back to article Icebergs collect mini ecosystems, lock up carbon

Icebergs, released by global warming from the icy embrace of Antarctica, have surprised scientists by playing host to many forms of life. According to new research published in the journal Science, the bergs also act as floating carbon sinks, net accumulators of carbon dioxide. Now drifting through the Weddell sea, the bergs …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
JP

So...

As more CO2 is released, more icebergs float off, creating more sealife habitats, drawing more CO2 from the atmosphere, reducing the amount of CO2...

We can keep guzzling fossil fuels then!

0
0
Dan

Futurama

http://www.gotfuturama.com/Information/Encyc-94-Global_Warming/

"and that's how we sovled global warming"

0
0
Anonymous Coward

drawndown enough?

I guess the question on everyone lips now is:

Is the Carbon drawn down enough to form an equilibrium?

0
0

Mindbender

So global warming can actually mitigate global warming. Weird.

0
0

well

more proofs that none of these ecogeeks have a clue what's going?

The worlds been around for a looooooong time, and it will continue to be around for a longer time, and nobody really has a clue how the world deals with things, nobody can fathom how it cycles, filters and maintains itself. We're just passangers on this ship and nothing we do can match up to the way it balances itself.

We give ourselves too much credit.

0
0

Preposterous!

This article is obviously a plant by climate deniers.

There is scientific consensus that absolutely no good can come from global warming.

Either Lucy Sherriff was duped into writing this article or she is in on the vast conspiracy that denies that 'life as we know it' is quickly coming to a hot, cold, wet, dry end.

Seriously though, I find this quote a bit confusing: "While the melting of Antarctic ice shelves is contributing to rising sea levels and other climate change dynamics in complex ways,..."

I thought ice shelves were floating extensions of land ice that would therefor have no effect on sea level as they melt.

I could be wrong but that is so rare that it's hardly worth mentioning.

0
0

And this is news?

The ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 is hardly news. In fact it was dealt with several months back in the Channel4 program 'the great global warming swindle', as well as being mentioned all those years ago when i did 'o'-level geology.

Oceans absorb when cool, and shock horror, release CO2 when warm as part of the planets natural cycle. Hardly evidence for Global Warming here.

The only area of debate would be whether GW has caused the current temperature rise in the ocean.....but i sincerely doubt that as the temperature has been constantly changing for the best part of the 4.6 billion years (give or take) the planet has been around.

Not that we shouldn't all be sensible here and recycle, use our cars a little less and generally be more healthy by walking and even cycling (if you want to take the risk in a big city).

But the rash of taxes and demands for wholesale changes to lifestyle are not supported by reasoned scientific facts (queue arguments from GW converts); when those GW facts are questioned and disputed then all hell breaks loose and people are branded GW deniers as if they are too stupid to understand and how dare they question what is absolute and unquestionable fact; and add the fact that politicians are embracing GW so much just makes me even more sure that it is a con.....

0
0

Oh dear Tony

[quote]

By Tony

Posted Friday 22nd June 2007 13:29 GMT

This article is obviously a plant by climate deniers.

There is scientific consensus that absolutely no good can come from global warming.

[/quote]

Interesting that the scientific consensus comes from a vested interest lobby group who's turnover is worth billions of pounds. Sorry I meant the UN climate change panel and its job program.

So no good can come from global warming, even though climate changes are perfectly normal occurances that have occured throughout history? It is a recognised fact that there was a "hot" period in the middle ages (warmer than now), followed by a "little" ice age that we have been recovering from in fits and starts through the 20th century. That is only in recent times that affects our living memory and well documented history.

I suggest you read the book The Chilling Stars by Svensmark and Calder (I am half way through), unless like all AGW proponents, you cannot accept the heresey against doctrine that there may be another way of explaining climate change.

[quote]

And this is news?

By Stuart

Posted Friday 22nd June 2007 15:13 GMT

Not that we shouldn't all be sensible here and recycle, use our cars a little less and generally be more healthy by walking and even cycling (if you want to take the risk in a big city).

