Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data.
National Public Radio (NPR) published an article on its website last month claiming, “Ten years ago, a piece of ice the size of Rhode Island disintegrated and melted in the waters off Antarctica. Two other massive ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula had suffered similar fates a few years before. The events became poster children for the effects of global warming. … There’s no question that unusually warm air triggered the final demise of these huge chunks of ice.”
NPR failed to mention anywhere in its article that Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012.
Indeed, none of the mainstream media are covering this important story. A Google News search of the terms Antarctic, sea ice and record turns up not a single article on the Antarctic sea ice record. Amusingly, page after page of Google News results for Antarctic sea ice record show links to news articles breathlessly spreading fear and warning of calamity because Arctic sea ice recently set a 33-year low.
Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is growing. This sure sounds like a global warming crisis to me.
For the third time....Antarctica is gaining sea ice, granted, but is losing more land based ice for a net loss...The danger is that lost land based ice raises sea level...Sea ice loss or gain has no effect on sea level...
If you read about the issue in more detail, you see that many of these activist groups don't even care if the science is correct or not. The whole thing is about political power and control, a means to an end for their cause. They don't mind telling lies to promote their cause, so to be honest, any real discussion with them is kind of pointless. It isn't the topic that is important to them, it is getting you to believe them so they can use it as leverage to promote their politics.
If you read about the issue in more detail, you see that many of these skeptic groups don't even care if the science is correct or not. The whole thing is about political power and control, a means to an end for their cause. They don't mind telling lies to promote their cause, so to be honest, any real discussion with them is kind of pointless. It isn't the topic that is important to them, it is getting you to believe them so they can use it as leverage to promote their politics.
Sea ice has no effect on sea levels, but land ice does, and the Antarctic is losing that land ice. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?
My God ... do you mean Greenland might become Green again? What a pity. Actually, with all of the shock jock activity from the AGW fear mongers ... a little fact is being lost. While the western arctic is getting slightly warmer, the eastern arctic is getting colder, which includes Greenland. And while the small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is warming and experiencing some melt, the majority of the entire continent of Antarctica is also getting colder. Fact is, the ice cover is getting thicker in Greenland and Antarctica ... contrary to all of the false claims, using the small isolated regions of warming as evidence, while ignoring the regions becoming colder.
Check this out, and see how it jibes with your NASA drivel:
"Exactly one year ago, similar stories circulated, and if anything, they were more alarming. On March 25th, 2008, the BBC reported “Antarctic Ice Hangs by a Thread,” a result, they stated, of “unprecedented global warming.” But these reports, both last year and this year, are talking about the same ice shelf – the Wilkins Ice Shelf, an insignificant bit of floating ice that is located on the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. Didn’t it break up last year? How many times do we recycle the alarm over the seasonal melting of the same few thousand square miles of floating ice (ice that floats cannot contribute to sea level rise), off a continent that exceeds five million square miles in area?"
Now I don't mean to confuse you with facts or cause you any discomfort by making you over exercise the analytical portions of the brain .... but it shouldn't harm you to think about why the sea ice could be increasing overall, while you claim the land ice is melting in the same geographic region. The answer is relatively simple, really. Most of it is selective accounting ... and the picture always look worse or better, depending on what your goal is from the start.
You see, if there was any real large scale melting of Antarctica, given it is not exactly a booming metropolis of industry and human activity, we can rule out that as the cause for land ice melting. By the same deductive reasoning, warmer atmospheric air temperatures can be ruled out because if that were melting land ice, it would have a similar affect on the surface sea ice also. So the story just doesn't jibe. (and measurements show no increases in overall temperatures in the upper atmosphere as predicted by greenhouse models) Therefore, the only answer to this isolated warming is geothermal activity from inside, and not from the outside. The answer is, the land is warming in isolated areas, while the ocean isn't, due to increases in geothermal temperatures radiating from the center of the planet, along with other climate factors like wind and radiation.
The "Core" of the issue is that the Earth is a self-exciting geodynamo with a rotating solid iron core, with a liquid outer core incased by a rock mantel. This nuclear fission reactor - geodynamo is what generates earth's magnetic field. What we do know for sure is that the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing in intensity That signals changes in the earth's core which generates that field. This reduction in the magnetic field which deflects cosmic and solar radiation, is allowing more of that radiation to reach our planet's surface. Combined, we have a warming of the core due to a slowing rotation of that core, which allows more radiative heat toward the surface land mass in certain areas ... less so in other areas, and even less in the ocean, coupled with the reduction of the magnetic field allowing more surface warming due to increased radiation getting through.
What people don't understand is that Antarctica holds 75% of the fresh water on earth. Fresh water has a higher freezing point than salt water, and is also lighter, which means it will stay at the surface during melt off. With isolated land based melt off, that increase volume of fresh water reaching the colder ocean area will produce more ice formation. Which is exactly what is being seen, in spite of the selective reports by the fear mongers who choose to focus only on the isolated areas experiencing warming.
