Melting Antarctic icebergs fight back...

Melting Antarctic icebergs fight back against global warming

There are 19 comments on the The Toronto Star story from May 20, 2011, titled Melting Antarctic icebergs fight back against global warming. In it, The Toronto Star reports that:

Icebergs in the Antarctic Ocean are shrinking due to global warming. New research has found that melting icebergs are depositing iron into the sea water, spurring the growth of plankton that take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Toronto Star.

LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#1 May 20, 2011
Interesting feedback. But probably a spit in the ocean in terms of the global effect.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#3 May 21, 2011
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Interesting feedback. But probably a spit in the ocean in terms of the global effect.
These guys carried out a five year study, finding, "That material, in turn, is believed to spur the growth of enough plankton to remove more than two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air" and that's all you have to say, Mr Undoubtably Pragmatical Fourty?
LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#4 May 21, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>These guys carried out a five year study, finding, "That material, in turn, is believed to spur the growth of enough plankton to remove more than two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air" and that's all you have to say, Mr Undoubtably Pragmatical Fourty?
Nope. http://www.science.oregonstate.edu/ocean.prod...

Obviously if the study was even CLOSE to being solid, you would see 'streamers' of high NPP coming off the antarctic from the glacial endpoints rather than an almost negligeable NPP (black and purple).

Now we emit about 8 billion metric tons of CO2 per years, and the oceans are thought to sink about 23% of that.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/mclong/pubs/Arrig...

So effectively they are claiming that ALL plankton growth is around glaciers in the Antarctic, which is complete BS as can be seen by the NPP map.

So it doesn't pass the 'giggle test'. By a LARGE margin.

But you go ahead. Facts will not slow you down.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#5 May 21, 2011
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Nope. http://www.science.oregonstate.edu/ocean.prod...
Obviously if the study was even CLOSE to being solid, you would see 'streamers' of high NPP coming off the antarctic from the glacial endpoints rather than an almost negligeable NPP (black and purple).
Now we emit about 8 billion metric tons of CO2 per years, and the oceans are thought to sink about 23% of that.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/mclong/pubs/Arrig...
So effectively they are claiming that ALL plankton growth is around glaciers in the Antarctic, which is complete BS as can be seen by the NPP map.
So it doesn't pass the 'giggle test'. By a LARGE margin.
But you go ahead. Facts will not slow you down.
Hi there LessFact, while you're here, why not add your 2 cents worth to this thread?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
-
Meanwhile let's compare your figures with those of Scepticalscience, a well known pro warming website:
What the science says...
Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-sma...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#7 May 21, 2011
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
So effectively they are claiming that ALL plankton growth is around glaciers in the Antarctic, which is complete BS as can be seen by the NPP map.
IF, "they" were claiming that, "ALL plankton growth is around glaciers in the Antarctic," it would be, "complete BS," but 'they' aren't.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
So it doesn't pass the 'giggle test'. By a LARGE margin.
Neither does your reading comprehension.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
But you go ahead. Facts will not slow you down.
Did you check that link I gave you yet?
Are you just pretending it isn't there or are you too ashamed to respond to it, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty?
LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#8 May 22, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>IF, "they" were claiming that, "ALL plankton growth is around glaciers in the Antarctic," it would be, "complete BS," but 'they' aren't
Sorry. I forgot that you were a grade school dropout.

1: We emit about 8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

2: The oceans in TOTAL remove about 23% of this increase.

3: They claim that the plankton bloom around the icebergs removes more than two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air.

Question. For extra point, how much of the TOTAL emissions is two billion tons when the total emissions are eight billion tons.

Answer: about 25%.

Question. How much CO2 is removed by ALL the oceans.

Answer: about 25%

Question. So, what percentage of the sequestered emissions do they CLAIM to be removing.

Answer: All of it, i.e the equivalent statement that they are removing 2 billion tons of CO2 or that they are removing ALL the sequestered CO2 = 2 billion tons.

And of course, such a massive removal of CO2 would CLEARLY show up on an image of the NPP over the oceans.\

Do you have a clue yet, or are you 'pre-school' and incapable of even this much reasoning?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#9 May 22, 2011
Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, please comment of this:
http://i56.tinypic.com/2hozrpu.jpg
http://i54.tinypic.com/2iavbzs.jpg

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#10 May 22, 2011
Hi, Earthling,

Our research indicates that forty has always been spelled "forty," including in Canadian dictionaries during the 1960s. According to the OED, the spelling "forty" goes back to the very first uses of the word many hundreds of years ago. "Fourty" is a not uncommon misspelling of the word, and pops up throughout the word's history, but "forty" is the proper spelling. Because the letter "u" is included in many Canadian spellings of words that lack the "u" in their American variants (e.g., honour, vigour), there is a tendency for Canadians to misspell "forty" as "fourty" -- but they're wrong!

