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: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
One thing I notice about the Global Warming alarmists, is that they love summertime. Yes even the North Pole has it's own time of year where it thaws a little, but guess what, in a couple of months it will be winter again and it will freeze back up. Big Deal, it's happens every year. It's just this year you combine "summer" with underwater volcanoes, and you might have a little more melting than usual.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by RRconservative]




posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit Which results in what? Some low lying land ending up under water, possibly permanently.
Wow... so some land gets flooded.


Yeah but that beach front property is owned by the rich and famous... THEY won't be to happy...




Sorry to say, but there isn't some cataclysmic event that will occur. The world won't start blowing up or anything like that. It's quite mundane really.


Pity that no exploding planet... but all that fresh water ice melt will effect the weather expect a lot more of those category five hurricanes




The way people go on about "the effects of climate change" you'd think we'd all die tomorrow or something, but that simply wouldn't happen.


Climate change wiped out the Dinosaurs
"simply won't happen" is very naive



The fact the planet is warming is a good thing - food we can't grow in the higher latitudes because it's too cold will be able to be grown. Food will actually be easier to produce, etc.. Is that a bad thing? No, it isn't.


Sure it is!... the southern regions will just get hotter and we will have to move north... it already hits 126 here in Vegas Human skin melts at 164...


And growing more food means we will make more people which will create more methane and CO2 greenhouse gases

But then scientists have no idea... there is thought that these same effects could snap back and actually toss an ice age at us

Is man responsible for 'global warming'? Not likely as its happening on Mars as well so its an issue of the Sun putting out more energy...

But if we can stop mankind from making a mess of things down here... I personally prefer breathing clean air


As a side note though to show that sometimes what man does changes things... all the man made lakes in Vegas sub divisions, the fountains and the misters have changed the average summer humidity from 17% to 35%

Now THAT makes a big difference to us here



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Sorry, posted in wrong forum.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by endrun]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Sorry, posted in wrong forum.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by endrun]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


please, stop re-using my terminology and understand that scientific disciplines are supposed to yield quantitative predictions, otherwise it would be hard to accurately test them, (let alone use some of it in engineering) because anyone can be lucky with guesses, for a while at least.


climatology is not any different, but once the money (sorry, sponsor) comes in, reason flies straight out of the window.

reply to post by poet1b
 


the link you were probably thinking of :

www.jpl.nasa.gov...



The Antarctic mass loss findings were enabled by the ability of the identical twin Grace satellites to track minute changes in Earth's gravity field resulting from regional changes in planet mass distribution. Mass movement of ice, air, water and solid earth reflect weather patterns, climate change and even earthquakes. To track these changes, Grace measures micron-scale variations in the 220-kilometer (137-mile) separation between the two satellites, which fly in formation.




now, in simple terms, gravimetric measurments are super swell, unless you want to use them on a surface phenomenon. there are plenty of gravimetric anomalies, and what's worse is that changes in rock will show up many times stronger than changes in ice, because it's obviously a lot denser.

what can i say, it does not follow.

i gave three links which all mentioned indicators moving against the trend. from what i can see you elected to discard them. i wonder (you should, too) what it would take to make you doubt the consensus.


In addition, snow accumulation is not ice formation. The article switches from talking about loss of ice, to state that their is a net gain in the next paragraph, but doesn't identify what the net gain is in, then speaks of snow accumulation.


how do you think glaciers grow? if mass is known (i don't really think they have a way of accurately knowing, but that's just me) it does not matter if it's snow or compact ice. glacification requires pressure, so the top can't be solid ice unless the snow melts off.

either there's a net gain or there is none. something's got to give doesn't it? you and i know very well, though that if these figures could somehow be attacked or refuted, these articles would have vanished or been amended long ago. combine that with the 'consenus' based methods of the AGW moevement and the picture becomes a lot clearer. at least it did, for me.



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Climate change wiped out the Dinosaurs
"simply won't happen" is very naive



i thought that was yet another asteriod? not that i'm too enamored with attributing everything to 'impacts', just saying. it's continuosly happening, a few thoousand years ago, the Sahara desert looked quite differently. now where's the lament? why not try irrigation or evaoprating sea water using a variation of updraft wind power plants? might even make a buck in the process. i severely doubt the air tax will do more than limit our options.




