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.

 

Large ice sheets could suddenly slide into the oceans, scientists say ...

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
First, some data to translate sea-level rising and land (and human) losses :

www.planetark.com...


A 100-foot (30-meter) rise in sea level would cover 3.7 million square miles (9.5 million sq km) of land worldwide.
A rise of just 16 feet (5 meters) would affect 669 million people and 2 million square miles (5.4 million sq km) of land would be lost.


And now, some links on the subject of this thread :

Rising tide


If either Greenland’s glaciers or the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to slide away completely, global seas would rise by 15 to 20 feet, re-sculpting coastlines worldwide. While worst-case estimates for sea level rise from august bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have suggested such increases might take a century, the meltwater roller skates under the West Antarctic sheet and the earthquakes caused by the unweighting of the Greenland land mass could precipitate giant masses of ice sliding into the ocean in the short span of a single summer.
The crash of gargantuan icebergs into the ocean on that scale could unleash a torrent of tsunamis traveling the earth at jet-aircraft speed. When the waves finally subsided, the oceans will not have receded. Sea level could remain elevated for 20,000 years. Perhaps longer. If the East Antarctic Ice Sheet were to melt as well, seas would rise as much as 200 feet.


An other link :

Large ice sheets sliding into the oceans


Travis says cities should begin to plan for sudden rises in sea level that could be caused by large ice sheets sliding into the oceans off Greenland and Antarctica. In Greenland, "The water is actually getting underneath the ice sheet and lubricating it," Travis said. "The concern now is that instead of melting slowly they could melt and slide into the water. Then it would be like taking a glass that's full and throwing some ice cubes in it. That is something scientists are worried about."


Now, do you think that this NEVER occured in the past, at the end of the glacial age ?

Don't you think that this had dramatic consequences on past civilizations ?

[edit on 14-4-2009 by orkson]




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Funny. They're still pushing this crapola.

I guess the only way to fix all of this is to have a one world government which can enforce strict controls on the population and their love of V8's.

Then we will need a cull of the population to save the polar bears.

Funny.

So predictable.

Wars, crisis, killer bee's, asteroid collision, super volcanoe's...when will it all end?



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SylviaPlath
 


You are right.
We are all to blame for this mess, I mean I think it was my grade 3 teacher who was responsible for the extinction of the dinasaour.

They will keep peddeling the doom and gloom because people fall for it, it is no longer a question of C02 causing climate change as a theory, most of the population eccept it as fact because they saw it on TV.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


yeah, all except the ultra-smart and ultra-informed group that have seen the opposing evidence on the internet.

i mean, come on people, why believe real scientists telling you things which will leave you feeling compelled to stop being such an all encompassing selfish, greedy dumbass when you can feel reassured by two-bit half hearted websites and oil industry sponsored disinformation projects.

wise up, all the climate change we're witnessing is clearly nothing got to do with the atmospheric change we are obviously perpetrating, it's ridiculous to imagine any obvious correlation between dumping tons of gases into the atmosphere and changes to the climate that is regulated to a large degree by that atmosphere.

next you'll be telling me that it is my flatulence that causes the room to stink regardless of the fact that the room has undergone such cycles of stink and non-stick many times in it's past. given that i was not in the room at the time of those other stinks, it is safe to assume, despite the obvious correlation between sound effect and stink, that my flatulence is not the cause of this stink either.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
The child in Russia who became famous for discussing his "past life" on Mars made quite specific predictions that there would be a serious calamity in 2009 specifically dealing with water.

Maybe this is it.??

see reports on Boriska
english.pravda.ru...



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by munkey66
 

next you'll be telling me that it is my flatulence that causes the room to stink regardless of the fact that the room has undergone such cycles of stink and non-stick many times in it's past. given that i was not in the room at the time of those other stinks, it is safe to assume, despite the obvious correlation between sound effect and stink, that my flatulence is not the cause of this stink either.


Haha, well played sir.

