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 Sea Ice Hits Record ... High?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


How does this news relate to other studies showing that the melting of Antarctic continental ice is contributing to a rise in sea level?

Continental ice is not sea ice.

edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by butcherguy
 


In some substances this will be seen as an ionizing effect, but I think if a rock is the absorber, it would be seen as heat.
"Heat" is actually the vibration of molecules. As you point out, the transfer of UV energy to matter involves ionization (or chemical degradation).
I was reading up on ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation, and I found this:



Non-ionizing radiation is the term given to radiation in the part of the electromagnetic spectrum where there is insufficient energy to cause ionization. It includes electric and magnetic fields, radio waves, microwaves, infrared, ultraviolet, and visible radiation.

The source is WHO.
I think they must be wrong, or I am confused. I read that UV causes ionization, and I believe that is the case, then I read this. I don't have a ton of faith in the WHO, so I am supposing that they screwed this up.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


When my husband gets into our jacuzzi a huge amount of water runs over the waterfall edge into the pool. I think it might be called displacement, hmm. Of course that doesn't happen when I get in!


I laughed.


I personally believe in Earth cycles, more than the Earth not being able to handle pollution. In other words, it's a natural cycle of cold, normal, hot, that the planet goes through.

edit on 15-10-2012 by Catacomb because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


How does this news relate to other studies showing that the melting of Antarctic continental ice is contributing to a rise in sea level?

Continental ice is not sea ice.

edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



How does this news relate to other studies showing that the melting of Antarctic continental ice is contributing to a rise in sea level? [Growing sea ice] has no effect whatsoever on sea level, because sea ice is already floating on the ocean.

So does that make this statement false and misleading?
Sorry i did not quote all of it before.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 

The WHO is right depending on how you look at it. The high frequency end of the UV spectrum is ionizing radiation. The sort that reaches Earth's surface is not.

I will concede that depending upon the material UVB and UVA can produce some heating just as visible light can. However the amount of heating is much less than that produced by longer wavelengths.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


So does that make this statement false and misleading?

No.
It says that continental ice can affect sea levels but sea ice cannot.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I thought this was taught at primary school "displacement"

But good news, I would love to think that what the Earth is going though is a transition stage between ice-ages and we are still here able to record the impacts of this transition leading in to a new period.

I can see the faces of climate scientist in 1000 years looking back at all the data we have amassed, thinking you lucky people experiencing such a great time in the history of earth.
edit on 15-10-2012 by Legion2024 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Legion2024
 


I can see the faces of climate scientist in 1000 years looking back at all the data we have amassed, thinking you lucky people experiencing such a great time in the history of earth.

Interesting times.
Lucky us.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 
Thanks for the help on that.
We supposedly get more UV-C now with ozone depletion.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Phage
 


If you add ice to your drink then the level will rise.
If ice is above sea level then melts or breaks off then that would have some effect on levels.

Phage quite clearly states the ice ALREADY in your glass as in icebergs ALREADY floating in the sea. The arctic is a giant iceberg and will have no effect on sea levels if it melts. If greenland melts then you can get 7.1 meters, if Antarctica melts then 61 meters. However, Greenland melting is a possibility and in fact far far more likely to "slip" into the sea rather then melt which would take centuries even with worst case warming. Slipping into the sea as glaciers prevent the hold back of ice flows is far far more likely (and being observed NOW, yes really skeptics!) and could occur in decades. The full melt of Antarctica would take thousands of years, however, similar to greenland the glaciers holding back land based ice could break away (some already are, yes really skeptics !) and thus the flow of ice would hit the oceans BEFORE melting. The net effect of very slow melting ice or very fast floating ice would be the same on sea levels.

If you don't believe us have a chat with a greek fellow called Archimedes.

FYI sea level ice cover in Antarctica may be increasing but the ice cover (thickness) on land based antarctica is decreasing (thinning). A slight fact the cherry picking skeptics fail to inform you about because it contradicts their flawed arguments,



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Could you even imagine what wouldve happened if Al-the climate change lord- Gore wouldve actually made President in 2000?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude


If you read the whole article, you will find some amazingly strange wording on how this report confirms that global warming is still an issue.


That "amazingly strange wording" is how intellectuals speak.
It makes perfect sense.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by network dude
 


Could you even imagine what wouldve happened if Al-the climate change lord- Gore wouldve actually made President in 2000?

No war in Iraq, no recession because Clinton's surplus policies would've continued, and our environment would be cleaner.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I hope this is true

and yeah it doesn't end any debate or discussion

just like that warm day we will have in december. or that cold one in june



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by smashdem
While I dont think we should go spewing chemicals with reckless abandon into our environment, I also dont think we are the main cause(or even close) of the warming. I go with the sun cycles, it was just in a hotter than normal phase. And that is if it was even warmer. I am by no means qualified for something like this, but I can do more reading on it. There are plenty of great threads here, it seems.
Thanks for posting.
edit on 15-10-2012 by smashdem because: (no reason given)


It goes in cycles. The warming stopped 16 years ago, before that it went on for about the same amount of time. And before that warm cycle, we had the cooling period of about 40 years which lead the media to hysteriously proclaim a coming ice age. Nothing to worry about so to speak, as there's very little we can do to influence it.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Shred
 

reply to post by Shred
 


The warming stopped 16 years ago, before that it went on for about the same amount of time.
The warming did not stop. That was a misrepresentation by David Rose.

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

metofficenews.wordpress.com...


And before that warm cycle, we had the cooling period of about 40 years
There is some evidence that may have been due to human activity. Dimming caused by increased sulphate particles from industrial sources. earthobservatory.nasa.gov...


edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I thought a big part of global warming was that there would be larger shifts in extremes on both ends of the temp scale with a constant warming effect over all. This would mean we would see extreme warmth, cold, wet , dry etc but over decades it would show a continual warming effect.

In other words global warming creates crazy weather, and so we most likely need to ask ourselves if the weather has been crazy more than asking if it is warmer.

We know that mother earth can fix global warming with one nasty volcano, or even put us into an ice age with a few. It is said that Mt Pinatubo delayed global warming by 30 years, so we have another 10 or so before the warming trend starts back right where it left off before the eruption. I'm not saying I'm an Gore fan, but I do think we are heading in that direction...what is causing it I do not have a clue, but no one can deny that human's do play somewhat of a roll in it.





edit on 15-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
everything on the earth, comes from the earth.

how can you harm the earth with the earth.

from that gum your science teacher said will take 1,000 years to decompose to that coffee cup is made of materials found and taken from the earth itself.

you cannot harm it by changing its shape or refining it since you are releasing it back to where it came from when it breaks down. time is irrelevant.

was that coal polluting the earth when it was in the ground. why would it be harmful to the earth then when it is converted to heat and gas.

the only ones we can harm is our ourselves by releasing things toxic and dangerous to us and our health.

edit on 15-10-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


How does this news relate to other studies showing that the melting of Antarctic continental ice is contributing to a rise in sea level?

Continental ice is not sea ice.

edit on 10/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Possibly the huge loss of chunks of the greenland ice cap and the Ross shelf floating out to sea could contribute to the sea ice increase by making the surface water less salty or even stalling some currents etc...That huge chunk couldnt make it into the atlantic from where it broke off up north...too big to pass the narrows....we are talkin rhode island sized chunks....
edit on 15-10-2012 by stirling because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 

The Ross ice shelf is floating ice. The Greenland ice layer is not.

Changing salinity would not alter sea levels but it could disrupt established ocean currents.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join