Growing Antarctic crack primes Delaware-sized iceberg

[halloween]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmm. Given that many people agree that humans cause G W, I have to assume they never use anything powered by fossil fuel- so no oil powered cars, electricity or flying.

they may also want to consider where there steel, aluminium and plastics come from. It will be an interesting life without them.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 minutes ago, halloween said:

they may also want to consider where there steel, aluminium and plastics come from. It will be an interesting life without them.

It's always easy when other people have to do something about it. Not so much if they have to give up THEIR way of life, or pay more.

 

In the ultimate hypocrisy, Greenpeace is campaigning against oil exploration offshore New Zealand by using inflatables to buzz the oil exploration ship. The inflatable is powered by, yes, an oil powered motor .

I'd respect them if they were rowing or using sail, but I suspect they don't even understand the hypocrisy.

Edited May 6, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[canuckamuck]

Headline should read " Climate Change alarmists attempt to connect the ordinary phenomenon of calving glaciers in the Antarctic to their hyperbolic claims that humanity is threatened by the beneficial gas CO2."

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

54 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Headline should read " Climate Change alarmists attempt to connect the ordinary phenomenon of calving glaciers in the Antarctic to their hyperbolic claims that humanity is threatened by the beneficial gas CO2."

 

 

Just in case anybody is wondering why canuckamuck says CO2 is beneficial it's because it encourages growth in some plants.  And, for the same reason, phosphorus based detergents were also benefial because they encouraged algal growth in rivers and lakes.  Because, you know, in nature, more is always better.

[canuckamuck]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Just in case anybody is wondering why canuckamuck says CO2 is beneficial it's because it encourages growth in some plants.  And, for the same reason, phosphorus based detergents were also benefial because they encouraged algal growth in rivers and lakes.  Because, you know, in nature, more is always better.

Not the same at all,  just a little straw baby.

[Dagnabbit]

Just in case anybody is wondering why canuckamuck says CO2 is beneficial it's because it encourages growth in some plants.  And, for the same reason, phosphorus based detergents were also benefial because they encouraged algal growth in rivers and lakes.  Because, you know, in nature, more is always better.

CO2 encourages growth in
SOME plants??? Some???

Without CO2, photosynthesis would not be possible.

No grass, no trees, no vegetables, no flowers, no bees and so on

Without CO2 the planet would be dead in a week.

'Some' plants, indeed..,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[boomerangutang]

15 hours ago, halloween said:

It amazes me the number of people that want everything to stay like they remember it, when the only constant is change. If an iceberg the size of Delaware, or even Texas, melts, the sea level will not rise at all, it will only fill the void it displaces.

                        Except it's not an iceberg until it breaks off from the main body of ice.  Until then, it's part of the glacier which has been amassing ice century by century.  So, unless the glacier is being re-supplied with new precipitation uphill, then IT DOES CONTRIBUTE TO RISING OCEAN LEVELS. 

 

                     As for the glacier being re-supplied with ice; it's happening slowly because Antarctica is technically a desert.  For its size, it receives very little precipitation.  The super-sized calving mentioned in the OP, might be the equivalent of hundreds or thousands of years of precipitation in that particular basin.

 

                      It's amazing how, every time there's breaking scientific news showing increased GW, the deniers come out like a Greek chorus with flaccid arguments trying to convince us it's not happening and/or it's insignificant.  It's like Trump voters (most GW deniers are Trump fans, btw) who invariably justify whatever comes out of his lying mouth or tweeting fingers.

 

                     It's like trying to move a bullock cart toward a goal, and a portion of the passengers keep dragging their feet, trying to slow it down.   Actually, there are some deniers who grudgingly admit there's GW (they simply can't keep denying in the face of a plethora of scientific evidence), but they continue to insist that people can't be having an effect.   And then there are the full-throated deniers, who deny everything that points to GW, and even go so far as to claim the earth is getting colder overall.  They're in the realm of 'up is down', 'wet is dry', 'high is low', 'green is red' contrarianism. Maybe that explains the Thai drivers who drive full speed through red lights.

[ilostmypassword]

25 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

CO2 encourages growth in
SOME plants??? Some???

Without CO2, photosynthesis would not be possible.

No grass, no trees, no vegetables, no flowers, no bees and so on

Without CO2 the planet would be dead in a week.

