Readers Respond to Ice Cap Melting Story

NewsMax.com
Monday, Aug. 21, 2000

A recent report in the New York Times that the Polar ice cap has been melting and that the sea is visible for the first time in 50 million years has met with some skepticism from our readers. We thought we would share their comments with you.

Global Warming is No Cause

The first evidence of the "ozone hole" at the South Pole was found in 1955 during the IGY (International Geophysical Year" and at the beginning of the first modern era of polar exploration and research. It also happened in a time when there was no supposed "global warming." These incidents of polar melting may have happened in man's recent past. The evidence is in the Piri Reis maps. Reis, a Turkish admiral of the 1500's possessed a map of Antarctica which accurately showed the outline of the continent without ice. In fact we did not discover many of the features shown until the last few decades when we had the technology to see through the ice cap! Scientist do not agree on "global warming" as a causative factor. In fact, there is stong evidence that historical high sun spot activity levels correspond highly with periods of ozone depletion (ozone is reactive to high ion concentrations found at the poles during high sun spot activity)and polar ice 'thinning'.

A Funny Thing

A funny thing happened on the way to the North Pole. There was ice everywhere except at the pole which is presumably colder than further south! Let me point out to the non-scientific types that when ice at 50 degrees below zero warms one degree on any temperature scale, there is no melting. Therefore, the observed melting at the north pole must have come from some other source than global warming. Could that be from sun spot activity and the accompanying solar wind, etc.? Because of the Van Allen Belt, such energy arrivals from the sun would be channeled right down to the pole. To reach the melting point, ice at -50degrees C. would have to be warmed 50 degrees C. Then it would have to absorb an amount of energy sufficient to heat 10 gal of water by one degree C. in order to melt. Considering the millions of tons of ice we're talking about, where could all that energy come from? When will people accept the opinion of the majority of scientists that global warming is a MYTH?

Sea Level

If it is true that North Polar ice is melting, this cannot raise the sea level one iota. The North Polar ice is FLOATING on sea water. Any high-school kid can tell you that Archimedes discovered that a floating object displaces water exactly equal to its weight. Of course, if ice resting on land melts, this could raise the sea level. But a recent paper in Science notes that while the edges of the Greenland icecap is thinning, the center is thicker than before.

The Sky is Falling

RE: The North Pole is Melting – "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" said Chicken Little. There are those who would have us live our lives in fear to the point that they are the only ones that can help us. Does anyone notice its been only the last 40yr. that everything from global warming to the ozone depletion to the North Pole melting is driving mankind to ask some supreme authority (the state) to deliver us from certain destruction with their assistance? Pick up a copy of "Report from Iron Mountain" by Lewin

Project HAARP

you wouldn't suppose the H.A.A.R.P. project could possibly have anything to do with the melting the ice on the northpole? If the ions are heating up the atmosphere and reflecting back to earth why not??????

USS Skate

Take a good hard look at how thin the polar ice was when the USS Skate surfaced at the North Pole, during winter on 17 March 1959.

 

How Would We Know?

The North Pole - melted for the first time in 50,000,000 years? Pardon this environmental engineer for asking a juvenile question, but who was there to measure it 50,000,000 years ago? Who measured it 500 years ago? Do we have core data, meticulously sampled and dated, showing a continuum of ice going back 50,000,000 years? I think not, else the whiz kids would have publicized it by now. What happened to all this other ice before industrialization? Could it have melted as a result of, say, natural causes when the Vikings named Greenland?

Remember Third Grade Science?

So what? Where are the flooded beaches and billions of dollars in property losses? I'm no scientist, but I think I learned in the third grade that the earth tilts on it's axis giving the polar regions considerably more exposure to the sun during the summer. Doesn't the salinity of the salt water have some bearing on how well and at what point salt water will freeze? Maybe a thermal vent has opened at the north pole? Did Dr. McCarthy take detailed measurements and water samples? Is it possible that a United States Navy submarine was operating in the area and broke the already thin summertime ice sometime prior to the arival of the Yamal? I am highly skeptical of claims of global warming and claims from a UN supported scientist makes me even more uncomfortable. Maybe I could start a new Polar Bear cruise to the North Pole, do you think I could find people willing to pay to say they had swam in the waters of the north pole?

