Arctic Ice Rotten to the Core

page: 3
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Is it me, or did I read very similar threads like this one back in 2008 and earlier? All saying, "over the next several years... this and that will happen."

This global warming/climate change is rotten to the core. 20ft rise in sea level? Seriously? Give me a break.




posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by netgamer7k
 


Back in 2007 we were wondering how long would it be before the Arctic was ice free. Speculation was that it could happen in five years, but may take ten or twenty years.

Twenty foot ocean rises were expected to be 30 to 50 years from then, but most likely centuries from then. We are still pretty much on schedule.

Those who did not believe in global warming claimed that Arctic ice would be back to normal by now. They were wrong.

Of course that was before vast releases of methane were discovered last year.
edit on 22-9-2012 by poet1b because: Clarify time frame



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Regarding ice melts and raised ocean levels, here are some interesting things to think about.

When water freezes it takes up more volume.
Temperature 20 C, density = 0.998207 g/cm^3
Temperature 4 C, density = 0.999975
Temperature 0 C, density = 0.9998425
Temperature -0.1 C, density = 0.9150

When frozen, water takes up about 9% more volume than in liquid form. Less dense means more volume as the above statement defines. This is also easily proven if you freeze a can of soda, it explodes.

Now, another interesting fact. Icebergs are 90% under water. So if an iceberg melts you aren't introducing 10% more volume into the ocean (the part that's sticking out) you are adding a significantly lower percentage due to the fact the 90% is now taking up 9% less volume than when frozen.

Of course any ice that melts on land would add volume to the oceans.

If you have studied google maps or even read threads on ATS of ancient artifacts under water it begs the question. Would the melting of the ice caps actually decrease the ocean levels? Would all of the ice at the poles actually be artificially propping up the ocean levels we see currently due to the 9% increase in volume of all the ice on a global scale?

I don't have the answers to these questions but it sure is fascinating to wrap your mind around.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by litterbaux
 

And let's not forget that it's America's fault - all our fault and we should tax the hell out of Americans for using fossil fuels. Even though China puts on a new coal plant every week we Americans should step up to the plate and pay for the global warming - period - lets just tax everyone that wants gasoline or electricity - fuel oil to warm our homes and on and on. I say let's do it - the economy isn't bad enough yet so lets elect someone that is going to fix global warming for the world - and who would that be may ask?

Second.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Hey,

We might be the first species in a long line of extinctions that caused our own...



The Earth will rebalance itself {so to speak} life in one shape or form will continue. Now, whether we as a species survive the transition is the real question



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
But in other News, the Antarctic is covered in ICE!!!!

Forget the Arctic, Antarctic Ice is the Key to Global Warming...LOL



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
What a stupid post. If you did alittle research you would see that the Antarctic ice sheet is GROWING and at record numbers too. Theres always a balance.
Winning



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by hoochymama
But in other News, the Antarctic is covered in ICE!!!!

Forget the Arctic, Antarctic Ice is the Key to Global Warming...LOL

you beat me too iT



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by hawaiinguy12
 
Im just looking for the explanation.....we should post this like 10 times just to finally get it out of someone.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Millions of years ago, when the planet was last this warm, forests grew in the Arctic zones.

That's how all this vegetation grew there. The info is in one of the links I provided.


Well i think that answers the question of, has this "global warming" happened before and is it a natural cycle?

obviously humans had nothing to do with "global warming" the last time this happened,so i think it`s safe to assume we had very little to do with it this time either, since it is just a natural cycle repeating itself.
edit on 22-9-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
The ice has historically grown and shrank and will continue to do so.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
New things come & old things go.

Ice Ages
Floods
Earth Quakes
Volcanic Eruptions
Famines
Plagues
Wars
Peace
Abundance
Scarcity

And after all is said & done...

(Everybody follow the bouncing ball & Sing!)

Old Man River He Just Keeps Rolling Along!

(And the great gold curtain slowly decends.)

Next performance tomorrow at dawn.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawaiinguy12
What a stupid post. If you did alittle research you would see that the Antarctic ice sheet is GROWING and at record numbers too. Theres always a balance.
Winning


Did you even read the article you reference?


You might reasonably suspect that all the fuss about disappearing Arctic sea ice is overblown, then, given the growth of ice down south.

But you’d be wrong, for all sorts of reasons.

The first is that the one percent growth per decade in the Antarctic pales next to the much faster 15.5 percent drop per decade in the Arctic. They aren’t even in the same ballpark. Not only that: while the sea ice bordering Antarctica has been growing slightly, the massive ice sheets that sit directly atop the frozen continent are shrinking, at an accelerating rate, with worrisome implications for global sea level rise.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Really fits in haha




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 


AH, but you seem to miss the obvious.

There's much more ice in the antarctic than the arctic.

It doesn't make up the difference, but shows you the article is biased.
edit on 23-9-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by moniesisfun
reply to post by redtic
 


AH, but you seem to miss the obvious.

There's much more ice in the antarctic than the arctic.

It doesn't make up the difference, but shows you the article is biased.
edit on 23-9-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)


There is? Are you sure about that?

nsidc.org...



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 


No it was an assumption based on glancing at a globe many times. Your link clears up the misunderstanding.

Thanks!

It would seem that there's actually more ice in the arctic, as it's roughly twice as thick on average according to that site.

What else is interesting is that it for the period between 1979-2008, it only shows a 4.1% decline on average per decade.

Why does the article you link say 15.5%


Which data is incorrect?
edit on 23-9-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 
I think the point is that sure the Arctic is shrinking but how do you explain at the same time the Antarctic is increasing its MASS of Water??

That is the point, itsnt it??



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by penninja
 


All evidence shows that warm periods in the past lasted for thousands of years. There is no evidence the ocean currents will shut this down.

I wonder if all that released water could effect our planets rotation, possibly introduce a wobble.

Nobody knows what will happen, only that the change continues to accelerate.


What evidence is this?

Take some time to read, it's been understood for over a century that there is a cycle that has been ongoing alternating between 19,000 and 23,000 years that corresponds to a very slight difference in Earths orbit in relation to the sun.

The current understanding is that these slightly higher temperatures cause an increase in co2, ice melts to a degree that fresh water enters the NA current, the current shuts down the Ice returns.

This cycle has been continuous for millions of years since the continents have been in their relative position as they are today



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by littled16
 


There is nothing natural about this warming cycle. The historical record shows us this has never happened before so rapidly.

We are about to go on one crazy ride.


So where are these historical 'records' that disprove the theory? I really would like to see them.



new topics
top topics
 
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join