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.

 

Exclusive: No Ice At The North Pole

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Well, if you have a link that shows that the poles are not melting, just getting lower levels of precipitation, please trot it out for us to look at. How about the Himalayans, are they also seeing less rainfall, and is that why they are shrinking?

By the way, I'm not even sure that global warming is necessarily a bad thing, unless of course world oceans do rise 60 meters, then we are in real trouble. I feel for people in low areas near the ocean, but can we even do anything about it?




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by winged patriot
This post is crazy, just more unpatriotic stuff to put another lipstick liberal in the white house!

I saw a short on fox news of that a man claims to have seen green peace boats blowin up chunks off the north pole at night???

Like I've said all along this whole thing is a liberal pile of poop!!!

The bibles says the earth is only 6-8 thousand years old - so this crap about ice ages would be a first to me, and the earth!


Just think-- Stop this liberal fairy tale!!!

You've got to remember, these athiests are so wise, they know that man came when evolution miraculously violated the Second LAW of Thermodynamics, and we ascended from slime. Professing themselves wise, they became fools. Their radio carbon dating methods use an assumption that things must be millions of years old, therefore they come up with these huge 'scientifically proven' dates, based on erroneous assumptions. Like the orbit of Nemesis, supposedly millions of years. Actually, last it was here we had the Flood from Genesis. The Bible has prophesied for thousands of years, what is happening RIGHT NOW. There WILL be an incoming star, the islands WILL disappear, there WILL be a Mideast nuclear war with Israel destroying Iran, and there WILL be a NWO set up by the 'savior' of mankind in cooperation with 'aliens', after the burning of the greatest and most powerful 'city' in the world. If you don't like it, don't think it is true, just wait a few months.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Well, if you have a link that shows that the poles are not melting, just getting lower levels of precipitation, please trot it out for us to look at. How about the Himalayans, are they also seeing less rainfall, and is that why they are shrinking?

I feel for people in low areas near the ocean, but can we even do anything about it?


i found the classic, prototypical case, which validates the mechanism, at least:


news.nationalgeographic.com...



"The real explanations are much more complex. Global warming plays a part, but a variety of factors are really involved."

According to Hardy, forest reduction in the areas surrounding Kilimanjaro, and not global warming, might be the strongest human influence on glacial recession. "Clearing for agriculture and forest fires—often caused by honey collectors trying to smoke bees out of their hives—have greatly reduced the surrounding forests," he says. The loss of foliage causes less moisture to be pumped into the atmosphere, leading to reduced cloud cover and precipitation and increased solar radiation and glacial evaporation.


iow, even if it's cold enough, glaciers shrink without adpequate water/ice supply. note that i'm merely trying to focus on other mechanisms than just warming, because if it's just as cold as usual, but ice is rare, the net impact would be greatly diminished. articles on arctic preciptation follow:

www.worldclimatereport.com...

and one claiming the opposite:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

i'd prefer to cry 'wolf' only when i'm really sure, y'know. i just wanted to point out that there are several mechanisms whith the potential to cause the same effect, that's all.


edit: wrt sea level rises, i have already posted two links which showed that the Antarctic ice shield wasn't undergoing large scale melting, so the prediction is a little premature, tbh.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


the issue is that:

www.allthingsarctic.com...


Precipitation


Climatically, many high Arctic locations are considered cold deserts -- that is, they receive (with local exceptions) less than 10 inches of precipitation annually. Indeed, some areas of the Arctic, such as Peary Land in northern Greenland, are drier than many tropical deserts. Generally, precipitation amounts are higher the farther south one travels in the Arctic region. Most precipitation in the Arctic takes the form of snow, which falls mainly during the autumn and the early spring.


[edit on 2008.6.28 by Long Lance]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SystemiK
 


I will watch the sea levels at my Vacation Home in Venice Florida. So far, I am not worried in the least as things are fine there.
It is supposed to disappear by the logic behind this map.

Let me clarify when I say that I am not buying all of this Al Gore Global Warming stuff. The earth warms and cools on it's own. It always has.

I found an article that was interesting though and might provide an argument. Of course it has no more or less merit tnan any global warming proponent article does.

www.canada.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

i'm honestly wondering why the loss of the northern icecap should be considered catastrophic. as long as the cause is local in nature and does not negatively affect the rest of the planet, why even bother?


There are a number of reasons and all involve power and money.

Al Gore has personally made 100 million dollars off his environmental activism.

Environmental organizations need to be constantly in the news to keep the donations flooding in, too protect their own incomes.

