Giant icebergs are slowing climate change, research reveals

Giant icebergs are slowing climate change, research reveals

Giant melting icebergs may be a symbol of climate change but new research has revealed that the plumes of nutrient-rich waters they leave in their wake lead to millions of tonnes of carbon being trapped each year.

Here's some interesting research. Apparently, the nutrients left behind from giant icebergs melting is helping to reduce carbon levels on the planet. Sounds confusing doesn't it? Well I had to read on to understand it myself.

Researchers examined 175 satellite photos of giant icebergs in the Southern Ocean which surrounds Antarctica and discovered green plumes stretching up to 1,000km behind them. The greener colour of the plumes is due to blooms of phytoplankton, which thrive on the iron and other nutrients shed by the icebergs.

When these tiny algae - or the many creatures that eat them - die, they fall to the bottom of the ocean. This takes the carbon dioxide they have absorbed from the ocean surface and buries it deep below, thereby curbing the CO2 in the atmosphere and the global warming it causes.

“If giant iceberg calving increases this century as expected, this negative feedback on the carbon cycle may become more important than we previously thought,” said Professor Grant Bigg at the University of Sheffield, who led the study published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

That's pretty cool I guess. Though it certainly isn't a permanent solution. Once all the ice is gone, there won't be any more nutrients added to suck up more carbon. Though this really shows how there is much to learn about climate science. Maybe we can take advantage of this new piece of scientific knowledge to help extend our efforts to reduce carbon emissions world wide.

PS: This article is NOT saying that this is causing cooling. It is saying that the nutrients are removing carbon from the air. The planet is still warming at an unprecedented rate of change from year to year. The only difference here is that the rate of change of the rise in temperatures will drop a bit. It'll still be positive and likely still at an unprecedented level.

There has been much data showing that the temperature has not been rising, hence the pro warming crowd need a reason for it!

The planet is still warming at an unprecedented rate of change from year to year. The only difference here is that the rate of change of the rise in temperatures will drop a bit.

and there it is.

a reply to: VoidHawk

There has been much data showing that the temperature has not been rising,

Where?



The article is interesting though. A natural occurrence which may do what a one geoengineering proposal suggests.
www.livescience.com...

Even though a natural process, this could have unpleasant repercussions.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
There has been much data showing that the temperature has not been rising, hence the pro warming crowd need a reason for it!

The planet is still warming at an unprecedented rate of change from year to year. The only difference here is that the rate of change of the rise in temperatures will drop a bit.

and there it is.

Really?
2015 Was the Second-hottest Year on Record in the U.S.
NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record
NOAA: 2013 Was Tied For The Fourth-Hottest Year On Record
NOAA: 2012 Hottest & 2nd-Most Extreme Year On Record
2011 Was Ninth Warmest Year in Decades, NASA Finds
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eighth Warmest on Record
2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year
2005 was the warmest year on record

When was this and what data are you talking about?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VoidHawk
Even though a natural process, this could have unpleasant repercussions.

I'm interested in what those would be. To me this looks like a pleasant surprise that may give us a bit more time before things get too out of hand with rising carbon levels.

The earth has probably been doing this for millions of years as a way to clean itself.
Sort of a big carbon vacuum cleaner built by mother nature.
Shows again that we don't know as much as we thought we did about our home

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Algal blooms are known to be problematic.
www.livescience.com...

a reply to: JHumm

A vacuum cleaner that only seems to be sucking up 10% of the carbon in the air. So it's not exactly a world saving measure on the planet's behalf.

Giant icebergs, defined as greater than 18km in length, make up half the ice floating in the Southern Ocean, with dozens present at any one time. The researchers calculated that the fertilisation effect of the icebergs in the normally iron-poor waters contributes up to 20% of all the carbon buried in the Southern Ocean, which itself contributes about 10% of the global total.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Algal blooms are known to be problematic.
www.livescience.com...

Dang. I didn't realize that. Thanks for the information. I'll have to rethink some things in regards to the OP then. This doesn't look like a blessing in disguise that I assumed offhand but just another thing to add to the ever expanding list of consequences of man-made global warming...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VoidHawk
There has been much data showing that the temperature has not been rising, hence the pro warming crowd need a reason for it!

The planet is still warming at an unprecedented rate of change from year to year. The only difference here is that the rate of change of the rise in temperatures will drop a bit.

and there it is.

