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

Originally posted by Kryties

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]

Thank you Kryties for injecting a non-sheeple comment into this thread. The sooner the sheeple stop playing the NWO game of scare and shock tactics and realise that all the money taken from those that can't afford it on this GW scam, will still not put humpty back together again. As if that's the motive anyway!

Waken up you ignorant sheeple stop being their voice.

Originally posted by QuadroClip
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.

Sorry, it's a floating ice mass at the north pole, nothing to fight over but ocean.

What could be scary is these guys start sending big oil tankers through there and we have another Exxon mess

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I think its rather ignorant, for anyone to believe they truly understand just what effect we are having on 'our' atmosphere.

Thats a fair call, cannot deny that at all.

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.

The flaw in your argument is that the Earth has systems designed to filter out the toxins and what-not and produce new oxygen. Its best exampled by saying that if you fill that balloon up with our own breathe you will have a rather nasty mixture. The atmosphere inside the balloon cannot filter this, but Earth's biosystems can.

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.

Pollution and Smog are not new to our age, they have been known about and worried about for centuries.

From en.wikipedia.org...

London has been known for smog since Roman times. In 1306, concerns over air pollution were sufficient for Edward I to (briefly) ban coal fires in London.[6] In 1661, John Evelyn's Fumifugium suggested burning fragrant wood instead of mineral coal, which he believed would reduce coughing. The Ballad of Gresham College the same year describes how the smoke "does our lungs and spirits choke, Our hanging spoil, and rust our iron."

Severe episodes of smog continued in the 19th century and were nicknamed "pea-soupers".

This development is definitely interesting, but it doesn't prove anything in relation to the theory that human activity is causing this melting to occur any faster than it would due to natural global and solar cycles. As previous posters have shown, it is apparent that the Arctic was much warmer at certain points in pre-industrial history than it is today, and it was certainly warmer in prehistoric times. This further weakens the alleged causational link.

What is intriguing is that in recent years the Antarctic has experienced record sea ice area extents:

An increase in Antarctic precipitation is predicted by most global warming models in a process whereby increasing temperatures cause elevated atmospheric moisture content, which provides the 'seed' for greater precipitation. A temperature increase is also predicted by these models for the Antarctic; CO2 is ubiquitous in the atmosphere and so should its (greenhouse) effects be. However the Antarctic stubbornly refuses to fit global warming models and predictions. Precipitation has not shown any increase, and temperatures have actually declined by about 1 degC over the last 50 years.

Antarctic near-surface temperature trends 1951-2006:
www.nerc-bas.ac.uk...

www.eurekalert.org...
COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
[...]
It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.
[...]
Last year, Bromwich's research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn't increased in the last 50 years. "What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down," he said.

[edit on 2008-9-2 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by Grayarea

Originally posted by QuadroClip
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.

Sorry, it's a floating ice mass at the north pole, nothing to fight over but ocean.

What could be scary is these guys start sending big oil tankers through there and we have another Exxon mess

So far, you are the only person to note correctly that there is no "island", or land of any kind at the north pole. For me, that huge mistake in the article was enough to discount the rest.

reply to post by centurion1211


While true there is no landmass, many of the countries in the region as extending their claims to territory by claiming the undersea ridges are part of their continental shelf which allows them to extend their economic zone, like Russia has started to claim.l

I wonder what they will find when the Ice Caps are fully melted... Maybe evidence of unknown terrestrial life or past civilizations.

reply to post by TheRedneck

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).

Absolutely correct. That has been verified by scientists through boring through ice, and examining the atmosphere and fossils in those ice samples.
Great post, Redneck!

In addition, there is this for the "global warming alarmists" to consider:

www.dailytech.com...

In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.


The journal ultimately rejected the paper as being too controversial.

The paper's lead author, William Livingston, tells DailyTech that, while the refusal may have been justified at the time, recent data fits his theory well. He says he will be "secretly pleased" if his predictions come to pass.

But will the rest of us? In the past 1000 years, three previous such events -- the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minimums, have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called a "mini ice age". For a society dependent on agriculture, cold is more damaging than heat. The growing season shortens, yields drop, and the occurrence of crop-destroying frosts increases.

So, in summary, global warming alarmists, by attempting to "cool" the earth with your suggestions, you may be accelerating us towards a far more dangerous proposition that nature seems to be heading us into- global COOLING.

As a TV commercial from many years ago said:

"It's not nice to fool (with) mother nature."

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

So, in summary, global warming alarmists, by attempting to "cool" the earth with your suggestions, you may be accelerating us towards a far more dangerous proposition that nature seems to be heading us into- global COOLING.

