Giant icebergs are slowing climate change, research reveals

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Well, it just seems to be back and forth with new evidence every week constantly contradicting itself?

What contradiction, exactly?

a reply to: Edumakated

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

Manipulated, how? Exactly?

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
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!

No, there is real scientific data behind the issue. The problem is that we let political rhetoric and propaganda obfuscate the topic.

What we need to do is stand back and support scientists while they work-through this issue. Denying it outright is not logical.

a reply to: forkedtongue

Yes natural disasters happen, but that doesn't have much to do with what I said.

I'm the type that can separate what nature does in its own and the stuff that humans do.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I don't think it matters. The Earth is probably about 95% uninhabited/rural/water. In my opinion, the small percentage of what humans are doing isn't enough to make or break the climate. People don't seem to take the void, small towns, or uninhabited places into account. Not to mention third world countries that don't have anything. The only thing y'all are concerned with is big cities, y'all act like nothing else matters.

originally posted by: LSU0408

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.

Good to know. I'm glad the weather was great for you in the south, unfortunately though you haven't addressed anything here pertaining to climate.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
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

Well yeah, but scientists never said that was the case anyways.

originally posted by: Edumakated

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.

Shown by whom? Why are posts like this always follow the following format:
"No, you are wrong. There are data, studies, things have been shown to..., etc that show this."
Then fail to post any proof of these claims?

a reply to: LSU0408

You might not think it matters, but even if it were one guy on his own on one speck of the earth that was releasing 40 billion tons of CO2 (annually), it would be just the same as it is now. The fact that a Namibian farmer does not release a great amount of CO2 does not make any difference. Nobody acts like nothing else matters.

originally posted by: forkedtongue

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.

Thanks for the simple biology lesson. Things are more complicated than this though. Try reading my conversation with Phage about how this discovery is actually more detrimental than I had originally assumed. That is an example of not jumping to simple conclusions like you are doing here.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
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!

Which evidence is contradicting itself exactly?

a reply to: LSU0408

So why does your opinion magically hold more weight and credibility than actual data and studies that say you are wrong? That's called confirmation bias and closed mindedness.

originally posted by: Phage
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.

And release it back to where it came from, the air, where it used to be at during the greatest abundance of life in the known history of the world.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Edumakated

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

Manipulated, how? Exactly?

30 second google search..

Fiddling with Temp Data

Tracking Climate Fraud

Climate Gate


I am not going to debate whether global warming is real or not. I don't have an opinion. However, having done complex modeling in the past, I know how important it is for data to be transparent. The issue is that it appears scientist are manipulating data to support their hypothesis and they then are refusing to have their methodology challenged. This leads me to believe that they have something to hide.

Everyone with a lick of common sense knows we can't predict the local weather a few days out with any certainty, yet we are supposed to upend trillion dollar economies on models looking 20 -50 years out into the future for the entire climate of the earth? These models have been wrong time and time again even when they go back and adjust for known events.

The earth is complex and it is the height of arrogance to think that man can predict what mother nature will do.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: forkedtongue

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.

Thanks for the simple biology lesson. Things are more complicated than this though. Try reading my conversation with Phage about how this discovery is actually more detrimental than I had originally assumed. That is an example of not jumping to simple conclusions like you are doing here.

OIC......it is too complex for me to understand something like this, so instead of having an oppinion, I should just defer to the experts like yourself huh?

LOL, good luck with that one.

Because I guarantee my science education is much better than yours buddy!!!

a reply to: Edumakated

30 second google search..

Gives you two blogs and this:

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]

en.wikipedia.org...

The issue is that it appears scientist are manipulating data to support their hypothesis and they then are refusing to have their methodology challenged.

False.

Everyone with a lick of common sense knows we can't predict the local weather a few days out with any certainty, yet we are supposed to upend trillion dollar economies on models looking 20 -50 years out into the future for the entire climate of the earth?

People who look at it more carefully understand the difference between weather and climate. Climatologists do not predict weather. How are economies going to be "upended?"

The earth is complex and it is the height of arrogance to think that man can predict what mother nature will do.

Ok. So better to ignore the science. Wait and see what happens. The physics involved are quite clear, if the fine details of the results are not.

a reply to: LSU0408

I don't think it matters.

Well since you don't think it matters....

The only thing y'all are concerned with is big cities, y'all act like nothing else matters.

Actually not really, but nice assumption.
This issue will affect everyone. You can have your opinion all you want, but the science behind it all disagrees with it.
Small towns and what ever you are going on about there doesn't change that.

a reply to: Edumakated

Anyone posting about climate gate, outside of studying historical attempts at fraudulent propaganda is being overly dishonest. Climate gate has been proven by MANY independent sources to have been a manufactured scandal. Bringing up that lie to try to deny Global Warming is one of the most dishonest things you can do in this discussion. It certainly shows an unwillingness to learn about new things in regards to the discussion (and possibly an unwillingness to look at evidence on the other side of the debate).

You say you don't have an opinion on Global Warming, but posting about Climate Gate pretty much says you DO have an opinion about it. You don't think it is real. Not having an opinion would have seen you already haven written that idiocy off as evidence to dredge up about it.

Everyone with a lick of common sense knows we can't predict the local weather a few days out with any certainty, yet we are supposed to upend trillion dollar economies on models looking 20 -50 years out into the future for the entire climate of the earth? These models have been wrong time and time again even when they go back and adjust for known events.

This is more terrible reasoning. Weather != climate. Predicting one or the other requires VASTLY different scientific concepts from each other.

The earth is complex and it is the height of arrogance to think that man can predict what mother nature will do.

Denying climate change based on opinion, anecdote, and outdated information as opposed to data and evidence is really the height of arrogance .

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
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!

No, there is real scientific data behind the issue. The problem is that we let political rhetoric and propaganda obfuscate the topic.

What we need to do is stand back and support scientists while they work-through this issue. Denying it outright is not logical.

Neither is fully embrasing it before they are 100% positive of the entire system.

They dont even know all the factors yet, let alone use them to come to a conclusion.

I would be much more likely to just stand back and support the scientists if they offered 50/50 spending on the issue.

But it is basically 100% goes only to scientists trying to prove we are causing it, 0% to scientists that are truly just trying to find out the actual cause and effect relationship.

Water vapor and methane both cause obscenely more warming than Co2 in the atmosphere, but because neither of these can be taxed, it is ignored.

Well they want to tax methane from livestock farms......

But you get my point.

originally posted by: forkedtongue

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: forkedtongue

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.

Thanks for the simple biology lesson. Things are more complicated than this though. Try reading my conversation with Phage about how this discovery is actually more detrimental than I had originally assumed. That is an example of not jumping to simple conclusions like you are doing here.

OIC......it is too complex for me to understand something like this, so instead of having an oppinion, I should just defer to the experts like yourself huh?

LOL, good luck with that one.

Because I guarantee my science education is much better than yours buddy!!!

Not according to that post you left me. It showed a clear misunderstanding about how carbon works in the environment. If you have a significant science education, I highly doubt it has to do with biology, climate, or weather. Did you have fun tooting your own horn though? Also, I NEVER said that you should default to my knowledge on science. You should default to what the data is saying.