Environmental activists have a stranglehold on the Democratic Party in the US and any negative environmental news is seen to help Democrats be elected. We can expect some of the most hyped up, spin filled environmental disaster stories we have ever seen as our Presidential Election approaches. Historically common occurrences will be used to scare us into voting for the Left.

The 3 or 4% who vote based on this issue, all vote Democrat which ties the politics, power and money issues together. Most academicians and scientists are Democrats and heavily involved with the far left. Their funding is more assured if Democrats hold more offices too slip those riders into spending bills.

As with most things, follow the money. In this case scaring you and convincing you that climate changes that have occurred over and over again are unusual and unusually dangerous, lines their pockets with gold and makes it easier for them to get their friends in office.

People like Gore could care less about you, me, the Polar Bears and the environment. He has a jet to keep fueled after all and that home that uses 20 times more energy than anyone needs.

I see little being made of the fact that we are having a very cool spring and early summer up north. I watched a scientist interviewed yesterday who was asked about the colder than normal winter in the entire northern hemisphere of the earth. He put on a series of very dramatic facial expressions and said something like that was just a couple of cold days. He got visibly upset it was brought up and in fact started turning purple over the question. When hit with facts that put their money at risk they turn from scientists into politicians.

I'm not a Republican by the way; I hate all the lying you know whats.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


You might have a good point, but Kilimanjaro's situation might very well be different than other regions. We really don't know for sure what is causing the shrinkage of the glaciers. Also, this change in precipitation theory leads back towards a man created phenomenon. I have a hard time believing that this is the situation with the poles.

Earlier I posted a link showing that the Antarctic Ice Cap is melting, so even if the sea ice around Antarctica is increasing, the ice on the continent is decreasing. Of course, measuring these things is very complicated, so we don't know for sure, but it is probably best to plan for the worse, and hope for the better.

Still, overall, the evidence points to a major decrease in glaciers, and rising ocean levels. I see global warming as global warming, irregardless of the cause.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


There seems to be as many explanations as there are scientists studying the climate. That tells me that they don't know and don't have the decency to admit they don't know. When is the last time anyone heard one of them admit a single volcanic eruption can send more greenhouse gasses into the air than man has in our entire existence?



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Won't efforts to cut greenhouse gases and collect scientific evidence lead to job creation? Won't efforts to prepare for rising ocean levels also lead to job creation. It seems to me that forcing corporations to be more environmentally friendly also creates jobs. I don't see the downside to a global effort to make our energy usage more efficient. I see a spreading of the wealth through the advancement of better technology and development of better infrastructure. The only people I think who loose by these efforts are the super rich, who won't be able to shave off ever larger chunks of the worlds productivity for their exclusive gain.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
That tells me that they don't know and don't have the decency to admit they don't know.


you got that right... just like Doctors rather than tell you they don't know what you have... they say try this drug and see me in two weeks
I guess that's why they call it a 'practice'


If you look at history and see what scientists have done in the name of research its a wonder we are still here...

Besides they CAN'T say they don't know... because their funding would be cut off

How many millions did we pat scientists to study the Ozone hole? Only for them to realize its ALWAYS been there as over the pole you don't get as much direct sunlight that creates the ozone...

So they say "oops" and go on to another project hoping we all forget...

And even Carl Sagan wanted to Nuke the Noon to see if they could 'stir up' organic material

:shk:

But as to creating jobs and doing our best for the environment I am 100% for that and take an active role... We also recycle most everything...

Plastics, cans, glass and paper go to the county..

Aluminum cans, copper wire etc go to the yard and net some really decent cash these days

Organic yard clippings, coffee grounds, egg shells and veggies go into the compost

wood goes in the firepit ashes to the compost and meat scraps to the dogs

hehehe No trash bill



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
The OP said that 'for the first time in human history' well this may be true but it's not first time in the planets history, nor will it be the last. Nothing and I mean nothing is going to stop the climate changing. It always has and will continue to do so long after the human race is no longer around.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
My close sousin owns 80 acres in the Arizona desert. Building a pier. Can't wait, warer front property.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Leapass]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
This is a little unscientific and general,but with increased global warming,I believe a sure sign would be an overall increase in severe winds,pretty much worldwide from heating effects whipping up more extreme meetings of hotter vs colder air masses,the way summer storms seem more powerful and damaging.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I will be worried about "global warming" when the the temperatures worldwide actually increase irregularly, which so far isn't the case. CO2 is good, despite what many environmentalists will tell you. More CO2, essentially more and better plant life, meaning less CO2. That's what I call a cycle. I'm all about conserving, recycling, and not polluting, but CO2 is not causing global warming. It's not a pollutant either. CO2 levels lag behind temperature increase between 200 and 800 years, meaning higher temperatures are likely the cause of higher CO2 levels, not vice-versa. Volcanoes aren't the only source of "natural" carbon dioxide, either. Might I remind you the 280 ppm of atmospheric CO2 is based on the time of the little ice age, meaning that oceans didn't release as much CO2 until after the warming started, which is what I think caused a sizable amount of the extra 100 ppm of atmospheric CO2 "we" now have. I will admit CO2 may contribute to "global warming", but not to the extent the IPCC will have you believe, maybe 1% in terms of man-made. Almost nothing.

