Posted on 06/30/2008 5:41:55 PM PDT by Kaslin
Climate Change: While the media scream that man-made global warming is making the North Pole ice-free, another possible cause is as old as the Earth itself. They just have to look deeper.
"From the viewpoint of science, the North Pole is just another point on the globe, but symbolically it is hugely important," says the center's Mark Serreze. "There is supposed to be ice at the North Pole, not open water."
From a media standpoint, this is another sign of the apocalypse proof positive of man-made climate change. But we've heard this before.
In August 2000 the New York Times ran a piece claiming the pole was free of ice for the first time in 50 million years, long before SUVs roamed Earth. As earth scientist Patrick Michaels noted, "It was retracted three weeks later as a barrage of scientists protested that open water is common at or near the pole at the end of summer."
As reported in the June 26 edition of ScienceDaily, a research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of massive undersea volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean. "Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process," according to the WHOI team.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
No. Does your drink overflow, when the ice cubes melt?(assuming you haven’t drunk from it.)
No it doesn’t. Neither does ice on the North Pole affect the water level of the ocean.
· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
The undeniable anthropogenic increase in CO2 ppm since 1850 is not significant. Water vapour constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect. The effect from CO2 is tiny in comparison.
Any "facts regarding global warming that are based on the erroneous concept that CO2 is the main player in the greenhouse effect will end up overstating human impacts as much as twenty times.
Also, the idea that we have an unprecedented level of CO2 today is simply incorrect. For instance: a paleobiological study of the stomata frequency of fossil birch leaves (link is: here ) shows that CO2 concentrations in the early Holocene period (say 11000 years ago to 6000 years ago) were between 300 and 370 ppm certainly on a par with todays unprecedented levels of millions of tonnes of CO2.
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks gleeaikin. |
||
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
Fire under the ice
Fire under the ice | Jun 25, 2008 | Unknown
Posted on 06/25/2008 11:32:36 AM PDT by decimon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2036302/posts
Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study
AFP | 6/25/2008 | AFP
Posted on 06/25/2008 10:05:57 PM PDT by leakinInTheBlueSea
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2036582/posts
Volcanic eruptions reshape Arctic ocean floor: study
AFP | 3 Days Ago
Posted on 06/29/2008 12:05:18 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2038228/posts
How do we know the volcanoes aren't the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2?
Just how was the modern-day baseline for CO2 established, and where is it measured? cmdl.noaa.gov Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Dry Air Mole Fractions from quasi-continuous measurements at Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii ; American Samoa; and South Pole, 1973-2006
Mauna Loa? Has that been in the news in recent years? I believe Mauna Loa is an active volcano, that had a quiet period from 1975 to 1984 - the early part of the baseline period. hvo.wr.usgs.gov/maunaloa/history . In fact, Mauna Loa is the largest volcano on the planet! hvo.wr.usgs.gov/maunaloa
What's relevant about that? It makes me question the validity of the measurement, just like the distribution and location of official weather stations makes me question the validity of the "warming" data. www.surfacestations.org
Have you ever heard that old saying "figures don't lie, but liars figure"? Dig into the data yourself, and see what it tells you. There is a wealth of data available today to those who are interested in learning about any subject, and on the subject of Global Warming, the data is telling me that there are some liars figuring...
Indeed, in 2007 there is a considerable change in sea ice volume from earlier years. The question is what is the cause. Some theories (besides the man-made global warming one) are a strong wind from the area of northern Pacific moving the sea ice to the pole area from the Bering Strait, an abnormally warm year (1934 was warmer but no satellites were around back then so we don’t know the extent of sea ice) and the impact of arctic ocean warming from volcanoes (could there be a heat mixing delay from the ocean floor to the surface??). We don’t know, but based on what I’ve seen so far, 2008 is NOT going to be a repeat of 2007. Of course we’ll know in about 60 days, won’t we? :>)
Yes, the stupid fools can't see the writing on the wall, all they have to do is open their eyes!
Just look at the last decade of... Ooops, static to falling temperatures. And even the Gorebots assure us that this decade long trend will continue for another 10 to 15 years.
So the prediction of a severe .5 to 1 degree of global warming in the coming 50 years starts with at least 20 to 25 years of static or falling temperatures. Interesting.
As I think on it, it was little more than 30 years ago that scientists were issuing dire predictions of global cooling.
Also very interesting is that the fix for global warming is a tax on energy and a global redistribution of wealth. How very Marxist of Mother Nature.
======
And, the increased rate of class 5 hurricanes is caused by super big dragon flies from the Bermuda Triangle.
Perhaps you could point me to the actual prediction and data supporting this claim. I remember hearing the perennial predictions of greater numbers, and greater severity, but as I recall these were just a few of the very many global warming predictions that have proven false.
Fire and Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
-Robert Frost
Perhaps, off and on. I wonder where the explorers several hundred years ago got the legend of a "Northwest Passage".
Hotbed of Volcanic Activity Found Beneath Arctic Ocean; Posted on 07/01/2003
That thread, from 2003, has these links, and several others.
Hydrothermal vents: Arctic hotspots
Behavior of Arctic Ocean Ridge Confounds Predictions; May Lead to New Insights into Crust Formation
INTREP
From FR in 2005 -- lots of links.
Freepers certainly are ahead of the curve.
It isn't? :)
There you go again...
Salt water takes lower temperatures to freeze.
Especially after mexican food.
So why does Algore say Florida will be under water when the ice caps melt due to global 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.