'Some' plants, indeed..,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

What ishould have written is extra co2 encourages growth in some plants. But the main point still stands. More isnt the same as better. In fact more can be worse.

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                        Except it's not an iceberg until it breaks off from the main body of ice.  Until then, it's part of the glacier which has been amassing ice century by century.  So, unless the glacier is being re-supplied with new precipitation uphill, then IT DOES CONTRIBUTE TO RISING OCEAN LEVELS. 

 

                     As for the glacier being re-supplied with ice; it's happening slowly because Antarctica is technically a desert.  For its size, it receives very little precipitation.  The super-sized calving mentioned in the OP, might be the equivalent of hundreds or thousands of years of precipitation in that particular basin.

 

                      It's amazing how, every time there's breaking scientific news showing increased GW, the deniers come out like a Greek chorus with flaccid arguments trying to convince us it's not happening and/or it's insignificant.  It's like Trump voters (most GW deniers are Trump fans, btw) who invariably justify whatever comes out of his lying mouth or tweeting fingers.

 

                     It's like trying to move a bullock cart toward a goal, and a portion of the passengers keep dragging their feet, trying to slow it down.   Actually, there are some deniers who grudgingly admit there's GW (they simply can't keep denying in the face of a plethora of scientific evidence), but they continue to insist that people can't be having an effect.   And then there are the full-throated deniers, who deny everything that points to GW, and even go so far as to claim the earth is getting colder overall.  They're in the realm of 'up is down', 'wet is dry', 'high is low', 'green is red' contrarianism. Maybe that explains the Thai drivers who drive full speed through red lights.

I hate to shatter your delusions, but by definition an ice shelf is indeed floating even if is still attached to the glacier that formed it. It is NOT sitting on the ocean floor, or somehow magically cantilevered from the mass of ice on the continent.

[halloween]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

What ishould have written is extra co2 encourages growth in some plants. But the main point still stands. More isnt the same as better. In fact more can be worse.

Care to nominate 1 or 2 plants that won't thrive in a richer CO2 atmosphere? 

[ilostmypassword]

27 minutes ago, halloween said:

Care to nominate 1 or 2 plants that won't thrive in a richer CO2 atmosphere? 

I should have thought it would be obvious that not all plants would benefit from increased CO2. The same way that not all plants benefit from an increase in fertilizer. There is such a thing as too much.

4. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html

 

In addition to which , even if more CO2 would encourage growth in a particular plant species. there are other limiting factors. Like adequate nutrients in the soil and water supply. In the plant world those species that would benefit from increased CO2 would crowd out those that didn't or benefited less.  So, once again, more is not necessarily better. In fact it can be worse.

[halloween]

25 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I should have thought it would be obvious that not all plants would benefit from increased CO2. The same way that not all plants benefit from an increase in fertilizer. There is such a thing as too much.

4. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html

 

In addition to which , even if more CO2 would encourage growth in a particular plant species. there are other limiting factors. Like adequate nutrients in the soil and water supply. In the plant world those species that would benefit from increased CO2 would crowd out those that didn't or benefited less.  So, once again, more is not necessarily better. In fact it can be worse.

I can't live without water, but too much will drown me. Are we expecting out atmosphere to ever reach the level vaguely described as "too high"? 

I have to wonder if Darwin ever envisaged a time when survival of the fittest is regarded as a bad idea, secondary to the maintenance of some human concept of constancy.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

I can't live without water, but too much will drown me. Are we expecting out atmosphere to ever reach the level vaguely described as "too high"? 

 

There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html

 

[Bulldozer Dawn]

This iceberg is just the tip of the iceberg.

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html

 

I'm sorry, but if you think providing a link a to a biased website making vague pronunciations is a way of providing specific data, you are sadly mistaken. It's easy to claim too much is bad, but it is quite reasonable to ask how much is too much, and are we ever likely to see that level. I fully realise that the burning of fossil fuels is unsustainable in the long term, but making predictions of disaster (the sky is falling!) just doesn't cut it.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

I'm sorry, but if you think providing a link a to a biased website making vague pronunciations is a way of providing specific data, you are sadly mistaken. It's easy to claim too much is bad, but it is quite reasonable to ask how much is too much, and are we ever likely to see that level. I fully realise that the burning of fossil fuels is unsustainable in the long term, but making predictions of disaster (the sky is falling!) just doesn't cut it.

