New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning

reply to post by Fromabove


If that is the case, then we have a whole heck of a lot of problems ahaead of of. If there is enough volcanic activity to melt 2.2 feet of artic ice, then heaven help us.

funny how all this volcanic activity hasn't been mentioned anywhere.

I noticed you didn't post the dates the photos were taken. Summer? Winter? Same day for each?

reply to post by nixie_nox


This is just one source discussing the activity below the Arctic.
www.sciencedaily.com...

I love it when people provide evidence against their own religious beliefs.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Considering we have 90k years till the next ice age, probably 60k-70 k for it to heat up, there shouldn't be cap melting.

Which global warming cult do I have to join to get that fancy "Global Climate Calendar" that tells us exactly when the next ice-age is starting?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
The Mississippi River can't even flood anymore. To say the Earth can recover is nothing more then a cop out.

Wow! *sound of a hand smacking a forehead*

I never knew that the Mississippi can't flood anymore.

I anxiously await your proclamation that, "We don't even have forest fires anymore!!!!"

I guess those almost annual reports of massive flooding along the Mississippi have all just been in my imagination.

Jon

EIDT: SPELING.

[edit on 7.8.2009 by Voxel]

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by orkson

 

Gandhi was not referring to humans. Humans are one of a kind!! A deceitful, conniving, hateful, vengeful, and murdering species, animals are better than us.

Heh. Man, look up dolphin behavior.
They make up games based around killing a young dolphin and using it in pace of a ball.

Originally posted by orkson

So What ? I don't understand WHY you are denying whith such harshness, the fact that there IS indeed, a global warming, man made or not.

I think you are wanting to argue a point that isn't there. I have no doubt in my mind that the earth has been heating up in the past. It is even on the chart I provided. What was also to be noted on the chart I provided is that we didn't cause the last "global climate shift" and we didn't cause the hundreds that came before that one. So I submit that it is unlikely that we are to blame for this one. Now as I have stated many times before, I do think was are trashing the planet and will likely outlive our usefulness here if we continue to operate as we have. But the Earth will remain and even thrive after we are gone. The whole "Global Warming" thing is just an excuse to exstort money. It is a political tool. Yes, we should be trying to change the way we do things, but we have zero control over the polar Ice caps. And the one in Antarctica is growing. So shouldn't we be focusing on the important issues like that giant plastic island floating around the ocean?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by GOTZEUS

 

The solar warming thing has been debunked.

Would you like to point out where? I find it hard to believe that our main source of heat which fluctuates would not have an effect on our climate. It's been proven to be responsible in the past so why not now?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5442db078d1.jpg[/atsimg]
So people with unwavering faith in AGW caused by CO2 emmisions will say this is propaganda, as is any other fact which contradicts their belief. We've been cooling since 2002. CO2 responsible for that too? Or could the recent solar minimum have anything to do with it?

Regarding the OP, there's a reason they don't use up to date sea ice extent. Currently arctic sea ice is above 2007 and 2008 levels

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ba850d9e9c6.jpg[/atsimg]
The dark red line measures the actual ice extent against the average (black), whilst the light pink line reflects where faulty sensors had been underestimating Arctic sea ice extent until the fault was discovered. The purple line is 2007 and the blue is 2008.

Originally posted by orkson
Well ...
After that, will global warming deniers shut up, unless they're shameless !

We will have very quickly to suffer from these tremendous temperatures changings : the whole equilibrium between northern and equatorial air and water temperatures is blown off.

I guess you'll probably assume I'm a "global warming denier". I don't deny that we have been warming for the last 150 years, since the Little Ice Age. But we have recently been cooling, so that might be why the so called "global warming deniers" won't shut up. Especially when the AGW myth is being used to give more money and power to the few, while not actually doing anything to help the environment.

What are these tremendous temerature changings you are reffering to?

And there is no equilibrium. Climate changes. Has for the past millenia, and it's not going to stop now because humans like it the way it is, even if people would like to profit from the scaremongering. Sure we are affecting our environment in more ways than one. But are we the only variable that affects our climate? It would be laughable that people actually think so, if it wasn't for the serious consequences which will occur because of it.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

reply to post by sickofitall2012


That is interesting and thank you for the article! But there is no indication that it is even remotely enough power to melt the ice.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by GOTZEUS

 

The solar warming thing has been debunked.

