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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:33 AM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
Consider this:
With HAARP more than likely aimed at the poles ,it wouldn't surprise me if we found out the ice was melting so that oil barons could access any oil that might be there ."Imagine global warming purposely enhanced melting Artic ice caps like a "crude" romance"Do we not understand yet that life is not important to the people whoes only goal is to profit from the misfortune of others at any expense .They do plunder humanity to reep great profits .I have often thought that oil in the earth served a purpose in the earths cooling process,keeping the earth in motion with out friction and that the draining of it to depletion would cause great catastrophe,because there would be nothing to keep the tectonic plates greased .like when your car runs out of oil it heats up.Of course this is just an un researched theory that would never be considered a possibility because we all depend on oil .like with the cell phone tumor theory no one would even consider the possibility that a thing that would seemingly improve our lives so much could lead to our very demise.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 09:47 AM

Originally posted by poet1b

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.

i wasn't here, all i can see is that measuring ice covered area is infintely simpler and does not require post-processing and what's even better is that it can be verified just by looking at simple photographs. i'd love to hear how pack ice seasons can be longer (by three weeks within 20 years) at times of 'unprecedented warming'.

regarding ice. it's lighter (denser) than water, for one and rock is many times denser. gravity is actually a very weak force and sorting out 3 miles of ice from several thousand miles of rock is another ballpark, compared to a puny radar satellite's measrements.

reply to post by poet1b

i'd like to point out that data collection has been tainted by abandoning bases in colder areas. the move coincides nicely with the onset of the global warming topic:

Warming since 1990 linked to data collection

direct link to .pdf :

that along with the 'hockey stick' which now conveniently vanished should ring a few bells.

Or the little tidbit that Vikings settled in Greenland, on lands which are only now becoming ice-free. how do you reconcile that with today's alledged temperature maximum?

[edit on 2008.7.2 by Long Lance]

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:01 AM
Ive read a good chunk of the thread but may have missed it, but has anyone here taken into consideration the possibility that increased seafloor volcanic activity from the Gakkel Ridge could be a reason for the surface ice melting away?


Maybe its just me but it makes sense that a prolonged extensive eruption(s) under the ice sheet could possibly have a more direct effect on surface ice that a .5 degree increase in the local atmosphere would have.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by zorgon


What about the wildlife - especially the Polar Bears?

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by flice

Text. I happen to agree with you. Human being are not helping, but we are not the sole reason the planet is re-aligning itself. I have noticed weather patterns changing since the 1970's and have heard murmurs of the planet tilting, it being 750,000 years behind in doing so.... that it is supposed to do so every 250,0000 years. So we will be experiencing changes in the magnetic field as well as weather pattern changes.... and our ability to adapt will be the core element in our ability to survive. Of course, as has been pointed out, the selfishness and greed of those in power doesn't help and may cause catastrophic changes to occur faster... but as you say.... the universe does not revolve around humanity. We are just one more inhabitant to a planet that hosts many. Adaptation is coming from the voice of reason. We are too smug and spoiled by far, too dependent on technology and a world wide system that is imperfect at best. It is time for us as a species to go back to our roots and reclaim our independence so that we may "roll with the punches". The earth is a great deal bigger than we are, despite our masses, and we need to respect that it will be the eventual winner in any battle.

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Potentially staggering news,from what we understand about climate, global warming is a natural event,but if it is true that this is the first time ever the entire north pole ice melted it could be disaterious.Another good thread containing relevant news.

[edit on 7/2/2008 by jkrog08]

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Morrigan
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?

yes the ice weighs something 100 pounds of water when frozen would be 100 pounds of ice... so the melting will not change the weight....

And as was pointed out... as Ice is the only solid on the planet that expands from its liquid state, melting of the ice that is in the water would NOT raise sea levels noticeably... the melt would merely fill the void displaced by the ice.