Polar Ice Melted in Summer of 1909!!

Robert Peary, USN, discovered the North Pole in 1909. His account of the journey, as well as of prior attempts, reveal that he had to begin the trek from northern Canada in the latter part of winter, before the sun rose above the horizon. Why? Because if he left any later, the polar ice would begin melting and would not support the weight of a man or a dog sled. Polar ice melted in summer in 1909 - not 50 million years ago!

'Claim Is Absolute Rubbish'

British scientists commenting on the NYT story, said that the American's claim is "absolute rubbish" and that there have been holes opening in the polar ice all along. Check out the London Times story! Better yet, post it to put the lie to the NYT's effort to promote the "global warming" nonsense.

Read More NewsMax.com Stories about Global Warming

Now try these NASA sites for further proof of the Global Warming Scam:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/atmos_layers.html http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature

'Global Warming' Study Is 'Politics'

NewsMax.com Wires
Saturday, June 9, 2001

WASHINGTON (UPI) - The National Academy of Sciences report on the theory of global warming is "more politics than science" and is "less a report on the state of greenhouse science than it is a report on the state of the alarmist argument for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions," according to the libertarian Cato Institute.

The NAS report Wednesday predicted that temperatures would increase between 2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 and agreed with the assessment by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that greenhouse gases are the likely cause.

"A close reading of that report reveals that the alarmist argument is in pretty bad shape," says Cato scholar Jerry Taylor. "The most telling thing about the report is the fact that it simply ignores without comment important scientific findings that conflict with the alarmist vision of future warming.

"For instance, MIT's Richard Lindzen recently published a bombshell paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society demonstrating that there is a huge tropical 'thermostat' that regulates planetary warming. It reduces the likely warming in the next century to, at warmest, somewhere around 1.6 C, or the lowest end of the National Academy's range. There is no mention of this paper at all in the new Academy report," says Taylor.

"Another significant paper, on ocean temperatures, was published only three months ago in Science," Taylor says. "When the rise in ocean temperatures discovered in that paper is coupled to a predictive climate model, the warming for the next 100 years again comes out at the low end, around 1.4 C."

Taylor says that perhaps most importantly, almost all of the climate models predict that once human warming starts, it takes place at a constant, not an increasing, rate.

"The Academy report concurs with the United Nations, that much of the warming of the last several decades is caused by people," he says. "Therefore, the warming rate that has been established should be the most likely one for the next 100 years, unless all those climate models are wrong. Again, it works out to 1.4 C.

"Is there a pattern here? You bet," says Taylor. "Scientists are generally not in the business of dodging data. Politicians are. For whatever reason, the authors of the NAS report were wearing political, not scientific, hats when they wrote this report."

Copyright 2001 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.

More About "Global Warming"

by Thomas Sowell

 

A NEW political dogma is being spun in the media. "Science," they say, has now "proved" that global warming is a real danger and that human beings are responsible for it, so that we need to take drastic steps to reduce greenhouse gases. This has been the widespread response to a recent publication by the National Academy of Sciences, which many in the media have taken as proof that we need to follow the drastic requirements of the Kyoto accords, in order to reduce the threat of global warming.

There were some pretty heavy-weight scientists involved in the NAS discussions of the global warming issue. But, as the report itself stated clearly, these scientists not only did not write the report, they didn't even see it before it was published. They "were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendation nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release."

So much for "science" having "proved" global warming and its human causation. Scientists were used as window-dressing for a report made by government officials. Moreover, even that report was unable to claim unanimity among scientists on the global warming issue, though some in the media seem to think that it did.

