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.

 

The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as ice melts

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as ice melts


www.dailymail.co.uk

The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history.

Startling satellite pictures taken three days ago show that melting ice has opened up the fabled North-West and North-East Passages - making it possible to sail around the Arctic ice cap.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   
And as I suspected, big business are seeing a positive to this.

The opening of the passages has been eagerly awaited by shipping companies which hope they will be able to cut thousands of miles off their routes.


Shipping companies are ready to exploit the new routes. The Beluga group, based in Bremen, Germany, plans to send the first ship through the North-East passage next year, cutting 4,000 nautical miles off the voyage from Germany to Japan.

If the ice continues to melt at current rates it will soon be possible to sail right across the North Pole.


I guess they will also have to change to name of the National Park

Four weeks ago, tourists had to be evacuated from Baffin Island's Auyuittuq National Park in northern Canada because of flooding from thawed glaciers.


The park's name means 'land that never melts'.




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



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Positive... it depends for who. It depends if Russia-NATO have clashes over this disputed territory. Now that the tensions are already high...

And ``in human history``... GIVE ME A BREAK.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Well let us atleast noe wake up to the grim reality, in one of my post on global warming I was told that it was not true, well I am hoping that they would change their minds now on seeing the post of such a great member like you.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 


Please clarify who this was directed at. I dont think I have ever suggested this would never happen.
Some of the theories behind GW I doubt but not the fact it is happening.

Vitchilo,
I was refering to the commercial shipping companies taking advantage of the new found short cut across the top of the world. Also, i would not be surprised if tourism companies started 'around the north pole' cruises in the near future



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 


Good for you, keep warning and predicting and at some point the remaining few will realise that this indeed man made. I just worry about the damage in the meantime. Look, all the water's gone from there and they've starved. Great opportunity for some solar panels........



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by VIKINGANT
 


Hello Viking! They say for the first time in human history, but I'm wondering about 10,000 years ago and the 10,000 year cycle... what was it before the ice-age? I'm curious if this was inevitable or if human's really made the impact. I'm also wondering what this spot/island looked like sixty-five million years ago when the dino's ruled. In any case, I'm not sure if this is good or bad news for the planet and us on this forever changing Earth, but only time will tell I suppose. Thanks for the update Viking!



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
reply to post by peacejet
 

I was refering to the commercial shipping companies taking advantage of the new found short cut across the top of the world. Also, i would not be surprised if tourism companies started 'around the north pole' cruises in the near future

Oh! then you are not worried about the world we are living in which is in danget but you are into the commercial aspect of the fact, bad



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled
reply to post by peacejet
 


Good for you, keep warning and predicting and at some point the remaining few will realise that this indeed man made. I just worry about the damage in the meantime. Look, all the water's gone from there and they've starved. Great opportunity for some solar panels........



Great for you to believe in global warming, lets hope others follow soon.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
reply to post by peacejet
 

I was refering to the commercial shipping companies taking advantage of the new found short cut across the top of the world. Also, i would not be surprised if tourism companies started 'around the north pole' cruises in the near future

Oh! then you are not worried about the world we are living in which is in danget but you are into the commercial aspect of the fact, bad


Did I at any stage indicate I was not concerned about this? I was merely making comment on the fact that the shipping companies are already lining up to take advantage of the new shipping route. Did I say it was a good thing? No. Did I say it was a bad thing? Again...No. Just that it was happening.

I do not think anybody is questioning the fact that Global change is happening. Why do some people jump straight to attack mode as soon as this subject is brought up?



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
That article is total rubbish. The arctic has melted countless times.
newsbusters.org...

For instance, a name media would love for global warming alarmists not to know is Roald Amundsen, a Norwegian explorer who successfully navigated the Northwest Passage on August 26, 1905 (h/t Walt Bennett, Jr.):

The North West Passage was done. My boyhood dream - at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn - it was weakness in me - but I felt tears in my eyes. 'Vessel in sight' ... Vessel in sight.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this Passage was clear enough of ice for a wooden sailboat, with a crew of seven, to successfully navigate it more than 100 years ago. How many times in the history of the planet do you think a similar - or even more ice-free - condition existed in this area?