Would you like to point out where? I find it hard to believe that our main source of heat which fluctuates would not have an effect on our climate. It's been proven to be responsible in the past so why not now?

Considering the sun cycles every 11 years or so, our climate would be cycling every 11 years.

Sunspot activity has very little effect, and what changes it does make is never more then 2%, which is not enough to affect Earth's climate. To protect the Earth from the sun, is the magnetic field and solar winds. So there would have to be pretty cataclysmic changes to lose the protection, against the sun.

Hypothetically speaking, if the sun was "warming" up. Whatever that is. lol and it warms up enough to affect other planets, the Earth would be in far more trouble then a few degrees. As would those other planets. Besides, we don't have a weather station on every single one to know if it is warming up or not.

So people with unwavering faith in AGW caused by CO2 emmisions

So how would the second largest known greenhouse gas, besides methane, not affect the Earth's temperature.

If it is not CO2, then what is doing it? Outside a feverish sun?

We've been cooling since 2002. CO2 responsible for that too? Or could the recent solar minimum have anything to do with it?

Again, solar activity has no bearing on Earths climate, never has. or we would be cold every 5 years. Even so, there is no proof, other then the Danish paper which no one agreed on since 1991, that the sun has an effect.
And what proof is there we have been cooling since 2002? It would be the record breaking heat we had a couple years ago would it?

Regarding the OP, there's a reason they don't use up to date sea ice extent. Currently arctic sea ice is above 2007 and 2008 levels.

If there is rapid heating and cooling of the ice shelf, then that is a major sign of trouble also. The Earth likes to take its time, there is no reason to be fluctuating that fast. Thicker then normal ice sheets are also a problem, it means too much is melting, and then freezing in places it shouldn't be.STuff is getting redistributed, and that isn't good either.

[I don't deny that we have been warming for the last 150 years, since the Little Ice Age.

Scientists don't even necessarily agree there was even a mini ice age, it was at best a cooling trend from massive volcanic activity at the time.

Especially when the AGW myth is being used to give more money and power to the few, while not actually doing anything to help the environment.

What power and money are we talking about exactly?

[Climate changes.

Yes, very slowly I might add. Nothing in Earth's history ever happened quickly. That is one constant. And the ice ages can be predicted pretty accurately due to the Milokovich cycles. The earths rotation and tilt.
Even then, when it would warm or cool, it took a very, very long time.

Nothing that you can experience in one lifetime.


[But are we the variable that affects our climate?

Then what is?

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


BTW, exactly where did you get these graphs??
second line

WooHoo! More water to swim in....Who needs all that polar ice anyway?

Just sayin'

Originally posted by Not Authorized
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread479958

What exactly is the driving force, do you know?

Nuclear fusion in the core of our nearest star drives our climate. That star in the center of our solar system that we have no control over. That energy in turn drives the main engine of our climate, the worlds ocean currents which then control our air currents -- not CO2 levels.

Ask Europa how the weather is there. Any questions on that?

Ok that answers my question that you don't know. snip!

So let me get this straight, Global Warming is Really Global Cooling.

And you wonder why we call that 'science' total crap. Cooling Warming. It cannot be proven as man made or man caused. Nothing can explain the ice ages and trending of said epochs without the explanation that it was external forces or volcanic eruptions just like today.

As for the next part, you forgot to mention that we are in an interglacial period. The last change in the cooling trend was the end of the Younger-Dryas ~10,000 years ago. Considering the next one to your own numbers is 60,000 more years away, then yes, the cap SHOULD be melting and has been as we're in a temporal period.

You also might want to check out Milankovitch cycles while we are at it. To bad Al Gore doesn't go over it in his tax propaganda.

Oh, and when the planet does change its temperature, it about .5 degrees every CENTURY.

I guess that 8 to 15 CELSIUS warmer than today study prior to the last ice age was entirely wrong. Tropical climate at the poles? How dare those mammoths eat tropical vegetation. Good news is we'll reach the Climatic Optimum in about 3-4 centuries.

So we should NOT be able to see changes in our lifetime. Much less in four years.

