Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

www.newsmax.com

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly �lost� ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.express.co.uk
wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Sun Stays Sluggish as Weathermen Fight for Anti-Ice Age Funding

Al Gore must be getting worried now! His whole "get rich quick", carbon tax scheme is getting on pretty shaky ground lately!

The article also goes on to say that this has been one of the COLDEST winters and the heaviest snowfalls seen in decades for much of the world.

(Gore scratches his head, "Hmmm, what if we call it the Global Cooling Tax instead! Think they'll still fall for it?")

Global Warming better move aside, Global Cooling may really be what is on the horizon. (see the ATS Related Thread in first post for more info)





www.newsmax.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 19/2/08 by Keyhole]

I find it interesting that the sun dims just a little bit and the northern hemisphere seems to have one of the coldest winters in 40 years. I don't know if that has been confirmed with Al Gore yet or not though. He might need to take temperature readings in the hottest cities to keep his theories alive.

I remember joking with someone saying yeah, the people record the temperatures in the cities and talk about it getting warmer. Then the city adds more concrete, brick , pavement and other buildings in the city and around the thermometer. Instant global warming is born. Meanwhile away from the city, the temperature hasn't changed much.

On the bright side, I'm glad to hear the planet may be cooling off a little. It seemed like there was too much hot air going around about global warming.

Actually, super cold winters and ice buildup are just more indicators of Global Warming!! (sarcasm)

Seriously, I am not convinced that humans are having any appreciable affect on the climate - but - that doesn't mean we shouldn't be more responsible with the environment. Cutting CO2 emissions and using alternative energy sources are things we absolutely need to do. What we don't need is all of the fear mongering and eco-militant attitudes.


[edit on 19-2-2008 by itguysrule]

Newsmax is hardly a reputable news source. It's called fear mongering not scare mongering.



The correlation between CO2 increase and temperature change is pretty much hand in hand. Can man affect the planet? yes Proof: the ozone hole.

I suppose the amount of things that have an effect on the global ecosystem is infinite.

Originally posted by Keyhole
The article also goes on to say that this has been one of the COLDEST winters and the heaviest snowfalls seen in decades for much of the world.

Your point?

Rise in temperature means the melting of the polar ice caps. The melting of the polar ice caps ushers in fresh water in to salt water oceans and seas and disrupts the very delicate balance of salt vs fresh water in our oceans and seas.

This disruption leads to a disruption in ocean current. Ocean current determines temperature and weather.

It determines if London gets hit with a heat wave or a blizzard. It determines if Atlanta gets hit with heavy rain or a drought. It determines if New Orleans gets hit with a large hurricane or gets missed completely by a large hurricane.

While one part of the world may feel the effects of Global Warming through drought and 100 degree temperatures, another may feel the effects through prolonged winters and blizzards.

Global Warming does not mean the whole planet warms to a boiling point. Global Warming means a disruption in the current balance of how the ocean currents, wind currents, jet streams, and weather systems form, where they go, and how severe they are.

Do I think they're fear mongering and over exadurating? Absolutely.

Do I think humans are solely responsible for Global Warming? No, I think part of it is a natural process as well.

But do I think "Global Warming" means, and ONLY means, the whole planet warms up and experiences drought like weather? Absolutely not.

Global Warming will produce more severe and more erratic weather on BOTH ends of the extreme, depending on where you are. Bigger hurricanes that go longer in to the year, bigger snow storms, colder temperatures, longer droughts, more tornadoes, hotter temperatures - it's all a sign of Global Warming, or at least, a climate change.

Don't let the name fool you. Global Warming isn't a heat wave and drought. It's a disruption in the Earth's current, very fragile and delicately balanced climate.

Originally posted by stikkinikki
Newsmax is hardly a reputable news source. It's called fear mongering not scare mongering.



The correlation between CO2 increase and temperature change is pretty much hand in hand. Can man affect the planet? yes Proof: the ozone hole.

I suppose the amount of things that have an effect on the global ecosystem is infinite.

www.heartland.org...

I suggest you take some of the advice and realize how ignorant it sounds to claim something is happening when you really dont have the data to prove it at all.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


www.express.co.uk...

acting like you can take data from the past decades and determine something like global warming is just ridiculous. Its like watching a sequence that goes on for days, and saying you can predict what it is going to do by watching it for 30 seconds.

For example, say weather patterns go like this: ABABABCCCTCCTABABABCCGGGCCTABABAB. It would be like you seeing ABABABCCC then predicting we are going into some sort of major environment change. You don't have nearly enough data to predict ANYTHING of that magnitude. We are lucky if we can predict weather for the next week. We use decades of information and data just to determine the chances a weather pattern will do a certain thing, yet you want to use satellite data we have only had for maybe 40 years to determine a global environmental shift?

