Climate change is turning Antarctica green, say researchers

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Awesome!! The greener Antarctica can become, the more carbon dioxide it can soak up!! Woohoo party!

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
it certainly isn't creating a new pattern, just maybe slightly affecting the intensity of it over the miniscule timeframe of the last millennia or so.

So you admit its different. good. this is step 1

whats happened the last millennia then?
oh right, we populate to the tune of 7 billion, dig deep in the earth and extract fuels that kick up a f--kton of greenhouse gases, then notice that its..acting exactly how it should act (by keeping more heat in) and in turn starts intensifying things, melting more, faster, longer, etc.

So, this we are in agreement on..so where is your issue?
The graph you show below this post I am replying to demonstrates this exactly with historical highs that are in a rocket launch straight up still.

Level of uncertainty? no, thats a level of deniability by politicians and globalists.

The discussion shouldn't be about the ifs, but of what can be done about it...but the deniers are too stuck in the defense of oil companies to even let the discussion go to there for fear that...umm...something something carbon tax (of which I am not in favor of as it sits mind you)

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Awesome!! The greener Antarctica can become, the more carbon dioxide it can soak up!! Woohoo party!

It will make for a much better holiday destination too. Good news all round.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

same tax scam. different day.

Global Cooling


ps. one volcano releases more carbon than man ever has.

if you want to clean up the air remember the cleanest days on record were following 911 when all flights were grounded.
how about a few non flying days, ya know, for mother earth?

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eXia7
You know there have been numerous articles lately debunking global warming/climate change theories right? Or do you just choose to ignore it?

Post them

earthobservatory.nasa.gov... - Earth Cooling

www.nasa.gov... - Record Antarctic Sea Ice

weather.com... - Lowest Hurricane Forecast

weather.com... - Lowest tornadoes on record.


a simple google search would've given you this information.


cuz, science

You are posting from Nasa.. pfft.. They are anti-science. Only people that agree that Antarctica is going to be a luminous green forest in a couple of years are REAL scientists.

originally posted by: SaturnFXSo you admit its different. good. this is step 1

Dont' wet your panties just yet--I said "maybe." There is plenty of evidence that similarly sharp increases in temperature have happened well before man starting deforestation, large metropolises, or the industrial revolution.

I say "may" because there's always the chance, but it's still woefully unproven and often purposefully manipulated, fogging up the clarity of data for those of use truly wanting to find the answer behind what actually drives climate change.

whats happened the last millennia then?
oh right, we populate to the tune of 7 billion, dig deep in the earth and extract fuels that kick up a f--kton of greenhouse gases, then notice that its..acting exactly how it should act (by keeping more heat in) and in turn starts intensifying things, melting more, faster, longer, etc.

Well, to be fair, within that millennia, we also had a little ice age. What you are citing is basically the last maybe 15%-20% of that millennium. And also what you're citing is called a self-fulfilling prophecy, where an expectation (higher CO2 leads to temp increases) correlates to what is happening at a time when the earth has already been naturally warming for more than a millennia. I cited a tiny effect because that's what we're possibly seeing--a tiny effect on the natural warming that may be because of increased use of fossil fuels worldwide. To what extent that warming is directly a cause of the man-made carbon increase is, right now, impossible to understand for where we are in our understanding of the catalysts of climate change.

So, this we are in agreement on..so where is your issue?

The alarmism that Krazyshot and many others accompany their arguments with, along with their apparent unwillingness to consider information that counters their preconceived notions.

The graph you show below this post I am replying to demonstrates this exactly with historical highs that are in a rocket launch straight up still.

And to be fair, those ups and downs are created by best guesses based on accumulated understanding of different things thought to be affected by temperature, and it specifically notes that the thick light-green area is the area of uncertainty. THAT is the uncertainty to which I was referencing.

But that graph doesn't demonstrate exactly what you're talking about--in fact, in highly implies that the cycles continue well into the BCE eras. Couple that with the graph above that shows cyclical rises and falls for hundreds of thousands of years, it actually bolsters my claim that modern man-made issues are having very little effect on the overall natural cycle of climate changes on earth.

