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.

 

So no excessive warning equals no problem huh

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Hey guys I have been watching this stuff for awhile,
nsidc.org...

I always see here "The records warm times were in the 70's its all bologny were good"

If you guys have any information, just look Ice thickness, the satellites can see the width of the expanse of the ice coverage. The problem comes in when the thickness of the ice is too thin. There was a news report about some explorere going there to check on the ice thickness, and it was alot thinner than they thought from satellite pictures. If the trends continue there will be no ice in the north in the next 10 to 20 years max. Now if there is npo ice in the north then it will cause increased rising in the temperature because there is no reflecting of the sun's light. Just wait a few year then everyone will see its getting there.




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by KingAtlas
 


Put it in this context. The Earth did not always have ice caps.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by KingAtlas
There was a news report about some explorere going there to check on the ice thickness, and it was alot thinner than they thought from satellite pictures. If the trends continue there will be no ice in the north in the next 10 to 20 years max.


I read that story too, it said that in 20-30 years, it would be all melted completely, but in only 10 years, it would be considered open water. Already the polar bears have nowhere to stand, and tire out swimming greater and greater distances. Soon they will be gone. And the rising water levels and warming temperatures means worsening storms and flooding and hurricanes.


Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by KingAtlas
 


Put it in this context. The Earth did not always have ice caps.


Nor did it always have life, nor humans. Nor clowns, nor ipods. What's your point?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by BaronVonGodzilla
 


Perhaps they aren't a permanent feature? The rest I'll let you figure out if you feel like putting aside your reducto absurdium as I'll be wasting my if you don't.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by KingAtlas
Now if there is npo ice in the north then it will cause increased rising in the temperature because there is no reflecting of the sun's light.


The ice reflecting the sun's light is a significant effect, but it's much more significant in accelerating the development of an ice age when the ice reaches lower latitudes.

The reason the effect is less dramatic at higher latitudes, is that the angle of the sun is so shallow already, the reflection effect is less significant because there's just less sunlight energy per square kilometer to reflect at higher latitudes.

This reminds me about the Piri Reis map which shows what the coastline of Antarctica looks like with no ice cover.

The Piri Reis map


The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice.

Further and more accurate studies have proven that the last period of ice-free condition in the Antarctic ended about 6000 years ago. There are still doubts about the beginning of this ice-free period, which has been put by different researchers everything between year 13000 and 9000 BC.
The question is: Who mapped the Queen Maud Land of Antarctic 6000 years ago? Which unknown civilization had the technology or the need to do that?


The last time that coastline was visible is a matter of some debate, but apparently it was over 6000 years ago. Humans survived that ice-free episode so I suspect we'll survive the next one too.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
global warming. . . . global warming . . . . GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING

terrorism. . . .terrorism. . . terrorism. . . TERRORISM TERRORISM

now that your good and scared





GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES TERRORISM



It turns out that finding solutions to global warming may be more than a global environmental priority; it could also be a matter of national security. According to a report by the Military Advisory Board, a group of retired general officers from all branches of the U.S. military, there is a clear link between climate change and terrorism.
Global warming will lead to droughts, more frequent and severe hurricanes and storms, and rising sea levels that are predicted to destabilize many nations and to create as many as 50 million environmental refugees by 2010. People left homeless or plunged into poverty, hunger and disease by rising temperatures and other effects of global warming are likely to be susceptible to extremist ideologies. Amy Zalman, Guide to Terrorism Issues for About.com, has more details.


environment.about.com...

Im not saying there is no global warming or climate change but i am saying look at the evidence yourself. . . alot of it is freaking rediculous just like the TERRORISM
link.

i think all of it climate change terrorism swine flu its all the wool for your eyes during a massive power grab/wealth transfer just my .02$



[edit on 19-10-2009 by constantwonder]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
ecological-problems.blogspot.com...

On that report~
lawprofessors.typepad.com...

From Science Daily~about the Green land Ice caps melting~
www.sciencedaily.com...

I can't believe people still don't think this is going to do anything hahaha
want some more...
www.howstuffworks.com...

Don't forget the temperature of the oceans has significant effects also not just the air temperature.

Wait there's more
www.thefreelibrary.com...
and then again from science daily...
www.sciencedaily.com...

Oh wait i forgot all these scientists are just fearmongering cause some dude here said so and there is some youtube video saying its all fake so yeah stupid scientists dn't they watch youtube...



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Again folks, be suspicious about what you take as fact. When the reports say that they are sending scientist or reporters to view specific objectives, ask yourself who is paying for the trip, their stand on the issue, what they have to gain by their "reported conclusions and how complete was their investigation to the objective.
If I choose to travel to the Caribbean because I've heard that the seas are turbulent during hurricanes and that they are becoming more violent every season, when do you think I should do my research.
Now suppose that I am a thrill seeker and choose to foolishly go out in a ship in that storm and am asked to write a report for a climate change advocate that picked up my expenses and is going to publish my name in their report and give me a load of cash and creditability to boot.
How do you think my report will lean. You can bet that the report will be dramatically descriptive, imaginative and biased towards the gain in cash and popularity.
It's easy to falsify the facts in any situation.
The facts as I believe them to be are: Global warming is real. Global warming is caused by the energy of the sun and it's scientifically proven change in intensity. The oceans are warming at an accelerated rate by the increased activity of undersea volcano's, especially under the Arctic ice. Military establishments controlled are using HARRP type technology to modify weather to convince the world population that changes have to be made to arrest the effects. In reality, those changes will give more control and financial power to corporations and business that have specific interest in the technology and control of industrial processes.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

The Piri Reis map does not show Antarctica, with or without ice. It's pretty much just an inaccurate map due the the lack of means of determining longitude in the 16th century and the fact that there was, in those days, no one who had any idea of how to represent a spherical surface on a flat projection.
www.uwgb.edu...

The last time Antarctica had no ice (or major glaciation anyway) was about 40 million years ago and this is what it would have looked like;






[edit on 10/19/2009 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

The Piri Reis map does not show Antarctica, with or without ice. It's pretty much just an inaccurate map due the the lack of means of determining longitude in the 16th century and the fact that there was, in those days, no one who had any idea of how to represent a spherical surface on a flat projection.
www.uwgb.edu...

The last time Antarctica had no ice (or major glaciation anyway) was about 40 million years ago and this is what it would have looked like;



Thanks for that info Phage, I really hadn't researched that map much so it doesn't take much to convince me it's inaccurate. I suppose I should have been more skeptical of a website with a name like "World-mysteries". I did try to compare it to Antarctica just now and I can see why there's a claim of some similarities but it's not an exact match.

In fact the biggest problem I see now for the Antarctica interpretation is that there's apparently no break between the end of South America and what is claimed to be Antarctica.

Regarding the exposed coastline 6000 years ago, I don't think they were claiming the entire continent was free of ice, just the coastline.That's interesting if Antarctica was completely ice free 40 million years ago, I didn't know that.

Starred your post.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join