There are definitely other pollutants we should worry about that we produce. Other GHGs are 10 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and are actually detrimental to the health of living organisms.

And back on the main topic, even if the prediction is true, it's not the first time it has happened.

I have no problem with changing my lifestyle to help the planet, but so far, there has not been enough evidence that AGW is real. I'm not denying temperatures are increasing, but they have been skewed by the urban heat island effect, causing more dramatic increases in temperature than what's actually happening.

If I had to choose between global warming and global cooling, I would pick global warming. I'm also neither liberal nor conservative, as they are both lying, corporation-controlled scum.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Won't efforts to cut greenhose gases and collect scientific evidance lead to job creation? Won't efforts to prepare for rising ocean levels also lead to job creation. It seems to me that forcing corporations to be more environmentally friendly also creates jobs. I don't see the donwside to a global effort to make our energy usage more efficient. I see a spreading of the wealth through the advancement of better technology and development of better infrastructure. The only people I think who loose by these efforts are the super rich, who won't be able to shave off ever larger chunks of the worlds productivity for their exclusive gain.


What kind of jobs will Government Regulations create?

Where will the Money come from to pay these people?

What Will happen to me If I refuse to pay your Carbon Tax on Life?

What products do you intend to Export?

Are these Strictly Service Sector Jobs? Government Employees?

How many Billion Dollars do you think would be required for such a program?

How will this affect the GDP?

Will you make it back in fines and taxes with two years?

So you actually think you will doing anything but Draining the Economy that you choose to Regulate?

Why won't the Companies you target Simply move to China, India or South America - where they do not have "Regulators?

If you can't answer these simple questions, you cannot defend your ridiculous statements. I would not blame you if you cannot, for your position is utterly indefensible.

You sir, Are a Propagandist of the Worst Order.....




[edit on 29-6-2008 by doctormcauley]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
the way i look at it is ,that if there really was danger and we were really threatened,the government would stop whatever is causing the problem.
the way i know its BS, is when they start to sell permits to continue doing it. you know most of the government officials own beachfront property.thats where the money is.
isnt it strange that this is announced the same time the first carbon tax credits are issued? so... buy, buy,buy the carbon credits and breath while its still legal!

could someone let me know when they are gonna start selling methane credits? i love mexican food,and i dont wanna compete with or add to the cow problem either.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by Spectre0o0]

[edit on 29-6-2008 by Spectre0o0]

[edit on 29-6-2008 by Spectre0o0]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jhill76
 


You are exactly right. If i remember correctly Antarctica is also melting at a more rapid pace also. Then this year, back in March, the Wilkins ice shelf completely disentigrated. We know that the more permanent ice features like glaciers are all deteriorating rapidly. We also know that Antarctica is not immune to this warming effect (but ocean temperature are also playing a big role here not just warming of the air).

The warming of the oceans has been the primary cause of the rising numbers of more lethal hurricanes that has pretty much been increasing in frequency, number, and overall strength at a rapid pace for the better part of the decade.. Global warming is a big problem, but a bigger problem would be the shutdown of the mid-atlantic current. These oceanic systems moderate the flow of heat in the ocean, therefore it also drastically effects weather patterns. So far the mid-atlantic curent is still functioning pretty efficiently although I remember reading an article about these currents losing strength. The melting sea ice (creating cold water) inevitably hampers the effects of the warm ocean currents which are so critical to our planet (that much makes sense).

But the predictions for the North Pole are really just forecasts and noone really knows when the ice will be completely gone.. But the fear is that if the current trends continue at the current pace the North Pole's ice could be gone within a decade. Some scientists believe it could be completely gone within a year, although noone knows for sure what will happen.. It could be this year, it could be 30 years from now. These types of things are not so easy to accurately forecast and predict for obvious reasons.

Although it is scary to think that in our lifetimes there may be no ice left at the north pole.. This massive influx of cold water from all this melting ice is going to drastically effect ocean currents and, therefore, drastically effect global weather patterns. It will be interesting to see what happens over the coming weeks and months..