And growing more food means we will make more people which will create more methane and CO2 greenhouse gases


so you'd advocate famine? violent and cruel solutions inc.?



But if we can stop mankind from making a mess of things down here... I personally prefer breathing clean air



my advice: don't exhale


co2 is not a pollutant, much like steam isn't. for the same reasons, too.

[edit on 2008.6.30 by Long Lance]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
i thought that was yet another asteriod?


Asteroid make much dust in air... change weather... weather kill dinos...


Or do you think the asteroids picked them off one by one?




a few thoousand years ago, the Sahara desert looked quite differently.



A few thousand years ago we had the lush Cedars of Lebanon... Man strip forest... man lose... desert win




so you'd advocate famine? violent and cruel solutions inc.?


Hmmm well NWO wants to reduce population by 80%... might work...





co2 is not a pollutant, much like steam isn't. for the same reasons, too.


Well plants 'inhale' CO2 and give us oxygen... not sure I ever heard plants taking in steam though


Too much CO2 surely is a problem



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Asteroid make much dust in air... change weather... weather kill dinos...


Or do you think the asteroids picked them off one by one?




that's akin to saying 'the bullet shot him, i just pulled the trigger'




a few thousand years ago we had the lush Cedars of Lebanon... Man strip forest... man lose... desert win


might be the case, although grazing goats might even be worse. interestingly, today's biofuels are displacing food crops into formerly forested land, which ties neatly into the next paragraph




Hmmm well NWO wants to reduce population by 80%... might work...





yeah, it will, as long as people jump on any available bandwagon just for kicks, the whole thing might even be a 'milk run'. i'll have to point out that this was not an answer to my question, though.



Well plants 'inhale' CO2 and give us oxygen... not sure I ever heard plants taking in steam though


Too much CO2 surely is a problem


too much water drowns people, too much CO2 asphyxates them, too little CO2 kills plants, too little water does the same, water is an odorless vapor and a 'greenhouse gas' in its gaseous form, CO2 is, too.

then again, when frozen they look alike
like ice


so let me rephrase that:

How much carbon dioxide would it take to become a 'problem' and why ?

[edit on 2008.6.30 by Long Lance]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance


so let me rephrase that:

How much carbon dioxide would it take to become a 'problem' and why ?



that is an interesting question.

so, lets say you and i both visit the grand canyon. I get out of the car first and run over to the edge. At this moment we have two different points of reference. If someone were to ask me how far it was over the edge, i could, with at least some authority, say how far it was. i have a frame of reference...i have been to the edge and peered over.

You, on the other hand, would not know. You could say anything, but without having been there and seen it, your response is going to be a guess based on ancillary observations.

so, to answer your question, we have yet to get to the edge and peer over. Right now, the only number i KNOW to be true is "10%". At a 10% concentration, CO2 becomes toxic (no matter how concentrated the O2 is). So, from a human biology standpoint, there is your answer.

From an ecology standpoint....well, now that is up to the "scientists" to guess on, right?



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


yeah, the answer is imho, even more interesting (that's why i asked it
), namely that CO2 is currently measured in parts per million and people are crying wolf over 100ppm or so, while increases remain beneficial way past 1000ppm, when we're at ~350.

plants can use in excess of 700ppm and they react very well to increased concentrations. ie. it's a fertilizer and a harmless one at that. no side effects, no accumulation of heavy metals or disturbing the balance of microorganisms. just better growth.

www.gepower.com...


By adding CO2 to the atmosphere around the plant, a 40% crop increase was achieved. Whereas previous crops averaged 22 heads per basket, lettuce grown in the increased CO2 atmosphere (550 ppm) averaged 16 heads of better quality per basket.



40% sounds quite good to me.


but wait, 550ppm is not the limit, by far, in fact if you went higher, you'd just run into diminishing returns at some point, which is beyond 700ppm, in fact it might even be in the permille range. still not going anywhere near percents, mind you.


(commercial website)

www.gepower.com...


