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.


Exclusive: No Ice At The North Pole

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:55 PM

Originally posted by dgtempe
I wish i remembered where i read that the Russians were involved in a project to melt the Artic ice, I dont know if this is true, but i recall reading it and also heaing it on c2c.

Why would they want to do that?

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 02:19 PM
To try and end the Cold War maybe?

No ice at the North Pole isn't as dire as it's made out to be anyway. The alarmists are mainly sheep following the few who have financial interests in the doomsday scenario.

Since Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, where is he? He seems to have disappeared off the face of the Earth. I guess he got what he wanted...

[edit on 5-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:32 PM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
No ice at the North Pole isn't as dire as it's made out to be anyway.

Well I live in a country that's way below sea level so I would prefer if the Russians stop melting the North Pole.

Since Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, where is he? He seems to have disappeared off the face of the Earth. I guess he got what he wanted...

Al Gore is busy wasting more then 20 times the national average of electricity a year to stop our upcoming environmental downfall.

Al Gore's electricity bill goes through the (insulated) roof

Hehe talking about "An Inconvenient Truth".

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Fastwalker81
Why would they want to do that?

The great Arctic Circle oil rush

Melting icecaps are giving way to oil-rich waters -- that the U.S. can't claim, writes Fortune's Telis Demos.

It's an irony that even Al Gore might appreciate. As global warming causes the polar icecaps to recede, potentially oil-rich seabeds are being uncovered beneath the Arctic Circle in the suddenly navigable -- and drillable -- territory.

The area has long been thought to hold substantial reserves: Some say up to 25% of the world's undiscovered oil and natural gas may lie below the thawing ice.

FROZEN OUT: The U.S. isn't part of Arctic territory talks.

But as the countries bordering the Arctic hammer out who can lay claim to what parts of the ocean, one major player is missing: the U.S. Why? Because of an unlikely spat between Big Oil and a group of Republicans over the UN treaty that governs who can claim rights to those waters.

So what you think? Bush Oil Co likely to heed these treaties and let Russia have it all?

And aside from Netherlands dykes being stressed to the max... ask these guy if its 'dire' or not...

“If the Bush Administration proceeds to list the polar bear as an endangered species, it may signal the beginning of the end of its policy of global warming denial. After giving the cold shoulder to conservation, Kyoto, and better fuel economy standards, they seem to be warming up to protecting an icon of American wildlife. The threat of global warming goes well beyond a single species, and the new Democratic majority will certainly be taking a long, hard look at global warming and better protecting our national environmental treasures like the polar bear.”
Representative Edward Markey, Massachusetts
December 28, 2006

[edit on 5-7-2008 by zorgon]

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by flice

"I think the most interesting part is the change of ocean currents when meltwater gets mixed into the currents. They are so intertwined that it could possibly affect the climate all over Earth."

pretty certain some research was done on this and a documentary made on channel 4 or bbc?.
It concerned the huge problem of non salt water and salt water failing to mix,the salt sinking below the fresh and changing the cycle of the northern oceans ...basically salt water would stop cycling between the caribean and north atlantic and lead to gulf stream breaking down ,plunging britain into a mini ice age (shares same latitude as moskow approx but at the moment is warm because tyhis hydro temperature exchange..)

but the cost and time of shipping will come WAY down.The North west passage a reality.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by gambon]

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:14 PM
Just an interesting side note to the polar bear issue...

Endangered species status of the polar bear to be decided May 15
April 29, 2008

A federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to stop delaying its decision on whether to list the polar bear as an endangered species. Environmentalists say the bear is threatened by melting sea ice in its Arctic habitat.

Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled Monday that the Department of the Interior has violated the law by missing the deadline for filing a decision on the status of the polar bear by four months. She said the agency would have to arrive at a decision by May 15, 2008.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:56 AM
Well, keep reading the propagande nonsense websites that tell you what you want to hear. Bury your head in the sand and pretend that Global Warming isn't real. Personally, I'm going to plan to deal with what the facts show to be the current reality.

Here is another website that puts global warming into perspective. Maybe some people just can't deal with the reality. In the next twenty years we are going to see some huge changes in ocean levels.

"Excess heat that doesn't go into the ocean has to go somewhere. If it's melting ice, the effect on sea level will be immense. Melting, not warming, has the biggest potential to raise sea level. "If you warm up the ocean, it will rise perhaps half a meter (1.6 feet)," says JPL researcher Dr. Eric Rignot. "If you melt land ice, you could raise sea level by 70 meters (230 feet). The real concern over the long term is the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. With thermal expansion, the coastlines erode; with the ice sheets melting completely, you are talking about cities and states under water."

Rignot and his colleagues have been using radar measurements from several different satellites to find out just how fast ice sheets are discharging into the ocean. He and his colleagues recently found that glaciers in Greenland are accelerating in response to climate warming. The loss of ice doubled between 1996 and 2005.

"There are a lot of changes taking place in Greenland," says Rignot. "and we expect to see acceleration in ice loss continuing north in the next ten years." By tracking the flow of glaciers around the globe, researchers will have a much better idea about the rate of change.

Melting ice on Greenland raised global sea level by three and half meters (about 11 feet) in the last interglacial," Rignot says, "this is where we are heading and it looks like we could get there much sooner than we thought.""

