the ice covers of both hemispheres could be influenced by oscillations that are still not fully identified, Parkinson said.

www.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Define 'normal' beside relying on what the BBC and others have decided to focus on at any given time.


historical data is good for comparison..


It's only 'good' apparently when it is used to prove some kind of warming trend with all the ' bad' parts ( showing otherwise) being left out....


but ultimately will tell us NOTHING About the weather we are experiencing.


Why not?I mean i simply do not understand how weather can suddenly become so chaotic with or without pollution? All the gases we release will mix and diffuse in the atmosphere and then ,once again, we should, if we understand anything about the atmospheric sciences, be able to predict the weather in the same way as before. Why are we failing so badly and why are some just giving up while others invest heavily?


Although hurricane forecasting is an inexact science, an investigative series by The Miami Herald suggests it could be considerably more accurate if the National Hurricane Center's equipment functioned better and its research efforts were bolstered.
The newspaper's study of 45 hurricanes that have struck land since 1992 indicated significant failures of buoys, weather balloons, radar, sensors and aircraft that hindered the tracking of nearly half of the storms. Forecasters are, in the words of one science officer, "forecasting blind'' because of inadequate funding and -- to a lesser extent -- misallocation of resources.
Budget constraints that grounded the center's uniquely equipped Gulfstream jet, coupled with critical data lost because of computer crashes, may have caused forecasters to fail to predict damage from Hurricane Katrina in South Florida and delayed evacuation warnings to New Orleans. Missing weather balloon readings, malfunctioning observation stations and a failure to fly planes equipped to measure wind speeds may have contributed to an inability to anticipate the power of Hurricane Charley when it shifted course and slammed into Punta Gorda, Fla., killing 35 people.
Hurricane researcher Mike Black told Herald reporter Debbie Cenziper that putting proper equipment in place could improve hurricane tracking by 20 percent and intensity forecasts by 50 percent. That could save lives and many times the needed outlay in economic losses, especially in an era of increased hurricane activity.
Congress needs to set aside more money for hurricane forecasting, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration needs to do a better of allocating resources.

Indystar-Forecasting trouble


So i must ask how you can simple stop investing in prediction when natural forces are at work.


"Pick up any text book on hurricanes and it will tell you that the one place where hurricanes do not occur is the South Atlantic Ocean. The atmosphere does not provide enough spin near the surface to get them started and winds higher in the atmosphere tend to shear off any that do make a start. Hence, it was with some amazement that meteorologists watched the first ever recorded hurricane develop off the coast of Brazil in the last week of March."

Catarina hits Brazil


So how is this sort of thing possible unless 'global warming' is some kind of freak local and limited atmospheric effect?


The director of the Russian geophysical observatory of the Russian Meteorological Service, A.Voyeikov, says that the process of making a weather forecast for Russia, the USA, Europe and Canada is much more complicated in comparison with other states. "Atmospheric processes are not stable on these territories, and cyclones may occur absolutely incidentally," Voyeikov said."

Modern technologies unable to predict weather changes


Why is it so hard to predict weather in countries with the best science institutions in the world? Are their governments just not interested or is it becoming impossible because it's simple not natural ( and pollution and atmospheric changes are natural, volcanoe's etc at all? ) or due to the forces of nature?


People say hot seasons, dry seasons rah rah rah are mearly cycles the earth goes through every 1000 yrs or so
your correct, ''claps hands for you''



"As the heat wave continues to fry Greater Toronto, residents are left with a burning question: Why has this summer been so hot and humid?
The answer is anything but simple."No one wants to answer that question because none of us really knows," said Ellen Wall, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Guelph.

What is clear, say meteorologists, is that air from the south produces warm weather, while air from the north results in cool weather. Unlike last summer, when lots of northerly air flew over Toronto, most of the air this summer has its roots in the Gulf of Mexico and the pollution-thick Ohio valley, said David Phillips, a senior climatologist with Environment Canada.
This southerly air explains the warm temperatures, said Phillips.
What is not known is why the high-pressure system that has hovered over Toronto in recent weeks, resulting in week-after-week of record-breaking heat, has refused to budge."

Toronto Star-Why is this summer so hot?


So how can one 'just not know' once you have factured in all the greenhouse gases and general pollution we have contributed? If the scientist can not explain it does that logically mean industrial human activity is involved? I frankly do not see the connection.


but what hapens when you add a couple of 100 years worth of pollution, chemicals, toxic waste into that 'cycle'


The air pollution over most of the major cities of the world used to be far worse if not as dangerous....


its going to drastically change it... in ways no one knows.


If we don't know what's going on how can we deal with it? Where is the 'innocent until l proven guilty' concept gone?


which is why we are expericning heated oceans.


Actually they were observed to be cooling for the last few decades of the twentieth century....


large hurricanes



"CNN) -- Hurricanes aren't behaving like many of us are used to them behaving. They're bigger and meaner, and more numerous than many people have seen.
Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne tore up parts of Florida last year. After tweaking Florida, Katrina and Rita are wreaking havoc this year along the Gulf Coast from Alabama to Texas.
But don't rush to blame it on global warming, experts warn.
Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, told a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday that we're in a period of heightened hurricane activity that could last another decade or two."
CNN-It's a 'new era' of hurricanes.


