The myth of "melting Polar Ice caps"

[sofia]

The ice sheet at the North Pole does not sit on a land mass. Therefore, if it were to melt COMPLETELY, the ice would simply turn to water and not add to sea levels. Fill up a glass with water a ice cubes and let the ice cubes melt at room temperature. The glass will not overflow.

The South Pole is different because the ice sheets sit on top of a land mass. So if they melt and slip in to the sea, water levels would rise. But the temps at the South Pole average - 34 F!!! That shit aint even close to melting. The alarmists are talking about a few degrees increase. (which itself is fudged)....Are they saying that ice will melt at -32 F...and drown Manhattan??? ??????

This thing is such a joke.

[idirtify]

The ice sheet at the North Pole does not sit on a land mass. Therefore, if it were to melt COMPLETELY, the ice would simply turn to water and not add to sea levels. Fill up a glass with water a ice cubes and let the ice cubes melt at room temperature. The glass will not overflow.

The South Pole is different because the ice sheets sit on top of a land mass. So if they melt and slip in to the sea, water levels would rise. But the temps at the South Pole average - 34 F!!! That shit aint even close to melting. The alarmists are talking about a few degrees increase. (which itself is fudged)....Are they saying that ice will melt at -32 F...and drown Manhattan??? ??????

This thing is such a joke.

I love your posts on this topic.

[Bucjason]

You are correct except for on thing. They aren't talking about a few degrees change, right now we are talking about a few TENTHS of a degree... and supposedly we are all supposed to be hysterical about it....yeah right .

[awake]

They're on to polar bear cannibalism now....Melting ice caps did not invoke enough emotion. The thought of cute little polar bears eating their young ought to do it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6949625.ece

[Todd]

I don't buy global warming bunk for one instant....but aren't these bozos talking about land masses that do have ice?

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/images/time/europe/greenland.jpg

[sofia]

You are correct except for on thing. They aren't talking about a few degrees change, right now we are talking about a few TENTHS of a degree... and supposedly we are all supposed to be hysterical about it....yeah right .

thats right...we're talking 10ths of a degree!!! ... and even THAT they have to fudge by "using Mike's nature trick of adding the real temps in to HIDE THE DECLINE (in temps since 2002)..

and one more thing....this business of using "tree rings" to divine the temps from 150 years ago...

are u friggin kidding me?????

I'm trying to picture these clowns in a lab.....with a chain saw.....cutting a piece of bark from an old Siberian tree....examining under a magnifying glass....

"Eureka Phil!!!!....In 1874 the average global temp was 67.85 degrees.....but 1875 was 67.72"

ROFLMAO

[sofia]

I don't buy global warming bunk for one instant....but aren't these bozos talking about land masses that do have ice?

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/images/time/europe/greenland.jpg

Perhaps they mean Greenland...but I always hear them talking about the two poles......

interesting that you bring up Greenland...which got its name because it was once...well...green (at least the southern part was).

Vikings acttually farmed there during the medieval warming period (during which there is no record of London being flooded by rising sea levels)

Today, archaeologists dig through feet of "ice sand" and permafrost to get to the remains of their once prosperous settlements.

Warmists ignore the medieval warming period ...and the subsequent little ice age"....as if it never happened.

Let's hope Greenland doesnt turn Green again anytime soon (as it may someday)....

Can u imagine the hysteria????

[ClayTrainor]

30 years later, Arctic and Antarctic ice has actually increased, and is growing at fastest rate in recorded history.

Next time you see the news reports of "catastrophic" ice loss at the poles, try to remember you're watching a ratings-oriented entertainment program driven by hysteria and propaganda. Ditto for the Greenpeace rallies chock full of 'climate change' propaganda to secure their funding. Ditto for Al Gore's un-scientific Star Trek film, now proven to be bursting with junk science. Now, check the facts for yourself. Why do we continue to hear the scare stories about Antarctic ice vanishing when it is, in fact, breaking records for ice growth? Well, it's simple. Your local media outlet always shows you seemingly amazing images of massive melting and chunks of ice breaking away -- but always neglect to mention that it is normal, and happens every single year during the spring/summer melt. Oh, and it's been happening since forever began, by the way.

Be aware when they show the "before" and "after" pictures on your 6 o'clock news. The "before" pictures are always from the winter season and the "after" are summer images. So, to properly educate you, take a look at actual images of ice concentrations from the same time of year in comparison, spread out over three decades. Not only is the interior growing but so is the sea ice. Sea ice levels are higher now than when satellite records began.

Antarctic Ice Extent and Concentration for October 1979 and October 2008
http://globalwarminghoax.com/e107_images/newspost_images/antarctic_sea_ice_october_1979-2008_extent_concentration.jpg

Source: http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/01/ice-caps-and-glaciers-growing-around.html

:)

[huckans]

Believe me I am a big skeptic, but you are misunderstanding the supposed source of the potential sea level rise. It is not supposed to be from melted ice going into the sea. Rather, it is supposed to be due to the incremental volume increase of the EXISTING water in all of the oceans because of the positive thermal expansion coefficient of liquid water. Again, I am not a global warming defender, but you need to get your facts and understanding in order before you'd have a chance arguing with a sea level rise pusher. If you don't then you simply take away credibility from skeptics and strengthen the case of the other side.

[sofia]

Believe me I am a big skeptic, but you are misunderstanding the supposed source of the potential sea level rise. It is not supposed to be from melted ice going into the sea. Rather, it is supposed to be due to the incremental volume increase of the EXISTING water in all of the oceans because of the positive thermal expansion coefficient of liquid water. Again, I am not a global warming defender, but you need to get your facts and understanding in order before you'd have a chance arguing with a sea level rise pusher. If you don't then you simply take away credibility from skeptics and strengthen the case of the other side.

They talk ALL THE TIME about melting polar ice caps.

Perhaps when talking to other scientists in their sophisticated propaganda journals like Nature, they talk about the volume expansion of water....

but in the public PR, it's always about the Polar caps...ask any High School kid , or man in the street....about "the dangers of Global Warming"...and it will always come back to the Polar caps

[huckans]

Polar ice caps are talked about as a SYMPTOM of global warming, not as the CAUSE of sea level rise. Admittedly, many people (including you apparently) get confused about this. There is no dearth of confusion among the scientific illiterates on both sides of the debate. However, as a practicing physicist and a personal friend of the EPA's self-titled "Captain Sea Level" (James Titus), this is the "official" reason for the possible sea level rise --positive thermal coefficient of liquid water. If you talk to anyone on their side who has even a modicum of understanding, you'll find that what I am saying is 100% accurate. Avoid the noise of the rabble.