#Study: Antarctic ice melt actually slowing climate change
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
change/
Study: Antarctic ice melt actually slowing climate change
By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 -- 6:25 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!
artarcticice globalwarmingclimate Study: Antarctic ice melt actually
slowing climate changeGlobal warming has been blamed for the alarming
loss of ice shelves in Antarctica, but a new study says newly-exposed
areas of sea are now soaking up some of the carbon gas that causes the
problem.
Scientists led by Lloyd Peck of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) said
that atmospheric and ocean carbon is being gobbled up by microscopic
marine plants called phytoplankton, which float near the surface.
After absorbing the carbon through the natural process of photosynthesis,
the phytoplankton are eaten, or otherwise die and sink to the ocean floor.
The phenomenon, known as a carbon sink, has been spotted in areas of open
water exposed by the recent, rapid melting of several ice shelves -- vast
floating plaques of ice attached to the shore of the Antarctic peninsula.
Over the last 50 years, around 24,000 square kilometres (9,200 square
miles) of new open water have been created this way, and swathes of it
are now colonised by phytoplankton, Peck's team reports in a specialist
journal, Global Change Biology.
--
Slavery: The belief that people can be property
Corporatism: The belief that property can be people.
pyjamarama
wrote:
> http://rawstory.com/2009/11/study-antarctic-ice-melt-staving-climate-
> change/
>
> Study: Antarctic ice melt actually slowing climate change
And yet here you are posting thousands of times a month, eating up God
knows how many kilowatts....
And speaking of eating, those krispy kremes don't heat themselves
either, you gluttonous, porcine, eco-genocidal hypocrite.
jr92
wrote:
CYA
Just, when climate change doesn't quite come out the way you predict
it, you STILL have "examples" of how CG works.
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
You mean, that it's complicated and we don't know all the factors that
will come into play, good or bad?
Yeah. We've been saying that right along. Didn't any of you morons ever
notice?
jr92
No, what I mean, socialist, is that when the weather gets warmer its
because of climate change.
When it gets colder, its also because of climate change.
When there is an abnormally high amount of hurricanes it is because of
climate change.
When there is an usually low number of hurricanes, it is because of
climate change.
When there is a drought, it is because of climate change.
When it is wet, it is because of climate change.
Hell, the wildfires in California are being blamed on CG.
Got your bases covered well, I'll admit.
Unfortunately for you goons, more and more people are waking up to the
fraud that is being perpertrated on them.
Just hope it aint too late.
> Yeah. We've been saying that right along. Didn't any of you morons ever
> notice?- Hide quoted text -
>
No, what "we" have been saying all along is mankind is causing global
warming. When it is now obvious that it is NOT happening, the scam
has been enlarged to now blame mankind for ANY changes of ANY type in
the climate.
> - Show quoted text -
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
Congratulations, bubbles. Now you know what "change" means.
>
>
> When there is a drought, it is because of climate change.
>
> When it is wet, it is because of climate change.
>
Nah, that's just right wing whining. Nobody says single weather events
are attributable to climate change. It's the overall changes that
measure it. You don't measure daily rain and say the result says
anything about climate change. You measure rain by the decade, and if
there's changes going on, then you've got evidence of climate change.
>
> Hell, the wildfires in California are being blamed on CG.
>
To a degree. No individual fire, or even the damage, but the severity of
the fires, and the increasing length of the fire season are attributable
to climate change.
>
> Got your bases covered well, I'll admit.
>
> Unfortunately for you goons, more and more people are waking up to the
> fraud that is being perpertrated on them.
>
> Just hope it aint too late.
>
For what? We already knew a large minority of Americans were ignorant
morons. No surprise they would latch on to Convenient Falsehoods.
jr92
Wrong, socialist. You idiots invented the idea of single weather
events being the "proof" of climate change, long ago.
"Warmest July on record"
Climate change is the reason.
"Abnormally high temps this January" Guess what is the blame?????
The heat wave a couple of summers ago in the midwest, causing a lot of
deaths among the elderly in Chicago, was blamed on global warming.
Katrina, was, I believe, a "single weather event". When President Bush
wasn't blamed for it, enviro-idiots managed to pin that on climate
change, as well.
Now, that "weather" is cooling in a good portion of the world, climate
is being blamed for that, as well.
> > Hell, the wildfires in California are being blamed on CG.
>
> To a degree. No individual fire, or even the damage, but the severity of
> the fires, and the increasing length of the fire season are attributable
> to climate change.
