Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker

[LiberalMedia]

Chernobyl released (the figure I saw quoted in a documentary) the nuclear energy of 400 Hiroshima bombs. It was almost 30 years ago and STILL people cannot return to that area. The ground is so polluted you have to wear masks and hazmat to return to see the area.

Why? Because Chernobyl had no safety measures like the United States had. The leaders in Moscow didn't care if it went up. They were safe in Moscow. Besides it was cheaper to make it without the safety measures.

Complete and utter bullshit. The Zone of Alienation/Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (the 30 kilometer radius around the plant) was opened up years ago. There are even tours being given of the area, and no, tourists don't have to wear a hazmat suit.

Further, Chernobyl did have safety measures, and in the aftermath of the explosion, the Russians brought in immense resources--including workers--from all over the Soviet Union. Special attention was given to the ability of the people to withstand radiation levels, and during the immediate cleanup of the incident, workers were only allowed a few seconds' exposure even with protective gear. This wasn't the most efficient method of containment, but it was the safest for the people working on it, which is why the Soviets used it.

They obviously did NOT have the safety measures the United States used. And why? Because it was CHEAPER. For example, Chernobyl did not have containment towers as Three Mile Island did.

If by "containment towers" you're referring to cooling towers, yes, Chernobyl did have them. You keep harping on this "hurr durr cheaper, Soviets cut corners with costs" pseudo-point, yet you've posted absolutely no evidence to back it up. Is this more garbage you're getting from a bigoted documentary with a slanted view of reality, or did you actually do research into the matter and somehow conclude that cost-saving measures weighed heavily into the eventual nuclear accident at Chernobyl?

 

[healthmyths]

Really? Have the glaciers ceased to retreat? Has the oceans cooled? And in that 15 years, what has happened to the ice in the Arctic?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

Did it ever occur to you global warming IDIOTS that the reason there is less sea ice is because THERE IS MORE OF IT AT THE ARTIC???

DUH! This is why liberalism hates common sense. Because common sense will tell you if the ice is thickening at the Artic, there is LESS OF IT BREAKING OFF TO BECOME SEA ICE!

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

Same conditions happened during the Ice Age. That's why there were grasslands where there are now oceans. When it warmed up, the ice broke up, melted and became oceans.

It's not breaking up right now, because it's thickening. And guess what, when it melted, we didn't get a water world, there's still plenty of land left to go around.

Calm your chicken little act down.

Breaking off from where, you stupid ass. There is less Arctic Sea Ice because where there used to be ice that was 4 and 5 years old, there is only ice that is one winter old. Here is what is really happening to the Arctic Ice;

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

We are not worried about some mythical water world, your silliness, we are worried about a one meter rise that would render most of the port structure the world over inoperable. That rise will come from the melt off of Greenland and Antarctica. And, before you say it, the continent is losing ice at the same time as the sea ice around Anarctica is growing.

BBC News - Esa s Cryosat mission sees Antarctic ice losses double

The new assessment comes from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft, which has a radar instrument specifically designed to measure the shape of the ice sheet.

The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year.

Scientists report the data in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The new study incorporates three years of measurements from 2010 to 2013, and updates a synthesis of observations made by other satellites over the period 2005 to 2010.

Incredible rate of polar ice loss alarms scientists Environment The Observer

The planet's two largest ice sheets – in Greenland and Antarctica – are now being depleted at an astonishing rate of 120 cubic miles each year. That is the discovery made by scientists using data from CryoSat-2, the European probe that has been measuring the thickness of Earth's ice sheets and glaciers since it was launched by the European Space Agency in 2010.

Even more alarming, the rate of loss of ice from the two regions has more than doubled since 2009, revealing the dramatic impact that climate change is beginning to have on our world.

