digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at planetsave.com

55 Million Years Ago, Things Got Worse

planetsave.com — It appears that some 55 million years ago in the period which has now been enthusiastically named the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM), the planet suffered a global warming increase as a direct result of a rise in carbon dioxide levels.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Rotzooi, on 01/03/2008, -21/+141Obviously has to be buried as inaccurate. The earth is barely 6,000 years old.

    Signed,

    Mike Huckabee
    • DeskFlyer, on 01/03/2008, -14/+52Also signed,

      Half of all Americans
      • Dumbledorito, on 01/03/2008, -6/+14Would that be with a whole lot of "X"'s?
    • Eallan, on 01/03/2008, -16/+12Yes they're stupid, do we really have to keep saying this? I get it, easy diggs for you bravo.
      • OneLess, on 01/03/2008, -6/+9It was funny. You're not. ***** off.
        • Caeili, on 01/03/2008, -7/+6No. It was tired & predictable.

          I know plenty of Christians and not a single one of them thinks the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I don't even know where you fools get that from.
          • emjaymj, on 01/03/2008, -4/+4Well to start with, the only thing said by him was that Mike Huckabee believes it. You may have inferred he was talking about all Christians, but that's your fault. I don't personally know any Christians who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old either, but anybody not completely ignorant about current affairs knows that this belief is shared by no small amount of people.
          • carcrazy, on 01/03/2008, -4/+1I'm a Christian, and Catholic to be entirely obvious. I really don't care how old the earth is. I don't believe it's 6000 years old or 100 billion. In the grand scheme of things, that's not an important issue when talking about Creation. The important thing for me is to realize that God created it (who knows when) and that He thought it was good. So if your Christian friends are on the same page as me, its no wonder they don't believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

            While I'm on the subject: I have a very similar stance on evolution and the Bible's version of man's creation. In the grand scheme of things does it really matter if I came from a monkey or from the dirt? No, all I just realize that however it happened, I'm here and God was behind it.

            BTW, if there really was a global warming 55 million years ago I'm guessing it was the Toyota Prius and other hybrids, electric, etc cars that solved the problem, right? No? So it must be caused (and therefore reversible) by man this time.
    • Jalh, on 01/03/2008, -4/+3...........


      ( dugg me down if u want to )
    • pw378, on 01/03/2008, -4/+5Obligatory Digg comments on any article (alternatively titled, "Digg comments: HOWTO"):
      - [fill in blank] is clogging the tubes
      - [fill in blank] is Bush's fault
      - [fill in blank] because the Earth is only 6000 years old
      - [fill in blank] farts are causing Global warming
      - [fill in blank] is censoring [fill in blank]
      - [fill in blank] is something Ron Paul has a plan to fix

      It is to the point that reading comments is like a bad case of deja-vu.
      • TripMoon, on 01/03/2008, -3/+1Well, we all know that Jesus said to take responsibility only for yourself, horde all your money and be angry when a government tries to redistribute a small portion of it in a way wiser than you could, and to go to war with everyone who has something you want. Mexico is exactly what happens when the population is allowed to spend their money exactly as they wish: they don't help each other. Amen
    • jaradjohnson, on 01/03/2008, -1/+3Pwned.
    • Isidore, on 01/03/2008, -3/+6Rootzooi's joke is important. There is a good correlation between those who deny human-caused climate change and those who deny evolution.

      But in the good ole US too many people deny evolution and the real origin of fossil fuels. So they cannot start to understand how CO2 was slowly absorbed by plants over millions of years and locked away in coal and oil. Then in the last 200 years we release a large part of this CO2 back into the atmosphere. CO2 is at its highest for at least 800,000 years. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - easily demonstrated in the lab. Surprised we can change the environment?

      Too many in the US are skeptical of mainstream science. The vast majority of climate scientists believe that humans are now a major cause of climate change. All major changes in the past have involved

      The issue is a scientific one, based on observations. As individuals we can each study the evidence to post-doctoral level. Or, if we do not have the talent or time the next best thing is to rely on the consensus of those who have studied the matter in depth. If you were ill would you trust a fellow blogger, a wingnut on the internet or someone who studied medicine for many years? If one maverick doctor disagrees with the consensus would you trust your life to them or the majority opinion?