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:58 AM

Future Florida

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:00 AM

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:41 PM

Originally posted by poet1b

Future Florida

the best way to deal with doom-mongering like this is using a truely pro-AGW site (and the IPCC report) as a reference:

The sea level rise numbers published in the new IPCC report (the Fourth Assessment Report, AR4) have already caused considerable confusion. Many media articles and weblogs suggested there is good news on the sea level issue, with future sea level rise expected to be a lot less compared to the previous IPCC report (the Third Assessment Report, TAR). Some articles reported that IPCC had reduced its sea level projection from 88 cm to 59 cm

they cast the lower numbers into doubt, so i won't ue them.

less than a meter, straight from the horse's mouth, presumably in the yer 2100, 92 years into the future.

what are you basing your 'waterworld' scenario on?

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 03:03 PM
Well, you can trust NASA, or some corporate sponsored web site that only aims to confuse the infromation, and deny global warming. Ok, how much effect will three feet higher ocean levels have on Florida when a hurrican blows through. This is at a conservative estimate.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 03:16 PM
Damn it people.....

There is no such thing as global warming. There is only NORMAL heating and cooling cycles.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:13 PM
Recent volcanic eruptions under the arctic ice caps have released huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the oceans. Most experts feel that they are not directly responsible for the decreasing arctic ice but that view may change as more research is conducted.

here is a link:

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Sparky63]

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 06:24 PM

Originally posted by poet1b

Future Florida

You know what I say to that? Dang!! I wanted to go there for my holiday!

Seriously - that's all the effect of rising sea levels will have - low lying land floods (maybe permanently).

There is no doomsday scenario in this lot - only a bunch of politicians who are too afraid to say the oil is running out, we don;t know what to do about large scale population displacement, loss of large cities, and lack of control of the environment (the governments ALWAYS have to be in control of EVERYTHING).

Let the lands flood. Use your head and get to higher ground before it affects you. Be pro-active, not a sheep. If it is going to happen the way they say it is, then it will.

Unless we actively reduce the levels of CO2 (and that doesn't mean just stop pumping it out) by planting TREES, things will stay as they are (assuming the AGW camp are right).

TREES are the answer, not renewable energy or anything else. That's a diversion from the oil situation.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 06:53 PM
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

I would have to say that I agree with your post. I just want to lay the fact out for those who are willing to face them.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:11 AM

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by BlasteR

that's the problem when you've run into a few PR clones, they will reuse a phrase, like 'blanket statement'. which might look harmless but with repetition, awareness builds.

see f-ex. the opening paragraph in the following post:

but i've got to warn you, in order to fully understand that tidbit, you'll have to read the preceding posts. 'reading back' is most certainly not progressive, though so no self-respecting AGW'er wants to get caught doing it !

so, beware and delete your cookies in advance !

What also isn't progressive is making assumptions about whether or not someone has read the thread. And Thanks for moving on to the subject matter and ceasing the "your post copies mine" bit. That was ridiculous and pointless.. We all have opinions on this.. I voiced mine.. And for you to think I stole your subject matter on global warming to look important in an ATS thread.. I don't know what to say..


posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
Bury your head in the sand and pretend that Global Warming isn't real. Personally, I'm going to plan to deal with what the facts show to be the current reality.

Looking around the various threads it appears to me the GW arguement is mostly concerning "Is it a natural event or is it man kinds fault'

Personally what ever it takes to stop pollution is fine by me... I LIKE clean air to breath... I LIKE clean fresh water that I can trust...

But since the same warming trends are noticeable on MARS I would have to go with CYCLE of NATURE on this one...

I am quite sure all the crap we are dumping into the air and the oceans is not helping any... but when I see THIS ...well its time to stop and think

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 06:25 AM
Climate Change. That should be the term. Global Warming is a little antiquated or too full of ...of... of something. Bad history. It's loaded and abused.
The consequences are in full swing. People will deny becasue it operates on an earth-scale. Meaning from a certain standpoint (geological, biosphere) this is a snowballing out of control swing in earth conditions, but from a human perspective it's relatively gradual. People live where they do because many of those places are sheltered from overwhelming effects of climate fluctuation. Many, not all.
This is going to suck. The songbird in the mine are the fisheries. The marine environments are hemorrhaging. And have been. Some areas are completely realigned and producing nicely again with a newer organism distribution profile.

I wish I cloud find it, but Discover magazine had a great study a few years ago that showed various changes in the earth's orbit and the resulting average annual temps globally. The variations included smaller, larger and more elliptical orbits. Basically the math used was similaiar to the way elevation is related to distance from the equator.

The model could be used to predict the effects of a sun with increased diameter or other warming/cooling effects.
I was suprised at the relative stability and presence of habitable zones even in the extreme scenarios. Many of them ended up looking "Marsy."
Almost as if within a certain range habitability is subject to drastic changes, but as it's pushed to extremes there is a normative force that keeps the polar/subpolar regions "habitable." Now, this is earth, but does it sound familiar?
And of course, who or what would inhabit these places? ??? Another question.

posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by djerwulfe

Found the issue of DISCOVER magazine with the habitability zoning article.

Discover, Nov. 2002, Vol.23 no.11.

Issue also has a great bit on the primate lineage leading to modern humans being the result of a huge primate viral infection about 6 million years ago.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9   >>

log in