You mean that down trend right? How about sampling cores as is and reading the temperature in present time according to that ice instead of electronic monitoring that did not exist prior to.. say 150 years so it's on the same level guesstimating as the past... 100,000 years?

Again, do your research.

Considering it's opening up for the first time in 120,000 years, I'd say the research is done. Did man cause it 120,000 years ago too? Show me the evidence that Earth is always supposed to have an Ice Cap before we arrived. Does it exist? Didn't think so.

Its nice you give the planet so much credit,snip!

No, it's a way to tax and spend like no other, under the premise of "cap and trade". 20 years from now you will have a tax on life because of environmental impact from breathing with no solid science to back it up. The earth will continue to remain as a working system, with or without us. She doesn't need our help.

snip ..All hell breaks loose.

I won't even bother with that, as all hell did not break loose during the Climatic Optimum with warmer temps. In fact, civilization flourished.

The Mississippi River can't even flood anymore. snip!

So.. the floods of 1897, 1912, 1927, 1928, 1937, 1965, 1973, 1993, 2001, 2005, 2007 and 2008 don't count? Tell that to those who live in the midwest that it's a cop out.

You ... shouldnt' even be participating in this discussion.

Ad homenim attacks are not very becoming.

What money would that be exactly?

Pay attention:

online.wsj.com...
www.onenewsnow.com...

"In the budget it said $646 billion. They then are telling people on Capitol Hill that it is going to be $1.3 [trillion] to $1.9 trillion," "That will make it the largest tax increase of all time of all American history and probably all world history." - Dan Simmons regarding cap and trade.

That's a lot of $$

I won't even bother with retorting your next statement given the above quote.

Have a nice day.

Ok.
Beeing personaly open minded, I passed the last two hours viewing this video :

Global warming scam

Google Video Link

Well... It makes some sense.

Will have to make my mind on this.


[edit on 8/7/2009 by orkson]

[edit on 8/7/2009 by orkson]

reply to post by nixie_nox

Wow.
Where to start.

Ok here goes.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Considering the sun cycles every 11 years or so, our climate would be cycling every 11 years.

Firstly, this would be correct if our atmosphere was a thin peice of metal. But it's not. There are various heat sinks, the most significant being the ocean, which absorbs warmth and can release it to the atmoshpere over time. The atmosphere doesn't react instantly to forcings, it takes time.
Secondly, the suns solar cycles aren't set cycles with every minimum being the same, or every maximum being the same. The suns fusion reactions are a highly dynamic process which can create longer periods of less activity. Ever heard of the Maunder Minimum?

Sunspot activity has very little effect, and what changes it does make is never more then 2%, which is not enough to affect Earth's climate.

Bollocks. Even NASA adimits that the sun has been responsible for climate change in the past. NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming
And not just on temperature, but on sea level as well. The sea level not only rises from ice caps melting, but from heat expansion as the water warms. There is a close correlation with rate of sea level change and solar cycles. You can see this here

So how would the second largest known greenhouse gas, besides methane, not affect the Earth's temperature.

Aren't you forgetting water vapor? It's the most powerful greenhouse gas. The actual effect of CO2 as a greenhouse generally relies on positive feedback from other effects (particularly water vapour feedbacks, a far more significant greenhouse gas) to cause substantial warming. This is far from proven.
Also, human induced CO2 is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount absorbed and emmited by the worlds oceans.

Again, solar activity has no bearing on Earths climate, never has. or we would be cold every 5 years. Even so, there is no proof, other then the Danish paper which no one agreed on since 1991, that the sun has an effect.

Bollocks. Look above

And what proof is there we have been cooling since 2002? It would be the record breaking heat we had a couple years ago would it?

How about the same temperature data sets the IPCC uses? Heres a up to date graph found here which uses data from the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4f12ee21702a.jpg[/atsimg]

Scientists don't even necessarily agree there was even a mini ice age, it was at best a cooling trend from massive volcanic activity at the time.

Really? I'm intrigued to see how your certain the sole cause was volcanic. It's generally accepted that the Maunder Minimum played a part. But I'd be willing to look into the volcanic link.

What power and money are we talking about exactly?

I'm talking about the carbon trading economy and the bankers/traders which will profit off it(ie, Al Gore). Also the taxes which the UN is looking to use to fund reform which you can see in the thread I started here

Then what is?

