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.)
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.