Global Cooling:Alaskan Glaciers Grow For First Time In 250 Years

Really all things considered, here is the British Perspective:

We have a pioneer (who's name I have inconveniently forgotten) and he swam a whole mile this summer to the North Pole.

I have come to a number of conclusions about this:

1. Alaska needs oil drilling.
2. The North Pole is an example of 'differentiated cooling.' This leads to unlikely warming.
3. This warming cannot be used to say that the planet is not cooling overall.
4. Get a grip.

Pieman, Its just a cycle of events, life forms grow and die its as simple as that to argue otherwise is silly. If it were not man killing species off etc. some other agent would be. Man may have lived on this Planet far longer than we presently know or accept but the Planet changes and so do the life forms on it.

How do we know that our actions are not part of that normal cycle and that we in trun will be replaced as evolution progresses. What we are trying to do is say stop the World I want to turn the clock back, well we cannot, that does not mean we should not try to make things better but to make people think we can stop or change evolution is just plain silly. Nature will take its course irrespective of our actions.

And for wevery speices lost new ones come along, its been happening for billions of years.

If you think this is evidence against mans impact on the climate then you have some studying to do. Just because they refer to the problem as global warming does not mean that every square inch of the planet will get warmer or that all the changes will be an increase in temp. A better phrase that I have seen is global weirding, the weather is going to get weird.

I see it as evidence that we are being lied to and manipulated,yet again.

And yes,global does not mean all the planet will got warmer/cooler,but that is exactly how it is portrayed in the press.

And compared to what nature can do,and has been doing for millions of years,man's impact is actually nothing more than a drop in the ocean.

As i said,that doesn't mean we should pollute without a care,but is foolish to believe that we can control nature.

Originally posted by noobfun
the global warming/cooling flipped every 5-7 years or so since the 60's

It did?

its only since the crazy ass green brigade jumped all over it and rammed it down the goverments throats

Ok but what about the national healt care 70% of Americans ( and others) wants that they can't get despite persistent appeals? Why have the 'greens' been so succesful; who should we be talking to 'get things done'? As always it's easy to get TPTB to cooperate when they were allready planning to do something....

(as no one payed attention to save the rain forests)

Yeah well rainforests are a massive waste of space any ways so i'm not surprised the green fools who chain themselves to trees didn't get anywhere short of being made virtual terrorist in the public eye. I mean people could be protesting for human rights in general , their own rights in particular or sabotage nuclear weapons but spending your time saving trees while important things are happening will obviously get you very little sympathy.

and then they (the goverment) found a way to use it for them selves and slow down oil/gas usage a little to make it last longer that any of us really heard about it (well except the occasional rare science program or 5 minute news flash)

Oil is going to last for at least half a century no matter how fast we try to use it so biofuels and the rest are merely ways to create the perception that there is some kind of shortage. I am all for solar and wind power ( to say nothing of more 'exotic' technologies) but it's not going to be allowed in great volumes when corporate profit is to be made elsewhere.

Bassically there isn't much we can do to the planet which has not happened to it before and if we don't look out for ourselves the damage we might be doing with 'pollution' will eventually be the least of our concerns given the weaponry now in operation. If you want to save the planet save people, not trees.

Stellar

I just had a hunter stay at the motel who was from Alaska. He was telling me that he didn't understand what all the talk was about with global warming as things are cold and nothing appears to be drastically different. He didn't think it was warming.

I cannot remember the name of the document or where I obtained it. But I did read that some scientists had predicted a possible mini ice age by the year 2012 (or anywhere from 2012 to 2015). If I remember right, the document was created as a report for the White House.

Perhaps the warming we've been hearing about has suddenly changed around and because of it, a freeze will occur. Maybe an ice age of some sort will occur. That frightens me more so.

Has anyone else seen the report or heard about it? I wished I could remember what it was called. If I remember it later or come across it online, I will post it in this thread.

[edit on 10/18/2008 by BindareDundat]

Ok. As promised I am back with a link. I believe this was the report. It appears to be shorter though. I thought I had read 30 pages or more. I will have to keep searching because I feel this is a shorter version. At any rate, as many times I came across links to the report I discovered that those pages were no longer available. But I did come across this version of the report on climate change.