No one knows for sure. That's why I think it is a gross breach of rights to be taxed in the name of a theory which is NOT proven, when the solution won't work.

reply to post by orkson


now you are starting to see the big problem. It isn't that somehow you personally were convinced that just maybe there is something to the people who quote real science to explain the warming trend. The big problem is the way the media drives public opinion to the point that more people think Al Gore is right and won't even listen to the other side of the argument. So you have a huge group of people who will buy into anything "Global Warming" is selling. (or taxing) The frustration will continue.

reply to post by orkson


Qoute "So, I'd say : "The greatness of a civilization and its moral progress can be judged by the way MEN are treating GAIA, our mother-earth".

To a degree I totally agree with you, the way I explain it to my children is... You wouldn't coat man or beast in cement, an yet we are happy to do so to our living planet.
Clearly you care about our Mother Earth, but please don't be sucked in to TPTB plan to dupe us all. It isn't just Earth whose climate is changing, its happening throughout the solar system. Global warming is just another way to keep poor nations poor and add more taxes to the rest of us. I remember back in the middle 80's campaigning against global warming before it became fashionable, right now I feel like a right dumb ass. Good caring people have been used to sell an elite game plan.

Hi, ATPers ...

Is the expression "Global Warming" false, or misleading ?
- In my opinion, NO.

Saying that, I DO NOT say : "the GW is due to Human activity, it's due to the CO2, and we should pay the carbon tax"

I'm just telling that, for some reasons (probably a lot of reasons, beyond which the CO2 is MAYBE one), there are MANY signs of an ACTUAL warming of the general temperature of the earth.

One of these signs is the one I showed in my original post.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c95efcbebef4.jpg[/atsimg]

Wether this is going to improve, stay still or worsen next years, we don't know. We may only describe the (bad) consequences of this phenomenon if it continues so.

Now, on the other hand, we have the CO2.

EVEN IF the CO2 is NOT ( not at all, or not the main ) cause of the GW, it's a fact that NEVER BEFORE it had such a concentration in the air, and this concentration is in VERTICAL average GROWTH for the last century.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4ea75538b49.gif[/atsimg]

So, in my opinion, it's NOT untrue or misleading, to say that CO2 is a good marker of the pollution brought by the industrialisation, even if during some short periods (for example, just after WWII), it seams to diminish when industrialisation goes up.

In my opinion, it would be a stupid and irresponsible behaviour to negate the pollution brought by industrialisation.
EVEN IF you disagree with the CO2 marker, you CAN'T say that it would be safe to continue to pollute the Earth as we do.

Also, knowing that CHINA is opening 1 COAL ELECTRICAL PLANT EACH DAY, you CAN'T say that this is safe for the quality of the air chinese people (and farther, WE) are breathing ...
The industrialisation of the "developping countries", if it is made by the means which were ours in the 19th century or the beginning of the 20th, will be (even if this fact is disturbing) an ecological catastrophy.

The economical system which is ours, NEEDS EVER GROWING CONSUMPTION in order to save one's "way of life", or to fuel "the dream".

And THIS means EVER GROWING POLLUTION, as long as
- either the polluters do NOT pay to clean or avoid the pollution they create
- or the technology is basic (case of developping countries)

So, we have TWO SEPARATE PROBLEMS :

- the Global Warming (may be we can do anything against it)
- the pollution brought by industrialisation.

It is MAYBE misleading to say that the pollution IS THE CAUSE of the GW.

But it is tremendously irresponsible to FORGET the pollution if one thinks that it is NOT the cause of the GW.

Fighting against the ecologist movement BECAUSE they say that the GW is caused by human activity and you don't think it is, is really just insane.

They are maybe the ONLY weapon left to US, THE PEOPLE, in front of the great capitalist companies which are lead solely by greed and MONEY.

Letting those evil monsters transform our mother-Earth into a desert while they build up their mountains of MONEY is just disgusting.

Now, tell me YOUR opinion.

reply to post by orkson

Originally posted by orkson
EVEN IF the CO2 is NOT ( not at all, or not the main ) cause of the GW, it's a fact that NEVER BEFORE it had such a concentration in the air, and this concentration is in VERTICAL average GROWTH for the last century.

