Exclusive: No Ice At The North Pole

Originally posted by whatsup
If we can get past these two questions,

No problem I will just skip over them and ask you how mankind is effecting "Global Warming" on the other planets especially Mars? Because they are also warming up

to the guy who aasked about eevil carbon dioxide.


it's a greenhouse gas, it blocks a certain set of wavelengths in the infrared range and does this very effectively at low concentrations, which means these wavelengths are for all intents and purposes already blocked out at a few hundred yards range.

www.aip.org...

There was also the old objection, which most scientists continued to find decisive, that the overlapping absorption bands of CO2 and water vapor already blocked all the radiation that those molecules were capable of blocking.

a doubling of carbon dioxide would therefore barely increase the greenhouse effect and quadrupling would yield even less in relation. (ie. diminishing return)

the atmosphere is a complex system and if stabilizing elements did not exist, the planet would never have recovered from ice ages. focusing on a single component is as irrelevant as it is misleading. the flipside of carbon dioxide is that plants will grow better, thereby increasing natural CO2 sequestration and stabilizing CO2 levels. it's not hard to see how lifeforms could profit from increased growth rates either, is it? noone likes to talk about positive aspects anymore, it seems.

reply to post by whatsup


A greenhouse Gas is a gas that can be purchased and time-released into the greenhouse to increase the yields and shorten the period until harvest.

Plants exposed to Greenhouse gases will grow at a rate faster than those not exposed and the assistance from c02 will absorb up to twice as many minerals and nutrients - and a more substantial harvest.

So yes, they are greenhouse gases - I know because I buy tanks of c02 and use it in my greenhouse. It is expensive, but worth it.

That is what a greenhouse gas is....you add it to your greenhouse to get greater yields!

Imagine what the yields will be here on earth once it is no longer carbon-starved (we had 14 times the amountof c02 10 000 years ago, back when everything was huge and there were no cars)

Just when you think the Global Warming myth has been put to rest. The doom and gloom media reports something like this...

A 50/50 chance? I'm a betting man. I'll put up $1,000 saying there will be ice at the North Pole...Who wants to put up or shut up?

Even odds? No sportsbook anywhere would be stupid enough to even post these odds.

FYI There is more ice accumilation at the North Pole right now than at this time last year. Last year at this time there was 3 million square kilometers of ice area. Right now there is over 10 million square kilometers of ice area. Did the ice melt away last year? NO...then why with 3 times more ice area are they predicting it could melt away?

Any enviro-whacko betters out there? U2U your bet!

www.weatherquestions.com...

Okay, there seems to be a lot of VAGUE debate wether or not we are causing global warming, let me add some science to the picture.

My prof pointed this out a couple weeks back, the notion that our planet goes through cycles is true, it regulates the amount of carbon dioxide naturaly by creating more and less carbonic acid. It's basically a planetary-scale equilibrium reaction involving the atmosphere and the oceans,

CO2 + H20 H2CO3

This reaction is also the reason why water is slightly acidic.
Now think back to Le Chatelier's principle from highschool, we're adding stress to the reactan side (CO2 specificaly), the system attemps to fix the stress by creating more H2CO3, this is all fine and dandy and the planet has been doing this for millions of years. The problem now is that we are adding TOO MUCH stress, the system can no where near shift to the right quick enough, it's equilibrum works back and forth over hundreds of thousands of years, not decades.

Check it out

I'd like to bring your attention to the bottom left graph in this link, it notes that since 1750, instead of the carbon dioxide dropping back down ~75 ppm over the course of 100,000 years, it has gone UP that much instead in ONLY 250 years. The industrial revolution began in the late 18th century, CO2 levels have been superinflating since then.

Carbon dioxide accounts for 9%-26% for the greenhouse affect. Greenhouse gases aritificaly raise the planet's temperature by about 31C. Doubling the amount of CO2 won't affect our planet's climate in anyway? And that's only if it's doubled, remember the carbon dioxide levels are super inflating, that is their growing exponentialy.

The data I have used is from "The Cosmic Perspective 5th edition, authors: Bennet, Donahue, Schneider, Voit." All university professors.

reply to post by RRconservative


They will never give up, They will say that the Ice is Warm Ice - much warmer than it would have been if it weren't for GW (global warming).... I can see the headlines;

"Polar ice is Warmer than Ever Before"

"Increase in Ice temperature spell Doom for World"

"Increase of Ice temperature portends Global Economic Collapse"

"The threat of Warming Ice - And how it Affects You"

As long as here is so much money in it, global warming nuts will never be silent

reply to post by jhill76


Wrong... its sea ice, like icebergs. When they melt they simply melt what they displace solid. So no it won't raise the sea level.

Now if the ice on Greenland and the Antarctic melt, they they would signifiantly raise the sea level.