      Who are the real experts? Is there enough evidence for them to come to a consensus conclusion? National Science Academies would be a good place to start.

      The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC

      “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.”

      National Academy of Sciences (US),
      Royal Society (United Kingdom),
      Chinese Academy of Sciences,
      Science Council of Japan,
      Russian Academy of Sciences,
      Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
      Royal Society of Canada,
      Académie des Sciences (France),
      Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
      Indian National Science Academy,
      Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
      Australian Academy of Sciences,
      Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
      Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
      Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
      Royal Irish Academy,
      Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
      Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
      Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

      Source: www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619 Royal Society 2001
      www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742 Royal Society 2005
      www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Statements_on_Climate_Change For the comments of other scientific bodies.

      The scientific evidence and consensus is with the IPCC. Just as the scientific evidence and consensus is for evolution.
      • tomservo51, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Actually his comment just shows his immaturity.
  • wrenchone, on 01/03/2008, -1/+33I blame Wilma wanting the newest SUV. Gotta keep up with the Rublles.
  • sjbdallas, on 01/03/2008, -17/+3And where were the poles located then?
    http://digg.com/environment/The_Global_Climate_Cha ...
    • jogleby, on 01/03/2008, -6/+6Lol, that is one of the dumbest theories on global warming I've ever read.
      • sjbdallas, on 01/03/2008, -13/+6But 150 years of man's industrialization makes perfect sense?
        • CATSCEO, on 01/03/2008, -6/+9Yes.
        • iota, on 01/03/2008, -4/+7Welcome to Digg! You're a *****. What incentive is there to NOT at least make a small effort to improve the environment? It can't make things worse, why spend so much personal energy trying to avoid doing the right thing and prove people far smarter and better informed than you wrong?

          Additionally, if you can't see what 150 years of industrialization has done to "improve" the environment, go on a tour of your local coal-fired power plant. The technology of 150 years ago, ruining the future of today!
          • sjbdallas, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Fair statement since I obviously can't make all of my beliefs clear in one posting on DIGG.
            I have no problem with attempts to improve the environment, recycling, getting off of out dependency on foreign oil (and eventually oil altogether), and with reducing our wastefulness. HOWEVER, what i do have a problem with is that Gore and the media have tried to use scare tactics and man's influence on global climate change as a method to make that happen while at the same time setting up a process whereby people can BUY their way out of responsibility with carbon credits.
            We should be responsible caretakers of our home as an ongoing practice -- not because of fear or as a method of lining someone's pockets.
        • Aensland, on 01/03/2008, -4/+6@iota: exactly.

          @sjbdallas: You've got to be criminally ignorant of the fact that humanity has a really screwed up track record to say what we're doing isn't harming the planet. Let's forget about "global warming" for a second, and look at how well we've deforested, strip mined, and killed to extinction, just to name a few blatant abuses.
    • JoelBakan01, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Poland?
  • Diggpick, on 01/03/2008, -3/+62This news is 55 millions years old...
  • jkizzle, on 01/03/2008, -11/+2old news, and its not the same...
  • z3021017, on 01/03/2008, -7/+9Too many dino-farts?
    • darklights, on 01/03/2008, -2/+1Imagine the size of a brontasaurus fart! My god!!
    • MrSlumberjack, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Thats methane, silly
  • MforMike, on 01/03/2008, -20/+18The world would have never survived if Al Gore wasnt there to decrease the carbon footprint
  • handler, on 01/03/2008, -16/+2And who reported on this news today who was around back then?
  • aliengoods, on 01/03/2008, -14/+22Was it man-made? Didn't think so.
    • mOdQuArK, on 01/03/2008, -6/+11Does it matter whether its manmade or not? We'll still be screwed.
      • skyshock1, on 01/03/2008, -9/+11Apparently to many it does matter because now the SUV-hating tree-huggers just got their soapbox kicked out from under them.
        • EtherGnat, on 01/03/2008, -9/+6Why? Just because it's happened before doesn't mean it couldn't be caused by man. Your failure at anything approaching logic saddens me.
          • EtherGnat, on 01/03/2008, -3/+3Oh come on, where's any semblance of logic here? There's proof of naturally caused forest fires millions of years ago, it doesn't prove a forest fire today wasn't started by an idiot with a cigarette. Regardless of whether man made global warming exists, this evidence does NOTHING to undermine current arguments.
          • logosx1, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Oh, yes it does. If the Earth acts this way on its own, how are we to know when our "harmful" influence has ceased? We won't know, of course, and that's the whole point -- politicians will use any climate fluctuation to enhance their power and decrease our liberty. Useful idiots like you will help them do it.
          • vikingcoder, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Nihilism doesn't disprove anything, neither does spite.