I totally agree, it is ridiculous for us to believe that we cannot affect the environment. The world really isn't that large. I'm starting to believe the people who oppose the idea of human's affecting climate have never been to a major US city. Even then, we're only producing a fraction of the pollution that China and India are spewing.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by orkson
 


oh another. maybe a dime a threescore rather than a dozen, real abundance can be found in the realm of repetitive antarctic melting threads....

i remember two threads off the top of my head

50% Chance North Pole Will Be Ice-Free This Summer


Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace

which i think means that you're crying Wolf way too often i think.

PS: the issue isn't if human activity is impacting the environment but how it is. CO2 is not a major concern when compared to erosion, pollution (think heavy metals) and the destruction of natural habitats.

focusing on CO2, which is one of the most innocuous substances known must almost by definition be wrong. all belief in science won't change squat, because science isn't based on belief, is it? oh before i forget it:

Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for fraud

you do know that exclusively letting other people think for yourself leads to dictatorship, don't you?



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by orkson
 

PS: the issue isn't if human activity is impacting the environment but how it is. CO2 is not a major concern when compared to erosion, pollution (think heavy metals) and the destruction of natural habitats.

focusing on CO2, which is one of the most innocuous substances known must almost by definition be wrong. all belief in science won't change squat, because science isn't based on belief, is it?

I'm not sure where CO2 was brought up in this thread. This thread is about the lubrication of large slabs of ice which can lead to huge avalanches of ice into the ocean. Personally, I would be more concerned with mega-tsunamis to those in it's wake before I would take sea level rising into account. There was an excellent special on the discovery channel about the canary islands and their potential to slide into the ocean. But instead of water lubricating ice, it was lava heating the water table and lubricating huge slabs of rock. Really fascinating stuff.



oh before i forget it:

Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for fraud

you do know that exclusively letting other people think for yourself leads to dictatorship, don't you?


Just FYI, the source on this thread is dead.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Avarus
 


Thanks : my purpose wasn't indeed to blame CO2 or any causal effect in order to explain the melting of the ice caps, which is a FACT.

Nobody may today, deny this fact : the great glaciers are disappearing, the ice caps are melting.
Antartica is losing it's ice cover, Greenland also.
I think we will shortly learn that the siberian taiga is also losing it's permafrost, which is a bad thing for the DNA of the frozen mammoths
AND will release enormous amounts of methane (which is as evil as CO2 ...:@@


The melting process is generally described as leading to a "slow" sea-rise.
But, as explained in my original post, it could lead to striking catastrophies.

The potential sea-rise resulting from the melting of all the ice-caps is estimated to more than 130 meters.
But the height of the tsunami waves generated by a brutal sea-slide of very large chunks of the ice caps is unknown... but at least, desastrous.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I just wanted to post the video on mega-tsunamis


I was mistaken, it was the BBC. The same physics apply with ice though.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avarus

Just FYI, the source on this thread is dead.


try

www.youtube.com...


as for CO2, are you serious? whenever GW is mentioned, cap&trade is mentioned in the same breath most of the time. it is integral, otherwise forest preservation would have taken precedence over biofuel production, not the other way around like today.


absolutely staggering comment i suggest you take a look at what you are actually talking about and its backgrounds.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Lol, the Red eye?! Haha.

Also, I'm sorry, but an "on-camera weathercaster at KUSI-TV in San Diego" is hardly a scientist. He founded the weather channel only means he's a good businessman.

I think he's just looking for a way to get his 15 minutes of fame. Can you provide any information about these 30,000 'scientists'? Are they really knowledgeable in the field of global climatology, or are they just 30,000 random signatures they got a the local San Diego shopping malls?