This is untrue, in fact way off the mark. Throughout history, CO2 has rarely been as low as it is now, which is something most alarmists would prefer you not to know. We are currently around 380 ppm, but it's been as high as 7000 ppm in the past.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ee9bb1cb04a2.jpg[/atsimg]

Also, CO2 is NOT a good indication of pollution levels (If that were the case, the dinosaurs must have been terrible polluters.), as the ocean will emit CO2 if it warms up due to increased solar irradiance or other factors.

On the other hand, surface temperature changes ought to have a relatively rapid effect, because the surface of the ocean is in contact with the atmosphere and so can quickly absorb or desorb CO2 as the water temperature changes. In fact, the ocean surface continuously absorbs CO2 where the temperature is falling, mostly at high latitudes, and emits CO2 where the water is warming, mostly at lower latitudes. Cold upwelling water from the deep ocean warms at the surface and desorbs CO2, while very cold water at high latitudes absorbs CO2 before it falls to the deep ocean. An increase in average ocean surface temperature will cause more CO2 to be emitted from surface water, but this effect is limited to a very small volume fraction of the ocean

source (emphasis mine)

In my opinion, it would be a stupid and irresponsible behaviour to negate the pollution brought by industrialisation.

Completely agree. I agree with you that we need to drastically change our consumption patterns. But there are far more dangerous substances than CO2, like heavy metal poisoning of waterways, making the sea food poisonous to eat. The problem with focusing on CO2 is that it makes no distinction between more harmful forms of CO2 release or other forms of pollution. For example, burning natural gas releases CO2, but it is far better for the environment than burning coal.

Deforestation, over fertilization of crops wreaking havoc on eco systems, heavy metal poisoning, carcinogenic properties in our food, reduced crop diversity (thanks Monsanto) meaning crops will be less resistant to any cyclical climate change. All issues that focusing on CO2 will do little to prevent.

Fighting against the ecologist movement BECAUSE they say that the GW is caused by human activity and you don't think it is, is really just insane.

But keep in mind that cap and trade is NOT an ecologist movement, its aneconomical movement, that will do little to actually help the environment. Polluters still pollute, they (actualy not them, consumers will) just pay more. Maybe it will help curb pollution to an extent, but the $$ spent trying to prevent climate change could be much better spent in cleaning up the environment and helping the real problems humanity face.

Well, that's my opinion

[edit on 10-7-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

[edit on 10-7-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Hi, C&C !
I don't know from where you've got your CO2 stats, which contradict the stats I gave.
These stats of mine come from the "National Research Council" which is a governemental organisation of USA:
Link to the source
Nevertheless, it's NOT really important : I don't at all focus on the CO2.
Clearly, i didn't equate "pollution" and CO2.
It's evidently one of the results of the pollution, but far from beeing the only one.

Saying "pollution brought by industrialisation", I meant the general scope of illnesses brought to Earth by it.

What I want to outline, is the fact that there MUST be other reasons leading our economical system than only greed and MONEY.

When lead solely by greed and MONEY ...

- it's OK to bulldoze the amazonian forest : many trees, short distances between trees, little population, large roads and floating rivers ...
- it's OK to delocalize our factories to foreign countries where we can pay nuts to children and starving adults.
- it's OK to stockpile on open air or pour directly to the river, the pollutants we generate : would diminish the benefits to treat them.
- it's OK to use gigantic scrappers to dig open air mines : it's not our problem to save the beauty of the landscape : we want productivity.

Etc...

It's a shame.
We must stop this madness before it is too late. (Maybe it's allready too late ...)

Well ...
After that, global warming deniers will shut up, unless they're shameless !

You do realize that not all global warming deniers as you call them disagree that the globe is warming don't you?

We question the science and computer models, the belief that we are the cause by producing C02,
we do not question that the planet warms and cools, that is just foolish, after all we have had ice ages and warm periods in the past.

So you may want to keep that in mind when you try and label people as deniers.

BTW the name is changing again, Global warming was dropped due to people protesting in blizzards looked foolish screaming the planet is warming.
Climate change doesn't work all that well either because the climate will always change.
I do believe they are trying to rename it Atmospheric deteriation, sounds so much deadlier