Lets use some common sense here.

reply to post by grimreaper797


You pretty much swung and completely missed at my post. Are you having trouble understanding? Nowhere did I mention anything about data. I simply explained what "Global Warming" is.

If you have told yourself that Global Warming means the whole planet warms up and that's it, then I'm sorry that you have such a 2 dimensional view of how our climate works.

Ice melting means more fresh water mixing in with salt water oceans and seas. More fresh water mixing in with salt water oceans and seas means a change in ocean current. A change in ocean current means a change in weather patterns. A change in weather patterns means EVERYTHING! Hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, blizzards, hot, cold, floods, thunderstorms, ice storms - EVERYTHING!

It does not mean ONLY droughts and hot temperatures in some areas and hurricanes and floods in another.

BLIZZARDS, COLD AND ICE ARE A PART OF GLOBAL WARMING TOO!

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
You pretty much swung and completely missed at my post. Are you having trouble understanding? Nowhere did I mention anything about data. I simply explained what "Global Warming" is.

OK, thats nice. Unfortunately, science is based on facts and data, and right now, you don't have anything to back up the theory of global warming since in my previous post...on the first line, I provide a link saying satellite data shows that the "lost" ice you go on to ramble about later in this post is not lost at all.

I will quote for you, to make it easier.

But figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back.

Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.

If you have told yourself that Global Warming means the whole planet warms up and that's it, then I'm sorry that you have such a 2 dimensional view of how our climate works.

Funny, you say I swung and missed at your post...then you swing and completely miss at mine. Where did I say anything about Global Warming meaning the globe simply warms up? In fact, my post says the opposite. Are YOU having trouble understanding?

Ice melting means more fresh water mixing in with salt water oceans and seas. More fresh water mixing in with salt water oceans and seas means a change in ocean current. A change in ocean current means a change in weather patterns. A change in weather patterns means EVERYTHING! Hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, blizzards, hot, cold, floods, thunderstorms, ice storms - EVERYTHING!

Hmm thats interesting. Now, lets remember that ice melting is normal and occurs every year. Lets also remember that just because we have a decade of rising temperatures, that doesn't indicate anything as far as global warming goes. Manmade greenhouse gas effects are suppose to be .6 degrees C rising every 100 years. This, IN TIME, will threaten our environment. This is a theory. The FACT is, we have only had satellite data for about 40 years. This means your little theory about unprecedented ice melting really is thrown completely out the window. It could be COMPLETELY natural. 100% natural, having happened pleanty of times before.

Coming to the conclusion that the world is on a disaster course to the end of humanity because of a couple decades of data and research is naive. It takes centuries for ice ages and warm up periods to take place. this .6 degree rise may be entirely natural. We may still be coming out of the last ice age from 10,000 years ago. Do we have temperature data from before the last ice age to prove what "normal" temperatures were?

No, we don't. We have 40 years of satellite data and maybe a couple hundred years of weather data at best. That is no kind of data to make the assessment of global warming.

It does not mean ONLY droughts and hot temperatures in some areas and hurricanes and floods in another.

BLIZZARDS, COLD AND ICE ARE A PART OF GLOBAL WARMING TOO!

First, I already know this. Second, prove to me that global warming is not completely natural. That it isn't naturally occuring, and hasn't happened before. You can't. You have data that shows temperatures were causing the ice caps to melt for a couple decades. Thats nice. Too bad a couple decades is literally NOTHING in the view of earth and its weather cycles. These are minor bumps which can vary from decade to decade. It takes centuries of data to get any sense of what our climate is doing. Thats how our climate works. It's cycles go over many centuries. The temporary cycles and such are not a major factor in the overall picture.

Oh no its the coldest winter yet. Oh no its the driest summer on record. You do realize that those things have NOTHING to do with global warming OR greenhouse gas effects? The melting of the Ice Caps happen EVERY YEAR. The level of the oceans have rised 9cm in the past 50 years. That is HARDLY something to be worried about. That could be a completely natural cycle occuring in our environment.

I wish people would be a bit more objective about global warming and realize that you really can't prove one way or the other. I don't have to prove global warming isn't happening, just that the information that says it is happening is being hyped. Its being hyped because the data is too incomplete to make ANY conclusion. Its just another scare to get mass media more viewers.

reply to post by grimreaper797




You're trying to get me to argue with you while also twisting my words. That's funny.

