One Of The Biggest Icebergs Has Broken Loose In Antarctica

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/07/12/one-of-the-biggest-icebergs-in-recorded-history-just-broke-loose-from-antarctica/?utm_term=.80bd2034585f

man made global warming in action...

Really? Based upon what evidence? Where is the direct causal relationship between the industrial emission of CO2 and the calving of the ice-bergs? How is such a link established in the first place? How can we be so sure that this isn't perfectly natural, hasn't been happening ever since the Earth has existed (which, by the way, it HAS), and other factors (like sunspot activity) have been adequately taken into account? Why should we believe the infinitesimal increase, by man, of what is already a minor atmospheric gas, is of more import than that great, big, glowing inferno in the sky? Which, do you reasonably suppose, has a higher impact upon what happens down here?

I have grown ever-so-tired of every climatological event being attributed to 'global warming' these days! The way this nonsense is covered in the media is truly appalling, with so-called science-reporters not even understanding enough about the (very basic) science to be able to differentiate between carbon and carbon-dioxide, the two terms often being used interchangeably within the same sentence. When it comes to science, the vast majority of people, even those who profess to be 'experts', are just shockingly ignorant of even the facts as they are taught in secondary school science classes.

Please, no more of this imbecilic nonsense. Enough already!

So what can be done about it? Get a bunch of people on boats to push the iceberg back and use giant air conditioners to freeze it into its proper place?

Didn't think so. Doomed.

We can establish that global temperatures are increasing. On that point there is no dispute.
So that leaves the question of anthropogenic influence on global temp

Current modelling demonstrates a strong linear relationship over the last 100 years between industrial carbon emissions and global temp. The models are strong enough to predict the exponential increase in global temp will continue and are linked to carbon emissions into the air.

Currently a wopping 97% of all scientists (according to the Acedemy of Science in 80 countries) agree that human influence is causal in relation to global warming.

Those opposing the prevailing data are governments/industries linked to fossil fuel power and a miniscule number of scientists on the payroll of fossil fuel

> One Of The Biggest Icebergs Has Broken Loose In Antarctica

And a giant penguin colony is seen hoisting a flag and shouting, "Independence at last! Independence at last!"

Were they dancing?

I'm seriously more concerned about the impending zombie apocalypse.

Especially if it starts out with zombie penguins arriving on an iceberg.

.

Well, actually there IS "dispute". Type in the words, "global cooling since 1997", and you will get a very long list of sources. I'll be generous and link to a pro-climate change article from N.A.S.A.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... rming.html

Note how the graphs that they provide don't go very far into the past. The longest stretches back to the 1880's, the others being limited to the period from the 1970's to today. Hardly thorough, wouldn't you say? To establish any long-term climatological trends, one has to go back centuries, millennia (at the very least). We simply don't have adequate records for those earlier times, although what evidence we do have is that the mean global temperatures were often higher than they are today (ex. during the Medieval Warm Period and during Roman times, to list just two examples that come readily to mind).



Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... Models. Um, how about some evidence instead? Is there any of that? There is an old saying: 'Garbage in, garbage out', which basically means that what comes out of your 'model' will directly reflect the assumptions - yes, assumptions - that go into it in the first place, and that if one inputs nonsense then that is exactly what one will wind up with. When it comes to climate models, the variables are almost infinite, the assumptions entered into them highly speculative, and the people running them highly suspect.



Yawn. Who cares? What does this claim prove? Nothing. Reality isn't 'consensus-based'. It is what it is regardless of what people believe about it. As for this silly 97% figure, where did you get it from? Could you provide a link?



Sorry, but that's just ad hominem BS, of the kind that has absolutely NO evidence in its favour. Even IF this absurd accusation were indeed true, the scientific method itself has inbuilt mechanisms that quickly expose fraud when it arises (ex. the 'cold-fusion' controversy).

The following link provides scholarly sources
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global ... ediate.htm

The same link also states that 95% of climate research supports anthropogenic factors in global warming. Th numbers are highly convincing and quite difficult to refute


Well it's no surprise that conservative governments who take donations from fossil fuel/coal/coal powered energy companies are "enthusiastic" climate skeptics. It's funny that Tony Abbott is no longer prime minister he's not as vociferous about global warming as he used to be.

If I were a rich Persian Gulf oil sheik I would send a crew of sailors down there to plant masts with sails on this thing, and stick rudders and giant outboard motors on it. The crew could maneuver it into the right sea currents and sail the Delaware sized ship up into the Indian Ocean, catch the Monsoon winds, sail it up the east coast of Africa, and take it right up into the Persian Gulf. You would only loose maybe 20 percent of its mass due to meltage, as you pass through the Temperate, and Tropical zones, en route. Then I would use the ice berg as a source of fresh water.

Maybe blast out a hole in the coast with an A-bomb, and stick the ice berg into the new artificial bay. Then wall off the mouth of the bay, and viola....you have a new fresh water lake on the coast of Araby with more volume of water than Lake Superior! Then irrigate new farm land, or sell the drinking water.

The ice sheets melting are certainly not boding well for humanity. A number of scientists give humans another 50-100 years before extinction unless drastic steps are taken now
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... umans.html

Donald Trump take note....

Im just sitting here looking at the comments by conservatives on how they think they have all the "facts" to refute the EVIDENCE that global warming is a huge part of our modern reality. But then again theyre the same people who believe that a jewish street preacher in the middle east is iconic because hes "the son of god".

Helen Amana Fricker, Antarctic scientist at Scripps Institute of Oceanography: "We do not need to press the panic button. Large events are normal processes of a healthy ice sheet, that have occurred for millennia on cycles that are much longer than a human lifetime. Scientists are also confident the iceberg won't affect global sea levels as the ice is already floating in the water."

One of the largest icebergs ever is about to break off Antarctica

A peer-reviewed research report published last week by three highly qualified researchers with the agreement of seven others similarly accomplished charges that the entities reporting historical and current worldwide temperatures have adjusted their data to show global warming which has not actually occurred.

The trio has concluded that this data is "not a valid representation of reality," and that as a result, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 "Endangerment Finding" — essentially that global warming has been occurring and continues to accelerate due to human activity — is, in the study's words, "invalidated." The establishment media's silence has been deafening.

Researchers Claim to Have 'Invalidated' EPA's Core Global Warming 'Finding'

The report, peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the US Environmental Protection Agency, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and several of America’s leading universities, shows the data is completely bunk: The findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments are totally inconsistent with published and credible US and other temperature data.

In short: The evidence has been falsified. The establishment continue to push the need for massive, costly initiatives to reduce green house gases and global temperatures to “normal” levels. The problem, of course, is that there is no global warming according to the above referenced report.

Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: “Not A Valid Representation Of Reality… Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data”

wow, i'm going to go back to reading spam. it's less disheartening.

A lazy 'ad hom' attack. I'm not a 'conservative' by any means; just the opposite in fact, but I prefer facts to pointless and unsubstantiated claims that are specifically designed to scare people silly.