As a TV commercial from many years ago said:

"It's not nice to fool (with) mother nature."

Not only could it throw us into global cooling, but it is even plausible that over-regulation of CO2 could actually create global warming on a large enough scale to actually be a problem. As has been pointed out in previous posts, we are not warming up excessively; historical temperatures have been much warmer, and much cooler.

Considering the fact that, while CO2 levels do tend to mimic global temperatures over recent history, the CO2 levels lag behind the temperature anomalies. This lends itself to the notion that the CO2 levels are in themselves a control for rising temperatures. Yes, CO2 can be considered a 'greenhouse gas', but it is a very poor one, only absorbing and re-emitting as heat 6% of the UV radiation it receives. On the other hand, CO2 has a dramatic impact on the growth rate of flora, which in turn respires water through leaves. This leads to evaporation, and creates the cooling effect familiar to anyone who has ever walked through a shady wooded area.

Add this to the previous list of climactic possibilities that are scoffed at and ignored.

We live on a planet that has a wonderfully delicate and notoriously rugged system of self-corrections in place to handle almost any shift that can occur, within a very wide range. To attempt to adjust these self-balances without a ful and complete understanding of how they work, is akin to trying to adjust a Rolex with a monkey wrench.

The Rolex typically will not survive, for those suddenly inclined to 'fix' theirs.

TheRedneck

Its sooo boring listening to those who deny the reality of global warming - it really is.

Here are a few reality checks for you -

Pointing out one single mitigating factor such as the effect of Wind Turbines (I can not believe someone actually wrote something that ridiculous) is not going to counter balance the entire weight of thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of peer reviewed studies.

Crack pot theories regarding sun spots have been completely ruled out so many times it is not funny.

There is absolutely NO DOUBT amongst thousands of scientists - THOUSANDS - and to instead choose to follow the rantings of obscure discredited crackpots from the fringes of sanity on such a significant issue is utterly fool hardy.

The science is not in question - all that is in question the fantastic ability of people live in complete and utter denial.......

NO ONE - and let me say this one more time clearly NO ONE - is interested in this absolute farcical nonsense. There is no one interested, or listening to this asinine position - except or course those muttering madly in the corner.

Move on - no one considers your position to be even remotely tenable any more - but thanks so much for causing so much debate that the opportunity to actually do something slip through our hands - I blame YOU.

reply to post by audas

Its sooo boring listening to those who deny the reality of global warming - it really is.

I'm sorry, is science that boring to you?

Pointing out one single mitigating factor such as the effect of Wind Turbines (I can not believe someone actually wrote something that ridiculous) is not going to counter balance the entire weight of thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of peer reviewed studies.

Those thousands upon thousands of 'peer-reviewed' studies (which were more like 'UN-sanctioned', but that's another subject) have based the concerns over CO2 levels on a chronological correlation between historic CO2 levels and historic temperature changes. I discovered a similar correlation between widespread use of wind farms and temperature anomalies. Now, considering that the correlations are similar, exactly why is one deemed to be absolutely true and the other ridiculous? Oh, that's right, because people make money off of wind farms and carbon credits, and those same people tell you what to believe. Forgive me, I hadn't made that connection until now.

Crack pot theories regarding sun spots have been completely ruled out so many times it is not funny.

Funny that apparently the situation has gotten so bad some of those scientists you seem to believe so much have decided the sun may be at least partly responsible for heating up the planet. Check out www.abovetopsecret.com... and www.propagandamatrix.com...

There is absolutely NO DOUBT amongst thousands of scientists - THOUSANDS - and to instead choose to follow the rantings of obscure discredited crackpots from the fringes of sanity on such a significant issue is utterly fool hardy.

I am assuming that the definition of 'crackpot' you are using here is 'one who disagrees with me'. I am assuming this because those who dispute the cause of man-made CO2-based global warming have identical, or in some cases, superior, credentials to those who support it.

The science is not in question - all that is in question the fantastic ability of people live in complete and utter denial.......

Oh, really? I am assuming you have not heard of this new and radical concept in scientific circles. It's called the 'Scientific Method', and it allows others to question the works of researchers. Yeah, crazy, isn't it?

NO ONE - and let me say this one more time clearly NO ONE - is interested in this absolute farcical nonsense. There is no one interested, or listening to this asinine position - except or course those muttering madly in the corner.

Hey, nice metaphor. "Muttering madly in the corner". I beg to differ, however, since there are a lot of educated posters on this site alone who are apparently muttering in the corner, according to you.

Move on - no one considers your position to be even remotely tenable any more - but thanks so much for causing so much debate that the opportunity to actually do something slip through our hands - I blame YOU.