And you base your claim on scepticalscience.com being biased because... they are citing scientific research.  But I guess when you're cornered and your claims fall apart this is a last resort. Impeach the source without providing any proof.

Anyway for those interested in science here are a few sentences from the abstract of this scientific paper. Because of faiar use rules on thaivisa.com I have only included 3 sentences

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 55.8 Ma), an abrupt global warming event linked to a transient increase in pCO₂, was comparable in rate and magnitude to modern anthropogenic climate change. Here we use plant fossils from the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming to document the combined effects of temperature and pCO₂ on insect herbivory... The amount and diversity of insect damage on angiosperm leaves, as well as the relative abundance of specialized damage, correlate with rising and falling temperature

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1960

 

This is your idea of vague?

[halloween]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

And you base your claim on scepticalscience.com being biased because... they are citing scientific research.  But I guess when you're cornered and your claims fall apart this is a last resort. Impeach the source without providing any proof.

Anyway for those interested in science here are a few sentences from the abstract of this scientific paper. Because of faiar use rules on thaivisa.com I have only included 3 sentences

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 55.8 Ma), an abrupt global warming event linked to a transient increase in pCO₂, was comparable in rate and magnitude to modern anthropogenic climate change. Here we use plant fossils from the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming to document the combined effects of temperature and pCO₂ on insect herbivory... The amount and diversity of insect damage on angiosperm leaves, as well as the relative abundance of specialized damage, correlate with rising and falling temperature

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1960

 

This is your idea of vague?

Because of the title, the quoting only of scientific reports supporting their agenda, the promulgation of unproven dire predictions and the downplaying of mitigating factors without justification. Would you accept similar but opposite predictions from a website labelled Global Warning Sceptics?

You might try reading further, as the article is discussing a period of TRIPLING of CO2 levels. Is that likely? Is that even the level of "too high"?

There is also the usual use of "might, could and may" to offset a 'likely' or 2.

[Basil B]

UAE Tug Boats on the way...

 

Quote

UAE plans to drag an ICEBERG from Antarctica to provide drinking water for millions

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4476272/UAE-plans-drag-ICEBERG-Antarctic.html#ixzz4gIPc1qzd 
 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 5/6/2017 at 2:10 PM, boomerangutang said:

                        Except it's not an iceberg until it breaks off from the main body of ice.  Until then, it's part of the glacier which has been amassing ice century by century.  So, unless the glacier is being re-supplied with new precipitation uphill, then IT DOES CONTRIBUTE TO RISING OCEAN LEVELS. 

 

                     As for the glacier being re-supplied with ice; it's happening slowly because Antarctica is technically a desert.  For its size, it receives very little precipitation.  The super-sized calving mentioned in the OP, might be the equivalent of hundreds or thousands of years of precipitation in that particular basin.

 

                      It's amazing how, every time there's breaking scientific news showing increased GW, the deniers come out like a Greek chorus with flaccid arguments trying to convince us it's not happening and/or it's insignificant.  It's like Trump voters (most GW deniers are Trump fans, btw) who invariably justify whatever comes out of his lying mouth or tweeting fingers.

 

                     It's like trying to move a bullock cart toward a goal, and a portion of the passengers keep dragging their feet, trying to slow it down.   Actually, there are some deniers who grudgingly admit there's GW (they simply can't keep denying in the face of a plethora of scientific evidence), but they continue to insist that people can't be having an effect.   And then there are the full-throated deniers, who deny everything that points to GW, and even go so far as to claim the earth is getting colder overall.  They're in the realm of 'up is down', 'wet is dry', 'high is low', 'green is red' contrarianism. Maybe that explains the Thai drivers who drive full speed through red lights.

I don't deny that G W is happening, that climate change is happening ( has happened ever since the planet was formed ), and even accept that mankind may have contributed to it. However, I do not believe that anything mankind is capable of doing will make an iota of difference to the CO2 level in the atmosphere. I have suggested machines to remove the CO2 from the air ( proven technology to do so exists ), but was informed that it would be so expensive that governments would rather we all die than pay for it.

 

As for the glacier in Antarctica, if the air temperature rises sufficiently, precipitation will commence in the Antarctic and resupply the glacier. It doesn't snow there at present because it is too cold.