Open Water at the North Pole? - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 07-01-2008, 11:23 AM

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...99718849952830

Quote:

To the delight of Al Gore and the rest of the Gaia groupies, scientists at the National Snow & Ice Data Center in Colorado are predicting that the North Pole will be completely free of ice this summer. The apocalyptic headlines already are starting to appear.

...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 As earth scientist Patrick Michaels noted, "It was retracted three weeks later as a barrage of scientists protested that open water is common at or near the pole at the end of summer."

....
The WHOI researchers found that evidence of a series of strong quakes and eruptions as big as the one that buried the ancient city of Pompeii took place in 1999 along the Gakkel Ridge, an underwater mountain range snaking 1,100 miles from the northern tip of Greenland to Siberia.

...
Robert Sohn, WHOI geophysicist, lead author and chief scientist of the July 27, 2007, Arctic Gakkel Vents Expedition, estimates that exploding mixtures of lava and gas were expelled at speeds of more than 500 meters a second.
Sohn says the large volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

So the melting in the Arctic isn't due to the domesticated primates, rather natural process...BTW last MArch the ice cover was 14M km2, most EVER measured...the Antarctic ice shelf is also growing.

meanwhile...

Quote:

So what's up with our Sun? Is it going through a depression? It seems as if our closest star is experiencing a surprisingly uneventful couple of years. Solar minimum has supposedly passed and we should be seeing a lot more magnetic activity, and we certainly should be observing lots more sunspots. Space weather forecasts have been putting Solar Cycle 24 as a historically active cycle… but so far, nothing. So what's the problem? Is it a ticking bomb, waiting to shock us with a huge jump in solar activity, flares and CMEs over a few months? Or could this lack of activity a prelude to a very boring few years, possibly leading the Earth toward another Ice Age?

It's funny. Just as we begin to get worried that the next solar maximum is going to unleash all sorts of havoc on Earth (i.e. NASA's 2006 solar storm warning), scientists begin to get concerned as to whether there is going to be a solar maximum at all. In a conference last week at Montana State University, solar physicists discussed the possibility that the Sun could be facing a long period of calm, leading to the concern that there could be another Maunder Minimum. The Maunder Minimum (named after the late 19th Century solar astronomer Edward W. Maunder, who discovered the phenomenon) was a 17th Century, 30-year period when very few sunspots were observed on the disk of the Sun. It is thought by many scientists that this period contributed to what became known as the "Little Ice Age" here on Earth. As the Sun provides Earth with all its energy, during extended periods when the solar output is lower than average, it seems possible a lack of sunspots on the Sun (i.e. low activity) may be linked with periods of cold down here.
"It continues to be dead. That's a small concern, a very small concern." - Saku Tsuneta, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and program manager for the Hinode solar mission.
However, solar physicists are not too worried about this possibility, after all, it's only been two years since solar minimum. Although activity has been low for the beginning of Cycle 24, sunspots have not been non-existent. In January of this year, a newborn spot was observed, as expected, in high latitude regions. More spots were seen in April. In March, sunspots from the previous solar cycle even made an appearance, putting on an unexpected show of flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs).

Let's check the source of global warming and cooling.

Well no sunspots today....

***DarrylS*** · 07-01-2008, 11:38 AM

I always find it interesting when publications do not have anyone getting credit for such an editorial.... would be interested in knowing who wrote it.

***Harry Boy*** · 07-01-2008, 12:11 PM

There was 6ft of snow in my yard last February, it's all gone.

GOD DAMN AMERICA

***BelichickFan*** · 07-01-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GJAJ15

I always find it interesting when publications do not have anyone getting credit for such an editorial.... would be interested in knowing who wrote it.

None of their articles are credited individually. I'm guessing whoever wrote it has more scientific knowledge that Algore. The reality, as we've been saying for a long time, is there are way more variables to "global warming", both known and unknown, that the MMGW simpletons would like to admit.

PatriotsReign · 07-01-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

[url]http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299718849952830/url]

So the melting in the Arctic isn't due to the domesticated primates, rather natural process...BTW last MArch the ice cover was 14M km2, most EVER measured...the Antarctic ice shelf is also growing.

meanwhile...

Let's check the source of global warming and cooling.

Well no sunspots today....

If scientist say they don't know for sure, they you certainly don't know what's what on this topic. All you can know is what the rest of us know and that's the stuff you read.

***BelichickFan*** · 07-01-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

If scientist say they don't know for sure, they you certainly don't know what's what on this topic. All you can know is what the rest of us know and that's the stuff you read.

The point many of us have been trying to make is that NO ONE KNOWS. Granny Pelosi says it's "settled science". When, in fact, it's not. That's what we've been saying all along - quit trying to get into my bank account and lifestyle when you have no idea whether what you're doing will help or hurt. How can their be a "Global Warming Tax" when you don't know what causes global warming, what to do to fix it and what to spend the tax money on.

It's lunacy.

***DarrylS*** · 07-01-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

None of their articles are credited individually. I'm guessing whoever wrote it has more scientific knowledge that Algore. The reality, as we've been saying for a long time, is there are way more variables to "global warming", both known and unknown, that the MMGW simpletons would like to admit.

And you can guess this based on ????

***BelichickFan*** · 07-01-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GJAJ15

And you can guess this based on ????

Because it's a very low standard to know more that Algore.

***DarrylS*** · 07-01-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

Because it's a very low standard to know more that Algore.

Gee that makes perfect sense, you can deduce this based on an unsigned editorial.. this could be someone's doctoral thesis or could be done by a group of people.. the reality is that you are comparing Al Gore to an unknown anonymous entity. You might be comfortable with that, but inquiring minds might want to know who wrote it before it attains a whole lot of credibility.

***Patters*** · 07-01-2008, 12:48 PM

Any peer reviewed articles supporting the theory presented in the unsigned editorial?

There are of course always other things taking place on earth, and they certainly have an affect, but that's why scientists tend to prefer peer reviewed studies, rather than rely on political organizations (be it the conservative Cato Institute, which is cited in the article, or Al Gore) for their information.

But, as long as we're now listening to Woods Hole, let's look at what they have to say about global warming:

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online...arth/index.htm

Or do you only trust them when they suit your political objective?

Here's an article from a couple days ago on the state of the Arctic, from a Murdoch paper:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4232375.ece