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.

 

Antarctic glacier melt maybe 'not due to climate change'

page: 1
48
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+16 more 
posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Antarctic glacier melt maybe 'not due to climate change'


www.theregister.co.uk

... Many scientists have theorised that the PIG's [Pine Island Glacier] accelerating flow is due to global warming. However, recent research - including surveys beneath the bottom of the floating, projecting ice sheet by Blighty's Autosub robot probe - indicate that this may not be the case.
(visit the link for the full news article)



+6 more 
posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Another new development in the understanding of glacial flow. While every eco-friendly citizen was certain that the climate was the culprit; it turns out the real reason for the relatively sudden increase in glacial flow to the sea has to do with the unknown fact that the river of ice had been slowed by rough mountainous terrain, and now, having past the 'speed bump' it is flowing unrestricted to the sea.

Mr. Gore's Nobel-Prize winning theory of climate change seems yet again, contradicted by fact... although in the conspiracy world some like to call it 'debunked.'

The climate may be changing. But the body of evidence that it is primarily a carbon problem seems to be shrinking by the day.

www.theregister.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Maxmars]


+6 more 
posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Suck that Al Gore!

Though I'm sure he'll just blame ManBearPig for making him look bad. lol

Goes to show you. Climate science is based on incomplete data. We don't know 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th of what we should know.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Or in other words the glacier would have shown the same acceleration and thinning it has shown since the 1990s with or without climate change, perhaps accounting for its very rapid melting and the local contrast with the general picture of increased Antarctic sea ice.


now, if that be the case, that the melting started for other reasons, then it could possibly be responsible for resulting climate change - since freezing and melting point is the same temperature, it will go either way the scale tips, even if it seems nearly imperceptible in the grand scheme of things.

just a little more melted ice will melt even more ice, if it is in contact with it and the process will speed up exponentially as the water increases as the ice continues to melt.

and then there is the albedo factor that we've all heard about in connection with "global warming." even if it isn't about global warming or greenhouse gases, it is still just as much a factor.

the more ice that melts on land, the more dark land is exposed, absorbing the sun's energy rather than reflecting it back out, as ice does.

i think Mother Nature is a continually cycling life form, like everything that lives upon and within her. her cycles are just so much larger than we can usually perceive simply due to proportions!



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
we still dont have enough scientific evidences proving that global warming is happening or that it is our fault

but we need to become more green, but that doesnt mean we need to use carbon trade, that is a tool to enrich some people

great thread, thanks for the info



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Ahh well Al Gore is wrong.


My actual opinion on the matter is that underneath all that ice lays a bloody big pyramid that has just warmed up due to humans walking in there and setting up the stage for a game with Aliens with acid blood and predators from outer space. And the pyramid coming online has melted the ice...



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I'm super serial you guys better not be making fun of Mr Gore!

Even from study of geography in school once you get to around A-levels (SAT type exam things) you learn about the heating cycles of the Earth. Couple that with the effects of sunspot activity and you are into a massive grey area. I'm sure this has been stated by one of the great minds on ATS before but I think Human Climate Change became the new religion for a lot of people, and just like religion, it will fall by the way side as it remains stubborn and refuses to grow and change in light of new discovery.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
This climate change argument is utterly asinine.

People like to polarize their thoughts. It must JUST be this or it must JUST be that....

I've always stood by that climate change is being affected by three forces, in order from most affecting to least...

1. It's natural. The earth goes through cycles.

2. It's being caused by celestial neighbors.

3. It's being caused by dumping millions of varieties of chemicals into the oceans.

But CO 2 isn't the cause of this. As I said, the man made global warming aspect may come from the fact that dumping chemicals into our planets blood supply maaaay not be the smartest idea in the world.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I see that everyone is quick to point out that "Al Gore is wrong", or that we now know the real reason for the ice melting. Did anyone notice that the article is presenting a theory, and that none of the information in the article is proven as fact? It seems people on both sides of the GW debate are happy to claim any information as fact as long as it backs their opinion.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by suicydking
I see that everyone is quick to point out that "Al Gore is wrong", or that we now know the real reason for the ice melting. Did anyone notice that the article is presenting a theory, and that none of the information in the article is proven as fact? It seems people on both sides of the GW debate are happy to claim any information as fact as long as it backs their opinion.


I think the problem is that there is evidence of three causes for climate change and people are arguing over which one is right when the fact is that climate change is currently interdependent on all three sources.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Climate change caused the ice shelves in Antarctica to melt?