I'll lay this out nice and neat for you to understand. Hopefully you're not one of those people who will ignore parts of a post like this one coming up so that you can preserve your ego and the argument. So pay attention: I - AM - NOT - SAYING - ONE - WAY - OR - THE - OTHER - IF - GLOBAL - WARMING - EXISTS - OR - NOT

Nowhere in my posts did I say that Global Warming is occurring, and nowhere did I say that it isn't natural.

In fact, the complete opposite. For the longest time I have had the opinion that the Earth DOES go through warming cycles. It would make no sense that we pulled out of the ice age if we DIDN'T go through warming cycles.

So that you completely understand: I don't think "Global Warming", if it exists, is entirely humans fault.

But I'm also not naive to think we haven't had at least a small impact. You can't poor tons of pollutants in to the water and the air and expect no consequences.

Does that mean I'm saying it's all our fault? No, I'm not, so don't ignore me saying this so you can preserve the argument.

What I was saying in my first two posts that you completely twisted and misunderstood was the EFFECTS of Global Warming. Nowhere did I claim Global Warming is happening, and nowhere did I state my opinion on it. I was simply stating the FACTS of what Global Warming REALLY is because some people seem to think that Global Warming means the whole Earth warms up and that's the extent of it.

Please read every bit of this post to fully understand, and ignore none of it.

hhhmmm...
la nina year = cold winter = freezing water

that isn't any indication that all of the ice is coming back.. it's freakin winter!

so come summer, your gonna post "global warming back on, ice from winter melts!!!"

come on.. post something worth while..

reply to post by grimreaper797


Thank you for This Link. I found it very enlightening. Everyone who has an interest should read the entire article.

I think we are already seeing a "backlash" directed toward the scientists who sold out to politics. Lets hope they don't end up teaching our children. Don't let your kid take one of Gores classes

Other than about three weeks, we have had a fairly normal winter in Anchorage, but up north they have seen some miserable temperatures. The Tok area had temperatures as low as -70 Fahrenheit. Thats real temperature and not windchill. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm glad I'm down here in the banana belt.

I think as time goes on people will realize they have been the victims of scare tactics and junk science. Then just like the "Boy Who Cried Wolf", when they need our attention we won't trust them. But then people do have short memories. Anyone else recall in the early 80's when we were told all the trees would be dead in 30 years? Considering the huge salmon runs up here lately I also recall being told the salmon would be gone by now. Like I said, people have short memories.

reply to post by grimreaper797


The furthest reaching data that I know of is that obtained from drilling ice cores. This shows a close correlation between the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature variations (see graph). What we also see in this graph is that the temperature changes are indeed cyclical and we are near the top of one of the cycles.

Graph

Source

Zooming in on the present we see a spike in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere (below). These levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are unprecedented as far as we know so we simply do not know what will happen. We can try and predict it based on the past variations but until it happens I don't think we'll know.

Graph

Source

We could cause an upset in the cycle before things settle down to 'normal operations', we could cause a runaway reaction creating a much larger temperature spike than usually observed or nothing could happen at all.

What this data does seem to suggest is that under normal conditions a temperature rise of above 2C will trigger a significant period of cooling and possibly an ice age.

We are approaching that 2C threshold but the difference between now and the past is that when that threshold is reached we will still be pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Previously the CO2 level looks to have remained between about 180 and 300 ppmv. In the past 70 years it's gone from 300 to 370 ppmv. At that rate of increase I think it's uncertain whether the natural processes which have reined in the concentrations before will be able to do so again.

I don't know what will happen. I don't think the scientists know either. All we can do is look at the data and make our best guess.


edit: sorting out link weirdness




[edit on 20-2-2008 by Chris McGee]

Yes but is it our emissions that are the problem or the decreasing plant life? As the world clears out all these trees for development, as we consume more and more beef which the cows also produce a ton of co2, and as we look at our general population increase, can we really make THAT kind of change.

People act like cutting the oil intake would cut the CO2 emissions back to normal. We would have to also cut the cattle industry, limit the industry, and limit development of any new areas. We would have to do a complete 180. So you all had better hope that humans really can't effect the CO2 levels that much, because if it is our fault, we aren't stopping. Its not just the US either. China and India will pick up any slack we let off when it comes to development. We use less resources, they will use more.

The reason being is that their economic booms are being restricted because a lack of resources. The US cutting its use of resources would do nothing to help the environment.

Unfortunately, the only solution to this problem is either getting off this rock, or a population reduction. There are too many people to cut using the resources, to cut the development, that is occuring in todays world. It is simply not going to work unless you can provide some way for the worlds population to expand without destroying our environment.

I only see one solution....that's up. (Start inhabiting outerspace. Work on space technology to get us off this rock before its too late and the population crisis is too high. I believe the population crisis is the cause for everything that is going wrong here. If our population wasn't as high as it is, the need for so much resources wouldn't be needed. That would mean a dramatic cut in CO2 levels.)

So HAARP does have some positive influence after all. Push some buttons and the polar ice grows back to normal

Originally posted by itguysrule
Actually, super cold winters and ice buildup are just more indicators of Global Warming!!

(sarcasm)

[edit on 19-2-2008 by itguysrule]

You laugh, I have a friend that swears that unpretidcable weather is a sign of gobal warming. How very convent

reply to post by grimreaper797


I agree with you there. The problem is that whatever we do would have to be a concerted global effort and in the current competitive conditions nobody would be willing to give an inch for fear of their economy falling behind.

Your point about meat production is also a valid one but again, who wants to eat less meat? Nobody needs 3 meat meals a day but that is what a lot of the developed world has come to expect. Cutting back the amount of meat we consume would be a good start but then, what about the farmers? What about the beef industry? What about the effect on the economy? (hmm, a pattern developing )

Population control would be a good thing but I can't see that happening anytime soon. China tried it and all they got was criticism. The Catholic church pretty much forbids it for a large part of the world and people generally are just too selfish when it comes to it. Many people are in favour of population control until it impinges on their right to have as many children as they want. Maybe their should be some kind of legislation that says meat eaters with more than one child aren't allowed to complain about anything environmental.

I don't think science, taxes, legislation or any politician in the world will be able to do anything about greenhouse gases until there is a sea change in our sociological attitudes.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I agree with you there. The problem is that whatever we do would have to be a concerted global effort and in the current competitive conditions nobody would be willing to give an inch for fear of their economy falling behind.

Its not only competitive restriction but simply a logical barrier. To change globally, even if there weren't a completely greedy attitude about it, would be just about impossible. It would spiral into communism. Why? Because people would say "Look, we have these excess resources, now we can give it to the needed." There are simply too many people on this earth to just turn around and go back to the way it once was.

Your point about meat production is also a valid one but again, who wants to eat less meat? Nobody needs 3 meat meals a day but that is what a lot of the developed world has come to expect. Cutting back the amount of meat we consume would be a good start but then, what about the farmers? What about the beef industry? What about the effect on the economy? (hmm, a pattern developing

)

Well it would put certain people back on jobs. That would in term create more people that need resources they can't get their hands on, and futhers the critical population level issue. More people will starve, more people will lose jobs. What we have here is a double edged sword.

You can either let the poor and sick die, or you can try to keep everyone alive, even those who cannot provide for themselves, and suffer the long term consequences of such actions. Neither choice is pretty, but to stall and make no choice at all will injure everyone.

Population control would be a good thing but I can't see that happening anytime soon. China tried it and all they got was criticism. The Catholic church pretty much forbids it for a large part of the world and people generally are just too selfish when it comes to it. Many people are in favour of population control until it impinges on their right to have as many children as they want. Maybe their should be some kind of legislation that says meat eaters with more than one child aren't allowed to complain about anything environmental.

I am against population control and restricting people from eating X amount of meat. Personally I want to start moving people off earth. I would gladly be one of them. Start getting people off this rock. It will not only bring a new age of space exploration but ensure that our planet, which is experiencing a critical population level of human beings, will be a worry of the past. By expanding into space, we can ensure the human race survival, and remove a great deal of problems that are being caused by population...or overpopulation as it stands now.

Sticking around on earth with the current way things are going is not a path we want to travel down, and its too late to simply turn back with the amount of people we have living on this planet. You try to turn back, you kill alot of people by not allowing them to get to resources they need to survive, and if we stay on course, the environment will condition to backlash at us for the damage we are causing.

Global warming may not be a man made issue, but we are certainly causing damage to the environment. People say a person can effect our planet, but I bet 6 billion can make a pretty big dent in the environment if they keep kicking at it.

People that think cutting oil use or corporations cutting energy use will solve the problem are fools that dont fully understand the implications of doing such things. They will indirectly cause alot of deaths if they force the system to do a 180.

I don't think science, taxes, legislation or any politician in the world will be able to do anything about greenhouse gases until there is a sea change in our sociological attitudes.

There may be more cattle but there is less of bison and every other large wild animal. There is also less forest and prairie burning from lightening strikes. There is a possibility of being more termite’s and volcano action and underground gases released from mining.
but how much is just scare tactics for profit.
ecoworld

pdo