            The oceans and land surfaces are net CO2 sinks that currently absorb 12 billion tons more than they outgas each year. Since 1751 roughly 1.2 trillion tons of CO2 have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the early 1980s.

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCyc ...
            http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html
            ( table H.1co2 => http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tab ... )

            note: One set numbers was in weight of carbon (GtC - gigatons of carbon), while the other set is in weight of CO2. The conversion has already been made for ease of comparison
            atomic mass - C: 12 -- CO2: 44
            C => CO2: multiply weight by 44/12
            CO2 => C: multiply weight by 12/44
    • behlib99, on 01/03/2008, -6/+6What the article is saying, like any sane climatologist already knows, is that global temperatures are correlated to carbon dioxide levels. By looking at proxy data, we can see when carbon dioxide goes up, so do temperatures. But those are probably pretty big words and a complicated system for a global warming denier to understand. Also, this was a well know fact 20 years before Al Gore has his cinematic debut.
      • Yokohamalion, on 01/03/2008, -4/+4Global warming deniers don't deny the earth is warmer we just deny its mans fault. What we don't like is neo-communists like yourself, using increased temperatures to slow down the progress of the West through climate agreements that do nothing but tax developed nations for their success and place no limitations on newly developed nations. Carbon credits and schemes like that are global socialism trying to transfer wealth from rich nations to poorer ones. We see your sick little plan and are not gonna play your ***** game.
        • MajorJJH, on 01/03/2008, -1/+2Oh good grief man, are you serious? You sound like you belong on some sort of governmental committee ensuring the betterment of... oh to hell with it, screw you you *****!
          • Yokohamalion, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2is ***** the best you got. Listen here savetheworld.org metrosexual, feminist, liberal, guy(read fag) I damn sure am not part of any governmental committee and I am deadly serious. If climate change is such a impending disaster why do you eco-fags not include China and India in your reduction targets, a plan proposed by Canada in Bali? Cause the people running your socialist subculture don't want a solution they want a soapbox. Like all socialists they and most likely you want everything equalized whether it be wealth, healthcare or the ***** cars we drive. The only way you can make the poor "middleclass" is to steal from the rich.
    • Promantarius, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Perhaps you should've attached a point to your statement. Just because something can and has occurred in nature does not mean that humans are incapable of reproducing it unintentionally.
    • Isidore, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.

      Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that it can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

      Natural causes alone (Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, solar activity, volcanoes etc.), cannot explain climate variations since the mid 1970s.
      www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide27.pdf

      but adding human causes we get a prediction much closer to observations www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/clim_green/slide28.pdf

      Could humans have changed the earth's climate?
      CO2 was slowly absorbed by plants over millions of years and locked away in coal and oil. In the last 200 years we released a large part of this CO2 back into the atmosphere. CO2 is at its highest for at least 800,000 years. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - easily demonstrated in the lab. Surprised?
      But in the US too many people deny evolution, the real origin of fossil fuels and are skeptical of mainstream science, so it's not surprising they deny human-caused global warming. Maybe human CO2 is a small part of the earth's CO2, but it's a delicate balance. Eat a 'negligible' number of extra calories each day and see the difference in your waistline in a few years.

      UK Government's Meteorological Office debunking of climate-change-denial myths
      www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

      New Scientist magazine addressing the main skeptic claims
      environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

      Oxford University intro to climate
      www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html

      NASA intro to climate
      earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarmingUpdate/
      • ReCLaIM, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0What about Mars? Same thing happening there.. how is that possible without human intervention, since they are 90% sure it wouldnt be happening if not for humans. Science has become a religion, not a science. If you don't agree with the majority they humiliate you in public.. sounds a lot like religion.