UTTER BS!!!

Back in the late 50s, US and Russia fired 3 nukes into the atmosphere from the southern end of S. America, or some being did it and created the ozone hole in the Antarctic.

Mankind once again was blamed for it. Paid scientists and environmentalists blame our use of floracarbons causing this hole without batting an eyelid, with no blame nor reports of evidences that nukes were the direct cause of it.

That the ice had not melted earlier was a miracle, as strong UV light from the sun had penetrated through this hole in our atmosphere and would have melted the ice long ago.

Once again, our masters deem our stupid enough to be fool twice and yet again, blaming us for climate change with bought out scientists and environmentalists, and making us pay for the damage they had cause.

BS! Those scientists, enviromentalists and our masters oughta be flogged instead!!



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Why are so many people so passionately against Al Gore and his efforts to protect our planet. Is he wrong? Of course he is just as Eienstien did not have everything exactly right.

Al Gore is simply trying to use what science is available to make sure the earth is here for your children.

Does he lean on science that supports his agenda? Of course he does and yes some or even all of it could be wrong but his agenda is to save our planet so I do not understand were the passionate and sometimes hate toward this man comes from.

I do not understand people who can harbor hate for a man for wanting to save our planet regardless of if he is right or wrong where does that hate come from?

We humans are very powerful in intelectual power and ability now. NO not you and not me. You and I are as stupid as most men where 100 years ago. There are however people who have discovered things that allow us to change our very biology. We can even burn our atmosphere away if we wanted to with things like HAARP.

Being careful and having people like Al Gore providing checks and balances at a high level to keep us aware and to make sure companies like BP are watched and regulated is a GOOD thing for all humanity.

He and people like him have to sensationalize things to get noticed and to be taken seriously people have to notice and demand of our senators and representatives to make laws to protects us because we have seen now with the econmic collapse of 08 and the Oil disaster of 2010 that we cannot trust Coorporations to do the right thing if it means less profits.

Sure make counter arguements but how bout recognizing the need for such people as Al Gore and stop the hate.

Open our eyes and see. Its all about balance.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by suicydking
I see that everyone is quick to point out that "Al Gore is wrong", or that we now know the real reason for the ice melting. Did anyone notice that the article is presenting a theory, and that none of the information in the article is proven as fact? It seems people on both sides of the GW debate are happy to claim any information as fact as long as it backs their opinion.


As opposed to the real reason, global warming?

This is another example of information which the GW zealots never wanted to admit, examine, and certainly not 'talk about.' If they can spin the Al Gore theory into an excuse to take wealth from citizens you can bet that at the very least I am going to be reminding the community that the Nobel-Prize winning Gore Model is not the only game in town.

Granted our government will continue to milk the revenue stream as long as e are willing to accept eco-guilt as a way of life. I won't be heeded as the celebrity Gore has been, but I will nevertheless find every aspect of climate change that doesn't revolve around giving "carbon credits" to the Gore industry, nor falsely justify climate damage courtesy of corporate exploitation by performing a so-called 'offset' with fiat currency.

I will admit that my consternation with the Gore model and it's highly-organized marketing army bled through in the OP. For that I apologize. But the article is no less sound because it doesn't feed into the money-makers myth, and the outrageous parable that money will solve the problem as long as banks, and their crony government officiates can administer it.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars


As opposed to the real reason, global warming?

This is another example of information which the GW zealots never wanted to admit, examine, and certainly not 'talk about.' If they can spin the Al Gore theory into an excuse to take wealth from citizens you can bet that at the very least I am going to be reminding the community that the Nobel-Prize winning Gore Model is not the only game in town.

Granted our government will continue to milk the revenue stream as long as e are willing to accept eco-guilt as a way of life. I won't be heeded as the celebrity Gore has been, but I will nevertheless find every aspect of climate change that doesn't revolve around giving "carbon credits" to the Gore industry, nor falsely justify climate damage courtesy of corporate exploitation by performing a so-called 'offset' with fiat currency.

I will admit that my consternation with the Gore model and it's highly-organized marketing army bled through in the OP. For that I apologize. But the article is no less sound because it doesn't feed into the money-makers myth, and the outrageous parable that money will solve the problem as long as banks, and their crony government officiates can administer it.




My point is that the article presents a theory. MMGW is a theory, too. Let's make sure we treat theories as theories while we search for FACTS.

Edit: Clarity & manners

[edit on 21-6-2010 by suicydking]

[edit on 21-6-2010 by suicydking]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
this is obviously not a fact that can just dismiss global warming.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Are Russians melting arctic ice?

