Skip to comments.Arctic ice proves to be slippery stuff
Posted on 09/07/2009 8:24:00 PM PDT by neverdem
The extent of the sea-ice is now half a million square kilometres more than it was this time last year, says Christopher Booker.
BBC viewers were treated last week to the bizarre spectacle of Mr Ban Ki-moon standing on an Arctic ice-floe making a series of statements so laughable that it was hard to believe such a man can be Secretary-General of the UN. Thanks to global warming, he claimed, "100 billion tons" of polar ice are melting each year, so that within 30 years the Arctic could be "ice-free". This was supported by a WWF claim that the ice is melting so fast that, by 2100, sea-levels could rise by 1.2 metres (four feet), which would lead to "floods affecting a quarter of the world".
Everything about this oft-repeated item was propaganda of the silliest kind. Standing 700 miles from the Pole, as near as the stubbornly present ice would allow his ship to go, Mr Ban seemed unaware that, although some 10 million square kilometres (3.8 million square miles) of sea-ice melts each summer, each September the Arctic starts to freeze again. And the extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km (190,000 sq m) greater than it was this time last year which was, in turn, 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007, the lowest point recently recorded (see the Cryosphere Today website). By April, after months of darkness, it will be back up to 14 million sq km (5.4 million sq m) or more.
Mr Ban seems equally unaware that, even if all that sea-ice were to melt, this would no more raise sea-levels than a cube of ice melting in a gin and tonic increases the volume of liquid in the glass. If he is relying for his "100 billion tons" on...
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
This is ridiculous. The ice at the poles may melt altogether, but it will not happen in our lifetimes, unless the sun enters a high energy phase and maintains it for 40 years. Not very likely according to solar patterns.
It’s truly scary the United Nations is still pushing their Global Warming Agenda after all the debunking that story has received from so many legitimate, and qualified sources.
It tells me the United Nations still believes they are the last word globally on the matter, and they are proceeding full ahead to use the AGW agenda as the tool, the resource if you will to hijack control of the Earth.
What an image that name inspires...
we in Britain are already committed to spending, under the Climate Change Act, £18 billion every year between now and 2050 on this nonsense ... In other words, we are only beginning to see some of the nastier consequences of this crazy make-believe, based on nothing more substantial than the kind of gibberish we got last week from Mr "Light Bulb" Ban and the BBC.
The same brand of gibberish soon to come to the U.S.
For the sake of argument, I wonder how much real estate it would take to lay out 787,000,000,000 dollar bills?
All that ice and no drink to chill...
That's what I've always laughed about. To anyone with a rudimentary understanding of physics, floating ice displaces an amount of water equal to its weight - hence, it floats. Melting floating ice just changes its phase. Yes, it pulls the roughly 10% of mass down that was above the surface, but it also changes the density of the material making it more dense. It is easier to picture in reverse. A volume of water freezes. It actually expands - hence ice damage to roadways from ice expanding in cracks in the pavement, or soda cans exploding in your garage in winter (BTDT).
I wonder if they've considered that if the global temperature actually did rise, what would happen to the "ocean" of air? Warmer air can hold more moisture. Might warmer temps pull more water into the atmosphere, resulting in a net reduction of free surface water - and a lowering of sea levels? I haven't run the numbers, but there is an awful lot of water in the air. How many billions of tons of water would it take to maintain the same average humidity in a slightly warmer climate?
In the 70s it was “ Save the whales” well we did it. In the 80’s it was “no nukes” Reagan ended the cold war. So the pseudo intellectuals needed to come up with something so large that it was immeasurable. “ Save the planet” Dangle research money in front of scientist and get the data you want. Who is going to refute it? Another scientist? Just make a call to the dean of that department about future funding to that school and that will take care of that.
It is all contrived. Same old bit.
Nuke the Whales!
My favorite 70’s bumper sticker.
What an image that name inspires...
It's even funnier to a scientologist...
They all are Magicians. It’s just a distraction so we don’t see what’s going on.
Who freakin cares?
I'll be 129.
Gosh, what does the World Wrestling Federation know about this stuff, anyway?
That's exactly what they have in mind. For their warped idea of the "common good" of course.
And certain traitors who claim U.S. citizenship are allied with the U. N. for that sam epurpose.
I BELIEVE THAT MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WARMING OF THE GLOBE!
But, not as you might think.
I hear abour sun cycles, and that is proper!
But think about recent mankind’s influence on the amount of sunlight hitting the surface of the earth.
In past decades man heated homes with wood, peat, coal - all spewing their particulates into the air. Today #2 oil and natural gas are high efficiency clean fuels.
Tains and boats spewed their coal fired effluents into the air, with huge pollution. Today, these are all highly efficient diesel electric engines.
Up to the 1950’s all metal working industries relyed on the coke fueled cupola to melt metal, belching tons of particulates in the air. Today, these are all electric furnaces, and whatever industrial smokestacks exist, they are all fitted with scrubbers to eliminate particulates in the air.
Today’s automobile spews 5% of noxious gases as compared to 1970’s lead gassed autos before the catalytic converter.
Yes, I believe that mankind has caused the planet to warm in the past fifty years.
Not because of harmless carbon dioxide, but because of our highly successful efforts to clean up the atmosphere, which now allows so much more of the sun’s energy to warm the surface of the earth.
(I’ve never seen a scientist espouse my theory of air cleanliness creating more solar warmth, but I truly believe that industrial mankind’s efforts to clean our atmosphere are resulting in the warming or our planet.)
The argument that the Arctic ice could melt and sea levels is a trap and should be avoided. Arctic ice is in the water and therefore already displacing water, so it would not raise sea levels if it melted. However, if the Arctic ice melted, then the glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica would also melt. These are land based and would raise the level of the ocean.