[edit on 4.15.2009 by Avarus]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Someone needs to reread one of those links, it says it will happen in 2100. not in 2010. So I am not worried. I figure by 2100, I will be dead. And if I am dead I wont be worrying about a glacier melting and me drowning since I will be dead already.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Avarus
 


what else except a media link do you expect?

will you demand the names of people who signed there? can i then demand the names of people in support of GW too? i took the first best link from the search results and even got one in video format which so many on ATS are so fond of....

there's a thread, there's a news clip, if you want to cast doubt on the fact that it happened, be my guest, after all i can then play the same card wrt any issue that has has seen a trend reversal during the last few years and claim reasonable doubt. this ice sheet issue is very much one of these, as said a lot of times in previous posts.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by Avarus
 


what else except a media link do you expect?

will you demand the names of people who signed there? can i then demand the names of people in support of GW too? i took the first best link from the search results and even got one in video format which so many on ATS are so fond of....


Certainly, from Wiki:



In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[3]


According to this link:
ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu...
You will find a large list of names which reviewed and support this report (Annex II and III, pages 15-40)

This is just from just a few minutes of researching. I could definitely find more if necessary.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pmbhuntress
Someone needs to reread one of those links, it says it will happen in 2100. not in 2010. So I am not worried. I figure by 2100, I will be dead. And if I am dead I wont be worrying about a glacier melting and me drowning since I will be dead already.


Not planning on having children then or hoping for grandchildren? The amount of similarly blurted comments like this astound me. Selfishness is a disease thats rife within humanity.

I'm extremely concerned by whats happening around the poles at the moment regardless of whether climate change is manmade or not.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Avarus
 


"The same physics apply with ice though."

I was thinking the same thing. The Canary Islands might drop into the ocean, causing a mega-tsunami.

This is a bit different. And what a way to start the apocalypse, with ice.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


From the linky poo you provided


The boy is quite optimistic about Russia's future, though: “The situation in the country will be improving gradually. However, planet Earth will have to experience two very dangerous years – 2009 and 2013. Those catastrophes will be connected with water,” Boriska said.


That is the clincher. Is the martian kid reputable? Or will someone say he is as elusive as bat-boy.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by logicalview
 


this argument could be used to support anything.

For the Children and Grandchildren...

the most convenient argument for totalitarians


back on topic

there is a petition project against GW policies, especially CO2 related ones, which can be found at www.oism.org... i'd like to point out that science isn't about votes, it's more about predictions and experimental proof. GW cannot be reasonably falsified therefore it is not a scientific theory.

i'm merely trying to show that yes, there are diverging opinions, it is not clear cut and even if it was, counter measures would still be the peoples' decision to make, not some elusive cabinet's.



the dangers i am talking about don't seem to impress anyone, let me therefore quote an article

Former Thatcher Adviser Monckton Warns Global Warming Alarmism 'Kills People If You Get the Science Wrong'


Science is a very powerful thing and it’s important to get it right.



That’s the message Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy advisor for former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s, told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York. According to Monckton, the movement behind global warming alarmism can be traced to some ugly things, and being wrong about it could have a grave impact on humanity.

“I think the question you’re asking is who’s behind the scare,” Monckton said. “There’s been a long history of scares recently and scientific frauds of various kinds. It began, I suppose, with the eugenics movement in the 1930s which led to Hitler. It followed on with the Lysenko movement in Russia under Stalin. It went on with the great leap back under Chairman Mao which led again to tens of millions of deaths. The point you’re making is that this kills people if you get the science wrong.”

Monckton used the banning of DDT, which was linked to the deaths of 40 million children dying from malaria, as an example. The World Health Organization lifted the ban on Sept. 14, 2006, and that was, as Monckton said, “The science standing in front of politics.”



of course he's yet another politician, but it does show that i am not alone with my reservations, something which seems to mean a lot to some of you.

[edit on 2009.4.17 by Long Lance]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
......
as for CO2, are you serious? whenever GW is mentioned, cap™ is mentioned in the same breath most of the time. it is integral, otherwise forest preservation would have taken precedence over biofuel production, not the other way around like today.


biofuel production does not require forest preservation and I would like to know your source for claiming biofuel production is taking precedence over forest preservation. Biofuel has come a long way from corn.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join