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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by Critical_Mass

You seem to have missed the earlier level-headed posts explaining that the disappearance of the polar ice cap does not lead to a significant increase in world-wide ocean levels.

You have missed the point: the rapid melting occurring before our very eyes is a very strong indicator of the reality of global warming. The consequences of GW (in terms of a whole host of extreme weather patterns) are multifarious and long-reaching, not to mention potentially life-threatening for populations living in parts of the world where human survival is already precarious.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by Critical_Mass

You should look at some of the floodmaps that are available. Nobody should be suggesting that 'we could all be flooded'. A 14 meter rise would be devistating to coastal regions and many islands, but by far most land would never be affected. Some say 20 meters would be possible and yet others are even more pessimistic.

Here is a google map where you can adjust the water rise between 0 and 14 meters. Areas which would be underwater show up with blue hatch marks overlayed. I would not consider this map to be completely accurate but it does give an idea....

Flood map

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 12:55 PM
The scientists making this claim are essentially making a non-claim. With 50-50 odds, no matter what they will say they are right. However, I am skeptical of their claims it may disappear.

For instance, they say the ice was 30% lower than average last year, not 30% below it's lowest point, but 30% below average. For the pole to be ice-free, not only would all the ice from this year have to melt, but it would have to melt an addition 70% below what melted last year. And they say that temperatures were not at all time highs, but 4 degrees above average.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by SaviorComplex]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:00 PM

Originally posted by SystemiK
I would not consider this map to be completely accurate but it does give an idea....

Flood map

Does this map factor in Antarctic melting as well?

The images I showed of the breakup were from Antarctica...

Larsen B Ice Shelf Collapses in Antarctica

Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegration Underscores a Warming World

Antarctic Chunk Splinters, Huge Ice Shelf Threatened - Beam Weapon?

NASA Images Show Arctic Ice Melting At Fast Rate

Does this map take into account the Himalayan Glaciers... also melting at an astonishing rate? And I would expect if they are melting so are lower level glaciers around the world though I have no data on that yet...

Himalayan glaciers 'melting fast' - BBC News

Tell you what... If I had beach front property I would consider selling and moving inland while the property still has value... not everyone visits ATS (yet
) so you might still find a sucker errrmmmm buyer before the water reaches your door step...

I suppose though that the Netherlands will finally have to admit defeat

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:05 PM
So Ice is melting at the North whilst Antarctic Ice sheet Continues to grow and become thicker. Strange, how that is possible....

Perhaps this is the reason that the ice in the North is melting...and don't blame the Volcano on Global Warming - no one believes those lies anymore
(Volcano under Arctic Ice - The Truth Behind the Melting)

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by SaviorComplex And they say that temperatures were not at all time highs, but 4 degrees above average.

4 degrees 'average' may not sound like a lot but it is taken over annual measurement it makes a huge difference

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:20 PM
Ahem... *Hopefully somebody will get who this is*

*clears Throat again*

in russia, we claim the land. In America, you Take the Land!

Go A meri ka!



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by zorgon
4 degrees 'average' may not sound like a lot but it is taken over annual measurement it makes a huge difference

That depends on what highs and lows contributed to the average. If there have been years where the Arctic has experienced extreme highs or lows, it will skewer what the average is.

Even if they are "right" and the ice disappears this year, it will not be the first time in Earth's history that the North Pole will be free of ice. It has happened before humans were here, and will happen long after humans are gone.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:26 PM

Originally posted by zorgonDoes this map factor in Antarctic melting as well?

Your question seems a little out of context.

The map does not factor in any particular melting at all. It only illustrates what a given rise in sea level (from any source) will look like. It's up to the user himself to factor in his own data regarding what could cause such rises in sea level.

The particular map I posted has selectable increments ranging from 0-14 meters (it caps at 14 meters due to data restraints).

This was the info page about the map I posted earlier.
Map Info

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:31 PM
GET A GRIP, PEOPLE!!! If the thick ice has been blown away from the North Pole, then it didn't melt! It just moved. Over the last 60 years, nuclear submarines have quite often found local areas of the arctic that are temporarily ice-free. If larger areas MAY be ice free during the summer months, that's interesting but nothing to panic about. Maybe the world is getting warmer, although average temperatures have declined over the last 12 months, but that doesn't by itself validate the hysteria over manmade CO2. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!! Changes in trend for CO2 LAG behind changes in trend for temperature NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Find the report written by the guy who actually analyzed the ice core samples from Greenland and Antarctica, the same data used for those big charts that Al Gore stood in front of during the movie An Inconvenient Truth. All you had to do was expand the scale of those graphs, superimpose one on the other and the real situation becomes obvious. Rising temperatures cause rising CO2 and temperatures are rising because of less cloud cover as a result of more charged particles fired at us by increasing supspot activity.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:41 PM

Originally posted by SaviorComplex It has happened before humans were here, and will happen long after humans are gone.

That is true... cycles of hot and cold...

here is a short term chart...

But what is important is that we are here and now... and last year we hit 126 F in parts of Vegas for a few days in a row...

The temp inside your car parked in the sun can go to 150 F easily...

According to the fire department human flesh melts at 164 F

So flooding aside... if it gets much hotter we have other issues to worry about

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:53 PM
this could be really bad for everyone. if the ice melts will the toys fall into the water? and where will santa put down the sleigh? what will happen to all the misplaced elfs? its getting crazy

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by TruthWithin

Originally posted by metamagic

Originally posted by jhill76
If all of this ice melted, would there be massive floods. From the pictures I seen in school, these ice shelves are massive. They are talking about all of the ice melting by the summer, it's kind of like it is going to happen overnight.

