Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic

reply to post by BlasteR

................We KNOW that we have a quickly rising amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. That has also been measured, scientifically proven and well-documented. We just have no way of knowing the extent to which man-made CO2 plays a role in the big picture. We know we have contributed to the problem though and that there are ways currently being developed to STOP contributing to the problem (although by then it may not matter. We'll have to see). We have some huge hurdles ahead of us though....

Yet we keep planting concrete and tar instead of parks and trees; and we are supposed to the the intelligent ones.

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn

Yet we keep planting concrete and tar instead of parks and trees; and we are supposed to the the intelligent ones.

Concrete roads do not add to any global warming, it jsut causes some "LOCAL" warming. Cities cause what is known the Urban heat ISLAND effect, which is locally, you go out of the city, right at the city limits, and it starts ooling off. This does not add to any global warming at all.

Right now I am in the Northwest of the U.S. and there is a blanket of snow, and we are supposed to be in Spring, yet it seems winter does not want to end. This is not the effect of this "massive WARMING" that the Global Warming enthusiasts claim is happening. What is happening is Climate Change, a natural phenomenon that has occurred thousands of times and mankind will never stop, or mitigate.

Originally posted by Rory27

Just wondering,whats so wrong with the "middle ground"?!...thats my only question...I mean,why does it have to be "one or the other" and why can it NOT be a combination of nature AND man?!...

Because there is no proof of this..

Hell, btw the word hell is not permitted in the forums?..

Anyway, if we don't need any facts about what is causing Climate Change, then we could as well claim that the fleets of ufos we see in the skies are the cause of the warming, and the cooling. Why not? we don't need facts, we just need "opinions" and "claims" right?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I was referring to the CO2 effect not the global warming effect.

Many seem to think that we have to create some magical device to counterbalance the increase in CO2 emissions.

I think that trees and plant life do an exemplary job of that when they are available.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Stars for your posts at the end of Page 3!

Strange how we are sat on a ball of volcanic rock, that is several thousand of degrees celcius above the boiling point of water, yet our own planet is not considered a source of heat!!!

Thanks for the vote. I wish I could stay as calm as you, and I try, but when people use nothing more than claims, and then insult, and bash away anyone who posts reliable evidence just because it disagrees with the "claims" of some people, I tend to respond in kind.

Meanwhile the world itself, and nature is showing that there are extreme cold events occurring, BTW extreme flood events are a cause of COOLING, not WARMING, there are people still wanting to claim "it is all the fault of mankind". Warming causes droughts, which is some part of the world is happening, but we are also having flood disasters around the world, which points to the fact that what is happening is Climate Change, and not Global Warming, at least not anymore.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn

I was referring to the CO2 effect not the global warming effect.

Many seem to think that we have to create some magical device to counterbalance the increase in CO2 emissions.

I think that trees and plant life do an exemplary job of that when they are available.

How is CO2 any problem exactly?

You do know that every living thing in this planet is CARBON based?

You do know that CO2 is needed by all plant life to thrive, and animal life too, and that with increase CO2 green biomass increases?

Do you know that one of the most effective tools to increase the harvest of green biomass in "greenhouses" is to increase the amount of atmospheric CO2 inside the greenhouse?

People who own greenhouses increase the amount of CO2 from 300-1,500 ppm, and the more CO2 there is in the greenhouse the more harvest these people have, but if there is too much CO2 the harvest increases dramatically and the owner cannot keep up with the green biomass increase?

Owners of greenhouses lower the amount of CO2 just so they don't ahve to work too much, and their green biomass (plants, vegies etc) doesn't thrive too much.

Atmospheric CO2 is not a problem. There have been times when Earth had up to 7 times the amount of atmospheric CO2 and plant life thrive, and animal life thrived.

There have been times in the geological record of Earth when atmospheric CO2 was lower than now, yet temperatures globally were much higher than now, and there have been times when atmospheric CO2 was much higher than now, yet global temperatures in general were much lower than now.

During the Roman Warm, and the Medieval Warm periods, and evne during the LIA atmospheric CO2 did not change much, yet temperatures globally changed dramatically.