Air generally contains approximately 350 ppm CO2. Optimal CO2 levels depend on the type of plant and generally lie above 700 ppm. With increased artificial lighting, as present in greenhouses, plants absorb even more CO2. If the greenhouse


700ppm, that's roughly twice as much as we have today

note that this is a very beneficial effect, i have yet to hear of 'downside' other than global warming, where hurricanes ravage the (now much higher levelled) shores.

oh, btw. wasn't 2007 a calm Hurricane season?

does it even matter, btw, considering that Katrina itself wasn't nearly as devastating as flooding from rotten (...) levees. lving below sealevel can't be blamed on the weather, obviously.

PS: I know, that in order to succed one needs to make sacrifices. thruthfullnes is the first and obligatory sacrifice of any serious AGW'er.

[edit on 2008.7.1 by Long Lance]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by BlasteR
 

please, stop re-using my terminology and understand that scientific disciplines are supposed to yield quantitative predictions, otherwise it would be hard to accurately test them, (let alone use some of it in engineering) because anyone can be lucky with guesses, for a while at least.


climatology is not any different, but once the money (sorry, sponsor) comes in, reason flies straight out of the window.


Your terminology?? What planet are you on?
People can now claim terminology as their own??? WOW!!

If I got you worked up because of my post that isn't my fault. I was simply making a valid point that made complete sense in response to yours.

I was using your terminology because your terminology didn't make sense in how you were trying to apply it to your response.

-ChriS



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
The North Pole isn't even the North Pole, and considering the few years we have been to the North Pole in our history, for someone to say that the North Pole will be iceless for the first time in history is just assumption and guesses.

If it is true why aint no one asking what Chemtrails are and are they causing this so called global warming? What other military and government operations could be causing this. I don't buy the SUV is doing it story, hell at 4.00 a gallon who can afford to drive an suv?

Scare tactics and the same story talked about in the Iron Mountain Report from the 60's of ways to control theworld's population.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:08 AM
link   
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: www.abovetopsecret.com...

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 !



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


I'm sure that the scientists took local gravity conditions into considerations when making their measurements. That is standard technique for any one doing precision mass measurement. I doubt if the people making these measurements are that incompetent.

But hey, this last article you linked to claims to have made measurements in this way.

Joughin measured flow rates along the ice streams emptying into the Ross Embayment with the Canadian Radarsat satellite. Then he compared the outflow volume with other measurements on surface accumulation to obtain the mass balance.

First, the article has a problem with providing all the details once again, as it doesn't say what flow rates are being measured. I have to guess they mean water. On top of this, they don't describe how these flow rates are measured by a satelite, while the article I provided gave a fairly detailed description of how the measurement was taken. Thirdly, measuring flow rates of water or ice with a satelite has to have a rather large standard deviation, because not all drainage areas can be accounted for, and at best they will have to use a mathematical formula to actually arrive at a flow rate, I am guessing using thermal imaging. Lack of details on these points really makes the article sound like it was written with an agenda to claim that it proves something while it doesn't give enough details to back its claims. I would trust the twin satelites measuring glacier size through changes in gravity far more than this claim to measure flow without providing any detail as to how these values were arrived at.

In addition, this claim is being made that only one of the glaciers is possibly seeing increased levels of snow, while admitting that the other glaciers are in fact shrinking.


I haven't discounted articles you have provided links to, I have just shown how limited those theories are, or in this last article, how weak the evidence is to support the claim.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective


Could this finally be the smoking gun that validates Global warming as a real phenomenon? No ice on the North Pole for the first time in recorded history?!? I know there's a lot of naysayers on this issue, but if this really happens this summer, what will people say then?


Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally icefreeNorth Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by hugeswathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.


I think this is unlikely as the poles and the thermohaline conveyor system work together as a temperature regulator, as the earth heats and the poles melt, fresh water is introduced into the ocean, the thermohaline system carries warm water from the tropics towards the pole. the poles cool the salt water which becomes heavier, sinks and recirculates the cooler water back to the tropics, this maintains a warmer climate away from the tropics. fresh water introduced to this dilutes the salt water, preventing it from sinking and eventually disrupts the conveyor. this cools the latitudes closer to the pole until the polar ice starts to regenerate this then removes the fresh water and the conveyor starts up again. Exactly this process happened between 1400 and early 1800's in a period called the little ice age.