        They admit its happening on Mars, but call THAT a coincidence.. lol
  • aussieNickuss, on 01/03/2008, -11/+6Either way....we're *****.
  • Lightglass, on 01/03/2008, -13/+11No way we had cars 55 million years ago? ;)
  • laplacian, on 01/03/2008, -1/+3that's awesome the period was "enthusiastically" named
  • tattertech, on 01/03/2008, -4/+24And this is why whatever man has done will pale in comparison to something like the Yellowstone Caldera going off.
    • 01l0, on 01/03/2008, -3/+4good thing it only happens once every 700,000 years
    • Terr01, on 01/03/2008, -0/+9And this is why whatever rman has done will pale in comparison to...
      ... being hit with an extinction-level comet or asteroid.
      ... the expansion of the sun in it's red-giant phase.
      ... a collision with the moon (or moonlets) as the tidal forces dissipate into the sloshing of the oceans.
      ... a black hole colliding and then growing in the center of the earth.
      ... the big crunch.
      ... God deciding to start over.

      As you can see, these are all totally valid reasons (along with the caldera thing) for never having to do anything because something huge and bad could always happen.

      Oh, wait...
      • tattertech, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Well... good job reading into something that wasn't there. I must have missed where I said *no* actual to stop the spread of pollutants was a good idea.
    • vikingcoder, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/g ...
      >>
      At Mount St Helens the maximum measured emission rate was 2.2X10^7 kg per day. The total amount of gas released during non-eruptive periods from the beginning of July to the end of October was 9.1X10^8 kg
      >>

      The maximum rate is ~3x the average non-eruptive rate.

      That is a total of 910 thousand tonmes. The largest Yellowstone Caldera "super eruption" 2.1 million years ago produced 2,400 times as much volcanic ash as Mount St. Helens's 1980 eruption. Assume a comparable increase in CO2 & that yields 2.2 billion tonnes. You can assume a ten-fold comparable increase and still come in at less than a single year of current anthropogenic CO2 emissions (22 vs. 28).

      If the Yellowstone Caldera exploded again in a similar fashion, it would be the worst cataclysm that mankind has ever faced - from the US covered in many feet of ash to the global cooling from the airborn ash & sulfate aerosols blocking the sunlight.

      http://www.yellowstonenationalpark.com/calderas.ht ...
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html
      ( table H.1co2 => http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tab ... )
  • SilverStandard, on 01/03/2008, -8/+24No SUV's back then. Natural causes emit more carbon dioxide than humans do.
  • skews13, on 01/03/2008, -0/+6yeah,but it got better again
    • theOster, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3"it got better"
    • skyshock1, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5And it will get better again in the future as well. The only thing that's going to destroy the earth is either a huge asteroid collision, or the sun blowing up in a few billion years.
      • EtherGnat, on 01/03/2008, -2/+7Yes, man will not destroy the earth, but he could very well destroy mankind.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 01/03/2008, -2/+3...Yeah, but we certainly would have been buggered were we around back then. Doesn't matter if it gets better; if you want to survive, you don't want it to happen at all.
  • 01l0, on 01/03/2008, -7/+11If you want to blame the recent global warming trend on volcanoes, and I know you desperately want to, you will have to point to a recent increase in global volcanic activity that coincides with the warming trend.
    • URnotheonly1, on 01/03/2008, -10/+2it dose
      • rustintable, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4it does not
      • vikingcoder, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Who needs to reference scientific data when you can stand on belief?
    • MaceSoul, on 01/03/2008, -7/+14Yeah, pay no attention to the sun spitting out more heat and flares than any other point in our lifetimes.
      • ISIfunded911, on 01/03/2008, -1/+3Already taken into account by the mathematical models used by the climatologists in the most powerful computers on Earth.
        Do you really think they would need these incredibly powerful computers if they factored only one variable: CO2?
        You are ignorant. You only want one thing: to keep on driving your polluting car and boarding planes, without guilt.
        • ReCLaIM, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0Computers are man-made... I'm an IT tech.. I know.. they are sometimes.. 'wrong'... I mean.. Y2k anyone?
      • vikingcoder, on 01/03/2008, -2/+2No. It hasn't. The Sun's averaged output hasn't increased over the past 50 years, and we are currently at the bottom of the 11 year cycle.