A 3 to 5 foot rise in ALL sea levels within 100 to 300 years according to the below article will show
"They found that 125,000 years ago — a period that may have been warmer than today but cooler than what scientists expect later this century without sharp pollution cuts — the seas were about 20 to 30 feet higher than today. If temperatures climb as expected in this century, scientists believe it would take centuries for seas to rise 20 to 30 feet as a result, because ice sheet decay responds slowly to warming."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday/what-could-disappear.html?_r=0

"The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year." 0.43 millimeters is equivalent to 0.0169 inches

So at .0169 inches per year in 100 years would be 1.69 INCHES rise in sea level due to white continent melt loss.
hmmm...

 

[Freewill]

Chernobyl released (the figure I saw quoted in a documentary) the nuclear energy of 400 Hiroshima bombs. It was almost 30 years ago and STILL people cannot return to that area. The ground is so polluted you have to wear masks and hazmat to return to see the area.

Why? Because Chernobyl had no safety measures like the United States had. The leaders in Moscow didn't care if it went up. They were safe in Moscow. Besides it was cheaper to make it without the safety measures.

Complete and utter bullshit. The Zone of Alienation/Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (the 30 kilometer radius around the plant) was opened up years ago. There are even tours being given of the area, and no, tourists don't have to wear a hazmat suit.

Further, Chernobyl did have safety measures, and in the aftermath of the explosion, the Russians brought in immense resources--including workers--from all over the Soviet Union. Special attention was given to the ability of the people to withstand radiation levels, and during the immediate cleanup of the incident, workers were only allowed a few seconds' exposure even with protective gear. This wasn't the most efficient method of containment, but it was the safest for the people working on it, which is why the Soviets used it.

They obviously did NOT have the safety measures the United States used. And why? Because it was CHEAPER. For example, Chernobyl did not have containment towers as Three Mile Island did.

If by "containment towers" you're referring to cooling towers, yes, Chernobyl did have them. You keep harping on this "hurr durr cheaper, Soviets cut corners with costs" pseudo-point, yet you've posted absolutely no evidence to back it up. Is this more garbage you're getting from a bigoted documentary with a slanted view of reality, or did you actually do research into the matter and somehow conclude that cost-saving measures weighed heavily into the eventual nuclear accident at Chernobyl?

The accident at Chernobyl happened not because of a lack of safety systems but because those systems were overridden to run a test. That would never happen in the USA, in my opinion.

 

[Redfish]

Really? Have the glaciers ceased to retreat? Has the oceans cooled? And in that 15 years, what has happened to the ice in the Arctic?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

Did it ever occur to you global warming IDIOTS that the reason there is less sea ice is because THERE IS MORE OF IT AT THE ARTIC???

DUH! This is why liberalism hates common sense. Because common sense will tell you if the ice is thickening at the Artic, there is LESS OF IT BREAKING OFF TO BECOME SEA ICE!

DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

Same conditions happened during the Ice Age. That's why there were grasslands where there are now oceans. When it warmed up, the ice broke up, melted and became oceans.

It's not breaking up right now, because it's thickening. And guess what, when it melted, we didn't get a water world, there's still plenty of land left to go around.

Calm your chicken little act down.

Breaking off from where, you stupid ass. There is less Arctic Sea Ice because where there used to be ice that was 4 and 5 years old, there is only ice that is one winter old. Here is what is really happening to the Arctic Ice;

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

We are not worried about some mythical water world, your silliness, we are worried about a one meter rise that would render most of the port structure the world over inoperable. That rise will come from the melt off of Greenland and Antarctica. And, before you say it, the continent is losing ice at the same time as the sea ice around Anarctica is growing.

BBC News - Esa s Cryosat mission sees Antarctic ice losses double

The new assessment comes from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft, which has a radar instrument specifically designed to measure the shape of the ice sheet.

The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year.

Scientists report the data in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The new study incorporates three years of measurements from 2010 to 2013, and updates a synthesis of observations made by other satellites over the period 2005 to 2010.

Incredible rate of polar ice loss alarms scientists Environment The Observer

The planet's two largest ice sheets – in Greenland and Antarctica – are now being depleted at an astonishing rate of 120 cubic miles each year. That is the discovery made by scientists using data from CryoSat-2, the European probe that has been measuring the thickness of Earth's ice sheets and glaciers since it was launched by the European Space Agency in 2010.

