It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


North Pole ice-free in 2030?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:41 PM
Take a look at this "funny" (or sad?) thing...

In November 2004, a report done by 250 scientists predicted North Pole would be ice free in 2100.... (please see

News from NASA that Arctic summer sea ice melted back 30 percent in the last 30 years - and could well be gone completely by about the year 2070 - made headlines in the summer of 2005.

Then, in December 2006, about 15,000 scientists said the North Pole would be ice free in 2040...

Recently, scientists said it will be ice free in 2030...

My question is...

What will scientists be saying in 3-5 years???

This is serious...

Translator and Writer

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:57 PM
And don´t forget the news: Impassable Northwest Passage Open For First Time In History...


Could it be that is not much ice left but they do not want to admit it yet?

... Not that I believe that there is no ice cover... But this is really serious, I agree.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:01 PM
STOP and think about this. People, You have no idea what this means. Lets be perfectly clear here ... if this is true, we're screwed.

No ice at the North Pole means no ice in Greenland. No ice in Greenland means no more Gulf Stream. No more Gulf Stream means no more warm climate for Europe. No more warm climate means economic collapse. Economic collapse means utter chaos and war in Europe. Economic collapse in Europe means global economic collapse.

Russia is already restarting it's military. The US is desperately trying to hold on to Iraq, as Iran now looms as the next conflict. In the cold, oil is the only saving end-game piece, and unless there is a stable economy, no oil flows anywhere. Russia needs the Iranian oil as bad as the US ... hello! Can you say boom?

The US goes into isolationism, building a wall around it's boarders and goes into a police state.

Famine and plague ravish the third world countries and billions begin to die off rapidly. With nothing to lose, extremist of all flavors begin nuclear-blackmail ... and worse.

Ohh ... this is going to be your worst nightmare ... only much, much worse.

Why do you think Bush is spending money like there is no tomorrow? Because there *IS* no tomorrow.

Pray ... get down on your hands and knees and pray that the polar ice is NOT melting. Because if it is, the world is headed for a very, very bleak demise.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:35 PM
You make some very dire predictions, my only fear is that you may be right.

Originally posted by AirWitch
.....if this is true, we're screwed.

No ice at the North Pole means no ice in Greenland. No ice in Greenland means no more Gulf Stream. No more Gulf Stream means no more warm climate for Europe.

I found this of interest as a catalyst because I wonder if the sudden influx of fresh water slowing the Gulf Stream might be a benefit in the long run.
Without the convection of warm tropical waters it should have a cooling effect that would allow Greenland to keep most of it's ice, or even increase it over time.

Of course Europe during this period will have some very harsh and long winters.
At this point I think Canada will be the only country to benefit from global warming.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:19 AM
Someone told me the other day that the south pole is increasing in size. A bit of googling found me hardly anything though. Anyone know if this is true, and what it means?

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:33 AM
Don't forget that this is summer sea ice cover - there has been little reduction in winter sea ice cover. If forms in winter and melts in summer. Just that recently, more and more has been melting each summer. In addition, specific synoptic conditions are believed to have helped reduce the extent of sea ice cover this year. It may well be that next summer seas a slight recovery.

As for Antarctica. There has if anything been a slight increase in sea ice cover. However, as was recently pointed out to me elsewhere, this in part may be due to formation of sea ice in areas previously covered by permanent ice shelves.

In any case, most models predict that for a temp rise of up to 5c there will be an increase in snowfall across Antarctica, which in turn will produce an increase in glacial cover. Beyond 5c and the Antarctica too starts to go into meltdown. The Antarctic Peninsular is a separate case and there is no question that in that region, glaciers have been retreating, although no more so than they did in the early part of the Holocene.

top topics

log in