Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Clearly in the image that is NOT open water.
Those are melt off pools on top of thicker ice that would prevent any ship passage.
Clearly the submarines looked for thin ice and punched up through ice that still covered the Arctic Ocean.
While things were already warming up from AGW since 1840, in 1987 there clearly was still no open passage through the Arctic ice.
What does that have to do with the picture at the North Pole?
That is the North Pole in March before the Summer thaw
skate at north pole 1958 - Bing video
You assessment is not accurate.
The captain of the USS Skate explained that ocean movement of the ice would crack open fissures, but that was not melt-off and it quickly refroze over. So clearly it was much, much colder than compared to now.
About 11 degree colder in fact.
{...
“the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours.
...}
6 inches is less than 2 feet thick, the video shows 6 to 10 inches. The video was taken in March which is right before the beginning of the Summer thaw the point of MOST ice. You really need to get a grip, the North pole ice cap always moves and heaves ice cores would never ever show sedimentary layers. That happens on glacial ice. But you go right on making up stuff like Gore did, you are not mocking me
Your graphs are fake suppositions and NOT at all measured real data.
That is just a lie.
There have been over 12 regular macro climate cycles called ice ages.
They are all about the same length and intensity, going back over a million years.
Before that thing were not as regular, but that like was due to additional heat from catastrophic events, as well as lingering heat from the gravitational condensation of planet, and its radioactive element decay.
Interglacial - Wikipedia
Wrong again doofus because the last ice age actually lasted 1.8 million years before cresting 20000 years ago
Are you handicapped?
The last Ice Age, known as the Pleistocene Epoch, began almost 1.8 million years ago and lasted until approximately 11,700 years ago. During this time, massive glaciers covered most of the surface of the Earth. There have been four known Ice Ages on Earth in the 4.6 billion years that the planet has existed. It is very possible that there were many more that occurred that are undocumented from before the advent of mankind, about 2.3 million years ago.
If you prefer to use the term interglacial period instead of ice age, that is fine.
Doesn't matter to me at all.
The point is that there have been over 12 interglacial periods, they last about 120,000 years long, and according to their natural cycle, we are no naturally supposed to be cooling.
It changes nothing except to confuse average people who talk about the last ice age of the mammoths and mastodons, instead of calling it the more accurate, last interglacial period.
It does not change the fact that natural climate periods are on the order of a hundred thousand years long, so our current warming of the same magnitude in less than 150 years can not possibly be natural.
Huh?
The great Sahara Desert changed from tropical to dry in only a few hundred years.
Man wasn't driving cars then.
.
That has NOTHING to do with climate.
That was just weather.
And weather is very fickle, subject to many different combinations of accidental events.
Weather is the inconsistent lack of uniformity in atmospheric energy and moisture.
In contract, climate is the sum of all weather, where everything evens out.
But the Sahara has its own unique and strange weather history that has nothing to go with global climate. And it did not go from tropical to dry, but dry to topical and back to dry.
{...
At the end of the last Ice Age, the Sahara Desert was just as dry and uninviting as it is today. But sandwiched between two periods of extreme dryness were a few millennia of plentiful rainfall and lush vegetation.
During these few thousand years, prehistoric humans left the congested Nile Valley and established settlements around rain pools, green valleys, and rivers.
The ancient climate shift and its effects are detailed in the July 21 issue of the journal Science.
When the rains came
Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.
But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.
This opened the door for humans to move into the area, as evidenced by the researcher's 500 new radiocarbon dates of human and animal remains from more than 150 excavation sites.
"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.
...}
Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated
Wait so the huge Sahara has nothing to do with climate change but artic ice does?
You stupid
.
Nonsense.
Natural climate cycles like ice ages are 120,000 years long, and according to their history, it is now supposed to be early in the cooling phase.
Currently the oldest ice in the Arctic Ocean is only about 50 years old, there is very little of that left, and soon there will not be any.
The Arctic's oldest ice is vanishing | NOAA Climate.gov
{...
The Arctic's oldest ice is vanishing
...}
December 13, 2016
'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists
{...
'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists
Danish and US researchers say warmer air and sea surface could lead to record lows of sea ice at north pole next year
The Arctic is experiencing extraordinarily hot sea surface and air temperatures, which are stopping ice forming and could lead to record lows of sea ice at the north pole next year, according to scientists.