>
The "severity" of the fire, by definiton, is directly related to the
damage that it causes, or it wouldn't be 'severe" . A lot more house
in California today; at the same time, due to silly restrictions
brought on, in part, by tree huggers, there is a whole lot less common
sense clearing out of foilage that need to be, helping fuel the fires'
severity when they do happen. Forest rangers, whose main
responsibility is to protect wildlife, will tell you that simply
letting vegetation go is a recipe for disaster.
> > Got your bases covered well, I'll admit.
>
> > Unfortunately for you goons, more and more people are waking up to the
> > fraud that is being perpertrated on them.
>
> > Just hope it aint too late.
>
> For what? We already knew a large minority of Americans were ignorant
> morons. No surprise they would latch on to Convenient Falsehoods.
>
> Which falsehoods????? Using your hairdryer too much causes more hurricanes?????
Your gas powered lawn mower causing Anarctic Ice to melt, causing the
weather that originally was WARMING because of the same lawn mower, to
now suddenly start cooling?????
Or, your air conditioner causing New York City to be under-water
because the sea level rising???? (Btw, how is that going? Long Island
going to be covered in, what, 5 or 6 years, or will it be sooner the
the Artic Ice melting in 2015 like you guys claim?)
>
>
>
> >> Yeah. We've been saying that right along. Didn't any of you morons
> >> ever notice?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > No, what "we" have been saying all along is mankind is causing global
> > warming. When it is now obvious that it is NOT happening, the scam has
> > been enlarged to now blame mankind for ANY changes of ANY type in the
> > climate.
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
Ah. Scientific literacy makes me a socialist in your view.
That's pretty sad, really. You know, Hitler used to think that way.
Anyone who came up with facts that he didn't like was considered an enemy
of the state.
It's not a healthy way of thinking, and it is associated with people who
join cults or who have severe cognitive problems. You really should
reexamine your approach.
>
> "Warmest July on record"
>
> Climate change is the reason.
>
Now, who said that. Earlier this week I posted that October was one of
the coolest months on record for the US. That doesn't mean I've decided
to join the loonies and declare climate change to be imaginary; it just
means that October was one of the coolest months on record.
> "Abnormally high temps this January" Guess what is the blame?????
>
>
> The heat wave a couple of summers ago in the midwest, causing a lot of
> deaths among the elderly in Chicago, was blamed on global warming.
>
>
Really? Show me the scientific paper that did that. For that matter,
show where I ever did it.
> Katrina, was, I believe, a "single weather event". When President Bush
> wasn't blamed for it, enviro-idiots managed to pin that on climate
> change, as well.
Katrina was a single weather event. One that was expected for many
decades. Bush wasn't blamed for it; he was blamed for the incredible
incompetence of the reaction to it.
>
> Now, that "weather" is cooling in a good portion of the world, climate
> is being blamed for that, as well.
>
Sorry, bubbles, but that's just plain wrong. Ocean temperatures were the
highest recorded this year world wide, the Arctic ice caps shrank to its
third-smallest on record (2007 was the smallest) and 2009 will finish in
the top 12 of hottest years on record, despite a la nina-driven cool
start.
>
>
>> > Hell, the wildfires in California are being blamed on CG.
>>
>> To a degree. No individual fire, or even the damage, but the severity
>> of the fires, and the increasing length of the fire season are
>> attributable to climate change.
>>
>>
>
> The "severity" of the fire, by definiton, is directly related to the
> damage that it causes, or it wouldn't be 'severe" . A lot more house in
> California today; at the same time, due to silly restrictions brought
> on, in part, by tree huggers, there is a whole lot less common sense
> clearing out of foilage that need to be, helping fuel the fires'
> severity when they do happen. Forest rangers, whose main responsibility
> is to protect wildlife, will tell you that simply letting vegetation go
> is a recipe for disaster.
>
Actually, it isn't. Any forester can tell you that some of the most
destructive fires don't touch a single building. How hot and fierce it
burns is the benchmark for severity, along with acreage burned.
And the big problem isn't clearing out foliage; the problem is that
proper forest management means clearing out the undergrowth and a lot of
the small stuff, and leaving the big trees behind. That's not the sort
of forest management big timber is interested in hearing about, for
obvious reasons.
>
>
>> > Got your bases covered well, I'll admit.
>>
>> > Unfortunately for you goons, more and more people are waking up to
>> > the fraud that is being perpertrated on them.
