Giant icebergs are slowing climate change, research reveals

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I think the point being made is that, in comparison to cities, rural areas produce less carbon. Which may be true, unless looked at on a per capita basis.

edit: I see your followup post.

Now you know why I said his reasoning is ridiculous.

Yeah, because you believe in a made up lie and I don't. I can totally see why I'm the ridiculous one.

I didn't realize that people believe that gases dispersing throughout the atmosphere regardless of where they came from is a lie...

I mean basic physics says that any gas will uniformly disperse and fill the container it is in.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TheBulk

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.

Yeah just giant volcanoes everywhere!

You wouldn't think you were being so clever and witty if you applied a small bit of critical thinking to what you just said. The volcano element still exists on the planet. Human carbon production is in addition to the volcano element.

so the earth can only handle valconano co2, but not human co2?

Are you aware of the margin concept in economics? It's the study of adding one more element until you see the tipping point and no longer get the return you were getting before the tipping point. There is always a tipping point. Our climate stayed in good, natural balance due to a significant number of reasons. Some of which may even still be unknown to us. HOWEVER, when you go about screwing up a significant process that drives climate, expect significant changes to that balance. It's pretty simple cause and effect really.

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?

Actually, it doesn't---the overall message and pattern is strong and consistent. Things like this show that scientists are vigorously investigating all sorts of effects and they are continuing to do science.

Just says to me the whole global warming climate change "sky is falling" rhetoric really is nothing more than that, ... rhetoric!

That's an emotional, and unwise, response to the normal continuing efforts of science in a complex domain. Scientists have been looking at pro-warming and pro-cooling influences for many decades. This is yet one more of a long stream. It's common to take that and then say "oh scientists don't really know anything about anything so I'm gonna dismiss whatever they say even when they say the evidence is clear." But that's not a good way to think or behave, please look into yourself. It isn't denying ignorance, it is literally celebrating and encouraging ignorance. Read what it says on the left and right of your browser right now. Turn your head. Deny Ignorance.

If you jumped into some complex research topics on semiconductors and saw what appear to be counteracting effects would you then conclude that scientists are all full of BS and not believe in quantum mechanics even when they all agree that it's important?

On average scientists are measured in what they predict. Don't put words in their mouths.

originally posted by: Learningman
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Happy to disagree, I come from a chemistry/physics background so naturally I will lean toward the scientific stance of 40 billion tons extra per annum of C02 being detrimental, but again, i lean towards the making our methods more efficient over taxation.

Making low-emission efficiency more economically viable and faster is the entire point of a greenhouse tax. By the way, the money would be recycled back to people, everybody is proposing a net-zero tax.

It would result in maximally lowered emissions in the areas where it is most feasible to do so the fastest.

I don't wish to pay my hard earne-ds to what I see as nothing more than a war on fossil fuels (which again I fully believe to be a detriment) because i do not recall ever voting for a reliance on such. If i diddn't vote for it, why am I responsible?

Did you vote for acid rain and smog? Of course not, but we societally are responsible because we benefit from the machines that made them.

By the way, the cap-and-trade idea comes straight from the cleanup program for acid rain in USA. Started in late Reagan and early GHW Bush administrations---and successfully and with high economic efficiency reduced environmental damage with lower cost than intrusive regulation.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Asia are not responsible for the so called 'Man made Global warming'.

If it actually does exist, then the largest contribution would have been made by the Superpowers of the World over the last 200 years or so.

It does, and current levels are mostly due to Western and Soviet industrialization, but nearly all future growth and current opportunity to choose a different path is in East and South Asia.

The Chinese are not unaware of their responsibility and need for action. They are not deniers unlike the Republican party in USA. They have committed to building hundreds of nuclear reactors instead of coal plants, which will have more of an effect than any policy undertaken by the West. Furthermore their one-child policy, unfortunately rescinded, has done more to slow global warming than anything else.