Danish and US researchers monitoring satellites and Arctic weather stations are surprised and alarmed by air temperatures peaking at what they say is an unheard-of 20C higher than normal for the time of year. In addition, sea temperatures averaging nearly 4C higher than usual in October and November.
“It’s been about 20C warmer than normal over most of the Arctic Ocean, along with cold anomalies of about the same magnitude over north-central Asia. This is unprecedented for November,” said research professor Jennifer Francis of Rutgers university.
Temperatures have been only a few degrees above freezing when -25C should be expected, according to Francis. “These temperatures are literally off the charts for where they should be at this time of year. It is pretty shocking. The Arctic has been breaking records all year. It is exciting but also scary,” she said.
...}
Ya know what's cooler, the astrophysicist working on the mathematical formula for the big bang who discovered that their formula predicts that 85 percent of the universe is missing.....Wrong again doofus because the last ice age actually lasted 1.8 million years before cresting 20000 years ago
Are you handicapped?
The last Ice Age, known as the Pleistocene Epoch, began almost 1.8 million years ago and lasted until approximately 11,700 years ago. During this time, massive glaciers covered most of the surface of the Earth. There have been four known Ice Ages on Earth in the 4.6 billion years that the planet has existed. It is very possible that there were many more that occurred that are undocumented from before the advent of mankind, about 2.3 million years ago.
If you prefer to use the term interglacial period instead of ice age, that is fine.
Doesn't matter to me at all.
The point is that there have been over 12 interglacial periods, they last about 120,000 years long, and according to their natural cycle, we are no naturally supposed to be cooling.
It changes nothing except to confuse average people who talk about the last ice age of the mammoths and mastodons, instead of calling it the more accurate, last interglacial period.
It does not change the fact that natural climate periods are on the order of a hundred thousand years long, so our current warming of the same magnitude in less than 150 years can not possibly be natural.
Huh?
The great Sahara Desert changed from tropical to dry in only a few hundred years.
Man wasn't driving cars then.
.
That has NOTHING to do with climate.
That was just weather.
And weather is very fickle, subject to many different combinations of accidental events.
Weather is the inconsistent lack of uniformity in atmospheric energy and moisture.
In contract, climate is the sum of all weather, where everything evens out.
But the Sahara has its own unique and strange weather history that has nothing to go with global climate. And it did not go from tropical to dry, but dry to topical and back to dry.
{...
At the end of the last Ice Age, the Sahara Desert was just as dry and uninviting as it is today. But sandwiched between two periods of extreme dryness were a few millennia of plentiful rainfall and lush vegetation.
During these few thousand years, prehistoric humans left the congested Nile Valley and established settlements around rain pools, green valleys, and rivers.
The ancient climate shift and its effects are detailed in the July 21 issue of the journal Science.
When the rains came
Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.
But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.
This opened the door for humans to move into the area, as evidenced by the researcher's 500 new radiocarbon dates of human and animal remains from more than 150 excavation sites.
"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.
...}
Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated
Wait so the huge Sahara has nothing to do with climate change but artic ice does?
You stupid
.
Let me guess since we only have less then 50 years worth of data you still think it's enough to claim we have global data going back a 100 years?
View attachment 264003
There are no scientific papers that have any reliable proof of past earth temps needed to say that temps are rising faster now....'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists
{...
'Extraordinarily hot' Arctic temperatures alarm scientists
Danish and US researchers say warmer air and sea surface could lead to record lows of sea ice at north pole next year
The Arctic is experiencing extraordinarily hot sea surface and air temperatures, which are stopping ice forming and could lead to record lows of sea ice at the north pole next year, according to scientists.
Danish and US researchers monitoring satellites and Arctic weather stations are surprised and alarmed by air temperatures peaking at what they say is an unheard-of 20C higher than normal for the time of year. In addition, sea temperatures averaging nearly 4C higher than usual in October and November.
“It’s been about 20C warmer than normal over most of the Arctic Ocean, along with cold anomalies of about the same magnitude over north-central Asia. This is unprecedented for November,” said research professor Jennifer Francis of Rutgers university.
Temperatures have been only a few degrees above freezing when -25C should be expected, according to Francis. “These temperatures are literally off the charts for where they should be at this time of year. It is pretty shocking. The Arctic has been breaking records all year. It is exciting but also scary,” she said.