Actually not. Since all of the ice at the North Pole is sea ice. melting it will not cause any change in sea levels -- sort of like the ice cubes melting in your drink -- it doesn't make the drink overflow.

The melting ice that can cause changes in the ocean levels is the antarctic and Greenland ice sheets sheets that are on land. As they melt, they add to the amount of water in the oceans. Remember that there is no land ice in the arctic

Except that your glass of water doesn't have ice rising a kilometer above the rim. You have to account for the ice ABOVE the surface of the water. That will have an impact.

You're forgetting some very important facts of ice:

* Water is the only substance to EXPAND when it freezes

* The ice submerged in the water is equal in density to the water supporting it. The ice ABOVE the water is inconsequential

* Ice is the only solid to float in its own type of liquid (water)

If you solidify any other type of liquid and then proceed to float its own solid in the liquid, they all sink.

Because ice occupies a greater VOLUME, when it melts, the VOLUME occupied decreases, so its net effect on the water level is ZERO.

You can prove this for yourself. Fill a cup full of water, then add an ice cube made using the same water. Let the water overflow as yuo add the ice-cube. Note the water level. Let it melt at room temperature (the more constant the temperature, the better).

$50 says the water level is the same after it has melted.

Some excellent posts here on *real* climate science.

reply to post by zorgon

Break-up does NOT mean melting!! It's scare-mongery at its finest.

reply to post by WhatTheory

(Actual post below!)

An excellent point!!

[edit on 27-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:00 PM
Here is a story regarding huge volcanos erupting in the Arctic:

Volcanic eruptions

Here are some good points someone mentioned:
Perhaps volcanoes large enough and powerful enough to have wiped out Pompeii, erupting underneath the polar ice cap might have something to do with polar ice melting now and then? Do you think the arctic ice melt might be due to undersea volcanoes? And if that's the case, undersea volcanoes are not manmade, there's nothing anthropological about that. Could that be why they were left out the story about the melting ice?

The story from the OP is nothing but man-made global warming propaganda.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:02 PM
The result of the Arctic, Antarctic and ice in Greenland disappearing is a major one and involves three main areas.


The antarctic is not in danger of melting. If it would happen, as the ice is on land, it would create rises in sea level. However, not with the north pole, as most of the ice is on water, and it would be the same as icecubes, therefore not rising significantly. But I'm wondering what would happen if large chunks broke off. Would it cause a wave? And for whom?

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:09 PM
reply to post by audas

Its actually embarrassing reading comments by those who wish to continue the charade that global warming is a non-event. The facts are completely indisputable and are globally accepted except for the most totally isolated crack-pots. There is absolutely NO ARGUMENT beyond "doubt" raised by oil companies through front groups such as the lavoisier group.

Facts such as ice melting results in a net rise in water level by uhhmmm.... practically ZERO? (Ice on land and out of the water melting and running into the sea excepted). Most of the Arctic ice sheet is in the water however.

This isn't some conspiracy which could be orchestrated by a a global group - this is the complete and utter agreement of 99 % of the worlds leading climatologists acting, researching and publishing their findings independently.

Ahh yes. The famous "consensus". Rubbish. There is no consensus. There was a letter sent to Congress last year signed by over 400 scientists who do NOT support the man-made global warming theory, signed and sealed baby!!

400 vs. the 200 or so that were at the last IPCC meeting where the idea of a "consensus" was first rolled out. Not all of those agreed, either. They had to sign, and there were less signatures than delegates. It's BS.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:22 PM
The underwater volcanoes are causing a lot of climate change. They are probably the reason of hurricanes, and North Pole ice melting.

They have even mentioned it on TV. Global warming exists, the reasons are the Sun and volcanoes. Not what Al Gore and other comedians are saying.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by greshnik]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:49 PM
This is ridiculous, you are all working for the oil companies.

There is Consensus on global warming, there is consensus that humans are the cause of recent volcanic activity. It is anthropomorphologicalistically caused, regardless of your propaganda.

you should be put on trials for crimes against humanity for saying volcanoes aren't man made. How dare you don't you read books? Are you saying the holocaust didn't happen? Don't you know there is Concensus!?

Geeze, sometimes you people give yourselves away (disinfo)

Edit: To say humans weren't designed to eat meat, so stop killing life!

[edit on 27-6-2008 by doctormcauley]

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:13 PM
just go on ignoring posts with factual data you never bothered to take a look at because you're scared of even more cognitive dissonance. keep toeing the party line and blame any critiscism on 'Exxon'. You're wrong as sin and your methods show it, no prove it. Consenus, crimes against humanity, you people usually advocate burning food to 'combat' the weather, need i say more? shamanism pretended to do the same, btw. did not seem to keep the invaders at bay, though.

fanatism may do damage to everyone around you, i'll give you that much, but it will, without a shadow of doubt harm you. just goes to show that with money and media, the worst nonsense can be turned into a creed of the voluntarily misinformed.

you saw the data, you read the posts, yet you ignored them and still insist the world's going to end, because floating ice is supposed to melt this summer (wtf? big newsflash: bridge due to collapse this year, 50%50 chance, outside climate fear, topics, none of this BS would fly, mind you). this is probably one of the few occasions where i advocate dunking in a bucket filled with water and plenty of ice cubes, as a practical example that, for a change, will get you to listen.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by doctormcauley
there is consensus that humans are the cause of recent volcanic activity.

you should be put on trials for crimes against humanity for saying volcanoes aren't man made.

Huh? What?

Please explain with all your wisdom how volcanos are man-made and how humans are causing volcanic activity? I can't wait for this.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in