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.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by VIKINGANT
So all this ice melting ... how comes sea levels have not risen?
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by malcr
I hope your children and grandchildren will be proud of you
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]
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.
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!
Originally posted by VIKINGANT
The North Pole becomes an 'island' for the first time in history as ice melts
Methane is about 25 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, hence my attempt at humour.
Sigh.. mayhap I should write a history book and make up what I want it to be so i can make bold statements too...