Antarctic iceberg wanders a long way

Originally posted by Nyhee
I am dismayed by its almost precise shape, as if it was purposely cut out of an ice shelf and set adrift. Do you think global warming chicken littles will use this as a talking point in trying to convince people we need the carbon tax treaty signed into law?

On another subject, it would, in my opinion, be a great way to ship clean water to Australia or anywhere else, for that matter. The Earth is almost three quarters water, and cities around the world are claiming we don't have enough. And they are outlawing rain collecting. There is something fishy going on in the world of climate control. I don't like it.

But I do like your post on this. Thank you for sharing it with us. Very cool.

Nice to see that someone is actually thinking instead of jumping into the AGW bandwagon.

Anyone who thinks this is the first time in the history of Earth that icebergs break up and do this raise your hands please....

[edit on 24-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Haha wow, you're quite the BSer aren'tcha?

I don't see any article where scientists say they're baffled as to where these came from.

From the link I provided, considering you seem unable to use it.

"Some people have proposed it came from the Ross Sea (on Antarctic's north coast) but I think that it is unlikely. The (ocean) current would have made that very difficult and they would have had to travel very fast," he noted, adding that the sample should resolve the matter.

Samples may have resolved the matter by now, but there was certainly no certainty before then. Lets see what else you didn't read in the link...

We’ve been monitoring these things for such a short time, it’s impossible to see. To say this is unusual and related to global warming is just not possible,” Paul Augustinus, an Auckland University glacier expert, told the New Zealand Herald earlier this month.

But don't let that stop your persistent fervour

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Scientists have been following the movement of these large icebergs since they broke off the Antarctic shelf. These aren't your run-of-the mill ice cubes, these are quite sizable and far-traveling chunks.

Really? They can track all those bergs? Strange that it came as a suprise to find it then, huh.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Since you're a skeptic of global warming, I doubt you follow the hard science too much

At least you have complete faith in the AGW proponents. It's a shame they're not as confident as you...

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't

(source - CRU email - 1255352257.txt)

The main argument that CO2 was causing the warming was that natural factors couldn't account for it. Then it stops warming, and the greenhouse effect can't explain it. Funny that.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
And to say they're not proven to be attributed to global warming is akin to saying the thunder cannot be proven to be attributed to the lightning.

Icebergs are caused when ice flows off the mainland and into the ocean. This happens regardless of warming or not. Precipitaion builds up on land and turns to ice. The ice has to go somewhere, it doesn't just conitinue to pile up. Saying icebergs prove global warming is like saying "Today was cold, therefore there is no global warming". Attributing common occurences to a climate trend is rather naive. If you haven't figured out yet, I'm not saying there are no icebergs when it's warming, but that icerbergs do not prove warming, let alone AGW.

The truth is, climate changes, always has, always will. But trying to say that it is entirely caused by humans is well and truly in debate. It is yet to be proven, but for it to be proven, scientists need to be sceptical of their work, not trying to bar opposing views from getting any recogniton, and refusing to release data (or deleting it) like some of the top AGW proponents. It's kind of ironic that you suggest a "skeptic" isn't interested in the science. Quite an oxymoron, don't you think?

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
From the link I provided, considering you seem unable to use it.

"Some people have proposed it came from the Ross Sea (on Antarctic's north coast) but I think that it is unlikely. The (ocean) current would have made that very difficult and they would have had to travel very fast," he noted, adding that the sample should resolve the matter.

Samples may have resolved the matter by now, but there was certainly no certainty before then. Lets see what else you didn't read in the link...

We’ve been monitoring these things for such a short time, it’s impossible to see. To say this is unusual and related to global warming is just not possible,” Paul Augustinus, an Auckland University glacier expert, told the New Zealand Herald earlier this month.