In short ... it's a deception to alter perception. And perception is more powerful than the truth. A good example of that is the perception most people have of Seattle Washington being a rainy place, when the reality is, Port Author Texas gets almost twice as much rain annually. Seattle doesn't even come close to the top ten rainiest places, all of which are located in the Southeast US, not the Pacific Northwest. But tell someone that it rains more in Texas than Seattle, and they'll call you a nut.
Just like you're about to tell me I'm nuts for thinking that CO2 is good, and not bad. Your false perceptions are far more powerful than my truth.
What I find totally unbelievable is that in spite of all the observable evidence that the earth is indeed warming, the deniers just ignore it and carry on denying what is obvious to us all and becoming more obvious every year...All I've done in this thread is post evidence...I have not discussed what is causing the increase in ice melt, but I still seem to be beating my head against a stone wall, although I'm now sensing a few cracks in that wall because at least some of them are now admitting that the climate is warming....But hey what do I know...It's all a political plot or a scheme to enrich the scientists.
What I find totally unbelievable is that in spite of all the observable evidence that the earth is indeed warming, the deniers just ignore it and carry on denying what is obvious to us all and becoming more obvious every year...All I've done in this thread is post evidence...I have not discussed what is causing the increase in ice melt, but I still seem to be beating my head against a stone wall, although I'm now sensing a few cracks in that wall because at least some of them are now admitting that the climate is warming....But hey what do I know...It's all a political plot or a scheme to enrich the scientists.
The issue isn't warming, but rather AGW and the associated financial schemes.
Considering we were in an ice age 10,000 years ago, warming is a given.
If you read about the issue in more detail, you see that many of these skeptic groups don't even care if the science is correct or not. The whole thing is about political power and control, a means to an end for their cause. They don't mind telling lies to promote their cause, so to be honest, any real discussion with them is kind of pointless. It isn't the topic that is important to them, it is getting you to believe them so they can use it as leverage to promote their politics.
Excuse me? Are you suggesting that the AGW Skeptics are the ones motivated by politics and control? Or have I misunderstood you? If that's what you are saying ... or may I direct this to all of the AGW proponents if that's not your position .... who's thousands of emails were captured showing the deliberate altering of the data in order to support global warming? Who's "hockey Stick" turned out to be nothing more than bull hockey? And who censored their final report claiming consensus opinion that man made global warming is proven scientific fact, when participants in the investigation concluded the exact opposite, yet their opinions were removed from the report, while claiming they supported the conclusion? Some of these scientists actually had to sue the IPCC to have their names removed from the report which claimed that they were in agreement with the report's conclusions.
Want to know what two of those scientists said that was conveniently removed?
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.” (removed from the IPCC report)
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes” (removed from the IPCC report).
The fact is, we have politics and bureaucrats promoting man made global warming, for political control, and you're trying to claim the exact opposite is occurring by those who simply reject the nonsensical conclusion that CO2 is poison gas.
What's really sad is how easily the masses can be hoodwinked by blatantly fraudulent claims, who's fundamental basis fails from the start. Hundreds of thousands of years if climate data, extracted from ice core samples show that atmospheric CO2 levels rise as a RESULT of a warming cycle ... 800 years after that warming has occurred ... consequently, being a result of warming precludes it from being the bloody cause. One would naturally assume that virtually everyone could grasp this basic level of cause and effect ... you have a cause, then an effect. It is not close to complex logic, and I have no idea why this seems so difficult a concept for those who have bought the AGW fairytale, particularly after that fact is explained. It's really quite astounding. Are you saying that this is not true? Or are you simply dismissing the linear relationship between cause and effect?
Most of the time, no one on your side will even touch this fact. Most often, the conversation is shifted to "all of the scientists agree ... blah, blah, blah". The few that will tackle it, say that CO2 "contributes" to global warming .... which is a tacit confession that they understand it cannot be the cause. But even that is a fraud, because these rises in CO2 don't even occur until 800 years after the warming period, so that cannot be true either.
And finally, do you think for a second that one politician or bureaucrat gives a blankity blank about what might occur 30 years after they are dead? All of these clowns say ... by 2050 .. yada, yada, yada .... as if they really care.
The real question that begs to be asked is why, after decades of watching these pathological liars lying about every conceivable topic, why would anyone believe them now ... especially after they've been caught red handed lying about this too?
Why do you people hate the truth so much? That's what I really want to know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, with all of the shock jock activity from the AGW fear mongers ... a little fact is being lost. While the western arctic is getting slightly warmer, the eastern arctic is getting colder, which includes Greenland. And while the small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is warming and experiencing some melt, the majority of the entire continent of Antarctica is also getting colder. Fact is, the ice cover is getting thicker in Greenland and Antarctica ... contrary to all of the false claims, using the small isolated regions of warming as evidence, while ignoring the regions becoming colder.