But the rash of taxes and demands for wholesale changes to lifestyle are not supported by reasoned scientific facts

[/quote]

Well said, and I agree Stuart. We should be doing all we can to protect our environment in terms of pollution for our children to inherit a pleasant world. But let's face it, in the industrialised world there are strick controls compared to the junk emitted during the industrial revolution and early 20th century. The same kind of poisons now being emitted by the countries trying to industrialise themselves out of poverty, ie India and China.

0
0

Re: Oh dear Tony

Who are we to argue with scientists who have formed an opinion by consensus?

The fact that a few scientists are bucking the trend to pronounce climate calamity means nothing. If they thought they were right there would be more of them, correct? My own experience has been that the climate in my area has recently returned to historic averages as presented by "climate deniers" or so called "meteorologists". I deny their claims.

We must rise up to refute those who have an opinion on Global Climate Change.

They know they are wrong and we must continue to bring up the discrepancies in their arguments.

I am pleased that you and others realize the truth in the Global Climate Debate.

0
0

Re: Oh dear Tony

"So no good can come from global warming, even though climate changes are perfectly normal occurances that have occured throughout history? It is a recognised fact that there was a "hot" period in the middle ages (warmer than now), followed by a "little" ice age that we have been recovering from in fits and starts through the 20th century. That is only in recent times that affects our living memory and well documented history."

The fact that something has happened in the past does not mean it's good. The "hot" period you refer to resulted in the destruction of the Anasazi civilization, which sent economic shockwaves throughout North America. I doubt that was an enjoyable experience.

Also, the fact that large scale climate change has happened in the past does not mean that we cannot cause it in the present. Lakes form and dry up over time, but that doesn't mean that we didn't cause the near destruction of the Aral Sea and Lake Chad.

0
0

Who indeed...

"Who are we to argue with scientists who have formed an opinion by consensus?"

Well, as I recall there was a paper published in the 1930's in Germany (not a place noted for its free-wheeling discussion climate) called something like "100 scientists against Einstein". As Einstein drily noted, "If they had been right one would have been enough". I don't know if it's true but it's a good story anyway.

In my experience too few scientists live up to the CUDOS principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Merton#Sociology_of_science). Especially the Organized Skepticism seems a little hard to stomach for most. :-) Hence, we all have the responsibility of saying "That sounds interesting, now show me how you arrived at that conclusion" every time one of them tries to sell an idea to us. If they can't dumb it down sufficiently to explain it to us, it's because it's a fraud. A test that never fails. IMHO, YMMV etc.

0
0
Silver badge

Yes, Mr. Clausen, but

In this day an age where a moron has control of the White House, the official policy is "if you're not with us, then you're against us". Of course, anyone asking questions is not With since he is a doubter, and if you're not with . . .

Funny thing is, this rule applies to both sides of the argument. The pro-GWs cannot accept that someone is skeptical without being and Anti-GW, and all Anti-GWs consider that if you're not anti, then you're either part of the conspiracy (my personal favorite) or just too dumb to know better.

I hate it when discussions verge into the "you're just a" territory. Seems that there aren't any brains on either side.

0
0

Tech ?

Sometimes you wouldn't think this was a tech rag, the comments above by, lets face it, non-experts (and thats putting it nicely) show all the hallmarks of what techs hate in non-techs.

They admit to knowing fuck all but still have an opinon ... wtf ? Do something about your ignorance and stop reveling in it. Or at least, stop displaying your ignorance in public. Its damn embarrassing.

@Monett - good point, but its mitigated by the fact that if the 99% of all scientists are correct, then you need to start to do something. The anti crowds main argument is we should do nothing. Also, as I have pointed out in the past, main stream opinion is "sanity", in any definition of society, the 1% of freaks can then easily be labeled as nutters and we can move on.

@Morten Ranulf Clausen - what you need explaining ? Im here for you dude.

@

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums