We must stop Icebergs from melting?

Question

Drifting icebergs are "ecological hotspots" that enable the surrounding waters to absorb an increased volume of carbon dioxide, a study suggests.

US scientists found that minerals released from the melting ice triggered blooms of CO2-absorbing phytoplankton.

These microscopic plants were then eaten by krill (shrimp-like organisms), whose waste material containing the carbon sank to the ocean floor.

The findings are published in the online journal Science Express.

The study, carried out in the Southern Ocean's Weddell Sea in December 2005, has helped researchers understand the impact of free-floating icebergs on the marine environment.

Read Article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6227724.stm

The earth couldn't possibly take care of itself...it would of never made it this far without save the world freaks. Oh, EcoFreak Wonder Twins - what would we do without you?!?!? Oh, I know, live in peace and adapt to the earth instead of trying to make the earth adapt to us

Also, since the North Pole used to be a Tropical Rain Forest - should we raise money to change it back?

Who do we blame and terrorize to scare money out of to raise money to change the North pole into a rain forest?

Also, how should the kids in school be taught about how to save the North Pole Rain Forest and The North Pole Polar Bears?

I was also thinking we need to put the continents back together and bring back the millions of species that did not survive in the past. I figured a Eco Freak will know who to blame to make that happen. Good luck...and happy terrorizing.

Duh, the earth can take care of itself. Even with or without man's help.

Think of it this way - if man does have an effect on the planet - and destroys it to the point that he dies off (notice I said - he man dies off - I didn't say the earth died off - I said Man Dies off - just making sure it is clear that I said man dies off)

Then after man is gone the earth sprouts more creatures and plants and then is covered in whatever takes the place of what is here now - just like what is here took the place of what was here before us.

Hence, survival of the fittest. So, to imply that - earth cannot take care of itself is silly. Just because your here - does not mean you will be in the future. So, the doom and gloom crap of earth is for the fools. Oh, as for man - survival of the fittest applies to you too, and I am sure the earth is much more fit than man.

Trevor - "The 'eco freaks' aren't saying we need to halt nature but that we need to stop disrupting it. That makes a lot of sense to me."

So, the eco freaks that put millions upon millions of tires to save the reefs thirty years ago, which ended up doing so much damage to the reefs over the last 30 years that the reefs would of been better off if they had been left alone -- that makes sense to you?

Living clean is wonderful - but the saving the planet crap - is just that - crap.

123? go dump some tires in the ocean and destroy the coral reefs and tell everyone you are saving them. Yeppers - what would we do without you "tire dumping" save the planet freaks...

Again the planet does not need saving - but rest assured you could use some help...

Now when the earth spilled out trillions of pounds of Pollution from Volcanic activity - where were you -- and why did you not stop that?

Which brings up the point - if the planet was covered with volcanoes and pollution to the point that it was uninhabitable - why are you here Trevor, 123? and all the Eco Freaks that talk about doom and gloom?

Why are you here if the planet was uninhabitable like you say it will be with your doom and gloom crap?

Answer 1

In order for us to stop the component of Global Warming that is caused by co2 emissions, we would have to cut back co2 emissions to zero world wide.

If one country refuses to cooperate, such as China, we cannot stop Global Warming.

China emits enough co2 to cause Global Warming on its own. Even if the rest of the world cuts back to zero.

In a modern society it is not realistic to cut co2 emissions back to zero or anything close to zero.

Global Warming due to co2 emissions is inevitable. We cannot stop it and we cannot prevent it.

It appears to me that the Global Warming crowd has latched on to this crusade of theirs to torment people over something that they cannot do anything about.

Let us take a look at the behavior of the Global Warming crowd.

They emit co2 to the atmosphere. They heat their homes and the water they bathe in .

I have not seen too many people in the Global Warming crowd bathing in cold water.

Those characters are responsible for as much if not more co2 emissions than everyone else.

Yet to listen to those characters you would think that they are not responsible for so much as one molecule of co2 on this planet. These characters seem to think they poop ice cream as well while they are at it.

Let's consider the number one Global Warming character, Al Gore.

Al Gore lives in an enoromous mansion that uses over ten times the amount of energy as a family of 4.

Al Gore flys all over the place in private jets that use more than 1,000 times the amount of fossil fuel per mile as the most wasteful SUV.

Yet these characters think they have the right to lecture us about our use of fossil fuels?

This is absolutely ridiculous!

Unless we can get everyone worldwide to stop heating their homes, even when it is 10 degrees below zero outside, to stop heating water for bathing, to stop cooking and to shut down our entire transportation system including all automobiles, buses, trains, and planes we will not be able to stop the component of Global Warming that is caused by co2 emissions.

The solutions the Global Warming crowd proposes such as more recycling buying hybrid automobiles, turning out the lights are merely ineffective publicity gimmicks to permit the members of the Global Warming crowd to feel good about themselves and blame the inevitable problems of Global Warming on everyone else except themselves.