Hope that helps.

Best,
David

David Stover, President
Oxford University Press
Suite 204, 8 Sampson Mews
Don Mills ON M3C 0H5
[email protected]
LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#11 May 22, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
Hi, Earthling,
Our research indicates that forty has always been spelled "forty," including in Canadian dictionaries during the 1960s. According to the OED, the spelling "forty" goes back to the very first uses of the word many hundreds of years ago. David Stover, President
Oxford University Press
Suite 204, 8 Sampson Mews
Don Mills ON M3C 0H5
[email protected]
My research shows that his research is a bit silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_Bri ...

"In the early 18th century, English spelling was not standardised.

In other words, you still have nothing except an uncommon obsession. And now you are resorting to 'argument by authority'. Such a waste of even your feeble intellect.

I didn't say that I heard that 'fourty' was taught as the correct spelling. I TESTIFIED to it, having been an ear witness present at the time.

Get a clue. The most authoritative and 'beautiful' hypothesis can be destroyed by just one ugly fact. i.e. the truth. Your delusion is nothing but a fancy hypothesis and no matter how many people you get to 'agree' you have nothing.

Note also that it was noticeable AT THE TIME that Americanized usage increase as you got closer to the US/Canadian border. Toronto, for example which had a LOT of trade with the US due to the Auto Pact.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#12 May 23, 2011
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
My research shows that his research is a bit silly.
So you're saying that the President of the Oxford University Press in Ontario is silly?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
How useless are you at research?
-
"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for American and Bri in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

Search for "American and Bri" in existing articles."
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
"In the early 18th century, English spelling was not standardised.
We're arguing about the 20th century, particularly the 1960s when you were at school, or did you go to school in the 1760s?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
In other words, you still have nothing except an uncommon obsession.
I've filed all of your obsessive posts on the subject, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
And now you are resorting to 'argument by authority'.
I posted David Stover's email here last September.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Such a waste of even your feeble intellect.
How can a 'feeble intellect' be wasted?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
I didn't say that I heard that 'fourty' was taught as the correct spelling. I TESTIFIED to it, having been an ear witness present at the time.
Hearsay is not acceptable evidence, surely a man of your superior intellect knew that?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Get a clue. The most authoritative and 'beautiful' hypothesis can be destroyed by just one ugly fact. i.e. the truth.
You could prove it by producing some evidence of 'the truth' but that isn't possible, it doesn't exist.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Your delusion is nothing but a fancy hypothesis and no matter how many people you get to 'agree' you have nothing.
Note also that it was noticeable AT THE TIME that Americanized usage increase as you got closer to the US/Canadian border. Toronto, for example which had a LOT of trade with the US due to the Auto Pact.
You're full of insults BS and bafflegab, but still unable to provide one shred of evidence to back your unsupportable claim, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, but thanks for playing.
LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#13 May 23, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>So you're saying that the President of the Oxford University Press in Ontario is silly
You are the moron. He is just foolish to play your game. As to his "research", he found what he expected to find. And as I said, Toronto had a lot of US influence even back in the '60's. He probably couldn't even FIND a Canadian edition of any dictionary.

As it is, you set him up. But he should have known that he was trying to prove a negative. An impossible task given that the SOLID evidence is my memory (and I have a good one) along with an early passion for spelling.

And, as noted, your 'evidence' is just 'argument by authority'. i.e a logical fallacy.
LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#14 May 23, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>We're arguing about the 20th century, particularly the 1960s when you were at school, or did you go to school in the 1760s
Well, if you want to change the subject, we can argue about that too.

