STOP PRESS - Vast Cracks Appear in Arctic Ice

reply to post by pityocamptes


if the Earth had been putting out the pollutants you elude to it would be the Earth, but seeing as how the type of event you are obviously describing has not happened for a long long long time I would say it is us.

Sure super volcanoes can do all you elude to, but they are NOT doing it now, we are. So ya, it is a POSSIBILITY but not REALITY.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
i remember the early '80s here in the uk when we were told that we were heading for a new ice age and that acid rain was a real danger! .

I agree with much of your post, but off topic, Acid Rain was a major concern and it's effects were well documented. Whole lakes in NE Canada and the U.S. were affected and the tops of many forests were damaged by Acid Rain. I saw the effects first hand and since steps have been taken to eliminate the Acid Rain, things have gone back to normal, whatever that means.

The main difference between the Acid Rain problem and GW is that a definite cause of the Acid Rain was found and remedies proposed that actually worked. The cause of Acid Rain was not disputed much in the scientific community, we knew what had caused it.

Man Made GW activists have neither the cause well documented nor do their proposals seem to have a consensus of the scientific community. There is a fairly large group of scientists that are not convinced that man is the main cause of GW. Till GW warming models of today correctly forcast previous warm and hot periods of the Earth's history, they are not accurate for future predictions in my book.

Originally posted by pause4thought
Your pejorative, patronizing tone only serves to deepen my conviction that those who back the interests of corporations over and above the environment - not an abstract 'cause', but the air we breathe and the climate that affects people's lives - have to rely on obfuscation and spin with regards to the facts in order to pull the wool over people's eyes, and on derogatory comments to bully and intimidate.

The 'billions' I'm interested in are not dollars. They are people.

Take a look at your own above quote and tell me who is the Patronizing one, who uses derogatory comments to bully and intimidate? Look in the mirror before you hurl such epitaphs.

Also, you do realize the the population explosion the human race has had, comes mainly through the use of the dreaded "carbon cycle". There wouldn't be so many people alive were it not for the many things that the use of carbon based fuels provide. If you need examples I will gladly provide them. To go back to a simpler life would necessitate the reduction in the overall human population. The genie is out of the bottle, we can't go back to the "way things were". At least not at 6 Billion and counting.The proposals some on the manmade global warming side have made would keep most of the developing world stuck in the development cycle. How noble of you to impose that on them. I sure they will appreciate it.

Here we go again. All the armchair experts who know for certain all the warming is natural. Whereas all the scientists doing the work get ever more evidence that we are the reason.

We are screwed because we refuse to face up to a truth and therefore a solution we can't stomach.

Our children and grandchildren will not thank us, I hope you skeptics feel comfortable looking them in the eye.

reply to post by pavil


I was referring specifically to the kind of language used in that post. I was not tarring everyone who shares the poster's views with the same brush. Here are the type of pejorative, patronizing insults used by the poster:

The people who think that the climate can be 'kept stable' are misguided at best, and extremely dangerous at worst... man made climate change is a fraud... Throwing money, time and resources down the drain trying to 'prevent' climate change is not just a waste, its a immoral, almost criminal excuse to make a bunch of 'do gooders' feel useful.

When someone reverts to deriding those who disagree with them in that way it suggests they hope to bully the opposition into keeping quiet. Crying 'Foul play' is a fair response. I can only assume you thought I was referring to all posters who favour the 'natural causes' arguments, which was not the case.

To go back to a simpler life would necessitate the reduction in the overall human population. The genie is out of the bottle, we can't go back to the "way things were". At least not at 6 Billion and counting.The proposals some on the manmade global warming side have made would keep most of the developing world stuck in the development cycle.

Not so. What developing nations need is a different model, one based on sustainability. It is not about 'going back to a simpler life', as you suggest, in some ruinous fashion (although simply being more sensible with scarce or limited resources does no-one any harm). Growing economies based increasingly on renewable energy sources could flourish - so please don't put words in my mouth.

Developed economies can bite the bullet too, and gain in the long-run. The greater the price of oil, the more what I am saying rings true. No matter what the reason: global warming or oil prices, the future lies with the 'eco' camp which, for some reason (-corporate margins?-), some people feel the need to ridicule.

Originally posted by pause4thought
Developed economies can bite the bullet too, and gain in the long-run. The greater the price of oil, the more what I am saying rings true. No matter what the reason: global warming or oil prices, the future lies with the 'Eco' camp which, for some reason (-corporate margins?-), some people feel the need to ridicule.

They bite the bullet with more fatalities and shortened lifespans. That's why they have been exempted from Kyoto. The means of producing energy in sustainable fashion just isn't there in enough quantity to work in the real world with current technology. Don't get me wrong, I would welcome affordable sustainable energy, it's a better alternative than carbon based fuels. However right now, those carbon based fuels are the only source of the amount of energy we need. The two biggest needs we have with power generation are safe nuclear (fusion) and a method of storing energy for vehicles (fuel cells). The nation that solves those two problems will be in the drivers seat.

wheres Mr. Fusion When you need it. A banana Peel here, some discarded beer an can there, wha-la Energy for the next 100 time jumps.... I mean Miles.

Honestly the free energy is out there, we just need to better harness an package it. Capture lighting inna bottle. Use it to run you house. lol I was thinking of a Plastic recycler for the home, Throw your plastics from discarded packages an make a variety of items again, including bags lol Why not huh? would help so much to have that much less trash, at least this way even the lazy couch potato would recycle.

Yes there are centers, but in all honestly they aren't near by, an you spend more on gas then you would staying at home using this thing. could make em for glass, paper, and rubber... but that wouldnt be a home thing unless you had a certain license since the heat needed for the glass an rubber would be molten lava. but the paper one would be fine at home, lol make your own TP or note paper.

I mean if I can see things like this why arent many others an thus forth by statistics we could say someone with alot more resources then I do to put it into action....

Lets throw these ideas to the road an making some tracks.

I think most people can't appreciate the challenges associated with converting a world energy structure based on hydrocarbons, to one based on "sustainable".....'renewable'...."alternative' energy sources.

These are nice words, they sound great. But adapting these types of energy options for world wide use is not acheivable with current technology.

There are two main challenges in our future in terms of energy...
1) electricity generation for the grid
2) power sources for internally powered vehicles

Electricity generation is the easier of the two.

Right now...today...the world could begin a transition to nuclear fission that could eliminate all coal and oil plants within 20 years.

Hydro is a great option and should continue to be expanded. New developments in materials strength and superconductivity will continue to improve the output and applicability of hydro.

An area of hydro that's been discussed for decades is tidal, or wave action generation. It hasn't seen much research beyond bench scale testing, but I think advancements in high-strength, light-weight materials, and superconductivity will make these types of hydro power a growing sector in the near future.

Wind and terrestrial solar will never become large, widespread technologies IMO. No one wants wind farms in their backyard, and terrestrial solar is not efficent enough for full time large scale use. These are great compliments to other sources, but applicability of the technologically will always be limited by geography.

Orbital solar collection with space tether or microwave transmission to the ground is the future, but again, based on the required technology, it's probably 100 years away. I'm not being pessimistic here...just realistic. Alot of folks will say we just need to fund the research, spend the money, make the commitment etc. But the hard truth is a technology like this is going to require materials and technologies that current scientific understanding and fabrication methods can't produce.

Example....Davinci had ideas and conceptual plans for flying machines in the 16th century, yet a heavier than air flying machine wasn't seen for 300 years. Materials...technology.

The vehicles issue is even harder. We can make a dent in oil use right now with full scale conversion to Hybrid vehicles, and I think we're seeing the begining of the conversion now. But completely non-hydrocarbon powered vehicles is a different story. Oil has been king for one very good reason, besides its ready availibility and relatively low cost.... That reason is it's energy content vs. volume. No other conventional power source shares the energy to mass ratio of oil. The other big plus associated with oil is its relative storage safety vs. electricity, hydrogen, etc.

The first large scale converion of vehicle power sources will be to pure electric, but the grid need to be upgraded as discussed above to accomodate additional demand. Safe relaible cost effective hydrogen fuel cells for general public use is way off....30-40 years or more IMO.
Storage technology (batteries) will outpace fuel cell advancement.

Bottom line.....we will be away from oil in less than 100 years. I
think the world will get along just fine during that brief blink of an eye on the geologic time scale. Everyone needs to stop lying awake at night worrying that we will irreversibly destroy the planet with 200 years of hydrocarbon use.



[edit on 5/27/2008 by darkbluesky]

reply to post by pavil


Economies can't be converted to renewable energy sources overnight, which is why I said "Growing economies based increasingly on renewable energy sources could flourish". However that doesn't mean they can't incorporate renewables into their plans for growth. Alternatives are available, often based on wind or water (hydro-electric/tidal/wave, etc.), but nearer the equator solar also becomes viable. The UK, for example, is currently undergoing an enormous expansion of 'wind-farms', both on and off-shore.

As for fusion, I agree with Trance Optic that it currently remains a pipe-dream, sadly. Hybrid or electric cars are a distraction, as they simply shift pollution from the street to the power station unless renewable energy is the source. Fuel cells may be more promising, I agree.



reply to post by Trance Optic


I think at last I've found an area where the UK is ahead of the US. All household rubbish (or should I say garbage) is placed into separate bins according to whether it is recyclable (e.g. glass / compost / non-recyclable, etc.). Furthermore all schools and virtually all businesses collect and reuse their own paper, or at least shred and recycle it.



Getting back to what's going on in the arctic:

The web-page that formed the basis for this thread has been revised, and now includes a short news report in place of the original photograph.

Also

WATCH THIS SHORT NASA VIDEO

showing how the ice receded between January 1st and September 14th 2007, when the perennial ice-cover reached an all-time low: 25% less than the previous record (set in 2005) and 38% lower than the climatological average (-see video caption).

www.washingtonpost.com...

The last 15 seconds or so are shocking.



As it happens this topic was picked up by another ATS-er, Hellmutt, back in March 08. These are the images he used:



That thread was based on the following quote:

The polar cap in the Arctic may well disappear this summer due to the global warming, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, said on Friday.

Here is the thread from which the quote was taken:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And did you know that:

Readings from U.S. submarines indicate a widespread reduction in sea ice thickness of 40 per cent since 1960...

Source: www.thestar.com...

Anybody listening?..






[edit to correct caption and resource the same video to original source]

[edit on 27/5/08 by pause4thought]

we've already had three days over 100F where i live- i commute across town on a bicycle-can't wait to see what august has instore- it's solar i think- probably that end of the age thing the maya were talkin about-maybe idunno we're just making it worse by smogging up the air and cutting down all the trees- they're kinda like our life support- i mean like- if we were on a spaceship or something-out in space- and such-the stuff that makes our air would be the life support-you know?- that and the water- iguess- and food.

reply to post by darkbluesky


I appreciate your serious contribution to the debate. My only real concern is that I don't believe it is safe to hope everything will just work itself out - at the very least for the next, or future generations.

I think the world will get along just fine during that brief blink of an eye on the geologic time scale.

The problem is: human beings don't live on a geologic timescale.

Well, not in this life, anyway.

It's not just that ice that is cracking from global warming.


Have you stopped to wonder why so many earthquakes and every active volcano on the ring of fire is errupting?

The melting ice is changing the weight distribution on the surface of the planet.

Another effect of global warming: earthquakes and volcanic activity

Apparently under the perma frost of northern countries is more undecomposed bio-mater then all the forest on earth! Which only proves it all froze over not that long ago. Will thaw out for awhile. 100 years?
Then will have another planet cool season, when it all gets covered up again, with snow and ice. It won't take 100s of thousands of years either.
just 10 or 20 years of extended winters and most that snow and ice will be well on it's way. Of course we have been building up since the last Ice Age. Which was few hundred years ago.
Great time to happen. We can learn a whole lot more about natural history, form all the frozen remains of dinosaurs and such. Something more about humans and their civilizations; which also shall be well preserved. Laying to rest many of the debates we now have about those things. Finally it will open up that part of the world to mineral and oil, just in time to save the world from a crises.
This could be very world changing in deed. Not the sky is falling kind. But eye opening kind!

More evidence has just emerged that the predicted exceptional loss of arctic ice this summer was not hype: Canadian Arctic Sheds Ice Chunk

Here are a couple of extracts from the article:

A large chunk of an Arctic ice shelf has broken free of the northern Canadian coast, scientists say.

Nearly 20 sq km (eight sq miles) of ice from the Ward Hunt shelf has split away from Ellesmere Island, according to satellite pictures.

It is thought to be the biggest piece of ice shed in the region since 60 sq km of the nearby Ayles ice shelf broke away in 2005.

...analysis of past records suggests that since the early 20th Century, the ice that makes up the WHIS has retreated by about 90%.

Researchers believe the mechanism which has maintained its stability - fresh water coming out of Disraeli Fjord and freezing under the shelf - may have been disturbed. If that is the case, the rest of the WHIS may disappear quite rapidly, researchers say.
Loss of sea-ice in the Arctic has global implications. The "white parasol" at the top of the planet reflects energy from the Sun straight back out into space, helping to cool the Earth.

Further loss of Arctic ice will see radiation absorbed by darker seawater and snow-free land, potentially warming the Earth's climate at an even faster rate than current observational data indicates.

reply to post by theRiverGoddess


achnowledge it, attempt to change our ways.. instead of ignoring it and claiming stupidity for anyone stating it.

that'd be a start...

but i think thats too difficult for people to swallow.

Originally posted by pause4thought
Time to sell your shares in Dutch real estate...

Luckily I have an additional house in Spain, on a mountain leading up to the Pyrenees.

But this is indeed pretty alarming. I'm really curious what the future will bring when things get worse...

Great find and thanks for the tip.