Not that the media cares, but this Passage was also conquered several times in the 1940s (emphasis added):
Between 1929 and 1939 St. Roch made three voyages to the Arctic. Between 1940 and 1942 St. Roch navigated the Northwest Passage, arriving in Halifax harbor on October 11, 1942. St. Roch was the second ship to make the passage, and the first to travel the passage from west to east. In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver via the more northerly route of the Northwest Passage, making her run in 86 days. The epic voyages of St. Roch demonstrated Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic during the difficult wartime years, and extended Canadian control over its vast northern territories.

Putting it all together, when you consider that serious monitoring of Arctic ice levels only started in 1972, and that explorers successfully navigated these seas in relatively archaic ships 60 and 100 years ago, how can anybody honestly claim that today's conditions in this region are in any way unprecedented, historic, or grim?

Beyond this, as the planet entered a warming phase in 1975, isn't it not at all surprising that ice levels in this area are lower now than then? Wouldn't an honest media always point out the existence of this trend rather than presenting data exclusively from this period that conveniently ignores everything prior?

Sadly, this is the disingenuousness we see from today's press which continually make hysterical historical claims that intentionally ignore historical facts.

How disgraceful.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


This article discusses the North West passage only which has been open many times, as has the North East passage. The Article I posted is claiming this is the first known time they have both been open AT THE SAME TIME


The pictures, produced by Nasa, mark the first time in at least 125,000 years that the two shortcuts linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans have been ice-free at the same time.

In 2005, the North-East Passage around Russia opened, while the western one, across the top of Canada, remained closed, and last year the position was reversed.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I think the big question now is who owns the Pole, Russia, Greenland, Canada, or the U.S, everyone wants the mineral rights to that chunk of land, I can see trouble brewing on this one.

It never ends.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Great points Prof. I couldn't agree more.

The Arctic has a natural cycle of cie and melt, one that is repeated over a timespan much longer than human lifetimes (especially the lifetimes of the younger humans). But even if we concede that this is an unusual event somehow, the cause is still a mystery. it could be any of the following:

Undersea volcanic activity which has been reported in the Arctic Ocean.
news.nationalgeographic.com...
www.livescience.com...
www.canada.com...

Wind farms (which began in the early 1980s) could be reducing natural prevailing wind currents to areas of the arctic. Coincidentally, the present 'global warming' trend began in the early 1980s.

The amount of land that is being covered by asphalt/concrete cold be having an impact on the temperature levels. This is actually an idea I plan on testing soon in a scaled experiment.

Increased UV radiation from the sun could be having a temperature-related effect, especially in the Arctic/Antarctic regions, where the earth's magnetic poles allow increased radiation to flow between the magnetic flux lines.

Any of these hypothesis can be supported by evidence. So until we know what is causing the problem, and even if there is a problem, it is foolhardy to start claiming that we're all doomed.

At least no one has started crying about the CO2 level in this thread yet.
I'm sure peacejet and redled will pick up on that soon, though.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
reply to post by peacejet
 

I do not think anybody is questioning the fact that Global change is happening. Why do some people jump straight to attack mode as soon as this subject is brought up?


I have found that the proponents of MAN MADE global warming simply cannot accept the possibility that they may be wrong. So when people like us come along and say that YES GLOBAL WARMING IS OCCURRING - NATURALLY, they do not have any counter-argument as the geological evidence speaks for itself. Therefore they try to get people to believe that we are saying that Global Warming is not occurring at all, trying to debunk us by discrediting us.

Not once have I seen any credible evidence by proponents of MAN-MADE Global Warming that our theory - that it is a naturally occurring event that has happened countless times in Earth's history - is wrong.

EDIT FOR THE DUMMIES:

Yes there is Global Warming, No it's NOT man-made. It has occurred countless times in the past eons and there is bugger-all we can do about it.