>>
>> > Just hope it aint too late.
>>
>> For what? We already knew a large minority of Americans were ignorant
>> morons. No surprise they would latch on to Convenient Falsehoods.
>
>
>
>
>> Which falsehoods????? Using your hairdryer too much causes more
>> hurricanes?????
>
That would be a pretty good example of a right wing falsehood. Are you
seriously suggesting that?
> Your gas powered lawn mower causing Anarctic Ice to melt, causing the
> weather that originally was WARMING because of the same lawn mower, to
> now suddenly start cooling?????
The Antarctic hasn't suddenly started cooling. Now matter how many
Petroleum Institute funded websites claim otherwise.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Scientific literacy?
What hutzpah.
Warming gasses? Polar amplification? Melting ice?
Cutting and pasting articles about science does not make you
scientifically literate.
JSL
jr92
Naw, I don't need to view you as a socialist. You already to that to
yourself in the eyes of the rest of the world.
> That's pretty sad, really. You know, Hitler used to think that way.
> Anyone who came up with facts that he didn't like was considered an enemy
> of the state.
>
Hitler was also a socialist. And a hero to many fellow socialists,
like yourself.
> It's not a healthy way of thinking, and it is associated with people who
> join cults or who have severe cognitive problems. You really should
> reexamine your approach.
>
> Al Gore is a leader of one of the biggest cults in the world. And you are one of his followers.
>
> > "Warmest July on record"
>
> > Climate change is the reason.
>
> Now, who said that. Earlier this week I posted that October was one of
> the coolest months on record for the US. That doesn't mean I've decided
> to join the loonies and declare climate change to be imaginary; it just
> means that October was one of the coolest months on record.
>
Check Time. Newsweek. USA Today. CNN. MSNBC. New York Times. Your
local Democrat Senator. The Internet. Newsgroups like this. Really not
hard to find.
> > "Abnormally high temps this January" Guess what is the blame?????
>
> > The heat wave a couple of summers ago in the midwest, causing a lot of
> > deaths among the elderly in Chicago, was blamed on global warming.
>
> Really? Show me the scientific paper that did that. For that matter,
> show where I ever did it.
>
Read previous statement I made. I also noticed you never dismissed any
blame on CG for the deaths in Chicago.
> > Katrina, was, I believe, a "single weather event". When President Bush
> > wasn't blamed for it, enviro-idiots managed to pin that on climate
> > change, as well.
>
> Katrina was a single weather event. One that was expected for many
> decades. Bush wasn't blamed for it; he was blamed for the incredible
> incompetence of the reaction to it.
>
Yeah his was. Along with climate change. As far as incompentce on his
part, he has to stand third in line behind the INDIVIDUAL, who has
responsibility to take take care of himelf, and the local government,
whose job it is to HELP protect the local citizens. It's not like
Katrina was unexpected. The storm was known for several days to be
heading in the vicinity of New Orleans. Not like it took everyone by
surprise. And, in your previous statement, the "big one" was expected
for "many decades"
I guess Bush was the blame for that, as well. 'Course, he was only in
office for eight years, hardly "many decades"
> > Now, that "weather" is cooling in a good portion of the world, climate
> > is being blamed for that, as well.
>
> Sorry, bubbles, but that's just plain wrong. Ocean temperatures were the
> highest recorded this year world wide, the Arctic ice caps shrank to its
> third-smallest on record (2007 was the smallest) and 2009 will finish in
> the top 12 of hottest years on record, despite a la nina-driven cool
> start.
>
> No one here, 'cept for you, are talking about ocean temps, just world air temps, which is what GW idiots refer to when they talk about the world heating up. Besides, the title of the thread suggests that oceans are COOLING as a result of ice melting the the polar regions of the earth.
And another thing, idiot, if the ice caps in 2009 are NOT smaller than
they were in 2007, then, by definition, they are NOT shrinking, but
instead, get larger.
>
>
>
> >> > Hell, the wildfires in California are being blamed on CG.
>
> >> To a degree. No individual fire, or even the damage, but the severity
> >> of the fires, and the increasing length of the fire season are
> >> attributable to climate change.
>
> > The "severity" of the fire, by definiton, is directly related to the
> > damage that it causes, or it wouldn't be 'severe" . A lot more house in
> > California today; at the same time, due to silly restrictions brought
> > on, in part, by tree huggers, there is a whole lot less common sense
> > clearing out of foilage that need to be, helping fuel the fires'
> > severity when they do happen. Forest rangers, whose main responsibility
> > is to protect wildlife, will tell you that simply letting vegetation go
> > is a recipe for disaster.
