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.

 

SCIENTIFIC PROOF! Worldwide sea ice is growing during winter...

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627
 


No, no, no... those huge massive ice sheets WERE common during the 19th century according to written log entries from ships tooling around down here in the southern hemisphere. I've seen many pictures of them in the archives here, and also read those log entries at the museums we have here. So your statement that these are somehow unusual is just not true.

As far as having less ice now than we did 20 years ago, that is just not true either. Go the link I provided and put in Dec 1980 and Dec 2008. Now, look at the amount of DARK PURPLE in the 2008 image compared to the 1980 image. There is MORE dark purple in the 2008 than in 1980 which means MORE ice now, not less.

This is not hard folks. All you have to do it read the data correctly.




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Hey,

this is relevant if a little off topic, but, on google earth 5, there is NO north pole.

Whats that about?



EDIT,
hold on, perhaps I`m wrong, it`s just when I looked at it, I`d always thought there was a massive ice cap right on top of the world, and on google earth the only icey bit is Greenland, but Iv`e looked at some older maps and it`s the same,

I think Iv`e just had a blonde moment, duh!

[edit on 16-12-2009 by psilo simon]

[edit on 16-12-2009 by psilo simon]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by downisreallyup
This is not hard folks. All you have to do it read the data correctly.


that is funny coming from the person ignoring the data presented by his own reference.

This link form your source entitled:

Global Sea Ice Area 1979-Present

Shows a DECREASE in total ice, not an increase. This is the third time I have said this to you and hopefully the last time you try to ignore it. This graph comes from the link YOU posted.

Just so your aware.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


wow...ok... Let's see... Just input on the following link Dec 15 1980 and Dec 15 2008 and see the comparison.....

igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu...

Now tell us, which date shows more ice?........



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Ok, let me do you the favor so you don't try to deceive people.



Whats that you are saying? The 1980 date is for Dec 14, and not for Dec 15?... Ok, let's look at Dec 14...



So when were you saying there was less ice?....


[edit on 16-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Ooops, the pics are too big...


We should have a program on ATS so we can resize pictures.


Anyway, here is a link, and if you actually don't suddenly become blinded by the facts which you are about to see, you will see that in 2008 there was MORE ice than in 1980....

igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu...

igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu...



[edit on 16-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

It looks like 1980 has more area of sea ice (all the colorey areas).
But I could be wrong.

Oops. I missed by a day.
Should I fix it?


[edit on 12/17/2009 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Okay, I have taken time to study the charts more carefully, and I must say that although I was slightly misled by the comparison images, I find that the premise still holds true, especially if we take a step back and look at the whole picture. For example, the following link shows the Southern Hemisphere ice levels:

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Levels

On this chart, if you look at the values from 1979 to 1993, you will not see any value rising higher than 16 million sq/km, however, from 1994 to 1997 the upper limit hits 16 million no less than SIX (6) times, and actually goes past the 16 million mark once in the winter of 2007! So, the maximum ice in the southern hemisphere does seem to be growing during the winter.

Also, when comparing the summer low levels for the southern hemisphere, we see the level drop to 2 million sq/km every single year (15 times), with the lowest level of the entire period occurring in 1993. For the period from 1993 to 2007, we see the low level drop to 2 million or greater only 10 times, instead of 15 times as it was for the early period.

So, for the southern hemisphere, we see that in both summer and winter, the southern hemisphere is displaying what appears to be a trend in increased ice during winter, and less melting in the summer.

Now, for the northern hemisphere, we see a different situation:

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Levels

For the winter high levels, we see a reduction of about 1 million sq/km of arctic ice, which is a drop of about 6.6% from the highest level.

For the summer low levels, we see an increased melting of about 2.5 million sq/km. from 1979 to 2007 (16.6% reduction), but then for 2008 the melting reduces by only 2 million (13% reduction), indicating that the trend may be slowing or reducing.

Though the overall trend does appear to be dropping at about 6.5%, there may indeed be an upturn beginning at this point in time. What gives rise to this is the strong correlation between predictable variance in the solar constant S (indicating solar energy output), which seems to follow sunspot activity, but not in a simple straightforward manner. One can't expect to see sunspots increase in linear sync with variations in S, as the relationship between the two is indeed more complex, as detailed in the following article by Dr Theodor Landscheidt, a peer-reviewed climatologist.

Article by Theodor Landscheidt

So, even though there has indeed been an apparent reduction in northern hemisphere sea ice, the southern hemisphere is showing a slight increase trend-wise, and the northern hemisphere levels may indeed be moving back up because of changing solar activity patterns.

I do apologize for misinterpreting the comparison diagrams at the University of Illinois website. I should have looked at it in greater depth, and noticed that the white areas in the more recent images showed annual snowfall levels, whereas the earlier images did not have them included. I think somehow my mind quickly integrated the white areas without looking into it more carefully.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thank you Phage for that very clear comparison... that is really a very good way to see the differences visually



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I don't ever try to deceive people... I am only interested in truth, regardless of what that truth is. If AGW is true, then I will be all over it, shouting it from the housetops, but if it's not true, I want nothing to do with it.

In your last post, you said that 2008 shows more ice, but that is not what I thought you were trying to say... you aren't trying to deceive are you?


Or maybe it's just that you were typing too fast and made a mistake, eh?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Another interesting little tidbit here is the fact that the Milankovich Cycles, which predict the effect of the sun based on the 3 cyclical relationships between the earth and sun, allow for the Northern Hemisphere to force climate changes in the Southern Hemisphere. This is covered in this paper:

Article from Nature



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


EU and the OP actually thinks the White stuff in the PIC is ICE. The Ice is actually the purple type color. The later dates when overlaid show a reduction.

Fools will always find fools gold.


It could be this though.


Historic snow cover data not displayed on these images. Sea ice concentrations less than 30% are not displayed in these images. Snow cover data is displayed only for most recent dates.




new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join