[edit on 2/9/2008 by Kryties]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   
They say " The first time in human history" but I think it's probably the first time in Human history where humans have been able to document it. During the Medieval Warm Period, Greenland warmed up, warmer than today, who is to say that the Arctic ice cap didn't shrink at that time as well? I have yet to see proof that this is a unique event, just unique since mankind has been exploring that region, which is less than 200 years. It may have very well been the same 700 to 800 years ago, would that be because of humans at that time?



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


There is proof that Antarctica and Greenland used to be greener than my backyard.


Something is wrong with our recent history of Antarctica. Conventional wisdom insists that the continent has been ice-covered for over 15 million years. But now Peter Webb and his coworkers have found pollen and the remains of roots and stems of plants in an area stretching some 1300 kilometers along the Transantarctic Mountains. The Antarctic wood is so recent that it floats and burns with ease.

Webb's group postulates that a shrub-like forest grew in Antarctica as recently as 3 million years ago. The dating, of course, is critical, and is certain to be subjected to careful scientific scrutiny. Nevertheless, these deposits of fresh-looking wood do suggest that trees recently grew only 400 miles from the South Pole. Also of interest is the fact that the sedimentary layers containing the wood have been displaced as much as 3000 meters by faults, indicating recent large-scale geological changes.

(Weisburd, S.; "A Forest Grows in Antarctica," Science News, 129:148, 1986.)


And from www.msnbc.msn.com...


The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.


Jared Diamond says this in his book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed:.....



"Between A.D. 1800 and 1300, ice cores tell us that the climate in Greenland was relatively mild, simiar to Greenland's weather today or even slightly warmer. Those mild centuries are termed the Medieval Warm Period. Thus, the Norse reached Greenland during a period good for growing hay and pasturing animals... Around 1300, though, the climate in the North Atlantic began to get cooler and more variable from year to year, ushering in a cold period termed the Little Ice Age that lasted into the 1800s. By around 1420, the Little Ice Age was in full swing, and the increased summer drift ice between Greenland, Iceland, and Norway ended ship communication between the Greenland Norse and the outside world."


There is more than enough proof that the arctic regions have been much much warmer in Earth's past. Proponents of man-made global warming do not like to go back more than 50 or 60 years in their research because when they do, their theories begin to fall apart.

Earth is simply doing what she does, living her life cycle. The warming/cooling of different regions is a part of this cycle. To say otherwise is to ignore millions of years of solid geological evidence.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I dont think arguing over '' in human history '' matters or not, especially when thinking 10,000 years back.

Because frankly, its happening now.

Its proof of Global warming, pure and simple.

Ice bergs floating up between Aus and NZ,
the Gulf waters temp increasing,
the images of the poles decresing in size,

yes, global warming is occuring.

Is it man made?.. i cant say, there's a good chance its happening purely because of the sun.

this makes no difference though, it is happening.

and all the tonnes of crap we're pumping into our balloon like atmosphere cannot be helping the situation.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I am not worried about the arctic If you know history the Vikings used to grow grapes in Greenland it was much warmer than it is now.

I am concerned with Antarctic ice and they don't believe its melting because of global warming. The scary part is it hold 70 percent of the worlds ice and with NASA discovery may raise see levels

see article
www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/antarctic_lakes.html



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I think its rather ignorant, for anyone to believe they truly understand just what effect we are having on 'our' atmosphere.
Scientists are proven wrong on a daily level, and personally?.. I cannot see how pumping thousands of metric TONNES worth of chemicals into out skies isn’t going to have an effect.

Look at it like a balloon, if you had a inflated balloon, and placed a cigarette in it, that balloon eventually will fill up with chemicals. Our atmosphere is the same, all be it massively larger, its still a trapped environment.

And the reason people don’t go back 60yrs in any arguments, is because 60yrs ago we had only been pumping tiny amounts of crap into the atmosphere, being we hadn’t fully revolutionised nations with industrial abilities, nuclear fallout, car emissions etc etc etc.

We are only 100yrs passed the industrial age, and this is the first time in that 100yrs I believe for something this significant to occur so quickly.

So while I agree somewhat that we aren’t totally to blame, and the sun is a big cause, what we are doing surely has an impact that only accelerates the issue.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join