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.

 

Warming in Antarctica Looks Certain

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
This has happened many times before and if earth is still here , I'm sure will happen again.

It' like the Akido master Uyesaba ( spell check that one ) said if the giant boulder is rolling down the mountian towards you, just step aside and let the boulder roll down the moutian with no harm to self.
It's the same way if Antartica falls in the ocean, just step aside, to side of mountian!


If the north pole melts no biggy but if the southpoles melts well thats another story and your right it has happened in the past and it will happen again.

Some people want to argue what it's called and others want to argue who or what is causing it and they completely ignore whats happening!



And I Agree it has happened in the past and will happen again.





posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66
and I also think it is important once again to point out to our northern hemispere friends, It is summer down here, so this is the time the melting occurs.

4.5 billion year old planet and we have experts who can say what the climate is doing because of the 50 years of research.
They can't even predict the weather for tomorrow, let alone next 20 years.





exactly...

trouble is this kind of 'expertise' has spread among all the science and combined with arrogant ego can get very nasty...

well, all I can say about melting the South Pole, if true, sea levels will rise because this ice is on the land not in water like on the North Pole...



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Science > Topics > Global Warming



On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had "likely" played a role.

The addition of that single word "very" did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it. In recent months, business groups have banded together to make unprecedented calls for federal regulation of greenhouse gases. The subject had a red-carpet moment when former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," was awarded an Oscar; and the Supreme Court made its first global warming-related decision, ruling 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency had not justified its position that it was not authorized to regulate carbon dioxide.






posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by donhuangenaro
 


West Antarctic Glaciers Melting At 20 Times Former Rate, Rock Analysis Shows

ScienceDaily (Mar. 2, 2008) — Boulders the size footballs could help scientists predict the West Antarctic Ice Sheet's (WAIS) contribution to sea-level rise according to new research.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Interesting that the opposite is happening up North. Some of our Glaciers have reportedly stopped receding and started growing. We had one of the coldest summers on record and just came out of the longest cold spell below zero in our recorded history. The Ice in the Arctic was reported to be back to pre 1980 levels before the historic cold hit.


At the same time Baffin experienced an unusually warm summer (it was warmer than Britain at one point!) and the NP had to be closed due flash flooding as ice melted.

news.bbc.co.uk...
english.people.com.cn...

It's also worth noting that ice caps on Baffin are now their smallest for at least 1600 years

www.colorado.edu...


As for Arctic ice being back to 1980 levels - that's actually a disingenuous misinterpretation made by climate deniers to con the public. It may have been at similar extent on one particular day to what it was in 1979 - but we meeasure it in terms of maximum/minium extent and both of these have been well below 1980s levels in recent years and there's no reason to assume maximum extent this winter will be as much as in the 1980s.


In any case case, all any of this shows is that in additional to long term regional and global trends, there is still local seasonal variability. Just because it's getting warmer doesn't mean you can't have a cold winter.



[edit on 22-1-2009 by Essan]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
and maybe this is somehow connected:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

UV levels in Australia are off scale:

www.bom.gov.au...






posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula are melting away at an alarming rate.



Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica


By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 14, 2008; A01


Climatic changes appear to be destabilizing vast ice sheets of western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates.





posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Antarctic Glaciers Melting Faster - Study


Published on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 by Reuters
Antarctic Glaciers Melting Faster - Study


WASHINGTON - Glaciers once held up by a floating ice shelf off Antarctica are now sliding off into the sea -- and they are going fast, scientists said on Tuesday.

Two separate studies from climate researchers and the space agency NASA show the glaciers are flowing into Antarctica's Weddell Sea, freed by the 2002 breakup of the Larsen B ice shelf


Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the researchers said their satellite measurements suggest climate warming can lead to rapid sea level rise.





posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Greenland, Antarctica, and Alaska melt at accelerating pace



Greenland is melting, and fast. That’s the gist of the findings that will be presented on Thursday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. The water melting from Greenland in the past five years would fill up about 11 Chesapeake Bays, according to the AP.

Oh, but it gets worse. In addition to Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have also taken a hit from global warming. The three areas combined have lost more than 2 trillion tons of land ice since 2003, which is when NASA first began taking estimates.

And as it turns out, there’s a big difference between the impacts of melting land ice versus melting sea ice. When sea ice melts, it doesn’t have much effect on sea levels because the ice itself is already taking up space in the water. But land ice is a different story. Once it melts, it makes its way from the land to the sea, hence rising sea levels. As the AP reports, Greenland is adding about half a millimeter of sea level rise each year. Plus, between Greenland, Antarctica, and Alaska, melting land ice has raised global sea levels about one-fifth of an inch in the past five years.





posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
You know it's one thing to argue over who or what is causing it or what to call it. But to ignore whats happening all together?

My father told me there were three types of people in the world

People who make things happen 5%
People who watch things happen 10%
People who say what happened? 85%



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
UNH Scientist Contributes to Study Explaining Huge Prehistoric Ice Sheet




Research sheds light on workings of modern climate change

Cover of Nature, Jan. 29, 2004DURHAM, N.H. – A University of New Hampshire (UNH) researcher has helped devise an explanation for a scientific mystery that, if confirmed, will aid efforts to understand the forces at work in the Earth’s climate system.

The researchers believe that huge lakes – together more than twice as large as the Caspian Sea – enhanced the formation of a giant ice sheet that covered the Russian Arctic 90,000 years ago. Martin Jakobsson, a research scientist with the UNH Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping, co-authored a paper detailing the findings in the Jan. 29 issue of the journal Nature.

Explaining how climate behaved in the past is crucial to explaining how it is likely to behave in the future – a question of overarching importance given the current trend toward global warming. “The overall theme that is behind much of what paleogeologists like us do,” explained Jakobsson, “is trying to understand with the greatest accuracy what happened in the past so that people trying to determine what will happen in the future will have the best possible information.”