[edit on 10/18/2008 by BindareDundat]

Global warming is cooling in some areas and loss of rain in others. You cannot have a global analysis based on 'some bloke I met from Alaska' followed with the credentials of 'with a gun.'

The North Pole has melted for the first time.

reply to post by BindareDundat

I just had a hunter stay at the motel who was from Alaska. He was telling me that he didn't understand what all the talk was about with global warming as things are cold and nothing appears to be drastically different. He didn't think it was warming.

Some people have been using example's from Alaska which have turned out to be lies.

A picture of a cpl of ice bergs was used to show the effects of global warming,that is,until the Alaskans pointed out that the picture was taken in summer and was in no way unusual.

They also pointed out the fact that polar bears coming into towns to look for food on a regular basis isn't unusual either,but this has also been used to show the effects of global warming.

reply to post by redled

The North Pole has melted for the first time.

As stated in a previous post in page 1,the north pole is made up of sea ice,therefore it constantly grows and shrinks on a regular basis.

Originally posted by StellarX
Ok but what about the national healt care 70% of Americans ( and others) wants that they can't get despite persistent appeals? Why have the 'greens' been so succesful; who should we be talking to 'get things done'? As always it's easy to get TPTB to cooperate when they were allready planning to do something....

What makes the world go round?

Yes, Green. Someone found a way to make money in the "green" movement, thus it caught on and the powers that be are running with it.

OK, let me make this short and simple.

• The planet is not experiencing Global Warming. Since 1998, the rising average temperature curve for the atmosphere has flattened and appears to be reversing.
  
  
• The global average atmospheric temperature has risen by less than a degree before that flattening of the curve. Individual locations may have seen a temperature change of up to a whopping 5°C.
  
  
• In order for ice to melt, its temperature must be raised above the melting point (0°C or 32°F for pure water/ice at sea level) for a long enough period to allow the ice to absorb energy equivalent to the latent heat of fusion. That is a lot of energy for water, and takes a long time unless there is a large temperature difference in a medium which has a high specific heat.
  
  
• The North Pole regularly has temperatures much below -5°C (23°F).
  
  
• Air has a relatively low specific heat, which means it changes temperature with a minimum of energy change.
  
  
• Water has a high specific heat, which means it takes a lot of energy to produce a small temperature difference, and undergoes a small temperature difference when a large amount of heat is added or removed.
  
  
• Heat tend to rise in a medium, due to the normal density changes when a medium is heated.

Now, taking into account the above physical laws, it would make no sense to explain glacial melting as a result of changes in atmospheric temperature. Air does not contain nearly the energy-to-temperature ratio as water, heat in the atmosphere would tend to rise into the upper atmosphere rather than lower toward the ice, and the temperature differentials reported by Global warming activists do not indicate enough of an air temperature increase to do the job of melting the ice in question. On the other hand, if the oceans increase in temperature, water has the same (approximate) specific heat as ice, and heat in the oceans would tend to rise toward the surface (where the ice is).

So the water is more likely than air temperatures to be the cause of any melting, which explains why land-based glacial activity is increasing while water-based ice sheets are melting. See how simple that is?

Now, how did the oceans get warmer in the Arctic? We have no data suggesting a link to oceanic current changes which could cause this. But we do have data on undersea volcanic activity in the area. Volcanoes emit superheated gas and molten lava (melted rock!). These things are hot. Hot stuff makes the water hotter. Hotter water melts ice in the water.

See? Still simple, and no carbon tax on breathing required.

TheRedneck

I have not made up my mind on Climate Change, but as of right now the evidence seems to show that it is not anthropogenic. The Sun heated up recently and melted several ice moons in our solar system, global rain and ice levels have remained constant, etc.

What is really dangerous, is when someone takes a side and follows it like a cult member. I tried talking to someone about the evidence against Global Warming and he became livid and talked about how he is taking college courses (is that really an indicator of intelligence? Hm...), listens to scientists give lectures at our university (All pro-anthropogenic Global Warming of course), and believes in the graphs provided by the IPCC/Al Gore (Which were shown to be deeply exaggerated or fabricated at times).

I support less pollution and resorting to alternative energy sources and all that, but I will fight tooth and nail against any new taxes. Don't we have enough government regulation and unemployment as it is, without this undue burden on the middle class?