...}
Let me guess...newspapers like the guardian are where you get your "science" from. Is that science in your mind? Do you think newspaper articles are more accurate than peer reviewed, published scientific papers? Do you deny actual science in favor of newspaper articles?
Ya know what's cooler, the astrophysicist working on the mathematical formula for the big bang who discovered that their formula predicts that 85 percent of the universe is missing.....If you prefer to use the term interglacial period instead of ice age, that is fine.
Doesn't matter to me at all.
The point is that there have been over 12 interglacial periods, they last about 120,000 years long, and according to their natural cycle, we are no naturally supposed to be cooling.
It changes nothing except to confuse average people who talk about the last ice age of the mammoths and mastodons, instead of calling it the more accurate, last interglacial period.
It does not change the fact that natural climate periods are on the order of a hundred thousand years long, so our current warming of the same magnitude in less than 150 years can not possibly be natural.
Huh?
The great Sahara Desert changed from tropical to dry in only a few hundred years.
Man wasn't driving cars then.
.
That has NOTHING to do with climate.
That was just weather.
And weather is very fickle, subject to many different combinations of accidental events.
Weather is the inconsistent lack of uniformity in atmospheric energy and moisture.
In contract, climate is the sum of all weather, where everything evens out.
But the Sahara has its own unique and strange weather history that has nothing to go with global climate. And it did not go from tropical to dry, but dry to topical and back to dry.
{...
At the end of the last Ice Age, the Sahara Desert was just as dry and uninviting as it is today. But sandwiched between two periods of extreme dryness were a few millennia of plentiful rainfall and lush vegetation.
During these few thousand years, prehistoric humans left the congested Nile Valley and established settlements around rain pools, green valleys, and rivers.
The ancient climate shift and its effects are detailed in the July 21 issue of the journal Science.
When the rains came
Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.
But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.
This opened the door for humans to move into the area, as evidenced by the researcher's 500 new radiocarbon dates of human and animal remains from more than 150 excavation sites.
"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.
...}
Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated
Wait so the huge Sahara has nothing to do with climate change but artic ice does?
You stupid
.
Let me guess since we only have less then 50 years worth of data you still think it's enough to claim we have global data going back a 100 years?
View attachment 264003
Or in a sane persons view, the equation is wrong
Lol as if something went thru our sun the hole would stay visible. It's kind of sad really but for all the knowledge of the human race today, we know no more about what we are or where we came from than a neandertallYa know what's cooler, the astrophysicist working on the mathematical formula for the big bang who discovered that their formula predicts that 85 percent of the universe is missing.....Huh?
The great Sahara Desert changed from tropical to dry in only a few hundred years.
Man wasn't driving cars then.
.
That has NOTHING to do with climate.
That was just weather.
And weather is very fickle, subject to many different combinations of accidental events.
Weather is the inconsistent lack of uniformity in atmospheric energy and moisture.
In contract, climate is the sum of all weather, where everything evens out.
But the Sahara has its own unique and strange weather history that has nothing to go with global climate. And it did not go from tropical to dry, but dry to topical and back to dry.
{...
At the end of the last Ice Age, the Sahara Desert was just as dry and uninviting as it is today. But sandwiched between two periods of extreme dryness were a few millennia of plentiful rainfall and lush vegetation.
During these few thousand years, prehistoric humans left the congested Nile Valley and established settlements around rain pools, green valleys, and rivers.
The ancient climate shift and its effects are detailed in the July 21 issue of the journal Science.
When the rains came
Some 12,000 years ago, the only place to live along the eastern Sahara Desert was the Nile Valley. Being so crowded, prime real estate in the Nile Valley was difficult to come by. Disputes over land were often settled with the fist, as evidenced by the cemetery of Jebel Sahaba where many of the buried individuals had died a violent death.
But around 10,500 years ago, a sudden burst of monsoon rains over the vast desert transformed the region into habitable land.
This opened the door for humans to move into the area, as evidenced by the researcher's 500 new radiocarbon dates of human and animal remains from more than 150 excavation sites.
"The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany.
...}
Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated
Wait so the huge Sahara has nothing to do with climate change but artic ice does?
You stupid
.
Let me guess since we only have less then 50 years worth of data you still think it's enough to claim we have global data going back a 100 years?
View attachment 264003
Or in a sane persons view, the equation is wrong
Your post just reminds me of I was just reading about the bullet holes in the universe yesterday.