I just read this:

www.livescience.com...

Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado told The Independent, a London-based newspaper, "I'd say it's even-odds whether the North Pole melts out."

The article, posted on the newspaper's Web site Friday, generated some confusion as to what would actually happen at the North Pole, and in the Arctic Ocean as a whole, as the summer melt season gears up in the next few weeks.

In a telephone interview with LiveScience, Serreze explained that a melt-out at the North Pole wouldn't mean that all Arctic ice would melt. Rather, the thin, newly-formed ice around 90 degrees latitude could melt away for a few days. Such an event would be significant, he said, because any holes that have appeared in the ice at the North Pole up until now have been a result of winds pushing the sea ice around and creating cracks, not the melt-related processes that have taken hold in the Arctic in recent years.

Usually, the North Pole is covered with thick, perennial ice that forms over several years. But during last summer's record melt, which opened up the fabled Northwest Passage, a substantial amount of older ice melted. (Typically only the thinner, first-year ice melts in the summer, while the thick, perennial ice survives.) Average sea ice extent at the end of the summer was 1.65 million square miles (4.28 million square kilometers), almost 30 percent lower than the previous record low.

As winter cooled the Arctic waters, ice re-formed over the ocean, as it usually does. But this newly formed ice is thinner, first-year ice, more susceptible to melting once summer comes around again.

As it happened, wind patterns and ocean currents over the last few months moved that newly formed ice smack over the North Pole, setting up the situation where at least a temporarily ice-free North Pole could form.

"It's this symbolic thing, I think," Serreze told LiveScience. "This is where Santa Claus lives ... it kind of hits you in the stomach."

Hmm, I see there was very little input to my question about whether CO2 and methane were greenhouse gases. The fact is that they are major greenhouse gases and have greatly increased due to modern industrialization and livestock farming (and *MAN MADE* destruction of the world's forests.

To deny this is to deny basic science, and therefore my assertion that those who adamantly claim that GW *cannot* be contributed to by man's practices are greatly deceiving themselves and others (to what idealogical end, one can only guess it's fear of the NWO). I don't have the time or patience to go into the science of these and other greenhouse gases (like nitrous oxide etc), but quit listening to these amateur scientists and do a little google search on these greenhouse gases (as there is much to learn about *real science* in the process).

You who are undecided on this might want to listen to what 99% of the world's top peer reviewed scientists are saying on this. The earth is warming up folks and man's foot prints are all over the face of the planet. Use a little common sense!

[edit on 28-6-2008 by whatsup]

reply to post by RRconservative

FYI There is more ice accumilation at the North Pole right now than at this time last year. Last year at this time there was 3 million square kilometers of ice area. Right now there is over 10 million square kilometers of ice area. Did the ice melt away last year? NO...then why with 3 times more ice area are they predicting it could melt away?

I'm afraid your analysis is superficial. Grover has seen through it by quoting a source that raises the issues of the age of the ice in question and its thickness.

Another poster put this very succinctly in another current thread:

The continued loss of Arctic summer sea ice has been an ongoing recent trend and seems to be continuing this year. The ice areal coverage in the winter 07 period was larger than the previous year but this new ice was only thin first year ice, not the thck stuff that take years to form, and thus melts very quickly in comparison. The current rate of melting is faster than in previous years probabley due to this thin ice. It is concievable that the Arctic could become summer ice free this year and if not then probabley in a few years if current trends continue. This of course doesn't mean that there won't be ice in the winter and it won't affect the global sea level as the ice isn't on land.

Source: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your arguments are therefore not credible. I'm afraid your attempt to ridicule those who are concerned about such issues has backfired: it has simply revealed a somewhat vitriolic agenda.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


I saw on CNN that they said there is a 50/50 chance of the ice melting in September.

There is also a chance that the president of Iran will come out of the closet and expose his love affair with Putin.

This would be the cause if anything. The earth can take what we dish out. This is all a natural process.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

reply to post by whatsup


I replied, read my post by scrolling up.

Unless of course you are simply ignoring the facts and proceeding as though your question has not been answered - when it clearly has.

A very disingenuous technique. We are tiring of it already, as it has been used before and excessively by others of your kind.

Hello,
This is my first post so please bear with me. If you would like to see what is going on at the North Pole in real time, I suggest you try www.arctic.noaa.gov... . They have been placing web-cams up there since 2002 with varying degrees of success. This year they deployed four cams in late April and early May. It is a very informative site. You will probably see what they call melt-ponds form in mid July through mid August depending on the weather conditions. I can tell you, however that in the six years I have benn monitering this web-site, I have never seen a complete meltdown of the polar region where these web-cams have been placed.