[edit on 16-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Well just a short while ago the South Pole was considered solid and not likely to be giving way. But, we do know the cartel/cabal and worlds leaders are there fighting over every inch of it, even China. Not to mention the nazis fled to South America, the ones that weren't offered cuishy jobs in NASA and many other institutions.

I suspect this is deliberate sabotage by TPTB. As is just about everything bad you hear about ever, including many of the "random" acts of violence that I suspect is their M Kultra programs.

I didn't bother to read the whole thread. Sorry, I'm not a masochist.
However, has anyone mentioned that this happens every year? It is a normal cycle. Huge chunks of ice fall into the ocean every year, they are called Icebergs -- you know, like what sunk the Titanic.

Anyhow, If you live long enough, you'll live through several of these catastrophic, end of the world scenarios which becomes the new generation's social imperative to fix. Too bad the granola crunchers don't learn from history.

It is one thing to be concerned about the environment -- it is quite another to foist your political agenda on the entire world under the guise of environmentalism.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Smack]

Electric Universe, unfortunately one thing you will have to get used to around here often is the extreme extremism. (I'm not sure I've ever used a term like that before in my life, but I like it)

A = The belief that there's NO WAY IN HELL IT COULD BE A CYCLE!!!! And will bring it to the grave that way.

B = OMG OMG! It's definitively a cycle!! Are you Nay sayers nuts or something??!! And take it to the grave THAT way.


Regretfully there are far too few C's who are willing to hinge their bets (with the understanding that all science IS, is best guess) that either could certainly apply.

I know, I can feel what you're trying to do and think to yourself "God why wont they open their damn minds already!!!!"... It's not as simple in practice as it is in theory mainly due to our own makeup.

I've breached this issue many times on here and have resigned myself to knowing that there is just no way to convince one way OR the other. That, and I realized that when it all boils down to it, whether it's cyclical or anthropogenic it will never matter until the last second.


AB1

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

what is happening is Climate Change, and not Global Warming, at least not anymore.

If you read the news carefully from 2006/2007 onwards, you'll note the emphasis shifted from "global warming" to "climate change" once it started to become apparent the Earth was actually cooler on average, and the polar ice did NOT melt as anticipated during last summer (and in fact, the ice coverage INCREASED during that winter)!

The physical evidence is exposing the lies being spun.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by Smack
I didn't bother to read the whole thread. Sorry, I'm not a masochist.
However, has anyone mentioned that this happens every year? It is a normal cycle. Huge chunks of ice fall into the ocean every year, they are called Icebergs -- you know, like what sunk the Titanic.

Anyhow, If you live long enough, you'll live through several of these catastrophic, end of the world scenarios which becomes the new generation's social imperative to fix. Too bad the granola crunchers don't learn from history.

It is one thing to be concerned about the environment -- it is quite another to foist your political agenda on the entire world under the guise of environmentalism.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Smack]

No it hasn't - this is an entire ice shelf which has broken off - it has been in process of breaking up for some time and has now completely broken off for the first time.

Recent studies on sedimentary layers beneath the sea ice of the south pole have allowed an accurate model of the southern sea ice and the ocean areas to be built up for the last 6 million years - yes 6 million years.

Science is amazing - ignorance is bliss.

Still waiting on how the discovery a a volcano disproves AGW - didnt think so - QED.

This argument is as always done and dusted - if ANYONE CAN PROVIDE A LINK WHICH DISPROVES ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING by credible, respected, peer reviewed source then lets have it - until then I stand unchallenged.

The articles provided thus far have had absolutely NOTHING to do with the argument. Red Herrings.

Originally posted by Smack
However, has anyone mentioned that this happens every year? It is a normal cycle. Huge chunks of ice fall into the ocean every year, they are called Icebergs -- you know, like what sunk the Titanic.

We know that it is normal, yes. What is not normal are massive, millions-of-years-old ice sheets the sizes of entire states breaking off into the ocean. We know that glaciers used to be pretty normal too until the warming started causing them all to disappear around the globe.
Glacier National Park - 1938
Glacier National Park 1981
Glacier National Park - 1998
Glacier National Park - 2005

www.nrmsc.usgs.gov...

