Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979, page 5

privacy

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 24 times

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 09:47 AM by ParaShredder

leisuredrummer,

Sorry, I didn't see that you had already posted something similar.

Ice melting from atop land masses is a mute point as there has been no recent rise in temperature and the global temps are beginning to reverse. That is why the global warming alarmist have changed the name to "climate change".
The low sunspot activity is now being used to forecast a cooling trend. It's all natural cycles that feeble little mankind has no control over. We will have to adapt or die.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 09:52 AM by peacejet

reply to post by ParaShredder

How many times should we explain to you all.

Take a look at my thread, read thorough patiently, you will understand.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 10:13 AM by Anonymous ATS

reply to post by ukuli

are you willing to continue your belief if it comes at enourmous cost - the destruction on our way of life and our prosperity. are you willing to sacrifice all this in the name of a HOAX. are you willing to hand our children a third world country.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 10:14 AM by Electro38

Ecologists will tell you the earth has been constantly changing. We've had more than one "ice age". There was a mini "ice age" just about 150 years ago.

In any ecological system there is an impact on the environment, when populations become saturated.

One of the best ways to control our impact on the earth is via population control. There are way too many humans on the earth, but you'll never hear a politician say that. I don't really know why it's such a taboo topic, but it seems like one option that we can really control.

(I mean just rational birth control, like they do in China. Limit the number of kids a couple can have). What an impact that would have on the earth.

Proactive responsibility for the future of the earth = making fewer people.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Electro38]

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 10:18 AM by ParaShredder

reply to post by peacejet

Nothing but bad science, fraudulent fortune telling and pure propaganda.

Hopefully this will help usher in a new era in a correct use of true science.
The pier review system needs to be abolished as other areas of science are in a similar crisis.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 10:19 AM by MrAnonUK

As with everything people will inevitably look to make a quick buck if possible, any moron can theorise this as an eventuality. It is utterly pointless discussing or as some are, getting wound up over such things as we live in and feed a capitalist world.

Global Warming is merely a few words being commonly mentioned, inherently part of the equation when discussing mankind's possible ill effects upon the planet we occupy. Why people choose to take a negative stance on others mentioning or discussing the dangers of increased Carbon in our planets solar system is beyond me, particularly if your one complaint is that others are being opportunistic and looking to gain financial advantage through such possibles.

It is clear when you look towards the skies in so many major cities that we are clearly having a negative effect on our own planet, the generalisation of "Global Warming" is merely just that, a generalisation - so many facts tell us beyond question our ways ARE having a negative impact.

I find myself more concerned by the fact people are willing to only focus on their annoyance of the continued and repeated mention of the phrase Gloabl Warming, personal nuances too often in many cases overshadow the greater picture.

The fact is that on this planet of many beauties, a planet of wonders beyond our current comprehension and an evolutionary system that science is only a small part into understanding, some of mankind, the planets most intelligent beings are seemingly willing to ignore the many ills we have brought upon 'her'.

The one question I have in my mind is not whether Global Warming is so grave, but why are so many posters seemingly willing to rest easy and point selectively at small phrases whilst many of our mother planets species, beauties and wonders are (fact) fading away before our very eyes?

I'm not sure I could change anything on a grand scale, but I know I won't sit here in comfort behind my keyboard whilst virtually condoning our mistreatment of this amazing planet. I'm perhaps naive in even posting this, but I'm simply shocked at the clear lack of consideration so many have, I'm not greatly intelligent, nor do I proclaim to know much about anything.. but, I do know we as a people are simply failing to take note of so many of our disregards when our technologies point too, and infact our greatest minds do now at this very moment have an understanding of some causes and effects of the situation we are causing and putting our children in.

I don't believe or follow any biblical texts, but the moral behind the story of Noah's arch is just ignored or not understood by so many.

I simply cannot finish this post in a fitting way, I can't portray how I feel so ashamed of so many so I'll just bring this to an end. It is about time we as the enforced parents of this system grow up, preferably sooner rather than later.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 10:26 AM by mystiq

Very good thread. Great information and certain to get a lot of input from others on both sides. I think pollution and reducing carbon is beneficial, but not in this campaign and grab for money. Aside from this, with all the buried technologies, buried by the oil families and their influence over manufacturers and patents, its kind of a moot issue. Instead of being a problem that needs a solution, its a problem that has had solutions for countless decades, and the official burying of this, for profit and control, and then whitewashing themselves and blaming the ills of the world on the masses, is criminal. This isn't a problem, this is a corporate elite crime.