>
> Actually, it isn't. Any forester can tell you that some of the most
> destructive fires don't touch a single building. How hot and fierce it
> burns is the benchmark for severity, along with acreage burned.
>
> And the big problem isn't clearing out foliage; the problem is that
> proper forest management means clearing out the undergrowth and a lot of
> the small stuff, and leaving the big trees behind. That's not the sort
> of forest management big timber is interested in hearing about, for
> obvious reasons.
>
>
If that is true, explain to me, how does climate change make fires
burn hotter????
Probably nonsense on my part, but an incredible thought occurred to
me.
Maybe, just maybe, because more PEOPLE live in these areas, and PEOPLE
usually cause wildfires, maybe the increase in the number of people
may have something to do with a (supposedly) increase in wildfires,
serverity, or otherwise.
>
>
>
> >> > Got your bases covered well, I'll admit.
>
> >> > Unfortunately for you goons, more and more people are waking up to
> >> > the fraud that is being perpertrated on them.
>
> >> > Just hope it aint too late.
>
> >> For what? We already knew a large minority of Americans were ignorant
> >> morons. No surprise they would latch on to Convenient Falsehoods.
>
> >> Which falsehoods????? Using your hairdryer too much causes more
> >> hurricanes?????
>
> That would be a pretty good example of a right wing falsehood. Are you
> seriously suggesting that?
>
> > Your gas powered lawn mower causing Anarctic Ice to melt, causing the
> > weather that originally was WARMING because of the same lawn mower, to
> > now suddenly start cooling?????
>
> The Antarctic hasn't suddenly started cooling. Now matter how many
> Petroleum Institute funded websites claim otherwise.
>
>
Wait a minute. Are you suggesting when you say, "the Anartica hasn't
suddenly starting cooling", that you mean it maybe has been doing so
for a long time????
My lawn mower, hair dryer, or SUV have not been around for a long
time.
How did mankind cause climate change before all these things????
bvallely
> You mean, that it's complicated and we don't know all the factors that
> will come into play, good or bad?
Excuse me, but I've been told that global warming "settled science"
and "the time for debate is over". Now the "experts" have to explain
why their "predictions" fell flat on their face. And what a group of
idiotic predictions they were. Zepp announced a year and a half ago
that by now most of the Arctic Circle was going to have melted.
algore predicted three years ago that, thanks to global warming,
hurricanes would grow more powerful each year. Did we even get hit
with a hurricane this year?
But now, the left has discovered that things are "complicated."
jr92
But, of course, while we don't know what the "factors that will come
into play" will be, we DO know that:
WHATEVER happens, mankind caused it, right????????
> Yeah. We've been saying that right along. Didn't any of you morons ever
> notice?- Hide quoted text -
>
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
Still waiting to hear why the CO2 concentration has climbed from 270ppm
to 387ppm.
Take your time...
jr92
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Volcanos??????
More cows??????
More people exhaling more often??????
Prove your stupid co2 increase has a bigger increase on climate than
the SUN does. Or how my paying more money and giving up more freedoms
will stop your " climate change"
You cant.
But you know that.
leona...@gmail.com
> change/
>
> Study: Antarctic ice melt actually slowing climate change
>
> By Agence France-Presse
> Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 -- 6:25 pm
> Share on Facebook Stumble This!
>
> artarcticice globalwarmingclimate Study: Antarctic ice melt actually
> slowing climate changeGlobal warming has been blamed for the alarming
> loss of ice shelves in Antarctica, but a new study says newly-exposed
> areas of sea are now soaking up some of the carbon gas that causes the
> problem.
•• Peck et al must introduce "global warming" to justify their funding
>
> Scientists led by Lloyd Peck of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) said
> that atmospheric and ocean carbon is being gobbled up by microscopic
> marine plants called phytoplankton, which float near the surface.
>
> After absorbing the carbon through the natural process of photosynthesis,
> the phytoplankton are eaten, or otherwise die and sink to the ocean floor.
>
> The phenomenon, known as a carbon sink, has been spotted in areas of open
> water exposed by the recent, rapid melting of several ice shelves -- vast
> floating plaques of ice attached to the shore of the Antarctic peninsula.