Really?
2015 Was the Second-hottest Year on Record in the U.S.
NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record
NOAA: 2013 Was Tied For The Fourth-Hottest Year On Record
NOAA: 2012 Hottest & 2nd-Most Extreme Year On Record
2011 Was Ninth Warmest Year in Decades, NASA Finds
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eighth Warmest on Record
2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year
2005 was the warmest year on record

When was this and what data are you talking about?

I'm not going to argue your point or sources, but outside of 2011 and our 90 day drought, 69 days over 100°, the Summers down here have been extremely mild and pleasant since the late 90's. And we've only reached 100° maybe 5 times since that nasty 2011 Summer. Having said that, whatever is currently going on with the Earth's climate is fine with me and can continue, I'm enjoying it as much as low gas prices which are set to hit $1.00 per gallon here in Louisiana at some point in 2016.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JHumm

A vacuum cleaner that only seems to be sucking up 10% of the carbon in the air. So it's not exactly a world saving measure on the planet's behalf.

Giant icebergs, defined as greater than 18km in length, make up half the ice floating in the Southern Ocean, with dozens present at any one time. The researchers calculated that the fertilisation effect of the icebergs in the normally iron-poor waters contributes up to 20% of all the carbon buried in the Southern Ocean, which itself contributes about 10% of the global total.

The world isn't in need of saving. The Earth is just doing what it's been doing for millions/billions of years.

I remember reading an article a couple of months ago about the Southern Oceans having resumed their long dormant carbon uptake behavior. IIRC, when I read that they were unsure of why it had resumed. Perhaps this is why.

-dex

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think it's another indication that our climate models, in all of their marvelous complexity, still don't take into consideration all of the variables necessary to make conclusive predictions about the environment.

-dex

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VoidHawk
There has been much data showing that the temperature has not been rising, hence the pro warming crowd need a reason for it!

The planet is still warming at an unprecedented rate of change from year to year. The only difference here is that the rate of change of the rise in temperatures will drop a bit.

and there it is.

Really?
2015 Was the Second-hottest Year on Record in the U.S.
NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record
NOAA: 2013 Was Tied For The Fourth-Hottest Year On Record
NOAA: 2012 Hottest & 2nd-Most Extreme Year On Record
2011 Was Ninth Warmest Year in Decades, NASA Finds
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eighth Warmest on Record
2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year
2005 was the warmest year on record

When was this and what data are you talking about?

The issue is the source data that is used to come to those conclusions. It has been shown to have been manipulated.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JHumm

A vacuum cleaner that only seems to be sucking up 10% of the carbon in the air. So it's not exactly a world saving measure on the planet's behalf.

Giant icebergs, defined as greater than 18km in length, make up half the ice floating in the Southern Ocean, with dozens present at any one time. The researchers calculated that the fertilisation effect of the icebergs in the normally iron-poor waters contributes up to 20% of all the carbon buried in the Southern Ocean, which itself contributes about 10% of the global total.

More carbon is a great thing silly!!!

More carbon bigger faster growing plants, it is plant food BTW!!!

All the carbon in the ground today was once in the atmosphere, no out of control warming happened, in fact the entire earth was mostly a tropical paradise.

The sky isnt falling.

a reply to: LSU0408

The earth hasn't had humans on the planet doing what we do to the planet for all that time.

Not really a fair comparison.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LSU0408

The earth hasn't had humans on the planet doing what we do to the planet for all that time.

Not really a fair comparison.

What do we do that other races dont or havent?

Nature itself has done far more destruction during our short time here than we have even come close to.

Or are you one of the types that thinks it only matters if humans are doing it?

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JHumm

A vacuum cleaner that only seems to be sucking up 10% of the carbon in the air. So it's not exactly a world saving measure on the planet's behalf.

Giant icebergs, defined as greater than 18km in length, make up half the ice floating in the Southern Ocean, with dozens present at any one time. The researchers calculated that the fertilisation effect of the icebergs in the normally iron-poor waters contributes up to 20% of all the carbon buried in the Southern Ocean, which itself contributes about 10% of the global total.

The world isn't in need of saving. The Earth is just doing what it's been doing for millions/billions of years.

I'm just saying that the earth has and always go through cycles and we don't really know what to expect from it.
And I don't think the earth needs saving. ....it will save itself in the end no matter what.

a reply to: forkedtongue

What do we do that other races dont or havent?

What do you mean by races? You mean species?

We burn carbon which was buried deep underground for millions upon millions of years. In huge amounts. For one thing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, it just seems to be back and forth with new evidence every week constantly contradicting itself? Just says to me the whole global warming climate change "sky is falling" rhetoric really is nothing more than that, ... rhetoric!