Answer 2

Good info, William. I read that story this week and came to a similar conclusion. Nature has so many buffer systems that we have yet to understand, that it seems more than a little foolish to rush headlong into "fixing things". What most of these alarmist lugheads fail to realize is that the IPCC and it's willful band of government bureaucrats is not simply considering the mother of all Public Service Announcements. All the billions of dollars collected thus far, all the trillions of dollars ready to be tapped - they aren't just going to say, "Drive a hybrid. Use CFLs!" and then run off the stage.

Along the same lines as your bio hotspot, I came across this story about mucus houses. Who would have thought that the GW alarmists' Goliath would be felled by a mucus house David?
http://www.mbari.org/news/news_releases/2005/sinkers-release.pdf
"Back in the lab, the researchers carefully measured the amount of organic carbon in each sinker. Finally, by multiplying the number of sinkers reaching the seafloor times the average amount of carbon per sinker, they were able to estimate how much carbon the sinkers were carrying to the seafloor. To their surprise, Robison and his colleagues found that sinkers were delivering almost as much carbon as was the detritus being collected in sediment traps. They had
found an additional food source that was more than adequate to feed all those hungry deep-sea animals.

These findings may seem esoteric, but they have global implications. The inability to account for all the carbon reaching the seafloor has been a major concern not only to
oceanographers but also to some climate modelers who are trying to understand global warming. The global carbon cycle is like a complex jigsaw puzzle with many interlocking pieces.
Robison's research may supply a piece of the puzzle that has long been missing."

Just like your story, it illustrates how little we truly know about earth systems. So modelers were off by almost 100% on the amount of carbon due to ocean sediments. And before anyone dismisses this process, all the trillions of barrels of global petroleum are believed to arise from similar organic sediment.

Those guys have yet to address carbon cycling through the thermohaline conveyor...

Answer 3

Long Island , NY was formed by melting glaciers. So yes it has occurred to us if it has happened before it will at some point in time happen again. We are just as likely to head into a deep freeze as go the other way. It is a normal part of living on an ever changing planet changes occur gradually over 10s of thousands of years along with erosion , earthquakes, tectonic plate shifts, volcanoes. Do not go into full survival mode just yet.

Answer 4

In the context of the article you refer to the melting of the icebergs is beneficial and so (in context) their melting should be welcomed and encouraged.

The general gist of your question is that nature is quite capable of taking care of itself. Indeed it is, but when human activities impact on nature then things start going very wrong and we're seeing the consequences of this right around the world.

The 'eco freaks' aren't saying we need to halt nature but that we need to stop disrupting it. That makes a lot of sense to me.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re your addit details: The people who used tires to protect the coral reefs did what they thought was the right thing, time has shown it to have been a mistake. The overwhelming majority of environmental projects work out just fine. Further, global warming and climate change is something that has been studied in much greater detail and is much more clearly understood than protecting coral reefs.

As regards volcanoes - they form part of the natural cycles of the planet, their total emissions fall well within natural tolerances. It would be fairly pointless to try to revent volcanoes as they only procuce 0.7% of the carbon emissions that humans produce and large eruptions actually cool the planet.

Answer 5

Trevor is right- you talk about melting the icebergs like its great. Like you said in the last paragraph, the Earth isn't going to adapt to us. SO it's not going to magically stop being harmed by pollution and global warming. If the ice caps melt, a lot of the places humans live will be flooded. And what's wrong with "EcoFreaks" trying to keep people from polluting the earth until it's uninhabitable? Maybe that's your idea of "adapting to the earth"???

Answer 6

The question you should be considering is this: How do our activities make the earth a less hospitable place for us?

What are the short and long term consequences of modifying or not modifying our activities?

In the case of global warming the solution for it is the same as the solution for the diminishing resource fossil fuels.

In solving one problem we solve another. Wind and solar require initial investment, but have no fuel costs and we don't have to prop up or kow tow to dictatorships to insure a supply. Its a win win.

Answer 7

I escaped iceberg's melted down to hot pot, I used to be for 3 score year's an ice hunter, (whale's, walrus, icebear's, seal's, and arctic food, until it melted, and guess where the old iceman liveth now, 49 degree's, or 3000 mile's south of my old melted iceberg, that is the equivalent of the amerind's buffalo demise, and soon pastoral charaolois catle breeding society's such as USA and EU, disappearing, (to U that would mean no McDonald's, supermarket froezen meat's or fish, etcetera, I don't hate the polluting usa for melting iceberg's, but the rule of justice is what goe's around come's around, your vegetarian diet is your only option, is mine also

Answer 8

James Lovelock is a respected scientist, the leading expert in the power of the Earth to take care of itself. He's written peer reviewed articles about that ability, calling the Earth "Gaia" in respect of that power.

The latest data on global warming has changed his mind about the ability of nature to compensate for what we're now doing. His latest book "The Revenge of Gaia" is a passionate argument for construction of nuclear power plants to reduce global warming.

Answer 9

Billy, Billy, Billy ...

Take your meds, son, you're completely off your nut today.

Poor little offspring of two hairless apes. Save those opposable thumbs for playing PSP, rather than trying to type a pile of crap, will ya?

Answer 10

Yes, its true that the worlds climate has been vastly different than it is today.

It is also true that not all of those climates would support human life.

So what do you say? lets trade the one we have for another one!

Science express? Is that like bad take out science?