50/50 Chance: Ice Free North Pole...This Year!, page 1

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 12:51 AM

link

Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole

It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.

...

Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally ice free North 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 huge swathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.

This one-year ice is highly vulnerable to melting during the summer months and satellite data coming in over recent weeks shows that the rate of melting is faster than last year, when there was an all-time record loss of summer sea ice at the Arctic.

More...

Whether it happens this year or next, does it really matter?

Let's hope the future holds some promise for improvement.

Brave new world.

EDIT:

From an additional source:

But the North Pole's current plight stems from a much more startling reduction in sea ice that took place last summer. That extensive melt shattered all previous records and destroyed a significant portion of the Arctic's multi-year ice.

"We lost 65 percent of the ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere all in one year," Barber said. "So it was a whopping decrease. We didn't even think it was possible for the system to lose so much ice all at once."

Link.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by loam]

Long Lance

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:16 AM

link

who would have thought

www.abovetopsecret.com...

i don't know if a melted floating icecap will do much harm to us, when there are local phenomena which easily explain the process.

They returned with images and data showing that red-hot magma has been rising from deep inside the earth and blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes, four kilometres below the ice. "Jets or fountains of material were probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water," says geophysicist Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who led the expedition.

eaglewingz

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:53 AM

link

reply to post by loam

Maybe not such a new world. Permanent ice at the poles is actually the exception to the majority of Earth's existence.

Sure, the first time in human history. But more or less the rule for the rest of history.

Three-quarters of all the fresh water on Earth is locked up in ice even now, and we have ice caps at both poles - a situation that may be unique in Earth's history... For most of its history until fairly recent times the general pattern for Earth was to be hot with no permanent ice anywhere.

Bryson, Bill A Short History of Nearly Everything p.427, New York ; Broadway Books 2003

loam

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link

Originally posted by eaglewingz
Sure, the first time in human history. But more or less the rule for the rest of history.

Forgive me for finding that statement totally meaningless.

For the vast majority of its existence, our planet's environment has been inhospitable to human life. So is that supposed to make me feel better about what is happening now?

[edit on 27-6-2008 by loam]

loam

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link

Originally posted by Long Lance
i don't know if a melted floating icecap will do much harm to us, when there are local phenomena which easily explain the process.

Go back and re-read the article you cite.

They have little to NOTHING to do with the melting icecap-- other than a throw away statement about potential CO2 contribution-- so try that again.

The scientists say the heat released by the explosions is not contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice

[edit on 27-6-2008 by loam]

monkey_descendant

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link

we are a bit #ed aren't we.

It's going to get HOT without the ice caps. The oceans are going to just suck in the heat. If we don't have a slight ice age in northern europe we might boil to death instead since methane is going to start being released from permafrost and the oceans very quickly.

Nice knowing you all.

mrsdudara

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link

I thought it was already gone. I google earthed it the other day, and it was surprising. No ice. My little boy was so sad, he wanted to know what happend to santa now that the north pole was all water.

I dont think the icecaps have always been there. That is not to say we are not in for a major climate change, because we are. That is more obvious every day. We just dont know what to expect, and that is unsetteling.

For the first time in our known history, WE are going to have to adapt. Rather than the other way around.

Long Lance

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Long Lance
i don't know if a melted floating icecap will do much harm to us, when there are local phenomena which easily explain the process.

Go back and re-read the article you cite.

heat does not melt ice, does not rise to the top either, lol.

chances are, if they hadn't included thie disclaimer, the article would not have been published.

Originally posted by monkey_descendant
we are a bit #ed aren't we.

It's going to get HOT without the ice caps. The oceans are going to just suck in the heat. If we don't have a slight ice age in northern europe we might boil to death instead since methane is going to start being released from permafrost and the oceans very quickly.

Nice knowing you all.

what makes you think that just because the magic 0° threshold was passed, everything is going to get 'HOT'? as Eaglewingz said, most of the time, there were no icecaps at all and life is still here. the objection that humans weren't around at that time is largely irrelevant, lifeforms existed in abundance, we are not that different, are we?

btw. please, don't get albedo into this, because the sun is rather low anyway near the pole.

reply to post by mrsdudara

i doubt google Earth is mapping oceanic areas, but then i could be wrong about the poles, because i've stopped looking at ocean areas after i found that pacific islands are surrounded by a blue void on google earth.

[edit on 2008.6.27 by Long Lance]

loam

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link

Originally posted by Long Lance
heat does not melt ice

Oh, it does.

