Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now

But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

There was open water at the north pole in 1962... there are pictures taken of a US sub surfacing there. The poles have actually spent much more time unfrozen that frozen. For those worried about rising sea levels... much of the growth is over ocean... and we all know ice displaces more water than liquid water.

The Dude wrote:

There was open water at the north pole in 1962... there are pictures taken of a US sub surfacing there. The poles have actually spent much more time unfrozen that frozen. For those worried about rising sea levels... much of the growth is over ocean... and we all know ice displaces more water than liquid water.

I had a little discussion with my oldest son when he was in high school about this, because he was being brainwashed by the school.

They had him convinced that ice melt that was not land bound would raise the sea level.

They had not even been clear that most ice off the artic is not land bound.

I made him get me a glass of iced tea. We solved that problem LOL

we didnt really talk about salt though.....

Sea ice also affects the movement of ocean waters. When sea ice forms, most of the salt is pushed into the ocean water below the ice, although some salt may become trapped in small pockets between ice crystals. Water below sea ice has a higher concentration of salt and is more dense than surrounding ocean water, and so it sinks. In this way, sea ice contributes to the ocean's global "conveyor-belt" circulation

Most multiyear ice is fresh enough that someone could drink its melted water. In fact, multiyear ice often supplies the fresh water needed for polar expeditions. See Salinity and Brine
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/index.html

I'm going to say it again, because I think its funny that gov leads us to the opposite of what really is a concern in the future.

ICE AGE!

It's sad... when people hear things often enough without critical thght it can just be taken as fact. Science almost always advances with the disproving of what was previously thght to be correct. There's very little that's "settled science"... as you know.

The Dude wrote:

It's sad... when people hear things often enough without critical thght it can just be taken as fact. Science almost always advances with the disproving of what was previously thght to be correct. There's very little that's "settled science"... as you know.

"theory" I the new "fact" of science.

prediction rules the day instead of cold hard facts.

And your right, its sad. because it makes the fact seekers into crazy people lol

The elephant in the room is still how (or should) we manage depleting resources in a world population that will reach 10 billion by around 2050 (and I wish the majority of those would quit coming here on vacation).

Do we do nothing? Save? Invest in technology? I think we are too greedy to make any real sacrifices for our descendants.

Digression:

It's interesting to me, that the most ignored "fact" of science is that there really aren't facts at all.

Much of science - from quantum mechanics, to medicine, to cosmology - is based on probabilities. For example, it is impossible (so far) to determine both the velocity and the location of an electron at any given time. We can calculate the probability that (given a specific velocity) an electron will be in a certain place, but we really can't be sure.

When you look at the esoteric mathematics used in science to determine "fact,"most of it was created to explain phenomena…not the other way around. (That's exactly what happened when Newton created the language of Calculus.) What are constants in math? They are arbitrary numbers plugged into formulas to make science "work".

So, math is a language and language is made up of symbols…and symbols are subject to interpretation….

I'm not sure youre making the argument for or against man made global warming she.

But you bring up the elephant. Too many people.

How does taxing Americans and spreading the wealth around the world help with that population problem? Unless you believe like bill gates that removing poverty decreases birthrates. But at the same time, removing poverty increases energy usage. Hmmm

Btw there are lots of facts in science. And it's true there are lots of theories. I have no problem with either as long as they are presented as what they are.

I think some natural selection would be good for our species. Guess that makes me a cold hearted monster... but I think the result would be better than millions upon millions dependant and then that system fail... which it will.

The Dude wrote:

I think some natural selection would be good for our species. Guess that makes me a cold hearted monster... but I think the result would be better than millions upon millions dependant and then that system fail... which it will.

I guess we are both monsters then.

Because the way we have it set up now, please see the movie "idiocracy".

A fact is the world is NOT flat...

But then the world's not round either.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izt6-Bb1ZXY

Technology is fueling overpopulation, causing healthier babies and providing better medical care in the poorer countries and better nutrition through technological advances in farming.

Population is spiraling out of control and that demands more technological advances to feed the burgeoning population.  