Nonetheless, I'm not sure how much we've contributed to the global warming, since the solar system is warming up. Not buying the trend pushed by the cabal is not the same thing as not wishing for clean technology. I don't believe Gore's agenda, but I still think we need to be less wasteful and wonderfully inventive and free ourselves and the earth from waste, abuse, depletion, slavery and control by renegades.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by mystiq]

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 10:29 AM by peacejet

reply to post by ParaShredder

Is there a thing such as bad science?

I didnt know that science was bad.

Ok, if you are saying that it is mere fortune telling, visit the 'Scientific American' link given in the thread(you are telling sciam as bad science group) and you will see all the things mentioned are happening now, and disprove it if you can. I challenge you.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 10:59 AM by ParaShredder

reply to post by mystiq

Very well stated!!!!!!!

The earth is our home and we need to take care of it. Mankind needs to learn to become a better steward of this little blue stone. However, There are enough real problems that we can be working on that would put us on the right track without being sidetracked by this global warming lie. Carbon is not our enemy. Life cannot exist without it. We could better use our time to develope cleaner energy sources that would free us from foreign oil and prevent toxic waste dumping. The latest advances in nuclear fusion research may be that magical answer.

video.google.com...

Sadly, Dr. Brussard has died, but his team has continued on with increasing suprising results.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 11:05 AM by Anonymous ATS

Please look at the graphs on WikiPedia that show the Ocean level changes over the last million years and it will ahow a clear unabiguous signal on man's influence on the ocean levels.... en.wikipedia.org...

A penny wise and a dollar short. If one could reconcile truth as a tool for behavior modification then perhaps, we could construct a conditional response to millions of people to behave in a desired way to promote an agenda that is morally ‘good’ for the earth.

If by an ethical standard we could say that our present human behavior is not conducive to long term benefits based on consumption and waste I would heartily agree.

Idealized ratios of : Energy in and Crap out, are always in need of optimized systems. Some companies , people and groups in general are always seeking this as a goal, either as a quotient of energy, product, yields, money or happiness.

Human behavior unfortunately is a poor scale for balanced objectivity and metrics, and the larger the population, the larger the span for diametric opposition to logic and the shorter the fuse to become satisfied with anything.

Hence, the resolve to want the truth becomes a need for an answer, which is not the same.

I will firmly agree to argue in defense of many of the environmentalists and ecological conservationists, as they are willing to be ‘conservative’ in usage and application of our non-renewable resources. This makes great sense in all manner of behavior.

My issues and of distain are those which apply ‘scientific’ facades to promote a concept so that governments or ‘groups’ of persons with ideological goals may manipulate another group.

This is of course, the same as any religious group applying an ideological pressure on another group as to motivate their behavior in a certain moral direction.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 11:14 AM by ParaShredder

reply to post by peacejet

Sure there is bad science. It's called Pseudoscience. And most branches of science are infected by it at one level or another. Scientific American is far from being an infallible scientific resource. If you did not know that, I can only feel sorry for you.

Today many branches of science are in a state of crisis.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 11:20 AM by ZindoDoone

reply to post by peacejet

Scientific American used to be a credible source. About 15 years ago they became part of a conglomerate instead of a self published and vetted source of information. Today, they are just shills for what ever feel good, junk science comes along. No one seems to review the data other than to make it PC.

Zindo

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:06 PM by Unnoan

Originally posted by ParaShredder
reply to post by peacejet

Sure there is bad science. It's called Pseudoscience. And most branches of science are infected by it at one level or another. Scientific American is far from being an infallible scientific resource. If you did not know that, I can only feel sorry for you.

Today many branches of science are in a state of crisis.

Pretty clear that we are mostly governed by marketing ploys on varying levels. Just so happens that this "global warming" thing was on a huge scale which seems to have shifted gears into a more arbitrary "climate change" motif. The main goal is to sell your product and put the other guy out of business. cut and dry if you ask me. Science is just a pawn in the game, used as THE verifying apparatus for anything.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:11 PM by Strange Powers

this is one of the many comments from that article:

The problem with Asher's method here is that he lumps all sea ice together, then makes insinuations about Arctic sea ice levels from that data. Of course, there's plenty of data on Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice separately. That Arctic sea ice data still shows:

a. a long term downward trend in sea ice extent.
b. a current sea ice extent below the 1979-2000 average.
c. a current sea ice extent below the 2007 level.
d. a November sea ice extent 600,000 km^2 below the 1979 level. (The December sea ice levels aren't out yet. Next week, I think.)

www.nsidc.org...

Additionally, yes, I'd say this data is 'cherry picked'. Considering that, while the current global sea ice extent is roughly equal to 1979 levels, it's pretty clear that 1979 was a 'low' year. After all, this years end of year anomaly is clearly worse than 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2007. It's roughly even with 1979, 1983, 1985, 1992, 1998, and 2004. It's better than 1996, 1999, 2001, 2005, and 2006. So in 30 years, this year is better than 5 years (all pretty recent), even with 6 years (pretty randomly scattered through the 30 years), and worse than the other 18 years.