Portage Glacier in Alaska - 1950
Portage Glacier in Alaska - 2001

Portage Glacier aerial photo - 1914
Portage Glacier aerial photo - 2004

There are only a small handful of glaciers left on the planet that are not melting and receding at an alarming rate. This is ancient ice because glaciers take an EXTREMELY long time to form through the compaction of snow over geologic timescales (tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of years).

We also have ancient permafrost rapidly melting around the globe (this is also not seasonal). Here in Alaska, the problem is a huge headache for the state. Homeowners have their houses fall into huge pits where cavities are forming in the ground after the permafrost has melted. Due to the increased rate of melting, it can be extremely difficult to tell whick areas are good to build homes on and which aren't. It also causes deformations in roads and highways causing an annual nightmare for statewide transportation. It also destabilizes the root structures of trees and, in some cases, large swaths of our Alaskan boreal forests.

There is also the ominous case of The Northwest Passage which, due to warmer global temperatures, has melted at an unprecedented rate to the point where it has opened new shipping routes never before passable by normal vessels. This is also not a seasonal occurrence or effect.
Global warming boosts Arctic shipping, oil: report
Melting Arctic Ocean opens shipping frontier
Ice-free Arctic Ocean possible in 30 years, not 90 as previously estimated

THIS is a chart showing the 2007 arctic sea ice minimum when compared to the 2005 minimum and the minimum between 1979-2000. This is clear evidence of a rapid melting trend that could cause ALL of our arctic sea ice to disappear within 30 years (as the previously linked story from the University of Washington explains).

Originally posted by Smack
Anyhow, If you live long enough, you'll live through several of these catastrophic, end of the world scenarios which becomes the new generation's social imperative to fix. Too bad the granola crunchers don't learn from history.

It is one thing to be concerned about the environment -- it is quite another to foist your political agenda on the entire world under the guise of environmentalism.

The scientific data has nothing to do with a political agenda though. All scientific data/evidence should be able to speak for itself. The photos speak volumes for what is really happening separate from the back and forth debate about man-made global warming.

I do believe some private interest groups have pumped money and effort into spreading this idea that we are solely the ones to blame for this current trend of global climate change. We know that is not true. We have contributed to some extent. We just don't know how much we really played in a role in climate change progressing to this point. We DO know that climate change is a very normal, natural process. The point, though, is that we are exacerbating and/or worsening the situation even if we don't know exactly how much.. This is a globally-encompassing warming trend that is responsible for all the different ice-melting scenarios around the globe that are all well documented.

As I said before, also, We know that the current C02 atmospheric content is also rising at an unprecedented rate. There are a variety of ways which scientists can accurately test C02 levels at various times in earth's past. ALL the research that has been conducted with regards to this shows that we are witnessing an extremely signficant climatological event.

-ChriS

reply to post by BlasteR


Sorry but again I disagree - this is absolutely not what climatologists are saying, rather it is the watered down version of events from politically driven sources such as the IPCC and the Stern Report which are heavily weighted on the political agenda.

The climate record has been recorded for many hundreds of thousands of years, encompassing many ice ages and fluctuations. The pattern is very consistent and predictable. There have been notable exceptions which have been traced to geological events, which have driven the normal cycle to out of normal peaks and troughs.

What is happening currently is a very specific, measurable and predicted change to the normal global fluctuations outside all the norms recorded. This abnormal fluctuation is entirely man made and as almost universal consensus in the scientific community as being man made - beyond that, as mentioned, in media, political or corporate driven agendas a different "spin" is placed upon it.

The most recent records from a Dutch team measuring the sediments (not ice) from underneath the sea floor in the Antarctic have built up a picture extending over 6 million years.

Again there is almost universal scientific consensus on this variation from the cyclical temperature fluctuations as being man made - it is not unknown, or a maybe. And there CERTAINLY is no alternative agenda amongst the scientists. The only paid for agenda which ever occurred, as I have repeatedly made clear was from the Lavosiere group organised by Big Oil, which they have admitted to as a front to spread "Doubt" about global warming - a position that all major oil companies have apologies for as they now acknowledge global warming as a man made phenomenon - yes EVEN EXXON!