*Something* is blasting "cosmic bullet holes" through our galaxy
We don’t know what it is. We don’t even know if it’s made of regular matter — but we do know that something blasted a series of holes through some stars in the Milky Way.
It’s a dense bullet of something,” said Ana Bonaca, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who discovered evidence of the impactor.
Bonaca analyzed a series of stars called GD-1 — a very long, thin, Milky Way star stream. GD-1 stars have been studied ever since they were discovered in 2006, and Bonaca has been using data from the recently launched Gaia telescope to analyze them in more detail, finding something bizarre smack in the middle of the stream.
[px !important;">[/iframe]
This type of stellar stream is created by the tidal (gravitational) force of the Milky Way, which bends and stretches the stream, producing a gap about midway through the stream.
But when Bonaca looked at GD-1 more recently, she found a second gap — and a weird one at that. The second gap is not smooth as the first one but has a ragged edge — as if something was shot through it.
So you admit that Global Warming is real and it's happening...you just stupidly don't care.
Oh...
Who ever said that the earth isn't warming? It has been warming since the end of the little ice age...and it still isn't as warm as it was before the onset of the little ice age...what would make anyone think that it won't warm up at least to the temperature it was before the onset of the little ice age?
That is idiotic.
It is NOT supposed to be warming now.
We are past the ice age by 20,000 years, it had already reached the warming peak, and it is now supposed to be cooling again. And that is what was happening until about 40 years ago.
You clearly know nothing about earth's history, climate, or anything related to this subject.
And ice age cycles are 120 thousand years long.
The cycles were are forcing, are more like 200 years long for the same range of change.
Tell me, by what metric do you say it is "supposed" to be doing anything. all the temperature reconstructions show that our climate is chaotic with warming and cooling periods happening at seemingly random intervals between glaciations...
You seem to just be making it up as you go because you certainly aren't showing anything like actual science to back up your claims.
The climate chaotic. The earth has been frozen solid and completely tropical. This is chaotic.So you admit that Global Warming is real and it's happening...you just stupidly don't care.
Oh...
Who ever said that the earth isn't warming? It has been warming since the end of the little ice age...and it still isn't as warm as it was before the onset of the little ice age...what would make anyone think that it won't warm up at least to the temperature it was before the onset of the little ice age?
That is idiotic.
It is NOT supposed to be warming now.
We are past the ice age by 20,000 years, it had already reached the warming peak, and it is now supposed to be cooling again. And that is what was happening until about 40 years ago.
You clearly know nothing about earth's history, climate, or anything related to this subject.
And ice age cycles are 120 thousand years long.
The cycles were are forcing, are more like 200 years long for the same range of change.
Tell me, by what metric do you say it is "supposed" to be doing anything. all the temperature reconstructions show that our climate is chaotic with warming and cooling periods happening at seemingly random intervals between glaciations...
You seem to just be making it up as you go because you certainly aren't showing anything like actual science to back up your claims.
Nonsense.
That is nothing chaotic about climate.
It is only weather that is chaotic, not climate.
Climate can NOT be chaotic.
The sun is not chaotic, earth's orbit is not chaotic, the atmosphere is not chaotic.
But there are cycles.
For example, plants absorb CO2, and produce O2, that cools the planet off until it kills the plants, the CO2 is released again, and then the plant begins to warm again.
Simply and not chaotic cycle of about 120,000 years in length.
I don't have add any more evidence because you have not grasped the basics I have already presented. There can be chaotic influences on climate and weather, but there are none now except for humans adding over 5 trillion tons of sequestered carbon into the air every single year.
Are you an idiot?
Clearly the scale on the Holocene is 10,000 years, so there is no way anyone could see the classic hockey stick of the last 30 years or so.
Nor is there anyway anyone could produce hard data over ocean ice coverage. That would be impossible. They would have to be guessing based on land ice core samples, which are not really valid at all for floading ice, that are much more dependent upon things like currents.
You are so far off that you don't even see that you are contradicting yourself...you claim that we can't do temperature reconstructions, or ice cover reconstructions in one breath, then in the other you claim that you know what the climate is supposed to be doing apparently based on some temperature reconstruction which you claim can't be accurate.
Nonsense.
Natural climate cycles like ice ages are 120,000 years long, and according to their history, it is now supposed to be early in the cooling phase.