Just not that heat and that ice under those conditions.

Originally posted by Long Lance
does not rise to the top either, lol.

By this logic, then, my ass should be on fire every time I walk out the door, given the temperatures found at the earth's core.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by loam]

Long Lance

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link

liquid == solid, convection == conduction, war == peace, insanity == honesty . . .

what gives, anyone can see that they were deliberately keeping this tidbit off the news because it hurts public perception, but since oil is on its way to 200$/bbl the need for 'voluntary' restraint is on the decline, anyway.

oh and btw, there's just one type of heat, the one that rises in gases and liquids and just might melt ice. on a good day.

loam

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link

reply to post by Long Lance

Sayin' a thing does not by itself make it true.

I wonder why actual sea surface temperature doesn't directly correlate to many known undersea volcanic locations?

Pesky thing that...Reality in contradiction of convenient, dismissive beliefs.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by loam]

Indy

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link

I read the story as it appeared on CNN.com and it was honestly pure trash. It just shows they will print anything related to global warming whether it be credible or not. Credible or not credible... that story was pure garbage. I've seen much better from GW activists than that.

Unfortunately this is what happens when you replace science with politics.

loam

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link

reply to post by Indy

I don't know what article you are referring to, but what is political about potentially seeing an ice-free polar cap in our lifetime?

Honestly, does the mere act of identifying actual instances of significant climate change always assume a political agenda or an underlying belief in anthropogenic causation?

[edit on 27-6-2008 by loam]

eaglewingz

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link

Originally posted by loam
So is that supposed to make me feel better about what is happening now?

Nope. I'm just pointing out that climate change is a part of life on Earth.

As is extinction. It is estimated that 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. So it's not too great a stretch to imagine that extinction will eventually be possible for animals such as polar bears and Mankind.

Climate change undoubtedly was a cause of many of these extinctions. In fact, it is hypothesized that the difficulties of facing the current ice age helped Man develop to where we are now. Instead of going extinct, Mankind adapted and increased in intelligence to be able to forge a more habitable environment.

Now at the end of the ice age Man may have to adapt again.

Or perish.

[edit on 6/27/2008 by eaglewingz]

Indy

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link

reply to post by loam

This is the garbage story I am talking about.

www.cnn.com...

The story references bets and speculation by "scientists". It also includes errors such as...

The ice retreated to a record level in September when the Northwest Passage, the sea route through the Arctic Ocean, opened briefly for the first time in recorded history.

Was proven recently to be incorrect. The area has been opened before in recorded history. That fact just doesn't make these people happy so they ignore it.

Serreze said those who suggest that the Arctic meltdown is just part of a historic cycle are wrong.

and

"It's not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well," he said. "We've known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it's the Arctic where we'd see the first signs of global warming.

Vostok cores have proven without a doubt that huge temperature swings are absolutely normal and we've been warmer than we are today. Research has also proven that the region has been ice free before.

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions could "cool things down a bit," he said.

And there is your agenda.

And I'd love to know who funded their research.

Long Lance

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link

reply to post by loam

if you want to tell me that an active volcano or even an array of volcanoes won't change the temperature of surrounding water and that said heated water won't have a tendency to rise, then yes, as you wrote,

Sayin' a thing does not by itself make it true.

as far as i can tell, this alarmist nonsense will make way for conspicious silence when the ice will still be there. there are many chunks of ice on this world and when one breaks off we'll have another slew of 'omgz we're doomed, pay more, do less' PR thrown at us.

PS: if i remember next year i will bump this thread just or kicks.

Erasurehead

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link

Another dire prediction proved false. Al Gore his gang are a fraud.

Predictions of “ice free” summer for first time in history completely debunked. Arctic Ice Grows 30 Per Cent In a Year

www.prisonplanet.com...

Anonymous ATS

posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link

reply to post by Erasurehead

Utter BS ... here are the FACTS

Sudden meltdown occurring

Cyberbian

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link

How could additional heat "Not Contribute" to melting.

Where can I get some? I have an idea for a new drink, Warm liquid with icecubes that do not melt floating in it! Kind of like a hot fudge sunday. But with booze.

[edit on 20-8-2008 by Cyberbian]

Long Lance

posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link

reply to post by Erasurehead

ho ho ho, this year's crow now served with ice-cold soda, including ice cubes and a little colorful banner reading

I told ya so

*shudders*