The only place this doubt continues to exist is Senator Inhoffe, the Republican party, and of course Above Top Secret.

There are literally thousands, upon thousands of studies which have pointed to this, there literally hundreds of working papers, published literature all of which agree on the issue.

The glaciers are known as the Third Pole. FYI.


[edit on 17-4-2009 by audas]

reply to post by audas


The real problem with the entire argument, whether you're a proponent of anthropogenic climate change or cyclical climate change is that things can change in an instant.

There is no doubt that the earth will outlast mankind; at one point or another the species will cease to exist. It's a natural order. Or, at the very least it will be reduced back to the stone age.

On one side you have the possibility that the environment will become so warm that it won't sustain life as we know it. If you think about it, we're already way beyond capacity (like peak oil, well I think we're at peak resources) to effectively sustain the vast numbers of us that live on this planet.

On the other side, you have the potential for a paradox; the warming climate to actually trigger a cooling event. Maybe not even from the warming, it could well simply be from a large enough volcanic event. With all that sulfuric acid droplets in the stratosphere to ensure the sunlight gets reflected away from us. In which condition we would BEG for global warming.

These things can happen very quickly and whether we had something to do with it or not is really secondary or tertiary. Allowing the natural order of things to take their course is probably about the only thing we can do now.

No matter which camp you're in, pointing the finger only furthers one cause; to exacerbate the politicism of it.


AB1

I am just trying to figure out if we have been cursed or what? Are our eyes not seeing clearly? Are we flattening out on crazy or what?


First of all Global warming is a POLITICAL NAME it will induce taxes!!!


I am no fan of Pollution but I strongly suggest you guys do some serious research on what is being purposed for TAXES on carbon emissions, the REC abbreviation will be something introduced more then likely in the next few years, over the GREAT SCARE OF global warming, and HAHA think your getting taxed now. Basically what REC, will represent is this, if you are not creating renewable energy for who knows maybe even your home, or your business you will get taxed. Which will therefore motivate many many businesses to what? Start buying alternative ways to make energy, by spending thousands on solar energy from a solar company, or outfit, or get taxed by the government. So in a nutshell that is the global warming the environmentalists and the government has been trying to push for a few decades..

As far as carbon emissions creating global warming??!! Prove it.. Mother Nature herself has and will make more carbon emission that humans ever will, and has been doing it since Earth's birth, Ahem, Volcanoes..

This is just going to be a transfer of wealth move, not to mention a great way to tax small businesses, and prob, citizens.. All these federal rebates and incentives will fade out right around the time of these REC's coming out. Their is a very good chance that is what is going to come, or we will adopt what the German's are doing, but I seriously doubt that with the power companies in America.. Here read this.. www.pickocc.org...

ahem, more control.. More taxes...

Doing my best to share the truth what the near to future is going to look like..

Please feel free to add on this if you like..

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Adrifter]

reply to post by audas


You are missing my point though.
Regardless of what is or isn't scientifically documented, that doesn't take away from the fact that we have contributed and are still contributing to the warming process. Exact figures aren't so much important as is acknowledging the fact that we are part of the problem. As long as human beings are releasing C02 into our atmosphere, we are contributing to the already naturally-occurring increase in greenhouse gases (which are also fairly well-documented).. Therefore, there isn't any way around the simple fact that we have exacerbated the situation to some degree/extent.. For whatever reason people seem so afraid of admitting this. Believe it or not, yes, we are to blame to some extent. We just don't know how much (we may never know, nor is it even that important in my view).

-ChriS


[edit on 17-4-2009 by BlasteR]

Carbon tax is based on the economic principle of negative externalities. Externalities are costs or benefits generated by the production of goods and services. Negative externalities are costs that are not paid for. When utilities, businesses or homeowners consume fossil fuels, they create pollution that has a societal cost; everyone suffers from the effects of pollution. Proponents of a carbon tax believe that the price of fossil fuels should account for these societal costs. More simply put -- if you're polluting to everyone else's detriment, you should have to pay for it.