It's not that i believe CNN ( or their chosen scientist) but we had these kinds of increased activity long before the popularisations of 'global warming'.

Continued



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   

bad droughts.


Once again i remember the bible mentioning such stuff actually happening in ancient times as well? Last i checked Egypt did not have manufacturing plants for Pyramid construction? I am not saying that we do not deserve blame ( deforestation cost China dearly and you can go read about what they did to their timber industry once they discovered what they had done) but that such effects are hard to reconcile with something as 'global' as the concept of global warming.


wierd weather



"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen



FBIS Transcribed Text] MOSCOW. Aug 8 (Interfax) - The Russian State
Duma has expressed concern about the United States' program to develop a
qualitatively new type of weapon.
"Under the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), the
U.S. is creating new integral geophysical weapons that may influence the
near-Earth medium with high-frequency radio waves," the State Duma said
in an appeal circulated on Thursday.
"The significance of this qualitative leap could be compared to the
transition from cold steel to fire arms, or from conventional weapons to
nuclear weapons. This new type of weapons differs from previous types in
that the near-Earth medium becomes at once an object of direct influence
and its component.

FAS-Russian parliament concerned about US plans to develop new weapon.



NEWS BRIEF: "Malaysia to Battle Smog With Cyclones"
by Chen May Yee,
Staff Reporter of the Wall Street Journal
Thursday, November 13, 1997, page A19.

"KULA LUMPUR -- Malaysia's war on smog is about to get a new twist. The government wants to create man-made cyclones to scrub away the haze that has plagued Malaysia since July. 'We will use special technology to create an artificial cyclone to clean the air', said Datuk Law Hieng Ding, minister for science, technology and the environment. The plan calls for the use of new Russian technology to create cyclones -- the giant storms also known as typhoons and hurricanes -- to cause torrential rains, washing the smoke out of the air. The Malaysian cabinet and the finance minister have approved the plan, Datuk Law said. A Malaysian company, BioCure Sdn. Bhd., will sign a memorandum of understanding soon with a government-owned Russian party to produce the cyclone."

"Datuk Law declined to disclose the size of the cyclone to be generated, or the mechanism. 'The details I don't have', he said. He did say, though, that the cyclone generated would be 'quite strong'. Datuk Law also declined to disclose the price of creating the cyclone. But, he said, Malaysia doesn't have to pay if the project doesn't work."

WSJ-Malaysia to Battle Smog With Cyclones


BBC-Malaysia calls in Russian rainmakers


So while it may be happening don't jump the gun and take responsibility for something not done in your name or in your interest.


and ice burgs off nz.



Observations from repeat-pass airborne laser altimetry, acquired in 1996 and 2002, indicate an anomalous positive ice-surface elevation change for the central accumulation area of the largest ice cap in the Eurasian Arctic; Austfonna, eastern Svalbard. The increase is equivalent to 35% of the long-term annual accumulation rate and coincides with the loss of perennial sea ice in the adjacent Barents Sea, which we conclude is the most likely explanation for the increase. Extrapolation of the observed trends in sea ice decline, over the next 50 years, suggests large perturbations in the mass-balance of other Arctic ice masses may be expected.

www.agu.org...



Discussion and Conclusions
Draft data from the North Pole, the Beaufort Sea, and
transects between the two areas over a 7-year period from
1991 to 1997 show no evidence of a thinning ice cover. The
Beaufort Sea area shows larger variability, being closer to
the marginal ice zone and sensitive to circulation type and
the location of the Beaufort high. Using a more extensive
data set (6 years compared to 3), the negative trend in ice
thickness found by Rothrock et al. [1999] during the 1990s
is not supported by the present investigation. Combining
the mean drafts derived by McLaren et al. [1992] from 1986
to 1990 with those from the present study, I conclude that
the thickness of the sea ice cover has remained on a nearconstant
level at the North Pole during the 12-year period
from 1986 to 1997. This result is also supported by Wad-
hams and Davis [2000] who concluded that a substantial
part of the thinning between 1976 and 1996 probably took
place during the rst of those two decades.
The Arctic ice cover varies greatly on seasonal, interannual
and longer time scales, both regarding extent and
thickness [e.g., Parkinson et al., 1999; Haas and Eicken,
2000]. This makes the analysis of draft data complicated,
especially when comparing di
erent years and areas. Undergoing
work to digitize and analyze historical submarine data
together with continued monitoring during the next decades
should be encouraged as current draft data only cover a few
discrete years. Annual data with similar spatial coverage,
over a climate-relevant time period (50 years or more), is
needed in order to understand the natural variability of the
ice cover, and to detect possible climate trends of the Arctic
sea ice.

www.whoi.edu...


So once again both the Arctic and Antarctic are behaving in unexpected ways ( especially when assuming global warming scenarios ) and there are plenty of alternative conclusions one may be able to reach once properly informed...

Stellar




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join