Warnings from ice



What would happen to the world's coastlines if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, raising global sea levels by as much as 20 feet? Some scientists say a collapse is inevitable, possibly even imminent.




[edit on 22-1-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
This has happened many times before and if earth is still here , I'm sure will happen again.


Of course the Earth is still here but low-lying cities are in for one heck of a ride.

I don’t think the current ice cap break ups are anything new I think it’s just a slow continuation of what has been happening since the last ice age ended and man came about and built his cities in the wrong spots

Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today


Massive ice sheets covered parts of North America, northern Europe, and several other regions during the last ice age. This huge volume of ice lowered global sea level by around 120 meters as compared to today. After the ice sheets began to melt and retreat, sea level rose rapidly, with several periods of even faster spurts.

The first such spurt may have started about 19,000 years ago, at which time ocean levels rose 10-15 m in less than 500 years. However, this event is not seen in all past sea level records and new evidence suggests that ice melting may have begun much earlier. A more clearly-defined accelerated phase of sea level rise occurred between 14,600 to 13,500 years before present (termed "meltwater pulse 1A" or "MWP-1A" by Fairbanks in 1989), when sea level increased by some 16 to 24 m (see Figure 1).

Although the meltwater was previously believed to have come chiefly from Antarctica, a recent reconstruction by Tarasov and Peltier of ice sheet retreat using a glacial model calibrated by a variety of data points instead to a largely North American source. Furthermore, diatom fossils in sediments from fjords in East Antarctica show that ice melting there began perhaps 3000 years later, thus ruling out Antarctica as a likely source



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   
For the record I'm not arguing over who caused it or whats it's called All I'm saying is that we need to put away political name tags and start looking at some of this data.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
SLAYER69 have you heard of Earth day?

the first one was held April 22, 1970
A Senator named Gaylord Nelson was an environmental activist, he took a leading role in organizing the celebration, hoping to demonstrate popular political support for an environmental agenda to combat global cooling
people where terrified that a new ice age was coming on,

what is different about the science of now and science of 1970?
surely science works on facts available and works out models from it.
How is it then that the science from 1970 was so wrong and the science from 2009 is so right?

we have scientists with such extreme views in such a short space of time it is hard to take any of them seriously.
who do you believe?
If you believe in global warming, then science in 1970 was 100% wrong
How can you believe in science at all when it has been proven that it can be 100% wrong.
who is to say that in 20 years they are talking Ice age again?
That would make science of today 100% incorrect again.

Climate science is just a joke, there are more flaws in it that the Sears Tower



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 



Good point.
Thanks for replying.

Do you understand how that huge amounts of fresh water can disrupt the ocean currents and what that might trigger?

I'm not a global warming alarmist or a C02 Nut all I'm saying is look at the ice loss over the past few decades and realize how that will effect sea levels.

I believe again that we are just seeing the tail end of the effects of the end of the last ice age And we are .ing for a major melt off.

What caused the end of the ice age?

The last cold ripple ended 11.711 years ago and as this ripple lies so close to the ice age’s general end, the ice age never returned and there have not been any ripples since. Fortunately. Because it takes circa 10.000 years for an ice age to gradually come to an end; but for a climate ripple (for example, the end of the Younger Dryas) the change in weather took, 25 years later, just one year, temperature wise.

We work in part with deciphering these climate ripples and especially with whether they could occur in our age, or if we can cause them with CO2 emissions. That would not be good.

One can conclude that man had nothing to do with the end of the ice age. CO2 and climate continued to change at the same rate until industrialisation. I could be worried that our CO2 emissions could very well go and have serious consequences; but one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be: Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.






[edit on 22-1-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Hi all. Here's another recent article just to fuel the debate!

news.bbc.co.uk...


[edit on 22/1/09 by logicalview]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
reply to post by rizla
 


You suckers who would follow hype to accept carbon taxes / cap & trade that will not take a single ton of carbon out of the atmosphere but would make a bunch of paper traders rich are the true deniers.


Uncle Exon-Mobil is most pleased with you. Well done being an independent thinker, not.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
If goverments where serious about Co2 why are companies like Coke a cola still able to produce coke?
the main ingredient is carbonated water.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 



Pepsi walked out on the Kyoto talks over that



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by rizla
 


Carbon credits are a scam.... Even some of the "greenest" people know this. I am all for reducing the use of fossil fuels as it causes not only CO2 but a crap-ton of pollution and poison run-off into our rivers, lakes, and streams.

I just get worked up when I see the "carbon credit / cap & trade BS" being promoted as a solution more than anything else. As you can tell, I want everyone to know about this scam as it does nothing to reduce CO2 and will cause the ultimate "stealth" tax on the people in order to make a few paper traders and politicians rich... while doing absolutely nothing for CO2 levels and worse yet poisonous pollution.

Algae oil, Solar, and hydrogen are the true waves of the future if you can get past the energy companies buying them out, snuffing patents, and suppressing these alternative technologies.

Great Article today on newscientist.com from one of the 'greenest' guys around... though he is quite morbid about the future and definitely into population control, his views on the "carbon credit scam" are dead on. He also has a solution but is quite skeptical that anyone will do it because of the scam already in place.

www.newscientist.com...

Selected Notes from Article"


2009 promises to be an exciting time for James Lovelock. But the originator of the Gaia theory, which describes Earth as a self-regulating planet, has a stark view of the future of humanity. He tells Gaia Vince we have one last chance to save ourselves - and it has nothing to do with nuclear power

Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It's absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt - that's an awful lot of countryside.
What about work to sequester carbon dioxide?

That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done.

So are we doomed?

There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.



[edit on 23-1-2009 by infolurker]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join