This melting ice however is very convenient for Mr Gore and friends who can claim it vindicates their stories about global warming and provides further cover for them to pursue their megalomaniacal agendas. its a pity people blindly beleive the BS that politicians like gore proclaim and ignore science and history.



www.independent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
So as Polar Ice Decrease the Polar Bear population grows?

Why aren't they dying? Don't they need ice or something?

Are they all on the same iceberg or something? wow global warming is getting worse for sure...



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Long Lance
 


I'm sure that the scientists took local gravity conditions into considerations when making their measurements. That is standard technique for any one doing precision mass measurement. I doubt if the people making these measurements are that incompetent.


same here, it's just that gravimetric sensors are relying extraordinarily weak signals, which opens a whole can of worms all by itself, because, with sufficiently poor signal/noise ratios, anything can be proven. furthermore, ice isn't very dense, so...



But hey, this last article you linked to claims to have made measurements in this way.

Joughin measured flow rates along the ice streams emptying into the Ross Embayment with the Canadian Radarsat satellite. Then he compared the outflow volume with other measurements on surface accumulation to obtain the mass balance.

First, the article has a problem with providing all the details once again, as it doesn't say what flow rates are being measured. I have to guess they mean water. On top of this, they don't describe how these flow rates are measured by a satelite, while the article I provided gave a fairly detailed description of how the measurement was taken.



using radar satellites to measure a river's depth (indirectly, by comparing relative altitudes, but nevertheless) may be slightly inaccurate, it should be noted, however, that river flow rates are usually derived from depth at a known location, because if you know the local profile (cross section), that information alone is sufficient to get good results. all the satellite does is to add inaccuracies in the cm range. the input is therefore much clearer than gravimetric data, obviously, unless your river happens to be extremely shallow.




I haven't discounted articles you have provided links to, I have just shown how limited those theories are, or in this last article, how weak the evidence is to support the claim.


in fact the articles i posted regarding precipitation went both ways, one noting an increase while the other stressed arid conditions.

the best (worst?) part is that these are not mutually exclusive in any way, because river drainage is linked to precipitation (not fully representative, of course, due to delayed melting, permafrost issues, etc) over land, which could easily reduce the ice cap's share of snow.

such ideas are of course, just speculation and are only meant to show that more and different mechanisms should be considered. ie. you cannot derive temperature data solely from ice cap developments, which has been the main point of my presence in this thread from the start, i'm well aware of the shortcomings of various sources, that's why i like to go with unambiguous data, which can't really be misread or subject to measuring error, like:

www.gsfc.nasa.gov...



n a study just published in the Annals of Glaciology, Claire Parkinson of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center analyzed the length of the sea ice season throughout the Southern Ocean to obtain trends in sea ice coverage. Parkinson examined 21 years (1979-1999) of Antarctic sea ice satellite records and discovered that, on average, the area where southern sea ice seasons have lengthened by at least one day per year is roughly twice as large as the area where sea ice seasons have shortened by at least one day per year. One day per year equals three weeks over the 21-year period.


even if no conclusions can be drawn about the large glaciers themselves, these anomalies indicate that something is wrong or oversimplified, which is just a form of euphemism, really.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Here is the timeline for the average global temperature. There is one graph representing the last 150 years, the last 2000 years, and the last 450,000 years. We are now in the warmest period in the last 130,000 years. Most of that temperature increase has occurred over the last ten years.

www.seed.slb.com...

Here is another site about global warming.

www.ucsusa.org...

And another temperature graph.

www.rideforclimate.com...



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


If you are measuring water in a river, then you might be able to get some fairly accurate data with a satelite, but water flowing from a glacier isn't going to be all concentrated in a nice river, it will flow along numerous routes which can not be measured in this way.

What you provide are articles that make big claims on very little evidence, that doesn't seem all that credible in the first place.

When you are talking about glaciers, gravitational measurements are a very good indication. Ice is heavy, and huge amounts have considerable influence.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   
i am by no means an educated person on this subject and this may seem like a very lame question BUT.....

Does the ice caps WEIGH anything? if the north pole ice cap melts away does that distribute a weight that was their away from the pole?

if so

Could this affect the Axis of the earth?

apologies if my pregnant blonde head is embarrassing me... but can someone answer me



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join