>
> Over the last 50 years, around 24,000 square kilometres (9,200 square
> miles) of new open water have been created this way, and swathes of it
> are now colonised by phytoplankton, Peck's team reports in a specialist
> journal, Global Change Biology.
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
> Artic/antartic ice is a climate BUFFER ... slowing down climatic
> transitions.
>
> But, once some large percent is gone - like the artctic ocean - it can
> no longer serve that function.
>
> Then climate extremes become much MORE extreme.
>
> On the other hand, 'buffer' failure seems to preceed a rapid return to
> ice-ages. Why ? Dunno.
Yeah. It's obvious that there are counterforces that kick in when
climate tends to extremes, which is why we're not just a slightly cooler
version of Venus, or an iceball. We now know that at one point, ice
sheets actually made it to the equator, which theory said meant
irreversible cooling due to the high albedo of the ice caps. We also
know that in the Permian, CO2 concentrations hit 6,000 ppm, about 15
times higher than now. Most modern day mammals couldn't breathe that high
a concentration, and temperatures were a good 20C higher than today.
We just don't know what those forces were.
Either extreme would eliminate humanity, of course.
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
You know, you might actually get somewhere if you didn't tell such
blatantly silly lies.
Steve
No big loss....
Steve
> People live everywhere from the arctic wastes to
> the burning deserts to the steaming jungles already.
> We're clever and adaptable. How come I keep hearing
> how GW is going to extinguish the species ? No way !
>
> Might not hurt to invest in manufacturers of
> anti-perspirant/deodorant products however :-)
>
> Could LIMIT the species however ... I can't see
> eight or ten billion subsisting on a substantially
> warmed world unless the genetic engineers really
> get their butts in gear and fabricate food crops
> that can thrive in the projected conditions. Of
> course at the sub-gigaperson mark, the OTHER
> resources become much more sustainable ... which
> they're not, even in an 'ideal' climate, even now.
...would probably eliminate the obese gene, though.
liberal
> Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:09:18 -0500, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>
> those slothful folks who put on the most pounds
> quickest so they can get through the lean periods
> become 'fittest' in the Darwinian sense.
Heh, one only need look at Renaissance artwork for a lesson. Skinny
wasn't in back then. Why? Because everyone went through annual food
shortages, so they needed the extra poundage to survive until spring
crops became available. And when food is a limited commodity, being
overweight is a good way to demonstrate your social class and wealth.
Like today checking your $100,000 Rolex for the time.
>
> The skinny, toned, strong guys with energy-burning
> muscle and hardly enough fat to roast a french-fry ...
> they suddenly become LESS 'fit' in the Darwinian
> scheme of things.
>
> 'Fitness' isn't necessarily what we've been conditioned
> to THINK it is. Sometimes, being big and strong and
> even really smart can work AGAINST you given certain
> (not really so rare) sets of circumstances. Who survives -
> well, look at the dark ages ... it was the small, pudgy,
> kinda dim, turnip farmers - guys who were content to
> wade in mud and manure every day.
Steve
That's OK but I'm going to stay lean and mean... The better to kick
your asses when you come to try to steal my dinner...
Steve
> Won't BE any dinner ... not for long stretches. That's
> the Darwinian point. While you're running around, burning
> energy, trying to find table scraps the fat people will
> have already stored them away - under their belts. The
> extra fat gets you THROUGH the gaps in the food supply.
> Skinny guys ... unless they turn to cannibalism .....
I'm more than capable of finding my own dinner.
Steve
> A little A-1 sauce and Joe Plumber might taste
> really good eh ? :-)
I spent my youth on a cattle ranch in Montana, and part of that youth
I guided hunters and fishermen up in the mountains... much later, I
learned survival techniques from experts in that field, and now I own
a 42 foot sailboat which has access to fishing grounds... I doubt
I'll be reduced to cannabalism, but then again, you never know.
Steve
> Um ... MINOR problem .......
>
> The natural-resource base can't survive 300,000,000
> people all after the fish and squirrels and bunnies
> and such. Hunter-gathererer is an obsolete lifestyle.
>
> And, hungry, they all WILL go after it. You'll find
> your streams devoid of fish, your forests devoid of
> anything bigger than a mouse.
>
> For large groups, only well-organized agriculture works.
Of course, the population would decline dramatically, almost
immediately as the grocery stores emptied out ...and we'd be off to
the far corners....
but why even discuss it? The global warming nonsense will die off
just like the global cooling stuff did decades ago...