The stampede toward draconian changes in our economy and in the whole American way of life required by the Kyoto accords is all too congenial to the mindset of the intelligentsia in general and the liberal media in particular. Anything that requires their superior wisdom and virtue to be imposed by government on the benighted masses has a favorable reception waiting in those quarters.

Back in the 1970s, the hysteria was about global cooling and the prospect of a new ice age. A National Academy of Sciences report back then led Science magazine to conclude in its March 1, 1975 issue that a long "ice age is a real possibility." According to the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek,"the earth's climate seems to be cooling down." A note of urgency was part of the global cooling hysteria then as much as it is part of today's global warming hysteria.

According to the February 1973 issue of Science Digest, "Once the freeze starts, it will be too late."

Nothing is easier than to come up with mathematical models and doomsday scenarios.

Politicians and government bureaucrats have been trying for well over a decade to sell a doomsday scenario of global warming, which would enhance the powers of -- you guessed it -- politicians and bureaucrats.

Among scientists specializing in the study of weather and climate, there are many differences of opinion, reflecting the complex and uncertain data. Among the prominent scientists who do not go along with the global warming hysteria are Richard S. Lindzen, who is professor of meteorology at MIT, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, who created the American weather satellite system and whose book "Hot Talk, Cold Science" is must reading for those who want scientific facts rather than a political stampede.

Although Professor Lindzen is one of the big names listed in the National Academy of Sciences report, he disagrees with the global warming hysteria. As Professor Lindzen notes, "the climate is always changing." Innumerable factors go into temperature changes and many of those factors, such as changing amounts of heat put out by the sun during different eras, are beyond the control of human beings.

Certain gasses, such as carbon dioxide, have the potential to affect temperature, but that is very different from saying that a particular rise in temperature during a particular era is necessarily due to "greenhouse gasses." A major part of the rising temperature over the past century took place before World War II -- which was also before the large increases in carbon dioxide emissions in our time.

The National Academy of Sciences report itself tiptoes around the fact that the timing of temperature increases does not coincide with the timing of increases in greenhouse gases. As the NAS report puts it: "The causes of these irregularities and the disparities in timing are not completely understood."

Even if we were to cripple our economy by carrying out the radical steps proposed in the Kyoto accords, this "would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming," according to Professor Lindzen. He laments the use of science "as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens."

Unfortunately, many of these uninformed citizens are in the media.

May 31,2007

AND SPEAKING OF NEPTUNE (Neal Boortz)

Yesterday on the show we discussed a news story detailing some unexplained warming on the planet Neptune. A recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters (surely you're a subscriber) revealed that Neptune has been getting warmer since 1980. Researchers are investigating whether increased output from the Sun might be the cause.

This warming of Neptune must be particularly distressing to Al Gore and the anti-capitalist global warming cabal out there. You see, there has been no recent build-up of greenhouse gasses on Neptune. No deforestation. No contrails from jets. No SUVs. Yet Neptune is warming.

During our conversation Royal opined that the reason might be that Neptune is getting warmer because its orbit is elliptical .. and that it is getting closer to the sun. Royal cited the fact that at some times Pluto's orbit is actually outside that of Neptune due to the odd orbit. Well, Royal was right ... about Pluto being outside of Neptune on occasion. But the reason is that it is Pluto's orbit, not Neptune's, that is elliptical. Here are your details from Wikipedia:

Neptune is about 30 times farther from the sun than the Earth is; it averages 30.06 A.U. from the sun. Occasionally, Neptune's orbit is actually outside that of Pluto; this is because of Pluto's highly eccentric (non-circular) orbit. During this time (20 years out of every 248 Earth years), Neptune is actually the farthest planet from the Sun (and not Pluto). From January 21, 1979 until February 11, 1999, Pluto was inside the orbit of Neptune. Now and until September 2226, Pluto is outside the orbit of Neptune.

Web Guy tells me we got a few emails yesterday telling me that I was an idiot because I didn't know that Neptune has an elliptical orbit. So ... just setting the record straight here.

 

The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.

Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?

It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.

The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.

Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?

Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"

Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?

In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.

Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?

On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."