Good! I'll take that blame. You do realize that also means I take the credit when the whole ponzi scheme is exposed to public light, right?

This is a conspiracy site. Now, I ask you, what is the more logical/reasonable, knowing what we know about how our leaders have operated in the past? That people are somehow ignoring a major catastrophe while those same leaders try desperately to show us the error of our ways, or that those leaders are leading us down a primrose path to feather their own pockets at the people's expense, and a few of the people have the guts to stand up and show it for what it is?

The Emperor has no clothes. He just wants you to keep saying he does.

TheRedneck

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

You know, I had to stop and reply here. You are JUMPING to conclusions here! My god! The OP did NOT ever state anything about NOT being worried about this. He/she simply made the point that the commercial industry is licking their chops at this. Not that he supported it. To me, I took the OP as him saying this exact thing. Pretty much that it sucks.

Chill out dude (or dudette).

reply to post by audas

NO ONE - and let me say this one more time clearly NO ONE - is interested in this absolute farcical nonsense.

Another Global Warming advocate lie!
31,702 scientists have signed the following:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Your attitude is typical of the liberal agenda. They believe that only THEY hold the truth, and everyone else is by definition, wrong. They believe that only man controls nature, and that higher forces are non-existent.

In truth, the liberal global warming radicals may very well be hastening the day when the earth is in trouble.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Thank you sir for your usual shot of reality. I truly appreciate most of your points in your posts.

Although I am still on the fence with the whole 'global warming' thing I have to agree that when people start making statements like 'crackpots' and 'thousands upon thousands upon thousands' that they are too emotionally involved in the subject. They are NOT allowing for rational thought and it simply comes out exactly that way in their diatribe.

In studying our 'recent' (50's 60's) history I see so many similarities between the 'global warming' messages back then and the ones since. What have we experienced here in the states (at least) weather wise since then? Many states in the past 40 years have recorded more than half of their top 10 coldest winters. Many have recorded multiple record snowfalls.

Many have also recorded record heat. Record drouts.

What does this tell me? Hmmmmmm, that there is so much more to our weather that we have to learn.

Is there damage done to our environment by man? Of course. This is not in question. Have we impacted the health of the planet? Of course we have. Have we set it on a path for a desert planet with average temperatures in the 120 degree plus range?

I doubt it. We are already showing signs of cooling. Heck, I moved to Ohio last year and only caught the tail end of the summer. The ENTIRE time during the last month of summer the temperatures were warmer than they have been ALL YEAR this year. The winter was pretty cold with a lot more snow than usual. Hmmmmm, warming? I don't know. Doesn't quite 'click' with my logical reasoning and use of the scientific method (or observation).

Okay, so we need to start cleaning things up. I see that. We need to focus on alternative energy. That's evolution. We need to start paying 'carbon credits'? That's corruption and conspiracy. Someone trying to get rich off of others and also COMPLETE HYPOCRISY! The guy who coined it needs to take a much closer look at his own carbon footprint before telling others that they need to pay for theirs.

reply to post by audas

Those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw the word "crackpot" around:
www.hudson.org...
Hudson Institute is one of the oldest and most respected think tanks in the world.

Discovery of Constant, Sun Spot Induced, Harmless 1500 Years Global Warming Cycles
Hudson Institute discussion presents significant evidence challenging warming alarmism

By Steve Jalsevac

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The general warming of global temperatures in recent decades appears to mostly be the result of a regular, sunspot induced climate cycle that has been occurring roughly every 1500 years for at least the past one million years. Climate physicist S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, discussed the substantial evidence for their new book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years," at a Hudson Institute book forum in Washington, D.C. last month.

The book is said to make a very powerful case that the current climate trends we are currently seeing are in fact part of a product of a solar-linked cycle that creates harmless naturally warmer conditions approximately every 1500 years.

Dennis Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, an agricultural economist and former senior analyst in the Department of State, began the discussion noting that the Romans grew wine grapes in Britain in the first century and records indicate grapes were being grown there again in the 11th century, both situations indicating that today's temperatures are not unprecedented.

Additionally, scientific analysis of ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic found that there is a clear record of a moderate, abrupt 1500-year climate change cycle running all the way through all the major warmings and all the ice ages. Cores taken from the seabed of six oceans, including the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arabian Sea have also revealed the same unmistakable 1500-year cycle.

The authors relate that one seabed core from near Iceland that goes back a million years revealed that the 1500-year cycle runs through the whole million years.

Avery and Singer, a professor emeritus of environmental research at the University of Virginia and the former first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, have concluded that the alarmist predictions about how much the earth will warm in the near future are based on a radical overestimate of how much carbon dioxide changes the earth's temperatures.