When I was in school we had a couple cosmonauts come to speak. They started talking about how advanced their technology was at the time. (around 1990) One of the cosmonauts said they had the tech to place a huge mirror in space and melt ice in the arctic. At the time I thought it was a great idea. More land for people to live on. When global warming became front in center in the MSM I remembered what that cosmonaut said. I asked a couple people that I went to school with. They also remembered what was said that day.

Maybe the Russians are making more land for themselves.
Has anyone ever heard of a report like this? I would love to have concrete evidence to back up what we heard in school so many years ago.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven

Why are so many people so passionately against Al Gore and his efforts to protect our planet. Is he wrong? Of course he is just as Eienstien did not have everything exactly right.

Einstein discovered Relativity and while his theories may later be shown to not be complete, so far they have been shown to be accurate.

Al Gore made one statement in An Inconvenient Truth that I was able to verify as fact: "My name is Al Gore and I used to be the next President of the United States". Of course, even that wasn't entirely accurate; he claimed he would be the next President. He never was, but I give him credit anyway. He got his name right.


I see a difference here...

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven


Al Gore is simply trying to use what science is available to make sure the earth is here for your children.



nice to know "fraud" is now considered a science.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars

Originally posted by suicydking
I see that everyone is quick to point out that "Al Gore is wrong", or that we now know the real reason for the ice melting. Did anyone notice that the article is presenting a theory, and that none of the information in the article is proven as fact? It seems people on both sides of the GW debate are happy to claim any information as fact as long as it backs their opinion.


As opposed to the real reason, global warming?

This is another example of information which the GW zealots never wanted to admit, examine, and certainly not 'talk about.'



Max...you have always impressed me as bright guy.

perhaps it would be balanced to admit that this debate is colored by Zealots on both sides of the argument.

The conservative movement has adopted the anti-AGW position as an uncompromising world-view as much as "liberals" have adopted it as a scientific certaintity.

The argument that there are financial motives involved in the debate has validity for both sides, but obviously more so for those Billion dollar energy companies interested in maintaining the status quo..the Koch brothers come to mind.

What you have done here is cite one example and shout "Al Gore was wrong"....

You know AGW is not a theorey belonging to Al Gore, but rather the scientific community.

This OP is evidence that this glacier's melting MAY be accelerated by it freeing itself of the underground mountain ridge. I beleive the theorey to be correct, but all the same a theorey...

For you to use this singular example of a proposed theorey concerning a glaciers melting rate to dismiss the possibility of any AGW in it's entireity...to attribute the entire theorey to Al Gore?

well...like it or not, that kind intellectual dishonesty makes YOU a zealot in every way you accuse folks on the other side of the issue to be.

Dissapointing.

This isn't a soccer game. If you care to examine the evidence and genuinely find the truth, then you have to accept you can't CHOOSE a side first.

In my world....

Did the underground mountain ridge and the glaciers recent passing of it contribute to it's accelerted melting...probably, but I could be wrong.

Does this mean AGW doesn't exist? No...that is silly.

Is Al Gore a goof? most times, yes. I don't like him much...but his movie is not the science, never was. It was a movie.

Did he come up with AGW? Is it "his theorey"..No...That kind of rhetoric is idiot speak for idiots.

Did the IPCC have some issues? Yes, they had/have zealots that thought thier work was a "cause" as opposed to research.

Does that mean the IPCC data is bad? No. The vast majority of it was as solid as you could expect scientific research to be. What the scandal exposed was the fact that actual humans were doing the research, complete with vanity and tempermental shortcommings.

Those failings were aggressively spun in hopes of discrediting the entirity of the work. Any objective scrutiny of the scandal and "evidence" shows the same. The thinking for those championing the scandal was that the general public doesn't know enough science, the message is more important than the facts.

....May Methusala live another 2000 years to see this debate fade into nothing more than an asterik in the history records denoting the passionate ignorance we humans once embraced and the intellectual sacrifices we laid upon the altar of idealogical gods during the time of the "culture wars".



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
You know what I like?

I like the word "may"




British and international boffins, having probed an Antarctic glacier which is thought to be a major cause of rising sea levels worldwide, report that increased polar ice melting may not be driven by climate change





May —used to indicate possibility or probability


love all the demonizing of Gore and GW theory because of a "maybe".

Stuck in your worldview much?

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Helmkat]




top topics



 
48
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join