Originally posted by whatsup
You who are undecided on this might want to listen to what 99% of the world's top peer reviewed scientists are saying on this. The earth is warming up folks and man's foot prints are all over the face of the planet. Use a little common sense!

[edit on 28-6-2008 by whatsup]

Are you just making this up as you go along?

www.heartland.org...

The claim that the debate about the severity and cause of global warming is "settled science" has taken a beating with the release of the names of 31,072 American scientists who reject the assertion that global warming has reached a crisis stage and is caused by human activity.

"No such consensus or settled science exists," Arthur Robinson, founder and president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), told a press conference May 19 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. "As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject" the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.

The institute, a non-profit research organization, first published the names and credentials of about 17,000 scientists in 2001. The current list of 31,072 Americans with college degrees in science includes 9,021 with Ph.D. degrees in various scientific fields.

Robinson said, "The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it."

So, since you threw out the number "99%", would you care to back that up? Or just admit that you played from the cuff?

To "Deny Ignorance", we must first start with a debate of truths.

About the ice in a cup, the ice in the Arctic ocean isn't like ice floating in a cup or water, it is an ice cap. If you want to simulate what happens when the ice cap melts, take a plastic cup, insulate the sides so that the top freezes more quickly. Fill the cup completely with water to the point where it overflows so that the cup is completely full, and then let the surface freeze in your freezer. Then, after the surface has frozen a few millimeters, carefully take the cup of the the freezer, cover the frozen surface with some shaved ice to create an ice cap, and then let it melt and see if the cup over flows. That is the effect the melting of the arctic ice will have. It will add some to ocean levels, but not very much.

Science hasn't collected enough evidence to say whether or not man is increasing global temperatures, but if you look at the temperature spike at the end of WW II, as well as all the other scientific evidence that man's burning of fossil fuels might be causing global warming, there is evidence to support such a claim.

The possibility that the North Pole might not be covered with ice this year is pretty big news. Add in Greenland melting, and that gives a great deal of evidence that at least the Northern Hemisphere is melting. The south pole apparently has seen a slight increase in sea ice, but the waters around the Antarctic continent are getting warmer. Could it be that sea ice is increasing because the glaciers on the continent are starting to melt, sending ice flows down into the water surrounding the continent? Evidence shows that the glaciers on the continent of Antarctica are shrinking, so this sounds like a reasonable explanation. So, while sea ice around Antarctica are increasing slightly, it looks like the ice levels on the continent are beginning to shrink. This means that the south pole is melting as well, and in the not too distant future, this will most likely accelerate.

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

While the evidence that global warming is caused by man is iffy, the evidence that our planet is currently warming is very strong. The real question is, how fast will ocean levels rise. The fact that the Arctic ice cap has melted at the fastest rate predicted is alarming. How fast will the great glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland melt? Will Antarctica melt at the accelerated rate that the Arctic has melted?

I think that the melting of the glaciers will cause desalination of ocean water, which means that the water will be less dense, and may wind up increasing the flow of the gulf stream instead of slowing the gulf stream. Instead of the currents reversing in the northern Atlantic, they might start carrying on through the Arctic. It seems to me that in a warmer, less dense ocean, without the Arctic ice cap to create a great deal of resistance to ocean currents, we could see ocean currents increase. Hey, everyone can theorize.

reply to post by Long Lance


combine that with


reply to post by Long Lance


for good measure, now read your post again


reply to post by whatsup

Originally posted by whatsup
Hmm, I see there was very little input to my question about whether CO2 and methane were greenhouse gases. The fact is that they are major greenhouse gases....

why don't you just stop starring your own posts and read a bit more?


just an idea. oh, and while you're at it, don't forget that your peer reviewed orthodoxy once endorsed gas light over electric, because it's safer get a clue, reason does not work by majority voting, especially in a dependant, commercialized environment.

[edit on 2008.6.28 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by traderonwallst

 

Global Warming does not exist.
It never has and never will

Ok....

CYCLES BABY! Its all about cycles
we heat up, we cool down

Wait wha? I think you're a little bit confused on the subject matter.

Confused? I think not!
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by poet1b
Then, after the surface has frozen a few millimeters, carefully take the cup of the the freezer, cover the frozen surface with some shaved ice to create an ice cap ....

does the term 'displacement' mean anything to you?

ice strewn strewn across another layer will just increase draft and displace *flags waving, horn tooting* more water, it's that simple.

btw, if anyone cares for something other than loyalty to your malthusian melting religion, why don't you just think for one second that fresh water supply, ie. precipitation patterns are just as important as temperatures?

the Kilimanjaro's glacier is undergoing shrinking (not melting) despite fallen temperatures, because of reduced precipitation. iirc, salt water doesn't freeze as easily, so that mechanism could explain an (alledged) reduction, which they never said a word about, just a 'chance', mind you, as well.