The massive and natural release of carbon dioxide by the oceans; the fact that "three-fourths of our modern warming occurred before 1940, which was before much human-emitted CO2"; demonstrably false claims of a scientific consensus on global warning; and the fact that it isn't even as warm today as "it was during the medieval warming when the Vikings were able to grow crops in Greenland" - bolster the authors' politically incorrect claims on this dominating issue.

Avery and Singer do not deny the greenhouse effect but state that it is small. They state, "What we're suggesting is that both history and the recent pattern of things, particularly the warming before 1940, would indicate that the CO2 impact is a good deal smaller than the climate models which are telling us to be frightened."

Avery concludes, "it looks to me as though 75 to 80 percent of the warming I see can be credited to the natural cycle". Even then, the authors emphasize, the degree of overall warming that can be expected will be relatively harmless and does not warrant the alarmism and extreme economic and political measures being proposed.

Singer is a professor emeritus of environmental research at the University of Virginia and the former first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service.
So I ask you, is Singer a crackpot?


[edit on 2-9-2008 by ProfEmeritus]

reply to post by dariousg

Although I am still on the fence with the whole 'global warming' thing I have to agree that when people start making statements like 'crackpots' and 'thousands upon thousands upon thousands' that they are too emotionally involved in the subject. They are NOT allowing for rational thought and it simply comes out exactly that way in their diatribe.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with sitting 'on the fence' and observing data in order to make a decision. Indeed, there would be something wrong with refusing to examine either side of the debate.

I know of no species on this planet which does not affect the environment in some way. That's what life does. And I have no doubt that we as a species are having a greater impact than, say, the oak trees. The question is whether or not that impact is too great for the self-correction mechanisms built into the planetary ecology to compensate for, and if so, how do we correct it.

I personally come down on the side of the planet not needing any help from us. That position may change in the future as events unfold. My mind is open to solid scientific research. But I completely oppose the present notion that somehow paying a tax for producing a stable innocuous gas that is indigent to the atmosphere (and required for life itself to exist) is somehow going to avert a global catastrophe. This is the ridiculous part of the Global Warming discussion. Yet, it is apparently also the purpose behind the hysteria, as a recent invention of a personal CO2 scrubber by Columbia University is being condemned by Greenpeace (one of the most vocal Global Warming alarmists) because it does not result in the decrease of fossil fuel use.

I think that one story tells volumes about what is really going on.

TheRedneck

The sad thing is that man forgets the "human" or "animal" factor and could not care about his effects on utilizing a climate shift paradigm.

Now that the ice is melting everyone is thinking, "wow, look how much money I can save my rerouting shipping containers". Well, what will these mega ton shipping vessels do to the existing ice flows and ice sheets? Will the travel further exacerbate the demise? What of the animals that live in this area?

I see it as a furtherance of mans inept ability to truely care for his resources, environment and the animals; with the only thing that occupys his mind is money...

igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu...

There's actually a higher ice density in 2008. A small amount has melted on the coasts.

reply to post by TheRedneck

I certainly agree with the cautious approach. Discretion in this case, as is usual, is the better part of valor.

There is another reason, though, that there seems to be more scientists that agree with the global warming theorists. In many cases, those that do disagree with the global warming theories have seen their research funds disappear, and their works ridiculed, not from the scientific approach, but from a "political" approach. Whenever politics gets involved in science, there are problems. Look at how Galileo was forced to recant by the church.

As a scientist, I have a big problem with another factor- THE SAMPLE SIZE.
The technology that global warming proponents claim causes global warming has, at most, been in existence for about a century. The earth is 4-5 billion years old. I would not draw a definitive conclusion based on so small a window. Such a conclusion would be foolish, in either direction.
In the last hundred years, there are many new factors, aside from carbon footprint. To conclude anything from such a small sample, would be foolhearty.

reply to post by pityocamptes

I see it as a furtherance of mans inept ability to truely care for his resources, environment and the animals; with the only thing that occupys his mind is money..

I certainly don't disagree with your sentiment about money. It is interesting that nobody (or very few people) seemed interested in pushing for alternative energy sources until gasoline hit $4 a gallon. Then all of the politicians and MSM started talking about alternative energy. Given that they ignored TWO MAJOR wakeup calls in 1973 and 1979 when long gas lines made it clear how dependent we were on foreign oil, it seems the almighty dollar always gets their attention. The oil companies aren't dumb, though, they raise the prices to the point of pain, keep it there for awhile, and then back it off, just enough to silence critics. It's the Chinese water torture variation- drip, drip, drip.