We also know that not only is the earth's overall temperature becoming warmer but the sun is becoming hotter..
www.solstation.com...


When life first began to develop on Earth, short-term variations in Sol's brightness were probably limited to a few tenths of a percent. Many Sol-type stars go through periods of diminished activity during which they can get as much as one half to one percent dimmer, as magnetic activity subsides for decades or longer. A prolonged reduction in Solar luminosity could send Earth into another ice age. Indeed, one such episode known as the Maunder minimum may have triggered the Little Ice Age from 1645 to 1715 CE, when crops failed in Northern Europe and London's Thames River stayed frozen in June. According to Sallie L. Baliunas, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, such diminutions of Solar activity contributed to 17 of the 19 known major episodes of extended chill downs of Earth's climate in the past 10,000 years.

Sol is becoming hotter and brighter as fusion of helium "ash" becomes more statistically common with the gradual depletion of hydrogen at its core, which may be half helium after 4.6 billion years of hydrogen fusion. Initially, this helium ash is inert and as it accumulates, the efficiency of nuclear fusion of core hydrogen and other processes decreases and the core produces less heat to maintain internal pressure. As a result, gravity works more efficiently to contract the center of the Sun and raise internal pressure to heat up the core more, which raises the overall energy transmitted to the surface. Astronomers believe that Sol has gotten at least 30 percent brighter since the formation of its planets. Sol is expected to become another 10 percent brighter over the next 1.1 billion years, and so Earth may become too uncomfortably hot for even microbial life in another 500 to 900 million years.



And a more recent scientific study conducted in 2007 discovered this..
www.lubbockonline.com...


Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, when the current solar cycle was beginning, a researcher reports in a study to be published Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis of satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight.

The increase is only a small fraction of the total heat from the sun, but in a century it would be enough to seriously aggravate problems of global warming thought to be caused by greenhouse gases, says Richard C. Willson of Columbia University's Center for Climate Systems Research.

Willson said that most researchers expect greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees F and ''that is not an insignificant number. It is smaller than the greenhouse effect, but it is not trivial,'' he said.

''This is a significant increase,'' said John Firor of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. ''It would increase the rate at which we go into warming.''


-ChriS



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Won't efforts to cut greenhouse gases and collect scientific evidence lead to job creation? Won't efforts to prepare for rising ocean levels also lead to job creation. It seems to me that forcing corporations to be more environmentally friendly also creates jobs.


the ends do not justify the means.

in between, one aspect got lost, that all of the AGW scare was obviously manufactured, scientific institutions lied or are woefully incompetent. heck, what has al Gore done to deserve the Peace Prize? (or an Oscar, for that matter, but that combination alone should have rung a few bells) complicity at its finest.

as for the siren song of 'job creation'....


could it be, i mean is it conceivable that the increasingly dire outlook for this planet is caused by just that mentality? this is not supposed to be a planned economy and i for one would greatly appreciate a civilized level of professional honesty, because that way, politricksters wouldn't be able to sacrifice countless lives based on the high priests' siren song. for every job they invent, freedom and creativity are lost. within the system, every single task is assigned rather than chosen, with predictable results. that is what 'regulation' really means. it means establishing a monoculture in which any deviation results in immediate 'termination'. i hope we are clear that in a world gov't setting this would include genocide.


let me give you an example: do you know how corporate agriculture works? move in, burn forest, sell charcoal for grilling, plant GM soybeans, repeat next year, move out again when yields dwindle to devour the next piece of land.

at the same time, food is being used as an inefficient fuel. does destroying the planet create jobs? just a humble question. what about the people who live in these countries? i guess their task is to beome refugees and offer 'cheap labor'. they are scheduled to be consumed just like the land itself, that is why environmental protection is more than just tree hugging, at least if it's honest and based on fact rather than ideology.

PS: if people in the west don't wise up and become privy to the ongoing machinations, we will face the same fate as these 3rd world countries, we are noting more than a resource to the system and as such are scheduled for consumption as well.
f people in the west don't wise up and become privy to the ongoing machinations, we will face the same fate as these 3rd world countries, we are noting more than a resource to the system and as such are scheduled for consumption as well.

and then there would be nothing. and that's the real issue behind the global warming agenda.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Global Warning has never been in doubt, the only in doubt is
whether or not mankind has accelerated that event.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
reply to post by jhill76
 


You are exactly right. If i remember correctly Antarctica is also melting at a more rapid pace also.



can you reconcile this with

www.abovetopsecret.com...

?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join