What measured data are you using to determine how long natural climate cycles are? You just claimed that if it isn't actually measured data, then it can't be real. So who was measuring the onset of ice ages 120,000 years ago?
Wrong simpleton, earth temps have been rising for 20000 years, you babble about 2007 as though that was a long time agoAre you an idiot?
Clearly the scale on the Holocene is 10,000 years, so there is no way anyone could see the classic hockey stick of the last 30 years or so.
Nor is there anyway anyone could produce hard data over ocean ice coverage. That would be impossible. They would have to be guessing based on land ice core samples, which are not really valid at all for floading ice, that are much more dependent upon things like currents.
You are so far off that you don't even see that you are contradicting yourself...you claim that we can't do temperature reconstructions, or ice cover reconstructions in one breath, then in the other you claim that you know what the climate is supposed to be doing apparently based on some temperature reconstruction which you claim can't be accurate.
Wrong.
I said that if there were open water in the arctic ocean, that then would have no way to get a record of past ocean ice earlier than that.
The ONLY way you can have a record of past ocean ice is if it never, ever, melts off.
So it is only you have have a contradiction.
What I said about your graphs is that since they likely were made after the melt offs of 2007, they likely are not actual data, but instead guesses based on land ice cores from Greenland or some place like that. That could be totally wrong, because land and ocean temperatures can be vastly different.
But the over all is that it is supposed to be cooling now. The arctic ice should be increasing. The Arctic ice was increasing for the last 7000 years, until only very recently. In just the last couple years, Arctic temps are about 11 degrees above normal. That is scientific fact that no one can deny.
Ice cores are all the same temp idiot, they measure precip not tempsNonsense.
Natural climate cycles like ice ages are 120,000 years long, and according to their history, it is now supposed to be early in the cooling phase.
What measured data are you using to determine how long natural climate cycles are? You just claimed that if it isn't actually measured data, then it can't be real. So who was measuring the onset of ice ages 120,000 years ago?
I cores are an actual measure of land temperatures at the ice code.
If ocean ice ever melts off, there is then no ice core capability, so then no actual measurement data. And using land data to guess at ocean temperatures, is incredibly inaccurate.
Look kid there are photos of the OPEN WATER
You really are not that bright are you?
I already found the actual description of what you are claiming is the USS Skate that the North Pole in 1959, and proved that the image was NOT at the North Pole.
I am not going to look it up again and again post the correct caption.
You look it up.
LOL like Al Gore proved that all the North Pole ice would be melted in 2010 and no child would ever see snow
Seriously kid you are mentally ill and delusional if you think you can recreate history
There is also video of the skate surfacing at the North Pole in March at the end of winter when the ice is at its thickest
skate at north pole 1958 - Bing video
But you stay there in denial
Exactly.
The USS Skate documented heavy ice, and no open water.
The news real showed otherwise.
.
I already found the actual description of what you are claiming is the USS Skate that the North Pole in 1959, and proved that the image was NOT at the North Pole.
I am not going to look it up again and again post the correct caption.
You look it up.
LOL like Al Gore proved that all the North Pole ice would be melted in 2010 and no child would ever see snow
Seriously kid you are mentally ill and delusional if you think you can recreate history
There is also video of the skate surfacing at the North Pole in March at the end of winter when the ice is at its thickest
skate at north pole 1958 - Bing video
But you stay there in denial
Exactly.
The USS Skate documented heavy ice, and no open water.
The news real showed otherwise.
.
That is ridiculous. At about 30 seconds into the news real, it said there was absolutely no open water near the pole, and they had to break through the ice. There was NEVER any open water shown anywhere near to the Arctic region.
I already found the actual description of what you are claiming is the USS Skate that the North Pole in 1959, and proved that the image was NOT at the North Pole.
I am not going to look it up again and again post the correct caption.
You look it up.
LOL like Al Gore proved that all the North Pole ice would be melted in 2010 and no child would ever see snow
Seriously kid you are mentally ill and delusional if you think you can recreate history
There is also video of the skate surfacing at the North Pole in March at the end of winter when the ice is at its thickest
skate at north pole 1958 - Bing video
But you stay there in denial
Exactly.
The USS Skate documented heavy ice, and no open water.
The news real showed otherwise.
.
That is ridiculous. At about 30 seconds into the news real, it said there was absolutely no open water near the pole, and they had to break through the ice. There was NEVER any open water shown anywhere near to the Arctic region.