The discussion shouldn't be about the ifs, but of what can be done about it...but the deniers are too stuck in the defense of oil companies to even let the discussion go to there for fear that...umm...something something carbon tax (of which I am not in favor of as it sits mind you)

The discussion of "what can be done about it" should never be considered with such a limited understand of what is actually causing this, and the overwhelming data that demonstrates the natural cycles, of which we appropriately find ourselves in a warm period of that cycle.

I know what can be done about it, and it starts at the individual level being the best stewards of our own local environments and let it branch out from there. But that should always be the policy by which one lives their life, regardless if they accept the AGW alarmism or are "deniers," as you label them (keep in mind, there's a lot of grey area in between those extremes in which most people fall).

Best regards--I'm washing my hands of this thread. It's predictability in its direction of discussion is boring.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Awwww! Don't give up now. I'm finding your posts very educational!!! Good reading actually.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Admiral Bird reported green land in Antarctica around a century ago.

I'm not denying climate change, just saying...

Didn't he also report seeing a "portal to the underworld"?

Just saying - the guy was a few fries short of a Happy Meal if you get my drift.

IIRC, that was at the other pole.

Also, here's this on 'crazy' Admiral Byrd:

Honors

By the time he died, Byrd had amassed twenty-two citations and special commendations, nine of which were for bravery and two for extraordinary heroism in saving the lives of others. In addition, he received the Medal of Honor, the Silver Lifesaving Medal, the Navy Distinguished Service Medal, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Navy Cross, and had three ticker-tape parades, the only individual to ever receive more than two.

Byrd was one of only four American military officers in history entitled to wear a medal with their own image on it. The others were Admiral George Dewey, General John J. Pershing and Admiral William T. Sampson. As Byrd's image is on both the first and second Byrd Antarctic Expedition medals, he was the only American entitled to wear two medals with his own image on them.

Byrd received numerous medals from non-governmental organizations in honor of his achievements. These included the David Livingstone Centenary Medal of the American Geographical Society, the Loczy Medal of the Hungarian Geographical Society, the Vega Medal of the Swedish Geographical Society and the Elisha Kent Kane Medal of the Philadelphia Geographical Society.

In 1927, the Boy Scouts of America made Byrd an Honorary Scout, a new category of Scout created that same year. This distinction was given to "American citizens whose achievements in outdoor activity, exploration and worthwhile adventure are of such an exceptional character as to capture the imagination of boys..."

(more at link below)

AND

Military awards

Admiral Byrd was one of the most highly decorated officers in the history of the United States Navy. He is possibly the only individual to receive the Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, Distinguished Flying Cross and the Silver Life Saving Medal. He also was one of a very few individuals to receive all three Antarctic expedition medals issued for expeditions prior to the Second World War.

Link

Please share your awards and honors -- and any applicable educational degrees -- that might demonstrate you are in any position to judge him as being "a few fries short of a Happy Meal."

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eXia7
You know there have been numerous articles lately debunking global warming/climate change theories right? Or do you just choose to ignore it?

Post them

earthobservatory.nasa.gov... - Earth Cooling

www.nasa.gov... - Record Antarctic Sea Ice

weather.com... - Lowest Hurricane Forecast

weather.com... - Lowest tornadoes on record.


a simple google search would've given you this information.


cuz, science

You are posting from Nasa.. pfft.. They are anti-science. Only people that agree that Antarctica is going to be a luminous green forest in a couple of years are REAL scientists.

Since I haven't read what you have can you please link some of these "real scientists"? Not being snarky, I'm actually interested!

originally posted by: eXia7

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eXia7

You keep saying I don't understand it, but I do understand it. You are trying to dismiss Man Made Climate Change unscientifically and appealing to your biases. Then you buffer that opinion with cherry picked information that you haven't fully read to see if it supports your opinion. It's the same basic # I deal with in any CC thread I author.

I dunno man... I appreciate your dedication to the cause, but I'm just not buying it. The earth has a way of balancing stuff out, I just focus on my own problems and go through life the best I can. I damn sure don't want to pay more taxes (Carbon Tax) because somebody said "well this is how it is, and you need to shut up!" I just feel in time more will come out that it was all a hoax to make Al gore rich. Al Gore is the lynch pin of global warming/climate change discussion.. you discount his shenanigans in with your research bud.

Having a problem with a solution is one thing. Using the solution as a means to discount the theory is dishonest.