Even more alarming, the rate of loss of ice from the two regions has more than doubled since 2009, revealing the dramatic impact that climate change is beginning to have on our world.

A 3 to 5 foot rise in ALL sea levels within 100 to 300 years according to the below article will show
"They found that 125,000 years ago — a period that may have been warmer than today but cooler than what scientists expect later this century without sharp pollution cuts — the seas were about 20 to 30 feet higher than today. If temperatures climb as expected in this century, scientists believe it would take centuries for seas to rise 20 to 30 feet as a result, because ice sheet decay responds slowly to warming."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday/what-could-disappear.html?_r=0

"The melt loss from the White Continent is sufficient to push up global sea levels by around 0.43mm per year." 0.43 millimeters is equivalent to 0.0169 inches

So at .0169 inches per year in 100 years would be 1.69 INCHES rise in sea level due to white continent melt loss.
hmmm...

Good post. AGW is a hoax, the prophet algore is a fraud. Dems and libs lie.

 

[hadit]

The Planet warms, the Planet cools. It's just the way it is, and always will be. So i'll take my chances with 'Global Warming', rather than with the Communist/Socialist Global Warming zealots. I value my Freedom & Liberty far more than i fear 'Global Warming.'

Since we can't stop or reverse what's going to happen no matter what we do, wouldn't it be smarter to be prepared to adapt to change?

Yes and we should keep burning fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow because if the climate change keeps getting worse, for most of us there literally will be no tomorrow.

Party on!

What's the greatest possible impact America can have on cyclical climate change if we cut fossil fuel consumption by 10%? 50%?

Consider that China and India will completely overtake any reduction we make. As for climate change meaning no tomorrow for you, don't you think you're being a little apocolyptic?

 

[SSDD]

Well, pottysammy, the sea ice is right now, with a couple of weeks yet to go in the melt season, eighth lowest on record. And all eight years have been the last eight years.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

As for the rest of your nonsensical rant, you know where you can shove it. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University on this planer has policy statements saying that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. All ignorant assholes like you have is flap-yap and lies. Grow up.

Sorry rocks but the melt season is over....the ice has grown over 40% in the past 2 years and it is simply pointless to lie about it. You only make a bigger laughing stock out of yourself than you already are.

 

[Crick]

I agree that current ice extents are up ~40% over 2012 levels. What I don't agree with is that this point MEANS anything in the face of:

 

[paulitician]

Go with Freedom & Liberty. The Communist/Socialist Global Warming zealots have had their day. Now it's time for them to go away.

 

[jc456]

I agree that current ice extents are up ~40% over 2012 levels. What I don't agree with is that this point MEANS anything in the face of:

So then where is the accelerating sea level rise coming from if you agree their isn't any melt for the last two years?

 

[Crick]

Thermal expansion.

 

[jc456]

Thermal expansion.

where is the warmth coming from?

 

[Crick]

Surely you jest. And you seem to have abandoned the Arctic ice extents discussion. Is that the case? I wanted to point out that the 40% increase you are talking about is shown on this graph by the last two or three minimums you see on this graph. But note that the maximums have NOT increased as dramatically and that this change is fairly trivial in comparison to the longer term trend.

 

[hadit]

Since we can't stop or reverse what's going to happen no matter what we do, wouldn't it be smarter to be prepared to adapt to change?

Stop making sense.

It's much easier to point the finger.

How are they making sense? Where's the proof what they've said is true? If GHG emissions have raised temps, why wouldn't lowering them do the reverse?

How much and how fast? Keep in mind several things:

1. Only the developed world would do ANYTHING. That means the US and some European countries. China and India will shortly dwarf anything the US is doing.
2. Severe cutbacks would destroy the US economy, and rapidly thereafter, the world's, and for what, a few tenths of a degree?

 

[hadit]

Since we can't stop or reverse what's going to happen no matter what we do, wouldn't it be smarter to be prepared to adapt to change?

Stop making sense.

It's much easier to point the finger.

.