Fact is that the influence of the early colonial period 'lingered' in Ontario, especially as you got farther from the US/Canada border. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? In fact, you are arguing from complete and utter ignorance.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#15 May 23, 2011
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
You are the moron.
Of course I am, for being right.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
He is just foolish to play your game.
What 'game' do you think he's playing by answering a simple question?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
As to his "research", he found what he expected to find.
Which is all that can be found.
What conclusive evidence have you found?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
And as I said, Toronto had a lot of US influence even back in the '60's. He probably couldn't even FIND a Canadian edition of any dictionary.
Can you?
Apparently not.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
As it is, you set him up.
Not quite, I asked a simple question, he was free to answer it exactly as he saw fit.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
But he should have known that he was trying to prove a negative.
Meanwhile, you can't 'prove' anything, can you?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
An impossible task given that the SOLID evidence is my memory (and I have a good one) along with an early passion for spelling.
our memory doesn't count as, "solid evidence" for anything.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
And, as noted, your 'evidence' is just 'argument by authority'. i.e a logical fallacy.
"Noted" by whom, apart from you?
Find one piece of solid evidence to prove your point, that's all I ask?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#16 May 23, 2011
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Well, if you want to change the subject, we can argue about that too.
The subject hasn't changed, forty has been correctly spelled that way (in British English) for over 200 years.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Fact is that the influence of the early colonial period 'lingered' in Ontario, especially as you got farther from the US/Canada border.
That's a really pathetic excuse.
How old was the dictionary you used in 1960s backwoods Ontario?
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?
I'm sure you British Colonials weren't completely abandoned, even in the boondocks of 60s Ontario.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
In fact, you are arguing from complete and utter ignorance.
No, that would be you, relying on an unsound memory, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
You're the guy who claimed, "epistemolgists" compiled dictionaries.
You're the guy who claimed, Samuel Johnson was American.
You're the guy who claimed that 'spelt' was only an ancient grain.
You're the guy who thinks, "undoubtably" is a word.
Here are some examples of your 'good English' spelling:
Skeptic = US
meters = US
Portugese = Misspelt
theater = US
undoubtably = Misspelt
polinate = Misspelt
consise = Misspelt
vapor = US
millenia = Misspelt
snear = Misspelt
Penninsula = Misspelt
labor = US
centers = US
liter = US
rumors = US
entreprenurial = Misspelt
vigor = US
eligeable = Misspelt
pragmatical = misspelt
dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#17 May 23, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
... the SOLID evidence is my memory (and I have a good one) along with an early passion for spelling.
And, as noted, your 'evidence' is just 'argument by authority'. i.e a logical fallacy.
Dear LessHypeMoreFact,
You can feel secure in the belief that opinion (i.e. one's memory) is solid evidence in the 'science' of climate change.
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization....

Please note that 'argument by authority'(i.e. who should one trust... we, the experts or ----[insert ad hominem of choice]) is also acceptable as objective proof in AGW 'science'.
http://www.realclimate.org/

Since such reasoning is good enough for The IPCC and associates, one may freely employ these arguments of 'logic' in support of one's agenda.

-koolaid

dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#18 May 23, 2011
Sorry Earthling... I call it as I see it:>)
-koolaid
LessHypeMoreFact

Nepean, Canada

#19 May 23, 2011
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear LessHypeMoreFact,
You can feel secure in the belief that opinion (i.e. one's memory) is solid evidence in the 'science' of climate change.
No.It is evidence of history, not instrument data.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
They publish the data, original publication references and methodology. There is no need to take in on 'authority'. You can check it yourself if you want to take the time to get an education.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#20 May 24, 2011
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
Sorry Earthling... I call it as I see it:>)
-koolaid
LOL, feel free to call it whatever you like.
LessFact will never understand what fact or truth is, he's made that patently obvious by arguing about the spelling of one word over a long period of time, even when presented with an enormous amount of incontrovertible evidence.
Could someone like that him sceptical of climate science, no, it just isn't possible.
Reliance on ad hominem is mainly an alarmist trait, I think it's supposed to make us feel small.
Ö¿Ö
bronck burger

Fair Lawn, NJ

#21 May 29, 2011
I AM preparing to build an OLYPMIC SIZE SWIMMING POOL in my backyard so I CAN USE ALL OF THIS EXTRA WATER. SAVE THE EARTH INCREASE your CARBONE FOOT PRINT.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oceanography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The world's clouds are in different places than... Jul 12 Too Easy 14
News Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought (Jul '09) Jul 1 litesong 3,775
News With La Nina around the corner, dry weather in ... Jun '16 Kev 1
News new Scientists find minivan-sized sponge, world... May '16 Jack 8
News As Canada probes Haida Gwaii ocean fertilizing,... Apr '16 lotsa fish poop p... 1
News El Nino, La Nina patterns may be keys to predic... Apr '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News Sewage in the CRD: Scientists question need for... Mar '16 crazy 1
More from around the web