So no... the melting will not 'tip' the planet

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 08:23 PM

Originally posted by watapi
What about the wildlife - especially the Polar Bears?

As Polar Bears can not swim very long... and there is no land beneath the ice... Polar bears will not do so well, I'm afraid...

One journalist was up there and saw a Polar Bear float by on an ice flow... he felt sad for the bear... as he knew that bear was doomed....

They can survive without ice... they do live in zoos, but they need the ice to stand on... its very hard treading water for a long time

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:58 AM
reply to post by Long Lance

You obviously have to concept of instrumentation techniques, or how large the glacial coverage of the Antarctiv is. You link to a sit that measured flow, and flow is a very difficult thing to measure. Most flow measuring methods measure force or mass, and then calculate flow. The site you linked to that talks about measuring flow to determine the change in a glacier does not provide the information of how flow was measured, or a reasonable assumption of accuracy, probably because the method was extremely inaccurate.

It is extremely effective to measure mass using gravitational measurements, which is what you do anytime you weight something, because gravity is very consistent. Once local gravity has been established, it varies very litttle. The opposite is true when measuring flow. Flow tends to change constantly.

This makes my link that discusses how it measured the change in the Antarctic's glaciers far more reliable than the article you linked to which only gave data on one glacier in the Antarctic, and talked about measuring flow, which is a very unreliable method, and never tries to explain how flow was measured. All you have provided are garbage websites whose only intent seems to be to distort the picture.

Here is a web site that describes how global temperature is measured. You will find that this site put up by Yale, and not some anonymous website does not agree with the site you linked to. Once again, your links are not very good, in fact, pretty bad.

By the way, the hockey stick scale was pretty close to the reality, and the temperature changes of the last decade have increase the upward swing.

Do you have any links that show that the Greenland Viking settlements were under glaciers until recently? All the sources I found on the subject described the sites as being in glacier free grass lands even in 1960. Current temperatures are warmer than they were during the middle ages warming spell. The only people saying different are using Shakespeare's writing and other tales of the era for their temperature values, which means that their numbers are pure fiction.

The scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is currently very convincing.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:01 AM
Here is the basic description of how global temperture is arrived at from the Yale website.

"Measuring Earth's temperature is no easy task."

"Four different groups produce temperature records that attempt to compile a single global mean surface temperature: NASA's GISStemp, the Hadley Center's HadCRU, Remote Sensing Systems' RSS, and the University of Alabama, Huntsville's UAH."

"NASA and Hadley rely on an overlapping set of surface and ocean temperature measurement stations and span the period from 1880 to present. RSS and UAH use satellite monitoring and include only the period from 1979 to present."

"Despite differences in calculation criteria and a host of technical problems that have plagued the satellite-based records in the past, all four temperature records now show a remarkable degree of agreement. No single temperature record exhibits a significant or consistent warming bias relative to the others."

"Prior to the late 1970s, surface temperature measurements were primarily done via land stations located mostly in the Northern Hemisphere and with limited coverage outside the 20 to 90 degrees North latitudes. Since then, a growing number of surface temperature measurement stations worldwide, coupled with improved methods for correcting for biases induced through urban heat island effects and other station siting and operational issues, have allowed for the development of accurate global temperature estimates. Ocean temperature data prior to the 1980s had been taken from ship-based temperature measurements, and is now obtained via satellite measurements."

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by Lost_Mind

Here is another link to the story taken from another thread on this subject. (Probabley should link to it, but don't know how

In this link the researchers explicitly state that the heat from the ridge is not affecting the sea-ice melt rates above.

Some things that I would expect to be the case though if the heat from this were causing the sea-ice melt would be

  1. Melting primarily directly above the ridge line as the heated water would rise directly upwards and thus affect the ice directy above it. Now the ice is actually melting from the edge first, as usual, and we do not see a linear fracture being formed above this ridge.
  2. Less melting this year because the volcanoes aren't as active. This would mean that the heated water is reduced and thus have less of an effect, and yet we see this year as being one of the smallest in terms of sea-ice extent and one of the largest in melt rates.

