Giant icebergs are slowing climate change, research reveals

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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.

Why are they different to you?


They shouldnt be.

Total damage to earth by the decade, is at least 1000/1 in favor of nature vs man.

If natures 1000 damage isnt going to break the place, mans 1 is not going to either.

Unless you are the type that thinks it only counts if humans do it.

We are part of nature, we were created by nature, we do as nature designed us to do.

a reply to: forkedtongue

www.skepticalscience.com...

You want us to go back to dino level CO2?

Wonder how use humans would have done in that environment.

We are part of nature, we were created by nature, we do as nature designed us to do.

Did nature design us to deforest our world, burn all the fossil fuels and then pollute the air that wouldn't other wise happen??
Strange design.

a reply to: Phage

This article kind of helps me with my belief that we really don't know nearly as much as we believe we know about all this.

Does anyone believe that this new information was factored into climate models that have driven public opinion for years? It couldn't have been. And next week, there might be some new information discovered that changes things either by a tiny factor or a huge one.

My point is, the whole, "the science is settled" attitude needs to go. It isn't, and when we believe there is nothing left to learn, there is no reason to continue to exist.

Phage, I realize you are rarely wrong here, but I hope that in this case, you are banging the wrong drum. Of course, it will be long after we are both dead before we can know for sure and the Earth either rids itself of us, or Humanity goes on, unimpeded.

I just can't help but think that it should be warm at the end of an ice age, and glaciers should melt. (hence the "end" part)

a reply to: forkedtongue

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.

Concentrations of methane are, so far, far to low to contribute significantly to warming.

Water vapor content in the atmosphere is dependent upon temperature. The warmer the atmosphere the more water vapor it can contain. Cooling results in the loss of water vapor via condensation. All things being equal, water vapor does not drive temperatures. Nor can anything be done to reduce water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere, other than trying to reduce the amount of warming.

CO2 content is not temperature dependent. It does drive temperatures. Cooling does not remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Because CO2 does cause warming, though, it increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. It is a feedback loop. Initiated by increasing CO2 levels. Increasing CO2 levels disturb the balance of water vapor content.

a reply to: forkedtongue

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.

Where do you get these numbers from?

a reply to: network dude

I just can't help but think that it should be warm at the end of an ice age, and glaciers should melt. (hence the "end" part)

I assume you mean glacial period because we are, and have been, in an "ice age" for millions of years.

The last glacial period ended 10,000 years ago. Compared to the time before that, temperatures had been relatively stable, until recently. Glaciers have not been melting for that period of time, nor have temperatures been rising.

originally posted by: Phage
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.

Because we all know "committees" are not corruptible. The second "blog" shows before and after graphs of quite a few data sets. I know many are scatterplots and regressions which might be above the math education of many leftist, but the manipulation is pretty clear to unbiased eyes.

This is a simple issue to me. There is no such thing as settled science. Secondly, experiments, etc need to be reproducible by other parties. Third, 100% transparency is needed when it comes to data sets. The methodology should be examined and questioned, not hidden.

It is a scary thought that so many of you are so easily manipulated and don't question things.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

No I understand it quite clearly.

Take any plant, seriously any green plant at all.

Grow one outside, and grow the exact same species inside a green house with higher Co2 concentrations.

Which grows bigger faster and bears more fruit?

No, it is unscientific to blindly believe anything.

No horn tooting required.

I know how the scientific method works.

Anyone who follows it should be able to recreate your exact hypothesis, exactly to the letter every single time.

Yet the AGW hypothesis is always wrong after time goes by, because their hypothesis is wrong obviously.

Instead of stepping back and questioning it, they just keep driving on, claiming "consensus" which is BS, and then trying to say that means it cant be challenged, which is also complete BS.

Even general relativity is still open to questioning, because we know it is either wrong or incomplete, because it doesnt work in many ways.

As is the AGW hypothesis, but with drastically greater flaws, that are glaringly obvious to many.

The models dont and wont ever match real world observations, because they dont even know all the variables yet to be able to try to model it, saying they can is a outright lie, and as unscientific as it gets.

You may choose to follow blindly, but I dont follow. If their data were as accurate as they claim I wouldnt be questioning it.

But it isnt, and everyone, including the scientists themselves know it.

a reply to: Edumakated

This is a simple issue to me. There is no such thing as settled science.

Really? The Earth doesn't go around the Sun? CO2 does not absorb and re-emit infrared radiation?

Third, 100% transparency is needed when it comes to data sets. The methodology should be examined and questioned, not hidden.

Why do you say the data is hidden? Have you looked for the data sets?

Even general relativity is still open to questioning, because we know it is either wrong or incomplete, because it doesnt work in many ways.