        Direct satellite measurements find no rising trend since 1978 - the start of measurements. Sunspot numbers have leveled out since 1950. The Max Planck Institute reconstruction shows that irradiance has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.

        http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/sola ...
        http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite ...
        http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Sunspot ...
        ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY.PLT
        http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_C ...
        • MaceSoul, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1http://www.spaceweather.com/solarflares/topflares. ...
          The Most Powerful Solar Flares Ever Recorded
          Ranking Date X-Ray Class
          ----------------------------------------------
          1 04/11/03 X28+
          2 02/04/01 X20.0
          2 16/08/89 X20.0
          3 28/10/03 X17.2
          4 07/09/05 X17
          5 06/03/89 X15.0
          5 11/07/78 X15.0
          6 15/04/01 X14.4
          7 24/04/84 X13.0
          7 19/10/89 X13.0
          8 15/12/82 X12.9
          9 06/06/82 X12.0
          9 01/06/91 X12.0
          9 04/06/91 X12.0
          9 06/06/91 X12.0
          9 11/06/91 X12.0
          9 15/06/91 X12.0
          10 17/12/82 X10.1
          10 20/05/84 X10.1
          11 29/10/03 X10
          11 25/01/91 X10.0
          11 09/06/91 X10.0
          12 09/07/82 X 9.8
          12 29/09/89 X 9.8
          13 22/03/91 X 9.4
          13 06/11/97 X 9.4
          14 24/05/90 X 9.3
          15 05/12/06 X 9.0
          15 06/11/80 X 9.0
          15 02/11/92 X 9.0
  • bigbill780, on 01/03/2008, -2/+4What kind of gas mileage does it get?

    1 highway, 0 city.
  • dichotom, on 01/03/2008, -3/+20I just bought a fleet of SUV's for all the managers at my tree cutting company.
  • jetboyterp, on 01/03/2008, -1/+13"The PETM phase was studied using sediments that had collected on the ocean floor, in what is now New Jersey."

    New Jersey...well THAT figures...
  • SemiSarcastic, on 01/03/2008, -4/+5How many does times does the world have to end/destroy humanity/blow up/witness the return of Christ in my lifetime? I'm mean seriously.
  • Wolfghost, on 01/03/2008, -6/+9"a global warming increase as a direct result of a rise in carbon dioxide levels"

    Inaccurate. Nothing like using half the truth to pimp your cause.

    The cause of PETM remains unknown. Increased carbon dioxide levels could be the primary cause, but it is more likely that the increase in carbon dioxide was a secondary effect, making the warming worse.
    • baalzebub, on 01/03/2008, -2/+7methane gas in the atmosphere is a greater threat than carbon dioxide...
  • lucutus, on 01/03/2008, -1/+5Coincidentally there was much fear mongering over the Japanese mining methane hydrate just before Christmas. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&si ...
  • ultralights, on 01/03/2008, -6/+24the climate WILL change, and there is NOTHING we can do about it...... its been happening since the beginning of the earth itself.
    • SemiSarcastic, on 01/03/2008, -2/+9...We're all going to die.
    • thebellmaster1x, on 01/03/2008, -3/+2Fantastic, but you realize that there are people who don't believe that all of our industrialization isn't helping anything, right?
      • ReCLaIM, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0There are people that believe that we shouldn't eat any mass-produced food either.. yet they go to jobs that would not be possible without it, drive cars that would not be possible without it and live in homes built by people who spent more time building the home to eat, than hunting to eat and not building the home. Belief's are stupid.. (my g/f is a veggie.. I know)
  • Shinraikan, on 01/03/2008, -11/+1Of course us as humans NOW are the only creatures to have EVER walked the planet that have technology strong enough to reduce this planet to a wasteland. Did you stop to think that perhaps there were people here before us? No, of course not because God wouldn't let that happen. We're his only children of course.

    History is doomed to repeat itself.
  • Heidenreich12, on 01/03/2008, -6/+11just shows how all the blame on humans for CO2 emissions is crap... and we should worry about other things (not saying that we shouldn't loose total focus of this)
  • dgh1973, on 01/03/2008, -1/+6"The most likely explanation is that carbon dioxide levels increased as a result of volcanic activity."

    Or a previous incarnation of humanoids that went underwater or into space when the ***** hit the fan, only to come back to find a new humanoid race replaced them and thought "wow, this is interesting, let's study them".