He is correct about the freezes. The ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. Henry Hudson could not sail around northern Canada if it was covered by ice. The climate change argument omits this fact, as well as many others. But the melt effect is correct, if misapplied to the Arctic ice. It’s much better to note that the ice melted because it was summer, and then to show images of the ice during the winter when the Arctic Ocean froze up again. This has the effect of showing that the climate change crowd is not just wrong, but hopelessly ignorant of things like summer and winter.
Actually, your theory hits the mark pretty well (and is not unknown). It’s a well known fact that particulates in the atmosphere prevent some sunlight from hitting the earth, thereby reducing temperatures.
I believe that England used to have far colder winters during the industrial revolution than it does now, because of all the pollution from burning coal back then.
Man is part of the environment....Deal with it, envirowhackos!
Why is taking humans out of the equation considered “Natural”?
If my math is right, it would cover the surface of the earth 1.3 times.
Here’s the latest. It looks like with just a week or so more of melting in the Arctic, the Northwest Passage will not be open this year. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html
Notice that Antarctica is above average and still has a slight chance to set the record for MOST ice since records began in 1979.
That’s probably a bad road to travel. I estimated what would happen if Greenland thawed. It would raise sea levels about two feet. This estimate is somewhere on Free Republic. I did not include Anarctica, or other significant glaciers which would be expected to melt if Greenland’s glaciers thawed.
Of course, that ignores the result of the thaw. Greenland, Antarctica, much of Alaska, and significant parts of Europe and Asia would become habitable. The proposition that the atmosphere would contain more water is the idea behind the belief that so called global warming would cause more cyclones and other weather events associated with severe storms, like tornadoes.
The past few years have shown dramatic declines in the number and force of tropical cyclones, which put the lie to one of the “climate change” clown act’s most significant arguments. It is also noteworthy that Greenland, Alaska, Antarctica, the Alps, Siberia, and the Himalayas are not near any tropical cyclone threat zones, so if there was “climate change,” those might be nice places to live.
How about covering the entire surface area of the US about 18 bills deep....:^)
On the other hand, by those particulates blocking sunlight, the particles themselves would be warmed which would, in turn, warm the atmosphere. (While I haven't seen any published data on this, I'd suspect that the two effects would offset each other, at least to some extent.)
.........Its a well known fact that particulates in the atmosphere prevent some sunlight from hitting the earth, thereby reducing temperatures.
On the other hand, by those particulates blocking sunlight, the particles themselves would be warmed which would, in turn, warm the atmosphere. (While I haven’t seen any published data on this, I’d suspect that the two effects would offset each other, at least to some extent.)...................
However, remember the 1800’s yearless summer, after
Krakatoa (sp) blasted off, spewing billions of pounds of particulates in the air, creating a year of winter for the entire planet for 16 months.
Western mankind’s technology has greatly reduced the particulates in the air. I believe that this enables more sun energy to hit the surface, creating warmth.
Not carbon dioxide problems, as all the pre-historic to last century charts indicate that carbon dioxide builds in the atmosphere - after - an increase in surface temperature.
A cause and effect, not an effect and cause!
God makes the wise, fools.
I am patiently waiting for “MAN MADE” global warming sycophants to explain to me how did the last global warming 12,000 years ago happen and melt the ice age out of existence?
Those concerned about raising sea levels due to global warming are thinking about the Greenland ice sheet, which is massive enough to significantly raise sea level if it were to melt. It would take an enormous amount of energy to melt this glacier. It would be interesting to have some uncorrupted science evaluating this threat. But not in this world. It may be that the risk and damage from an asteroid strike is more significant - and treasure spent on deflecting this threat more beneficial.
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
I think, in that case, the high level particles would just radiate the heat back out to space. I’ve never seen particulate matter proposed as a means of holding heat in the atmosphere.
Every theory dealing with atmospheric particles assigns them a cooling effect. One of the widely accepted theories of the extinction of the dinosaurs, for instance, posits that an asteroid hitting the earth kicked up a huge cloud of dust, which went high into the atmosphere, blocking enough sunlight that it was too cold for plants to grow and the dinosaurs starved. Back in the 80s, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo put dust high in the atmosphere, resulting in an unusually cool summer. In the 1800s, atmospheric dust from volcanic eruptions cooled the planet so much that there was summertime snow in New England, and people could not grow food.
The truth is the ice pack is getting larger NOT smaller.
About 3600 sq. mi.
The scientists refer to that as the aerosol effect; they haven’t decided whether is a negative or positive effect overall but it is not part of the models being used.
The Arctic ice average less than one meter; Greenland’s ice cap around 3,000m; and Antarctica’s closer to 4500m.
That’s a bunch of Slurpees.
Save the Whales
Collect the whole set
I found some statistical data on the Greenland ice somewhere and was able to estimate the volume of a rectangular prism from it, then calculate the effect if it was spread out over 70% of the Earth’s surface. I was very surprised that the climate change idiots had the right numbers. I expected a lie from them. But a lie filled with partial truths is still a lie.
My point was the idea of that ice melting rapidly; if it has taken 30 years to have melted one meter of polar ice, then how many lifetimes will we have to endure to see them gone?
>>The actual area able to be covered with 787 Billion one-dollar bills is about 2/3 the size of Connecticut. (8136 sq.km)
I’ll take all the bills outside Fairfield County. :D
According to NASA, almost 50 percent of all warming in the arctic is due to clean air regulations :-P
NASA GISS suggests aerosols play a large role in Arctic warming
NASA GISS suggests aerosols play a large role in Arctic warming
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.