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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by VIKINGANT
 


So all this ice melting ... how comes sea levels have not risen?


Because the ice that is melting is already floating on (displacing) the sea water under it. The ice that is on land melting is what would raise sea levels - if it ever happens due to natural cycles, of course.




posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
The answer is that the waters will never rise even if all the ice on earth melts.
ICE is hardened and EXPANDED water. Melt it and it only takes up roughly the same volume it did but slightly less, canceling the potential of the protruding bodies of ice even.

There's some very simple ways that the earth deals with excess flooding. If you look to the waterless canals / canyons etc. They'll be working systems again. WOOHOO!!!

For those that believe that combustion engines have even a microscopic role in this, I pity how much they've believed other shallow, grant-chasing scientists.

reply to post by Rockpuck
 



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atlantican
The answer is that the waters will never rise even if all the ice on earth melts.
ICE is hardened and EXPANDED water. Melt it and it only takes up roughly the same volume it did but slightly less, canceling the potential of the protruding bodies of ice even.

There's some very simple ways that the earth deals with excess flooding. If you look to the waterless canals / canyons etc. They'll be working systems again. WOOHOO!!!

For those that believe that combustion engines have even a microscopic role in this, I pity how much they've believed other shallow, grant-chasing scientists.

reply to post by Rockpuck
 




Only the north pole fully melting would have no effect on the ocean's rising. This is not the case with Antartica, which houses I believe around 78% of the worlds fresh water in the Antartic ice sheet, nor places like Greenland, where a great deal of ice sits atop the land.

Any sheets breaking off of Antartica could indeed help raise the level of the Ocean. Antartica is a continant mate, not a floating ice cube.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
well, i suspect that now i now why Google earth doesn't have all the image, they say its a satellite issue but...check this




posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by VIKINGANT
 


So all this ice melting ... how comes sea levels have not risen?


Because the ice that is melting is already floating on (displacing) the sea water under it. The ice that is on land melting is what would raise sea levels - if it ever happens due to natural cycles, of course.


An outstanding opportunity for the areas of land that have been without water since the global warming started 10,000 years ago. Finally, replenishment.

There's a LOT of gouges in the landscape designed by water, for the flow of water that have been raped of their water & purpose by the greedy CLIMATIC TRENDS over the years. I've explored thousands of miles of land that has been gouged out by glacial movement throughout the continent. I know there was massive ice moving over our land long before the first oil fired. I also found tropical remnants far below where ICE once traveled and even evidence of massive 30 foot tall lizards!

Now I must rant as this topic is dear to me.

I'll tell you all another scary fact: Fires sometimes stop burning, plants stop growing, people stop reproducing, jobs are lost, gained, population explosions, high yield crop growing seasons & fires starting in abundance and the clock both moves towards and then away from midnight!

We have to stop looking at our tiny point in time and thinking the end is here and WE are causing the massive wheels of earth's inner workings to do anything but what they have been SET to do in order to support our not overly intelligent life and eventually go forth and conquer other worlds. Our society has become boring and complacent and WOW how we have enormous egos in the bigger picture. fight the oil energy industry ONLY and head on. We shouldn't be using it regardless because it makes the dishonorable scumbags of the earth rich. I rather know that I don't pay for one solitary noodle going into the mouth of an oil exec anywhere, anytime. I want to see starvation / unicef commercials on TV late at night trying to save the faulty humans that used to run the oil companies. I want a reason to laugh! Just imagine all the africans we see exploited on TV for donations to keep top heavy make work projects alive, but instead of the africans we see skinny oil execs. Now that is a time I can turn the channel while holding my hernia in from laughing tenderly.

Cool the air around a wasp nest and watch how slow they become. Heat it up nicely and watch those buggers produce! Us humans are quite the same and it is evident how slow we become when summer nears its end.
We HAVE to kill the oil industry. Nothing else. No in fighting, no new taxes and no monetization of energy. Imagine how productive this world will be when we are all both warm & able to travel freely.