    Yeah, I'm probably a crackpot.
    • Acewrap, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1You probably are, but I dugg you up because your post amused me.
  • Tyrghast, on 01/03/2008, -7/+12oh ***** stop it already, global warming is just the hot new religion of the rich and famous...
    • vikingcoder, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Deriding matters of science as belief only shows your denial rather than refuting the science.
  • CanadianGuy, on 01/03/2008, -4/+3Isn't it ironic that we are only finding out about this now!!!! And since the earth is only 6000 years old it couldn't have happened!!!!!!
  • crazywarthog, on 01/03/2008, -6/+11Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

    Adolf Hitler
    • rustintable, on 01/03/2008, -2/+1co2 reflects heat.

      try it out it really works
      • ReCLaIM, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0Humidifiers are destroying the planet.. they produce water vapor.. go ahead and try it.. they do.
  • Deaus, on 01/03/2008, -1/+11Or maybe 55 million years ago was a strong spike in solar activity, which increased the temperature and carbon dioxide. Anyone who has looked at the numbers knows that solar activity, the temperature of the earth and carbon dioxide levels sync up. For as long as we have records of solar activity this is true. People like Al Gore would have you believe however that the fact that the suns output levels sync up with the heat level of the earth is mearly a coincidence and that the real culprit is CO2.

    Come on people. Politicians have agendas and push special interests. Gore is no exception. I'm all about going green, solar panels, wind power, high efficiency cars and getting off oil. But I'm not going to let my hate of OPEC override my ability to see the truth.
    • crazywarthog, on 01/03/2008, -2/+8 It's not about science or facts !!! It's about control, power and $$$. After all, who doesn't want to save the planet. A politician's dream scam.
    • ReCLaIM, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0Exactly... Its the Bible technique.. give people two options.. one good, and one bad.. and say they can choose.. but be sure to not let them know there are at least 3 options...
  • Reyshell, on 01/03/2008, -2/+2Damn Dinosaurs!!!
  • skyshock1, on 01/03/2008, -8/+10I'll skip the humans/global warming sarcasm non-sense and simply state that anyone who believes humans can directly affect global weather patterns and climate is incredibly arrogant.

    There, now everyone with an agenda can bury away.
    • EtherGnat, on 01/03/2008, -8/+5Of course man has the power to affect global warming patterns and climate. I guarantee you if we shoot off all our nuclear weapons it'll have a huge impact on the weather. Does that prove that what we're doing *is* affecting the climate? No, but it certainly proves you're ignorant if you think we don't have the power.
    • djbon2112, on 01/03/2008, -4/+7I won't bury, you speak the truth. People think we put out insane amounts of CO2 and such, but it's NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING compared to the rest of the atmosphere! We may be ***** up with deforestation and smog and such, but we're not going to turn the planet into Venus (as some doomsayers would have you believe)!
    • rholland356, on 01/03/2008, -4/+0Billions of humans burning off all that buried carbon sure as ***** can affect the climate, and it has.
      What is most important is that the climate will affect humans to a much greater degree. Before we die off, we will starve. Why? Because our good acreage will go bad before bad acreage becomes good enough to till.
  • Kallius, on 01/03/2008, -5/+10Obviously people had to have traveled back in time 55 million years, because only people can cause global warming.
    • EtherGnat, on 01/03/2008, -4/+4Nobody said only man could cause global warming. What is relevant is whether man is causing *today's* global warming, and more importantly if global warming is occurring is there anything we can do (and should do) to stop it regardless of the cause.
      • sp3rmizoid, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Instead of playing the "blame game" you should consider whether or not you really want the human race to survive for another 100 ~ 1000 years.
  • thehemi, on 01/03/2008, -7/+9Man-made global warming is such a political scam.
    • skinturtle, on 01/03/2008, -6/+1And all that pollution that is being pumped into the atmosphere is having no effect on any of it...

      Yeah right...lol

  • thebellmaster1x, on 01/03/2008, -8/+3What's wrong with you people? Humanity may not be the main cause of global warming, but if you don't think we contribute a great deal, you're just a blind idiot.
  • TwoDeuces, on 01/03/2008, -2/+0"The PETM phase was studied using sediments that had collected on the ocean floor, in what is now New Jersey."
    Call me a stickler... but if the rest of New Jersey is a toxic waste dump could it be that the sample of sediment is tainted with... well... with New Jersey?
  • styler5, on 01/03/2008, -1/+3The article is missing some key information. I was interested in estimates of how long it took for the Earth to recover.
    • vikingcoder, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Roughly a 100,000 years.