But don't let that stop your persistent fervour

Ok... you just proved yourself wrong. Scientists are pretty sure where the iceberg came from, it's either the Ross or the Ronne ice shelves. This didn't just form in the middle of the ocean, it broke off of a much larger chunk. Which brings me to my next point- when large chunks of the Ronne and Ross ice shelves broke off recently, scientists are pretty much in agreement that this was caused by global warming. The size and frequency of such large Antarctic shelf breaks are not natural everyday occurrences. Research it yourself, you'd be a fool not to link the original ice shelf weakness to global warming (which is more pronounced at the poles).

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Really? They can track all those bergs? Strange that it came as a suprise to find it then, huh.

I didn't say they can track all of the bergs, I said they follow the movements of the large ones (where it's quite obvious where they came from). It's difficult for them to do so, but they're able to. I will concede that they were probably not following this particular berg. However, I assume if they were so inclined, they could use satellite data to retrace its path. They do indeed track icebergs, but usually the largest (+10nm long):

ice-kml.natice.noaa.gov...

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

At least you have complete faith in the AGW proponents. It's a shame they're not as confident as you...

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't

(source - CRU email - 1255352257.txt)

The main argument that CO2 was causing the warming was that natural factors couldn't account for it. Then it stops warming, and the greenhouse effect can't explain it. Funny that.

Complete faith in the "AGW proponents"? You've got the semantic BS down to a T doncha? These "AGW proponents" are called CLIMATOLOGISTS. You should look it up, these humble folks actually study global climates and ice core samples to determine climate trends for the past/present/future. Since it is their job, they've got their methods down to a SCIENCE. And they've overall proven quite accurrate. And really... if you don't trust the scientists who actually study these things, then you're a fool for trusting anybody else on it (ESPECIALLY industry-backed right-wing denier blogs). A survey was taken of climatologists on the issue of global warming. There was a whopping 97% consensus amongst those who do the hard science on climate that global warming is real, man-made, and poses a serious threat to society and the environment. This is really not a far leap of faith at all, it's very logical and very well-supported by all kinds of science and evidence. Climatologists are quite confident in this reality.


...[Continued]...>>>

Also, that CRU text you quoted is so blatantly cherry picked it's not even funny... yet it is . It's also taken way out of context. What he was talking about was being able to track the flow of energy (namely heat energy) throughout the oceans/land/atmosphere. Within his email he was talking about how damn unseasonably cold it was in Boulder, CO where he lives. Then going on to say that previous predictions were inadequate for that specific region, I'm assuming. Which brought him to his next point- we need better methods in analyzing exactly how/where/when heat is gained and lost so that more accurrate regional forecasts can be made. He mentions this scientific article:

www.wired.com...

He was definitely not referring to global warming or the entire notion as a whole. You deniers keep loading all your fantasies about what you WANT these emails to show onto the actual emails. But most of your crap wont stick, sorry.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
Icebergs are caused when ice flows off the mainland and into the ocean. This happens regardless of warming or not. Precipitaion builds up on land and turns to ice. The ice has to go somewhere, it doesn't just conitinue to pile up. Saying icebergs prove global warming is like saying "Today was cold, therefore there is no global warming". Attributing common occurences to a climate trend is rather naive. If you haven't figured out yet, I'm not saying there are no icebergs when it's warming, but that icerbergs do not prove warming, let alone AGW.

The truth is, climate changes, always has, always will. But trying to say that it is entirely caused by humans is well and truly in debate. It is yet to be proven, but for it to be proven, scientists need to be sceptical of their work, not trying to bar opposing views from getting any recogniton, and refusing to release data (or deleting it) like some of the top AGW proponents. It's kind of ironic that you suggest a "skeptic" isn't interested in the science. Quite an oxymoron, don't you think?

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

Of course icebergs exist without global warming. That wasn't my point. However, the SIZE/rate of recent ice shelf calving off the Antarctic coast (as I've said with the Ronne/Ross ice shelves as well as others I'm sure) are NOT common occurrences.

www.cnn.com...

www.telegraph.co.uk...