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.
This is Really Scary Stuff
So you make a thread about glaciers melting and somehow manage to not mention glaciers melting in the thread title? This is an example of "How to make a failed thread title that avoids mentioning the topic of the thread".
originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
about glaciers melting
“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland … was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen.
Less glacial cover in ancient Greenland means the global ocean was probably between three and six feet higher during that time compared to current levels, the scientists say.
“To get this site ice free you would’ve had to remove the ice cover from about the southern third of Greenland,” study team member Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, told LiveScience.
originally posted by: Metallicus
Why are you scared by this?
These changes have happened all throughout Earth's history. It would be strange if the Earth weren't changing...THAT might be scary.
originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: SeekingAlpha
This is Really Scary Stuff
Why are you scared by this?
These changes have happened all throughout Earth's history. It would be strange if the Earth weren't changing...THAT might be scary.
originally posted by: tothetenthpower
originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: SeekingAlpha
This is Really Scary Stuff
Why are you scared by this?
These changes have happened all throughout Earth's history. It would be strange if the Earth weren't changing...THAT might be scary.
The rate at which it's occurring is the alarming part.
Climate change isn't an idea anymore or a hypothesis, it's real. And weather or NOT are responsible for it, we have a responsibility to try and do something about it - one way or another.
That narrative, of protecting the planet, is valid from any ideological standpoint, be it religious, secular, conservative or liberal.
~Tenth
Why is the rate alarming? We don't know how fast it melted nor how often in the last several million years. Everything is speculation at this point...or fear mongering.
The fact is, most people believe in climate change. It's the cause of climate change and to what degree mankind is responsible which seems to be the argument of the day. There are many things the earth is in control of which we can do absolutely nothing about.
www.skepticalscience.com...
Although natural factors have always influenced the state of Arctic sea ice, research strongly suggests that today's decline is driven by the novel influence of anthropogenic CO2 we've added to the atmosphere and thus is unique in Earth's history.
www.greenpeace.org...
The people and animals that live in the Arctic depend on its unique ecosystem to survive. Yet major companies like Shell and Exxon are making aggressive moves to usher in a new “oil rush” in the Arctic Ocean. In some places it has already begun. Russian oil giant Gazprom has already begun producing small amounts oil from the Arctic in the ocean north of Russia.
link.springer.com...
‘In the Arctic a new ocean is opening before our eyes, promising access to resources and opportunities once thought impossible’, remarked Vice Admiral Peter Neffenger, as he discussed how these economic incentives are transforming maritime activity and impacting US Coast Guard operations in the region.1 The acknowledgment that human activity will drastically intensify over the next decade as sea ice recedes prompted the US government to release in May 2013 the National Strategy for the Arctic Region in an effort to better position the United States to meet the challenges and emerging opportunities that lie ahead.2 The need to ensure that maritime activity in the Arctic Ocean is conducted in a ‘safe, secure and environmentally responsible’ manner motivated the US Coast Guard to follow suit and articulate the strategic objectives for the service’s engagement in the region.3
This is emblematic of the disparity between Russian and U.S. capabilities in the strategically important Arctic. Russia has launched as many icebreakers in June as the U.S. Coast Guard has launched in the past 40 years. With the Arktika and the Ilya Muromets, the Russian government now possesses 24 icebreakers. Nineteen more are operated by Russian companies. The U.S. sails two. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Paul Zukunft acknowledged, “We’re not even in the same league as Russia right now” in the Arctic. To make matters worse, the Polar Star just celebrated its 40th birthday and is now operating far beyond its intended lifespan. It is set to be decommissioned in 2022 with no replacement for at least several years. That would leave the Coast Guard with only one active icebreaker, the Healy, which cannot operate in the Arctic during the colder months. Thankfully, the U.S. government is beginning to take this gap seriously. The Coast Guard finally requested a sizeable amount of funding for the icebreaker program this year after President Barack Obama made it a personal priority in his September 2015 trip to the U.S. Arctic. The Senate recently added $1 billion for the program to the 2017 defense appropriations bill, though this legislation is still being considered by Congress. Even if the Coast Guard receives this robust funding, it is only the first step in rebuilding its Arctic capabilities. The service has held that it needs three heavy and three medium polar icebreakers to fulfill all its mission requirements. Zukunft’s predecessor and current Department of State special representative for the Arctic, Adm. Robert J. Papp, argued earlier this year that the U.S. might even require eight icebreakers. There are actions the government can take to accelerate this revitalization. First, the Coast Guard should consider procuring foreign-built icebreakers. As these foreign companies are already producing the ships, they would be able to build them for the Coast Guard more quickly. They could also be significantly less expensive.
There is no need to protect earth from itself. Man has done enough invasive damage trying to control mother nature.
originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Climate change isn't an idea anymore or a hypothesis, it's real. And weather or NOT are responsible for it, we have a responsibility to try and do something about it - one way or another.
originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
a Vice News story about glaciers melting in Iceland.
originally posted by: StoutBroux
originally posted by: tothetenthpower
originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: SeekingAlpha
This is Really Scary Stuff
Why are you scared by this?
These changes have happened all throughout Earth's history. It would be strange if the Earth weren't changing...THAT might be scary.
The rate at which it's occurring is the alarming part.
Climate change isn't an idea anymore or a hypothesis, it's real. And weather or NOT are responsible for it, we have a responsibility to try and do something about it - one way or another.
That narrative, of protecting the planet, is valid from any ideological standpoint, be it religious, secular, conservative or liberal.
~Tenth
Why is the rate alarming? We don't know how fast it melted nor how often in the last several million years. Everything is speculation at this point...or fear mongering. The fact is, most people believe in climate change. It's the cause of climate change and to what degree mankind is responsible which seems to be the argument of the day. There are many things the earth is in control of which we can do absolutely nothing about. There is no need to protect earth from itself. Man has done enough invasive damage trying to control mother nature.