      Over a 10,000 to 20,000 year period, between 2000 and 5000 gigatons of carbon in the form of biogenic methane was released into the atmosphere. Sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and 8°C, and in the high Arctic, sea surface temperatures rose to a sub-tropical 23°C, or 73°F.

      http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/286 ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Ther ...
      • climateHeretic, on 01/06/2008, -2/+1Siince Methane is a short-life ( decade ) GHG show me the math on your rate of emisssion, then show me the forcing for methane and you will see they do not correllate at all, where is there evidence on the sea floor at depths over 600m, where methane hydrates are stable up to 30C, that this occurred. It is a theory that is based on the earth being in a "greenhouse" state for 20,000 years prior to the PETM as a result of CO2 levels 6 times what they are today and very different atmospheric composition. Changes in ocean currents also played a key role. It also is based on a completely different rate of solar activity then we experience today. Come on man it was 55 Million years ago, the continents were still being formed. Geological events were of significant magnitude to produce the elevated CO2 levels, such as the forming of the himalayan mountains and the tibetan plateau. I think the planet has changed significantly since then. This is the kind of thinking that created the AGW theory in the first place," the earth's climate has been static since the last Ice Age" then man showed up and things started changing, is a environmental fantasy.
        • vikingcoder, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1I suggest looking at provided references and learning the difference between a hypothesis & a theory.

          Those great changes you mentioned happened over tens of thousands to millions of years - not decades.

          "the earth's climate has been [relatively stable] since the last Ice Age then man showed up and things started changing" is what the evidence shows as fact. Denial does not change reality.
  • sandbags, on 01/03/2008, -2/+2I've got it. I know it sounds crazy but here it is....

    Aliens are terraforming our planet!!!
    Think about it.....yeah! see what I mean, not so crazy really is it?.
  • ness0013, on 01/03/2008, -2/+8You know, I'm all about saving the environment and everything because I truly do believe that humanity can have a profound effect on our carefully balanced habitat. However, mass media has a general tendency to blow things largely out of proportion and this applies even to global warming. I'm not saying that we are completely innocent in these recent fluctuations that are being observed in Earth's climate but I honestly consider many of these changes are simply out of our hands. Our planet has historically shown vast oscillations in weather conditions.

    For instance, there is evidence of cultivated peach growth in northern Europe over two millennia ago. And those of you who know anything about peaches, they require moderate to warm temperatures. Freezing will often kill the flowering buds which result in little or no harvest. How would such vegetation be possible today given the harsh temperatures found in such environments? It just simply is not feasible unless our global climate is constantly undergoing change.

    Do I believe we have played a responsible role in what we are experiencing in the present? Without question.
    Do I believe we are FULLY responsible? Absolutely not.

    I encourage all of you as my peers to understand the profound effect that humanity has and may continue to have on our climate but I also encourage you to not be so biased that the important facts become overlooked and disregarded. Go ahead and digg me down you tree loving hippies but understand that I too am very concerned for our future. As a refugee from Hurricane Katrina, I can fully appreciate the raw power of mother nature and how the effects of our careless disregard for our habitat can upset it. Nothing is scarier for me than the thought of human carelessness becoming the culprit for accelerating weather changes that directly result in massive death and displacement. This is something that is being seen today and it has become a truly shocking reality.

    Our climate WILL change.
    • sp3rmizoid, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Well,

      I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay.
      I sleep all night. I work all day.

      I cut down trees. I eat my lunch.
      I go to the lavatory.
      On Wednesdays I go shoppin'
      And have buttered scones with tea.

      I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay.
      I sleep all night. I work all day.

      I cut down trees. I skip and jump.
      I like to press wild flowers.
      I put on women's clothing
      And hang around in bars.

      I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay.
      I sleep all night. I work all day.

      I cut down trees. I wear high heels,
      Suspendies, and a brar.
      I wish I'd been a girlie,
      Just like my dear Papar.


      He sleeps all night and he works all day.
      And he jogs in New Jers..ayeee...ayeee.