Point is, at what point do the changes cease to be adaptable to? Photosynthesis cease at 104 F. Rapid climate change involves changes which will make agriculture difficult, in a world with over 7 billion mouths to feed. Sea level rise will render much of the present sea port structure unuseable. Violent storms will destroy other infrastructure. How much can we adapt to?

Agriculture will move to currently inaccessible northern latitudes, just for one example. Canada and Russia will become major food producers for the world. That's just one adaptation.

 

[Redfish]

Since we can't stop or reverse what's going to happen no matter what we do, wouldn't it be smarter to be prepared to adapt to change?

Stop making sense.

It's much easier to point the finger.

How are they making sense? Where's the proof what they've said is true? If GHG emissions have raised temps, why wouldn't lowering them do the reverse?

How much and how fast? Keep in mind several things:

1. Only the developed world would do ANYTHING. That means the US and some European countries. China and India will shortly dwarf anything the US is doing.
2. Severe cutbacks would destroy the US economy, and rapidly thereafter, the world's, and for what, a few tenths of a degree?

Destroying the US economy is one of the goals of the liberal AGW freaks. Do not be fooled, that is their real agenda.

 

[Crick]

Why would we want to do that? I suspect more than a few of us are employed and paid by that economy. If we wanted to go live on the street and sleep in the gutter, we don't actually have to take down the economy to do so.

 

[paulitician]

It's real simple in the end. The People are choosing Freedom & Liberty. They don't want the Communist/Socialist Warming zealots running their lives. They've decided to take their chances with the 'Global Warming', rather than with the Communist zealots. And now the zealots are just gonna have to learn to deal with it. Their time has passed.

So let it all burn baby! Bring on the 'Global Warming!' I'm perfectly comfortable living out my last days on Earth with my Freedom & Liberty still intact.

 

[Silhouette]

Since we can't stop or reverse what's going to happen no matter what we do, wouldn't it be smarter to be prepared to adapt to change?

Stop making sense.

It's much easier to point the finger.

How are they making sense? Where's the proof what they've said is true? If GHG emissions have raised temps, why wouldn't lowering them do the reverse?

How much and how fast? Keep in mind several things:

1. Only the developed world would do ANYTHING. That means the US and some European countries. China and India will shortly dwarf anything the US is doing.
2. Severe cutbacks would destroy the US economy, and rapidly thereafter, the world's, and for what, a few tenths of a degree?

Luckily we have this type of steam to run turbines during the peak use hours on sunny days year round. Imagine what not burning fossil fuels on every sunny day would do to reduce our carbon footprint on the atmosphere?

Not only would tagging this extremely simple technology onto existing power plants be an excellent idea, it would be a highly profitable one. If companies were allowed to charge the same rates but burn less fuel each year, their profit margin would soar. We also would ultimately be less dependent upon foreign fossil fuels. And if we were smart enough, we could sell excess energy produced in solar thermal farms in our vast sunny West/Southwest to other countries.

The perfection of better combustion in automobiles with the introduction of platinum or other particulate catalysts BEFORE the power stroke [instead of foolishly doing it after in the catalytic converter] would at once increase fuel efficiency and reduce pollution. Aftermarket products could be easily reintroduced to accomplish this. These products were out before but got bought out or intimidated out of the market by Big Oil back in the 1980s and 1990s. We just need to take control of our freemarket back and tell Big Oil their day has come and gone. Time to switch their profiteering over to products that help the environment instead of screwing it up.

Imagine cleverly designing the more complete combustion of fuels in the tailpipe instead of before the combustion chamber! All the rigging bogging down the engine for smog to boot... I wonder how those old engineers could sleep at night. They probably watch all the snownado swarms and mega hurricanes and secretly grieve "I had a hand in that.."

This youtube video was taken in Lithuania in the dead of Winter:

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Show us you're serious about Global Warming and stop posting about it

 

[Redfish]

Why would we want to do that? I suspect more than a few of us are employed and paid by that economy. If we wanted to go live on the street and sleep in the gutter, we don't actually have to take down the economy to do so.

the policies that you support are destroying our economy, the people you elect are destroying our economy. You either want that or you are amazingly stupid.