THE ENEMY IS OIL, the workers, the markets, the gas stations, the execs and the derivatives. Time for an OPEN SOURCE ENERGY PROJECT.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by VIKINGANT


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)


good thread mate

i worked for a shipping company some years back and it really dosent suprise that they would be doing this b/c their rip off mechants and would do anything for a dollar.

global warming is undespuitable and been around since the start of time. its our recent generations though who are making $$ and fame out of it (aka Al Gore) hense conquering heated debates as seen here.

there's so many large co's making money from natural disasters, disease and poverty...its the world we live



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit

Originally posted by Atlantican
The answer is that the waters will never rise even if all the ice on earth melts.
ICE is hardened and EXPANDED water. Melt it and it only takes up roughly the same volume it did but slightly less, canceling the potential of the protruding bodies of ice even.

There's some very simple ways that the earth deals with excess flooding. If you look to the waterless canals / canyons etc. They'll be working systems again. WOOHOO!!!

For those that believe that combustion engines have even a microscopic role in this, I pity how much they've believed other shallow, grant-chasing scientists.

reply to post by Rockpuck
 




Only the north pole fully melting would have no effect on the ocean's rising. This is not the case with Antartica, which houses I believe around 78% of the worlds fresh water in the Antartic ice sheet, nor places like Greenland, where a great deal of ice sits atop the land.

Any sheets breaking off of Antartica could indeed help raise the level of the Ocean. Antartica is a continant mate, not a floating ice cube.


I understand that but there is severe drought in other places. Deserts could be irrigated and subsequent food production could follow.

Considering that h2o for fuel is not far away, increased reserves will be welcome!

We can't stop the tide and that's just what this is that is coming, high tide.

Sell the beachfront properties. Big deal!



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
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.


It's more like "recorded history" I'm sure even in Human History this has occured.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   
I think the point needs to be made though that NON-SALTED ICE as opposed to SALTED ICE displaces less. Meaning that the frozen ice sheets containing salt will displace more as they melt, therefore sea levels will rise.

The other point is that much of the melting ice is actually on solid land. Once it melts and runs into the sea it is only adding to the levels, not detracting.

Having said all of this, I still hold firmly to my belief that this is simply Earth's cycle. I have provided much evidence of this in my previous posts (please read then if you haven't) and to those that say I am stupid for disagreeing with the scientists in the field, I am not. I am agreeing with the SCIENTISTS who DO NOT BELIEVE in man-made Global Warming.

There are just as many scientists against it as there are for it, the media glosses over this fact though.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
I think the point needs to be made though that NON-SALTED ICE as opposed to SALTED ICE displaces less. Meaning that the frozen ice sheets containing salt will displace more as they melt, therefore sea levels will rise.

The other point is that much of the melting ice is actually on solid land. Once it melts and runs into the sea it is only adding to the levels, not detracting.

Having said all of this, I still hold firmly to my belief that this is simply Earth's cycle. I have provided much evidence of this in my previous posts (please read then if you haven't) and to those that say I am stupid for disagreeing with the scientists in the field, I am not. I am agreeing with the SCIENTISTS who DO NOT BELIEVE in man-made Global Warming.

There are just as many scientists against it as there are for it, the media glosses over this fact though.

Nice try but the fact is that the press provides more "air space" to the deniers than the believers as a proportion. This gives the public the perception (and those here on ATS) that there are far more skeptics than there are.

The press reports two things:
1. Shock horror global warming will drown 90% of the population by 2009. Hurricanes will destroy all our homes....blah blah blah. The usual tabloid hysteria for journalists who failed as novelists.
2. Lies lies lies. Scientists state that GW is not mand made. Scientists all over the world have been silenced by a government conspiracy. Blah blah blah. Some thing: failed novelists turned journalists.
Both of these make for a good read for the brain dead tabloid reader.

There are far far more armchair skeptics than professional skeptics. Especially US based......and we all know why but some of you hate to admit it!

There is no need to carry on with either argument over GW anymore becasue the skeptics have won. You don't need to do nothing to win you simply have to create enough doubt to delay action by governments to win. This is exactly the state we are in. It's too late. Congratulations you have condemned thus world to decades of seriously bad environmental adjustment. I hope your children and grandchildren will be proud of you since they have to live with your mistakes NOT YOU!