      Etc, etc ....
  • sp3rmizoid, on 01/03/2008, -2/+1Yous wise guys have volcanos in Jersey? Cool!! Maybe I'll take a run down there this weekend to take in the sights and buy some cheap sweatpants and jogging attire.
  • ihitdet, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0"The PETM phase was studied using sediments that had collected on the ocean floor, in what is now New Jersey"
    Oh its always new jersey ISINT IT us mooks from jersey have feelings too!
    • sp3rmizoid, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1So sue HBO for making your state infamous.
  • pitlord, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1I didn't realize Bush had been in office that long.
    >.>
    I bet this was a result of Al Gore's birth. He was such a colicky baby.
    • sp3rmizoid, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Nah...
      Do me a favour?
      Quit drinking beer and go get some sleep.
      Thanks,
  • DTCNT, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Dugg for yet another indication that global warming is not caused by Human activities.
    Almost buried for inaccuracy: The rise in CO2 levels always FOLLOWS a warming period. It is not the cause of Warming but its result.

    Please see also http://www.digg.com/movies/The_Great_Global_Warmin ...
  • ThyLabyrinth, on 01/03/2008, -0/+41. Google for the list of people in the Council on Foreign relations (CFR) and let it sink in.
    2. CFR leaders have said on record that they employ the CO2/Global Warming scare to implement a "Carbon Tax" through the United Nations. That is a global tax on every human being.
    The avenue of CO2 scaremongering is perfect because FEAR is so overpowering to people we tend err on the side of caution and cough up the dough anyway.
    Global Warming (TM) is a scam to ultimately take away your rights and enslave humanity for the elites.
    (=you need to give up your right to "pollute" CO2 to save the earth) WTF?
  • KaJuN4, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4Ah so this is the stuff we can't hear over the sound of the eco-environmentalists ignoring all contradicting evidence while they're shoving guilt down our throats.
  • shauncorleone, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4I'm confused. Without modern currency, how did they sell carbon credits 55 million years ago to save the world?
    • Thud, on 01/03/2008, -1/+0Who ever said it was saved back then? Maybe if that global warming had not occurred back then, perhaps by now life on Earth would have evolved to a hyperintelligent species that had already inhabited other parts of the galaxy.
      Instead, global warming did occur 55 million years ago, and as a result, the best that Earth has been able to conjure up is a race of hairless apes who still think that digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
      (apologies to Douglas Adams)
  • tomservo51, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2No all the dinosaurs got together and formed something similar to the Kyoto protocol.
  • ChiefShaman, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1Just a note comparing the comments here to the comments on the article page itself... The comments of that page are FAR more intelligent than the ones on this page. I understand that many of them here are just joking around, but the remainder of the comments here sound like uninformed IDIOTS who must think that if they close their eyes hard enough that it will all just go away! As the article indicated, there where CONTRIBUTING FACTORS. Just as there are today with this round of Global Warming. Today, humans are one of the contributing factors.
  • zosia123, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0The very air that you are breathing was created by the planet's first microbial inhabitants, by the process of photosynthesis - using sunlight to convert carbon dioxide gas (as food) into oxygen (waste). This process took millions of years, but achieved a global atmospheric change from an atmosphere of Carbon Dioxide to one of Oxygen. This gave rise to more complex life forms, such as humans, who in turn, consume solid carbon as food, use oxygen to burn it, and release carbon dioxide as waste (what you breathe out).

    The problem now, is that we've taken that model to burn solid carbon and variants, to power our world, releasing MASSIVE amounts of carbon dioxide in the process. In other words, the carbon that was locked up in rocks and trees is being re-released back into the atmosphere much faster than it is being converted by plants back into oxygen.

    Using the planet's heating/cooling history over the past 55 million years to illustrate the point that global warming of today is not of our doing is simply inapplicable. Global warming has accelerated in the last 100 years, which incidentally co-incides with the large-scale industrial, coal-burning growtht of the last 100 years. What's the next argument, that a looong loong time ago, our planet was a molten ball of magma, and so global warming is just a natural planetary pattern?

    Greenhouse gases aside, I'd be much more and immediately concerned about the toxic environment that we are creating.

    Just look at China.
    • ReCLaIM, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0Know what else has accelerated over the last 100 years? Our ability to tell accurate temperature and keep accurate records.. Maybe Global warming is not real.. maybe we just werent very good at determining temps 100 years ago.
  • amightywind, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Scary! I know what we should do. Lets all send 25% of our income to post-national institutions like the UN and Greenpeace. That'll set things right.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.