It is a vicious cycle.  Eventually, we will reach a point where we won't be able to feed the masses, no matter WHAT we do.

It ain't gonna be pretty, folks.

Edit:  As we use more fertilizers to ensure higher crop yields, we will be polluting our rivers more with toxic runoff, causing larger dead zones fed by excess Nitrogen and Phosphorous.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY

The more I think about the ice pack, Chrissy, I think caution should be used when looking at extremes of weather. Because the ice was thicker and covered more area for a year or two, it is unwise to assume that this is going to be a long-term trend.

It might be the beginning of an ice age, or it might just be an anomaly.

Eric wrote:

The more I think about the ice pack, Chrissy, I think caution should be used when looking at extremes of weather. Because the ice was thicker and covered more area for a year or two, it is unwise to assume that this is going to be a long-term trend.

It might be the beginning of an ice age, or it might just be an anomaly.

Or it could be a completely normal fluctuation.

The Dude wrote:

Eric wrote:

The more I think about the ice pack, Chrissy, I think caution should be used when looking at extremes of weather.  Because the ice was thicker and covered more area for a year or two, it is unwise to assume that this is going to be a long-term trend.

It might be the beginning of an global warming, or it might just be an anomaly.  

Or it could be a completely normal fluctuation.

I was thinking that if more people thought like Eric above, these conversations might get somewhere in public.

I fixed Eric's reply to show that point.

However, it doesn't fix this.

Quaternary glaciation also known as the Pleistocene glaciation or the current ice age, refers to a series of glacial events separated by interglacial events during the Quaternary period from 2.58 Ma (million years ago) to present.[1] During this period, ice sheets were established in Antarctica and perhaps Greenland, and fluctuating ice sheets occurred elsewhere (for example, the Laurentide ice sheet). The major effects of the ice age are erosion and deposition of material over large parts of the continents, modification of river systems, creation of millions of lakes, changes in sea level, development of pluvial lakes far from the ice margins, isostatic adjustment of the crust, and abnormal winds. It affects oceans, flooding, and biological communities. The ice sheets themselves, by raising the albedo, effect a major feedback on climate cooling.

In popular culture, there is often reference to "the next ice age".[26] Technically, since the Earth is already in an ice age at present, this usually refers to the next glacial period (because the Earth is currently in an interglacial period).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation#Next_glacial_period

An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. The current Holocene interglacial has persisted since the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

and even with these links, they just had to insert their agenda. Never the less.

ICE AGE!


LOL

Please don't change my text. I didn't say what you quoted me as saying. I meant it the way I wrote it, not the opposite.

Sorry Eric. I meant that as a compliment to you for having a open mind. I didn't change it to be deceptive but only to show two sides.

I'll change it back if you want when I'm not on my cell phone or you can

Chrissy* wrote:

Sorry Eric. I meant that as a compliment to you for having a open mind. I didn't change it to be deceptive but only to show two sides.

I'll change it back if you want when  I'm not on my cell phone or you can

No changes necessary at this point.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/11/arctic-rapidly-gaining-winter-ice/

This is pretty technical as are others. Back on that later. The DailyMail Uk is constantly guilty of yellow journalism. Al Gore actually did not say this. When you cleverly mix half truths with either half lies you get whole lies. In other words what you leave out can render an outright lie.

I have noticed the Daily Mail doing this lately

Surfnrg wrote:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/11/arctic-rapidly-gaining-winter-ice/

This is pretty technical as are others. Back on that later. The DailyMail Uk is constantly guilty of yellow journalism. Al Gore actually did not say this. When you cleverly mix half truths with either half lies you get whole lies. In other words what you leave out can render an outright lie.

I have noticed the Daily Mail doing this lately

I don't think insulting the source is the answer. You can verify the data as I have. Also, its worth paying attention to what month is used for comparing, it makes a difference

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/arctic-sea-ice

We have only been able to view the sea ice since 1979. That's not a lot of data and it clearly fluctuates.

If you recall back in the 70's everyone was screaming global cooling.

So, with all that said. Do you think man has caused climate change? And before you answer, if you do. Take a look at the graph on pg 1.