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
I hope your children and grandchildren will be proud of you



I know for absolute certain they will be


By my opposition to this farce I am adding my contribution to keeping the people of this world from being monetarily and emotionally sucked dry. There will come a day when you also realise that this is all a lie and that there is nothing we can do about the 'NATURAL Global Warming'. On that day I shall greet you with a handshake and then we can sit down and have a friendly discussion about how the world was conned.

I have done my own extensive research into this topic and drew my own conclusions thankyou. When I first started looking into this I was a sheeple, just like you are. I quickly changed my mind when I looked past the 5th grade science the proponents of man-made GW are using.

Wake Up mate. I'm not saying all this to 'spite' the sheeple, I'm saying this in the hope that even just one of you reads it and arises from your nightmare-filled slumber.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Here is a thought.

Since the 70's a LOT of ice has gone.
so, where then is the rising water levels ?


hmm



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
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]


Anyone who quotes FAR RIGHT WING NEO_CONSERVATIVE think tanks as a foundation for their arguments is already in discredited.

But here you go...
environment.newscientist.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.

Just when you thought they couldn't find anything else to tax you for, they tax you for ...air. Next we'll have Fart-O-Meters strapped to our arses and we'll be taxed on how much methane we produce.

Save the Panet. Stop farting. Say NO to Cabbage!

...and Beans!



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.

Just when you thought they couldn't find anything else to tax you for, they tax you for ...air. Next we'll have Fart-O-Meters strapped to our arses and we'll be taxed on how much methane we produce.

Save the Panet. Stop farting. Say NO to Cabbage!

...and Beans!


You pay tax to get water, to crap in the water and to take it away again - you pay tax for shelter, for food, and all else - one of the best forms of tax is on externalities which are polluting - pretty basic stuff - then again - pretty basic level of intellect on this particular thread -



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 



He was pointing out the addition of YET ANOTHER tax. If anything he was making a complaint inclusive of all the taxes you describe.

What was that you were saying about intelligence?



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 

Uh...yes, I understand the principle of funding waste removal via taxation, but hey thanks for making it just that little bit clearer for those of us who possess such "basic intellect". However all of the examples you cite are either the removal of proven hazardous wastes, or the provision/exhange of goods and services. Carbon dioxide, despite its proven radiation absorption properties, is not a proven hazardous waste in terms of causing catastrophic global warming, which makes taxing domestic carbon emission akin to taxing breathing. Methane is about 25 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, hence my attempt at humour.







[edit on 2008-9-3 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by VIKINGANT

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




That's a pretty bold statement. Which of these individuals was there, in the past, to determine that this is the first time the north has melted?

Sigh.. mayhap I should write a history book and make up what I want it to be so i can make bold statements too...

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Willbert]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by wecomeinpeace

Methane is about 25 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, hence my attempt at humour.

Actually, I should point out something here in addition to your correct statement:

The term 'greenhouse gas' has, I think, taken on a connotation that is technically incorrect. In a typical greenhouse, heat is trapped beneath a clear roof, which allows light energy to pass through, but not heat energy. The roof acts like a one-way energy blanket.

Greenhouse gases do not act this way, despite the name. CO2 has the property of absorbing one small range of UV radiation (the spectrum of 'light' too short-wave to see) and changing it directly into heat. It does this to 6% of this particular wavelength UV light it is exposed to.

So yes, technically CO2 meets the commonly-used criteria of a 'greenhouse gas' in that it creates heat from light, but it is not a blanket of heat-reflecting material. It's more like slightly opaque to a small range of UV light, just like a typical window pane will absorb a small fraction of the visible light coming through it. There are just no walls around this 'CO2 window pane' to hold the heat in after it is created.

Oh... sorry for interjecting so many facts. Carry on, everyone.


TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Willbert
 





Sigh.. mayhap I should write a history book and make up what I want it to be so i can make bold statements too...


Sorry, you're too late. Al Gore beat you to the punch.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join