As for my sources, I don't 100% believe them either lol.. I used them as a way to just prove its all just THEORY.

The term "just a theory" demonstrates a lack of understanding on the definition of what a scientific theory is.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: HeliocentricFantasy

I made no assumptions. I am reporting on a condition in Antarctica as a symptom of a larger problem that is agreed upon by the larger body of scientists worldwide.

That sounds like a direct quote from Bill Nye ! You know, the climate expert that is a mechanical engineer by degree. He's the smartest guy he knows. To me, he's an idiot.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Dude you posted the graph minus the data. You didn't source the graph. Where am I supposed to retrieve the data?

originally posted by: reeferman
a reply to: Krazysh0t
ps. one volcano releases more carbon than man ever has.

This is a poor argument since natural climate change and man made climate change work concurrently. All the human CO2 gets added to the volcano CO2 production to cause the situation we have now.

a reply to: Okeyd57

Well it isn't. It's a direct quote from one Krazysh0t.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

c02 is great for plantlife.

No one understands the climate we don't k ow all of the variables involved and there is no accurate climate predictive model that currently exist.

If you cannot determine a predictable outcome than you do not understand the variables meaning it is not science.

Thanks.

ok, this is off topic from Antartica, but it is talking to a point brought up by the OP in regard to widespread coral bleaching.

That link Krazsh0t provided to an article about the Great Barrier Reef, is very very misleading. As a marine biologist that is so well regarded he provided tremendously false information. I know this from personal expiernce as I own, and have owned for decades, reef aquariums. I know what symptoms are caused by what, as the monetary investment insures you will really pat attention and do independant research to keep these guys alive.

First off, most coral species, even the more fragile SPS (small polyp stony) corals, such as the Acropora, Millipora and Porcilipora are actually pretty forgiving to temperature changes, provided they happen gradually. Now, if you moved one from one place that was 80 degree to one that was 90 degrees and didnt acclimate the specimen over the course of several hours....it would bleach. Not immediately, but it would. The bleaching effect is when the zooxanthellae, or the algae that lives within the coral, dies off. They are the food source for the coral,giving them energy and giving them their colors. The Zooxanthellae are photosynthetic, and water temperature has very little effect on them in general. As long as the change is gradual.

Contrary to what the biologist claimed, they do not turn brown then get covered by seaweed and then bleach. Turning brown is indicitive of poor water quality. It is what happens when there are too many nutrients in the water. Typically in the form of Nitrates and nitrites. That causes the zooxanthellae to over produce, thus causing the browned out color. The coral will actually grow extemely fast, until they reach balance with the zooxanthellae. In decades of reef husbandry, I have never seen and stony polyp coral bleach due to temperature. Even once when my heater malfunctioned and the water temp went to 90 F for a week. As that change was gradual then maintained at about that level , the corals acclimated to it, and still thrived, now, I love some other livestock, but no corals. Not a single one bleached or lost it's color.

Things that will cause bleaching....

too much light. If you place them too close to the surface, or directly under extremely powerful lighting fixtures, which is referred to as light shock.

Poor water quality...water chemistry that is a) low in magnesium or, b) high in phosphates, nitrites or nitrates (which is due to a broken nitrogen cycle)

Too much ammonia

Now, if it can be identified as either Rapid Tissue Necrosis or Slow Tissue Necrosis thats a different story. RTN and STN is when the coral looses it's tissue and turns white. RTN happens suddenly and usually within 24 hours. STN can take months, depending on the severity and the size of the coral colony. These are both caused (or believed to be caused) by a bacteria infection. Specifically by different strains of Vibrio bacteria. There is a method of curing this infection that works very well for reef aquariums, but would be very inefficient on such a large scale as a wild reef.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


So, it would seem that, that particular article and that particular biologist are misleading people intentionally to push a narrative that seems to attract alot of false information and intentionally misleading so called "peer reviewed research".

Most of us know this "man made" climate change is just a bull crap. It's nothing but a way to fund a global government. Let some douche bag we didn't elect control our lives.

The climate is ALWAYS changing. So stick your Bill Nye the FAKE science guy, where the sun doesn't shine.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: RisenMessiah

If pink Unicorns show up on my property, I'm blaming Al Gore.

I wouldn't doubt if there was a big green and pink one on this thread as we speak, lol.