For example? But you seem to expect science to know everything before saying anything. That's not how it works.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: forkedtongue

www.skepticalscience.com...

You want us to go back to dino level CO2?

Wonder how use humans would have done in that environment.

We are part of nature, we were created by nature, we do as nature designed us to do.

Did nature design us to deforest our world, burn all the fossil fuels and then pollute the air that wouldn't other wise happen??
Strange design.

Well since all the carbon( one of the most important elements for life) was locked up under ground, why wouldnt it want us to release it to cause life to flourish again?

Carbon is not pollution, it is just carbon, and it was at much higher levels many times. At each of these times life has flourished, no out of control warming( AGW BS right there, as proven by the fact there is no evidence it even can happen as it never has in the times it was much higher in the past) Has ever occured.

If it could be pointed to have been the cause even once in history it would be a credible contention.

But it hasnt, it is just made up BS.

originally posted by: forkedtongue

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

No I understand it quite clearly.

Take any plant, seriously any green plant at all.

Grow one outside, and grow the exact same species inside a green house with higher Co2 concentrations.

Which grows bigger faster and bears more fruit?

No, it is unscientific to blindly believe anything.

No horn tooting required.

I know how the scientific method works.

Anyone who follows it should be able to recreate your exact hypothesis, exactly to the letter every single time.

I wasn't disputing that facet of how carbon works... I was saying that things are much more complicated than JUST that.

Yet the AGW hypothesis is always wrong after time goes by, because their hypothesis is wrong obviously.

Where and when has the AGW hypothesis been wrong? For someone getting angry about his knowledge of science being questioned, I sure hope you have actual experiments to present that show this "wrongness". Otherwise you are going to look like an ENORMOUS hypocrite.

Instead of stepping back and questioning it, they just keep driving on, claiming "consensus" which is BS, and then trying to say that means it cant be challenged, which is also complete BS.

Climate science is questioned by climate scientists all the time.

Even general relativity is still open to questioning, because we know it is either wrong or incomplete, because it doesnt work in many ways.

As is the AGW hypothesis, but with drastically greater flaws, that are glaringly obvious to many.

Which flaws are they? Again as someone getting all hot about his knowledge of science being questioned, produce actual scientific experiments and analysis showing this to be the case.

The models dont and wont ever match real world observations, because they dont even know all the variables yet to be able to try to model it, saying they can is a outright lie, and as unscientific as it gets.

I'm curious if you've ever even LOOKED at a climate model.
How reliable are climate models?
Here's the graph from that link. I'll let your awesome science skills interpret it.

You may choose to follow blindly, but I dont follow. If their data were as accurate as they claim I wouldnt be questioning it.

Of course, you deny blindly instead.

But it isnt, and everyone, including the scientists themselves know it.

Yet you don't prove it. Interesting...

a reply to: forkedtongue

Well since all the carbon( one of the most important elements for life) was locked up under ground, why wouldnt it want us to release it to cause life to flourish again?

For one thing, the Sun was significantly younger, and cooler, back then. But whether or not life would flourish with more carbon in the atmosphere (a questionable hypothesis) is not really the issue. The issue is the effects of warming on human civilization.

Carbon is not pollution, it is just carbon, and it was at much higher levels many times

No. It is now at the highest level it's been for 800,000 years, at least. By a long shot.

But it hasnt, it is just made up BS.

No. It isn't.

a reply to: forkedtongue

Well since all the carbon( one of the most important elements for life) was locked up under ground, why wouldnt it want us to release it to cause life to flourish again?

.... Is what what you see burning fossil fuels is?

originally posted by: JHumm

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.

That was a reply to KrazySh0t. I agree with what you said.

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?

Three or four posts in a row you said "exactly" behind a question. You sound like busted record. Why do you keep saying the same word?

a reply to: LSU0408
Because I'm looking for precise answers to vague allegations, instead of more arm waving.

Feel like this is always needed in these discussions.

originally posted by: LSU0408

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?

Three or four posts in a row you said "exactly" behind a question. You sound like busted record. Why do you keep saying the same word?

Because science works in precise measurements and exact reasoning. Words are defined for a specific usage and the definitions aren't bent to suit someone's needs. Data is calculated with a margin of error to give a feel for how exact that measurement is. So using vague reasoning to dismiss science isn't scientific at all. It also shows an ignorance of understand of science in general.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

I was addressing those extreme heat sources you posted. Summers are getting cooler, yet we're having the hottest years on record every year. That being the case, whatever the climate is doing is good. Going by the logic these scientists are using and combining it with the experience I've been getting every year, the hotter the Earth gets, the cooler we get. It makes total sense, eh? OR, their studies are concentrated on one region.

a reply to: LSU0408

Why do you ignore the question being asked? Exactly?