Maybe a law should be passed that forbids private corporations from buying up patents which would put them out of business. You know, we've had the technology for electric cars for a long time, but all the oil companies bought up the patents and pushed it underground. I wonder what other technology that would be a benefit to society is being suppressed? Tesla comes to mind.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Viral]

The prisonplanet article links tothis story as the source.

Therein, we find this bit of information:

Summer temperatures, which were some 3 degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain much longer, leading to the increase in glacial mass.

Summer temperatures were down 3 degrees. But what's this about record levels of snow?

Cold air has a lower moisture carrying capacity than warm air.

Which begs the question: how much warmer was the winter? You don't get record snow accumulations at -30.

reply to post by vox2442

3 degrees doesn't make a lot of difference in the moisture capacity. The snowfall amounts depend primarily on the temperature differential between the two competing air masses. A temperature decrease of 10 to 20 degrees would probably make a more significant decrease in the amount of moisture available.

It seems what they are saying is that the minor drop in temperatures was enough to decrease the amount of snow melt that occurred in total between snowfalls. Snow is itself an insulator (yeah, that shocked me when I first found out, but it's true) due to the loose packing of ice crystals, and once it covers previous snowfall remains, it tends to insulate them from temperatures that would otherwise melt them completely.

The glaciers are layer upon layer of this loosely-packed snow that is squeezed from the overlying weight of other snowfalls until it packs tighter and becomes a sheet of solid ice. Movement comes from this same squeezing action, as ice under pressure will flow similar to water, just infinitely slower. High snowfalls and ice accumulation in the middle of the glacier will cause it to slowly flow out into a larger area, like pouring water in the middle of a puddle will make the puddle quickly flow out to a larger area.

TheRedneck

Its simple. When we get those sun spots facing us our temp goes up and all the planets in the system. When there is no spots like there is now facing us things will cool down. Look to the sun youll find your answers.

mass emission of carbonic gas since 150 years

+nuclear bombs & tests

+ haarp since way too long

+ chemtrails all over the planet since 20 years at least

+ all the horrors that we might not even be aware of

how the hell can we make in prediction on climate change with all those bull#ting around with life, nature and the atmosphere, that are primarily experiments (which means that we do it without any certainty about the middle and longterm outcome and effects on an earth system that we don't even fully and perfectly understand) ?




[edit on 19-10-2008 by ::.mika.::]

reply to post by TheRedneck


First off, the three degrees is for the summer, not the winter.

That said, I disagree with your statement that three degrees doesn't make a lot of difference.

Have a look. This climate/humidity table shows absolute humidity from -25 to 50 (deg. C). At the lower end of the scale, consistent with what one would expect for alpine regions at that latitude in winter, a difference of 5 degrees can nearly double the absolute humidity.

Snowfall records over the winter in this area are the real story in my opinion, as are the winter temperatures over the Pacific which caused these weather systems.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Welcome Redneck

Now, how did the oceans get warmer in the Arctic? We have no data suggesting a link to oceanic current changes which could cause this. But we do have data on undersea volcanic activity in the area. Volcanoes emit superheated gas and molten lava (melted rock!). These things are hot. Hot stuff makes the water hotter. Hotter water melts ice in the water.

Very true.
Its been reported recently.Apparantly there are 'giant black smokers' under the ice giving off lots of heat.

sweetness-light.com...
www.freerepublic.com...

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by redled

 

The North Pole has melted for the first time.

As stated in a previous post in page 1,the north pole is made up of sea ice,therefore it constantly grows and shrinks on a regular basis.

Yeah, it may have been stated in a previous post, but you can't discount warming because there is ice in the water. When the North Pole has melted for the first time, you can be pretty sure things are warmer, sea ice or not. How do you discoount land warming? 'We have summers and winters and the land warms and cools,' come on.

The global warming scam is starting to crumble. It is just an excuse to make money from carbon taxes and selling carbon offsets. You will notice that Al Gore and his green warriors have stopped using the term "global warming" and replaced it with "global climate change". This is because it has become obvious that the earth is entering a cooling period and it has very little to do with man. The earth has been going through warming and cooling periods millions of years and there is nothing humans can do about it.