Again, this is global sea ice. If we look at Arctic only, the picture is much worse. But the stabilizing influence of the Antarctic sea ice mass (which is 60% or so of total sea ice, and has been increasing in size by about .04%/year) makes this instantaneous picture of sea ice extent worse than only 60% of the previous 29 years.

Arctic sea ice has been growing at a below average rate, which means that the reduction in anomaly is due to a slower-than-normal melt in the Antarctic. The story should have been, "Unusually Slow Melting Season in Antarctic So Far".

after copy and paste i read others that were even more informative. i suggest anyone who buys this read some of the many comments explaining how this data was "cherry picked".

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:12 PM by MrAnonUK

reply to post by Unnoan

So you (or any others who are continuously mentioning the blatant effects of capitalism) believe the WHOLE subject of human created negative effects on earth only exists purely due to people attempting to make money?

Edit: Also, people often generalise when subjects can potentially be so varied so the phrase Global Warming is just a label.

The continued off topic discussions/rants of financial motives should surely be put into another thread, a thread where the title suggests the topic is concerning a small portion are taking advantage of a bad situation. To label the hole issue as just money making lies is just ridiculous.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by MrAnonUK]

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:27 PM by lunarminer

reply to post by Electro38

There is no need for worldwide birth control.

The Western nations all have an average family size less than 4.25, which is the replacement level needed to simply maintain a population.

The Eastern nations are either using forced birth control in the case of China, or voluntary birth control in the case of India, Pakistan, etc.

In any case, the earth's populaton has reached its peak and will start to decline over the next century or so.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:35 PM by lunarminer

reply to post by leisuredrummer

You sir are exactly right!

I remember that little experiment from my 3rd grade science class. I repeated the experiment about 10 years ago, when a Delaware sized chunk of the Larsen Iceshelf broke off from Antarctica and started floating north.

The news media were going crazy and said that when the ice melted that the oceans would rise by 6 inches. Oops!

Didn't happen. About a week later I did see a pundit repeat the icewater experiment. Then he explained Archemedi's principle.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:43 PM by Unnoan

Originally posted by MrAnonUK
reply to post by Unnoan

So you (or any others who are continuously mentioning the blatant effects of capitalism) believe the WHOLE subject of human created negative effects on earth only exists purely due to people attempting to make money?

Edit: Also, people often generalise when subjects can potentially be so varied so the phrase Global Warming is just a label.

The continued off topic discussions/rants of financial motives should surely be put into another thread, a thread where the title suggests the topic is concerning a small portion are taking advantage of a bad situation. To label the hole issue as just money making lies is just ridiculous.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by MrAnonUK]

perhaps you are correct. perhaps i should have said power, and in line with power, control of money flow.

and i agree, i'll couch my discussion for another thread since it seems to be trailing off the original topic.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:47 PM by lunarminer

reply to post by Essan

Excellent points sir.

I have noticed that nobody talks about "Global Warming" in the winter time. We always hear about how the sea ice is disappering in the summer time. Well, sure it's going to melt a bit in the summer.

Nobody seems to know, or remember that a few years ago, a climate scientist by the name of Eric Larson, was going to go on a mission to the North Pole to survey the amount of sea ice. He had to cancel his trip due to the over-abundance of sea ice! That was in 2005, I think. He did go that following year and then promptly declared that there was almost no sea ice at the North Pole.

The Global Warning stuff is pure propaganda.

reply posted on 2-1-2009 @ 12:49 PM by MrAnonUK

Originally posted by Unnoan

Originally posted by MrAnonUK
reply to post by Unnoan

So you (or any others who are continuously mentioning the blatant effects of capitalism) believe the WHOLE subject of human created negative effects on earth only exists purely due to people attempting to make money?

Edit: Also, people often generalise when subjects can potentially be so varied so the phrase Global Warming is just a label.

The continued off topic discussions/rants of financial motives should surely be put into another thread, a thread where the title suggests the topic is concerning a small portion are taking advantage of a bad situation. To label the hole issue as just money making lies is just ridiculous.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by MrAnonUK]

perhaps you are correct. perhaps i should have said power, and in line with power, control of money flow.

and i agree, i'll couch my discussion for another thread since it seems to be trailing off the original topic.

Ah, I apologise then you just happened to be the last person I saw mention the subject.

As you can probably tell, I'm just becoming increasingly infuriated with what seems to be very irrational thinking to me. But, it may well be me myself being irrational due to a lack of understanding of others irritation with individuals taking advantage of the situation.