Nah, thats too much commons sense for me!
science.howstuffworks.com...

Its too bad this topic has been twisted to where
we think its a personal tax and we are going to get raped again!
It figures though, as skeptical as we are and since al gore is the devil
and all, the one chance we have of making polluters pay
for the cleanup they caused, HAS been polluted itself!
We still dont believe any of it, because it would mean taking some
responsibility for our greedy actions(about anything)in this country!
Oh no hang on a sec,...
No its just another tax to deride and rail against! Enjoy the air!
In other words, whatever, knock yourselfs out. Typical.

reply to post by Hx3_1963


Yup this is real. Some people don't understand the big picture. Global warming will slow down the Atlantic Conveyor Belt traping cold temps in the polar areas and heat near the equator, which would produce droughts and mega storms, but will also create more random rain due to precipitation, but up N and S there will be more snow not rain; thus, it will eventually throw us into the Ice Age, slowly the ice will build up from the polar regions and creep down to equator areas. More ice build up will refect the sun more.

This is the reason why North America was once cover with ice. Every civilization ends up bringing about their own demise.

While the people near the polar areas freeze to death, the people near the equator will fry to death.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by amfirst]

Even for those who do not believe CO2 emissions cause global warming, there's another big reason why CO2 emissions matter: Ocean acidification. When CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere, most of that CO2 gets absorbed by the planet's oceans. Because CO2 is slightly acidic, this causes the oceans to become more acidic, too.

www.naturalnews.com...

Ecological footprinting is a new technique to measure the environmental impact of a population on nature. It can be used by national, regional and local governments. An ecological footprint calculates how much land area is required for an average citizen for everything they consume (products and resources) and produce (waste and emissions) per year.

A footprint is expressed in global hectares (gha) of 'earthshare'. If we divide the bio-productive land and sea on the planet by the number of people who need to use it, we currently get an earth-share of only 1.89 gha per person (WWF 2004). This is basically how much natural resource there is to go around. Footprints of countries show how unsustainable our western lifestyles are. An average United States citizen has a huge footprint of 9.5 gha which is 5 times their fair earth-share. An Indian citizen only has a footprint of 0.8 gha, well within their fair earthshare.

www.cardiff.gov.uk...,3148,4119

reply to post by Hx3_1963


I think our ocean currents are created more by the rotation of the Earth, and somewhat by the gravitational pull of the Sun and the Moon, so I don't think global warming will shut down the ocean's currents. While the Arctic Ocean will not cool the water as much as in the past, it will still be colder than the water from from the equatorial regions, so it will drop down in the ocean, and as it drops it will continue to get colder, but not as cold as in the past. Essentially, it will just lead to our oceans continuing to get warmer and warmer. The bigger question is when will this warming trend end.

What is the biggest news on global warming in my opinion, is that it is accelerating, and I think it will continue to accelerate. Chance are very high that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the next five years, if not this summer. An ice free Arctic Ocean will increase global warming acceleration even further. They talk about Ocean levels rising 30 meters in a hundred years, well, I think we could see Ocean levels rising 10 to 20 meters or more in the next thirty to fifty years, and maybe more like 60 meters in less than a hundred years.

If I am not mistaken, most of the scientific predictions are based on constant rates of changes, not accelerating rates of changes. Being that global warming is currently accelerating, there is no reason to believe that global warming will not continue to accelerate, until something changes to slows the rate of change. In fact there is no reason to believe that the acceleration of global warming will not increase, as that is where we currently are on the curve.

I think that once we start to get ice free summers in the Arctic, that the additional heat pulled in by the dark waters, as opposed to the white snow and ice in the past, will put global warming in high gear. Shortly after that, we will start to see a clearly visible, and alarming rise in ocean levels. It will be bye bye Florida before you know it. I also suspect that we will start to see storms getting bigger, and more powerful.

I think that in ten years from now, rising ocean levels will become very apparent, and then people will start to panic.