These two things, together with the researchers conclusions, would lead me to suggest that the volcanoes do not play a significant part in any current ice reduction in the Arctic.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 01:40 PM

Originally posted by poet1b

Do you have any links that show that the Greenland Viking settlements were under glaciers until recently?

unfortunately not, so the following will have to do for now: (.pdf)

The radiocarbon ages of tree fragments and peat discs found
on proglacial forefields indicate 12 phases of glacier recessions
during the Holocene. Locations and type of occurrence of the
dated samples show that trees and mires grew where glaciers
exist at present and, therefore, glaciers were smaller at that
The extended data set of recessions limits periods of
glacier advances in a complementary way and improves on the
chronology of natural climate fluctuations in the Alpine
region. As a result, it is suggested that major glacier fluctuations
occurred on a multicentennial scale and that their pattern
changed from long recessions (/500 yr) interrupted by short
advances (B/200 yr) during the early Holocene to the opposite
pattern with relatively short recessions and prolonged advances
during the late Holocene (after 3.3 cal. kyr BP).

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 02:51 PM
The Fireplace in Medieval Castles

Once upon a time it was warm in Medieval times... then they invented the fireplace...

Why? because a Mini ice age came along and dropped temperatures enough to have a need to heat those drafty castles and hang tapestries on the wall as insulation...

Before this there was a long warm period...

Might be great for England, not so good for Vegas It just now hit 112 F today

[edit on 3-7-2008 by zorgon]

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 03:39 PM
I don't see what's so bad about 112. When I was in Vegas a couple years ago, it was at least 114 the whole week I was there. But it's desert heat, dry-heat, which is much more tolerable than 112 in a place with a lot of humidity.

and my dad told me it was 128 the other day in Iraq, so it could be worse

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 03:43 PM
So how do we know this is the first time in human history this has happened? I mean is it written down somewhere that it hasn't happened before in the last 2 million years or so?

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 04:03 PM

Originally posted by DarkHelmet
I don't see what's so bad about 112. When I was in Vegas a couple years ago, it was at least 114 the whole week I was there. But it's desert heat, dry-heat, which is much more tolerable than 112 in a place with a lot of humidity.

Well it hit 124-126 for about a week here last year... and tell me where were you during the hottest part of the day during your week stay here? Working on a roof? Repairing a car where your tools get hot enough to burn even in the shade? Working in a convention center with no AC where it can hit 140?

Hehehe or were you mostly in the AC control hotels and casinos or in the pool checking out the....

Human skin melts at 164 F and its also 'dry heat' when you stick your head ina n oven

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:11 PM

Originally posted by poet1b
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.

Considering the lengths we go to today to get accurate temperature readings, and we know that equipment use as little as 100 years ago wasn't as reliable, how in the hell can we be sure to the same level of accuracy to make it relevant, that the temperature we think we had 140,000 years ago are right???
Obviously if the measurements are screwed up, the whole thing is meaningless.

If CO2 becomes a poison at concentrations of 10% or higher, and 350 ppm is approx. 0.03% of the entire global atmosphere, then we're good to 300 times that amount, or 95,000 ppm.

I think that puts the whole thing in perspective a little. Evem if we were to burn everything that's burnable now (fossile and trees, primarily), we couldn't even get close to that amount.

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:06 PM
Here is a link to a nice, easy read article about the melting ice caps:

Are The Ice Caps Melting?

It provides a very interesting take on the whole subject.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 11:40 AM
reply to post by zorgon

I was only14 at the time.. so no I wasn't spending time inside the casinos

I did spend most my time outside considering I was too young to do anythning. But the hottest it got there was 119 I believe, with it being consistent around 112 or so that week. But like I said, because it was a dry heat, it didn't bother me one bit.

posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:53 PM

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in