digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

See the original image at ucsdnews.ucsd.edu —

A Warming Climate Can Support Glacial Ice

ucsdnews.ucsd.edu — New research indicates glacial ice existed on earth during intense period of global warming.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • vade79, on 01/13/2008, -10/+654 diggs and no comments, odd...a little TOO odd.
  • purpmint008, on 01/13/2008, -6/+33I could give two ***** about global warming.
    No one really cares about global warming.
    "Climate Change" or not, I don't care.
    I demand an alternative to oil.
    Rather than bickering about whether or not global warming is real, can we just agree that we need something other than oil?
    • GeneralFailure0, on 01/13/2008, -7/+17See, I disagree in that I do believe that global warming is a valid concern, but you're still right on the money. We NEED to find new cleaner, more efficient energy alternatives in order to alleviate our dependency on foreign oil, to strengthen and diversify our economy, and to help the environment.
    • DucoNihilum, on 01/13/2008, -3/+10You can demand this with the market- not with government.
      • centerblack, on 01/13/2008, -10/+6The government should be our tool to control the market.
        Lately it seems to be the market controlling the people though doesn't it?
        • InferiorWang, on 01/13/2008, -3/+1Whether or not you think the gov't should be a tool in governing the market, it's not the only tool. And it has always been a property of the market the early adopters pay more, but someone has to pay for the technology to develop.
          • norman619, on 01/13/2008, -3/+2Nuh uh! It's supposed to be free and painless.
      • beardedfish, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1The fallacy of the free market argument is that it isn't free. Companies get the government to tweak laws or even write legislation themselves. Companies have tons of cash with which to bribe, I mean lobby, officials or squash competition. Certainly a command economy (USSR or mid century Japan) does not work, but neither does laissez faire. The government has a role to play in stimulating the market into a certain direction.
    • norman619, on 01/13/2008, -5/+6"I demand an alternative to oil."

      Well, I want a Unicorn. I have a better chance of getting a Unicorn than you do of getting your oil alternative which can satisfy the world need.
      • wrongonce, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Yea, but he "demanded" and alternative.
        Gotcha there, mate.
  • poopythecat, on 01/13/2008, -13/+0Here is my commment :)
  • bowe, on 01/13/2008, -17/+18You have to listen to me! ManBearPig is REAL!
    • bowe, on 01/13/2008, -14/+4I'm serial guys. I'm really serial.
    • rationalist, on 01/13/2008, -7/+4That shtick was old when the Earth was Young - 6,000 years ago.
  • Shissler, on 01/13/2008, -15/+2past global warming? I didn't know Haliburton had been around that long.
    • neXion, on 01/13/2008, -6/+2idiot
    • Jamihabs, on 01/13/2008, -3/+6Oh yes, Haliburton dates back to the Cretaceous period, where the Bush and Cheney family's were laying the ground-work for big oil.
    • DucoNihilum, on 01/13/2008, -1/+3facepalm.jpg
  • RonObvious, on 01/13/2008, -1/+4I guess everyone is reading “Isotopic Evidence for Glaciation During the Cretaceous Supergreenhouse” rather than commenting.
  • declawedpaw, on 01/13/2008, -7/+27Climate change is great. Now, no matter what happens: warming, cooling, or nothing, it's America's fault! Sweet.
    • norman619, on 01/13/2008, -1/+5No no no it's all the farting cattle. And the lazy trees.
      • wrongonce, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1I once saw "Lazy Trees" in concert. Never did catch a "Farting Cattle" show, my mom was totally against that part of the act where they milked the audience.
  • fr0mundacheese, on 01/13/2008, -14/+25Algore, give your B.S. award back.
  • DucoNihilum, on 01/13/2008, -9/+18You mean we're NOT all going to die?

    NO WAY!
    • Jamihabs, on 01/13/2008, -6/+7Sorry, we are all going to die... someday. Hopefully from old age. Doubtfully from Global Warming.
  • ssravp, on 01/13/2008, -9/+12I think most people would agree that global warming exists, it is just a matter as to the extent that humans are to blame. I don't think we are as big a cause of it than some people would have you believe.
    • centerblack, on 01/13/2008, -8/+6S P E C U L A T I O N

      on all sides.

      It's irrelevant. There's no reason why we shouldn't be devoting more resources towards scientific research regarding alternative fuels, investing in universities that are working on the next energy revolution, and using efficient green construction techniques.

      Better than 8 years of pointless warfare to line the coffers of a select few defense contractors IMO.
      • danconia, on 01/13/2008, -3/+4Well no one is keeping you from donating, are they?
      • norman619, on 01/13/2008, -4/+5Stop driving your car and stop heating your home with oil products. Revert to an Amish lifestyle. This is what the environmentalists seem to want us to do.
  • BShack85, on 01/13/2008, -10/+2How would they know what the temperature was 19 million years ago they can't this has already been said by the NAS and AAAS we can only know from A.D. 900 to current. DO the math this is less then 19 million years. It was also said by this organization that this has been the WARMEST 400 years on record. So could it be possible that we could create a warmer climate then since we have added to the mess with green house gasses yes. So could the glacial ice melt if its warmer... YES. WTF you all are stupid... ok know im done ranting.
  • StrangeFamous, on 01/13/2008, -9/+13It's great that ice could possibly exist with warmer surface temperatures, but that doesn't change the fact that we're mining all the solid carbon in the ground and converting it to gas, gradually converting our own atmosphere to one that's inhabitable for most lifeforms (kinda like reverse terraforming)

    Whether or not you think that global warming is real... Climate change is most definitely happening, and we can't ignore it, regardless of whether you think it's man made or natural.
    • Digitel, on 01/13/2008, -2/+3and you think we can change it?
    • wrongonce, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Climate change has always happened. There are many data to support this.
      We can't ignore it because we get wet from time to time as a result of this change.
      Climate change is more natural than you are.
  • TrevorBradley, on 01/13/2008, -7/+10Are you kidding? OK, I'm one of the "global warming nuts" but not even I would suggest that all the glaciers would melt in North America. That's crazy talk.

    *If* all the glaciers melted, I'd be worried about runaway greenhouse effect. *No-one* is suggesting that.

    Please show me a climate change model that shows complete melting of North America's glaciers before you label climate change as bunk based on a study showing glaciers existed at warm periods in the past.
    • danconia, on 01/13/2008, -2/+14Um but the article asserted that during this period of WARMING that the sea level decreased. That runs contrary to one of the major pillars of Global Warming alarmism that argues that GW would cause increases in sea level. How do you address this evidence that contradicts what Al Gore is preaching?
      • norman619, on 01/13/2008, -2/+8You are spouting blasphemy. Prepare to be dugg down.
      • TrevorBradley, on 01/13/2008, -3/+2I don't know. The scientists in the article don't know. It's a good scientific mystery. I have some of my own ideas. I have a hard time believing that even at a thermal maximum that Earth's cycles of ice ages would not occur somewhere on the planet.

        I don't know how to reconcile gravity with quantum theory either. It doesn't mean the theory of gravity is full of crap.

        Given that the Cretaceous was so different from today: Much higher CO2. Sea levels 200 meters (650 feet!) higher than today, I can't see how this will radically change our understanding of the current climate. Discovering that ice can form somewhere on the earth in such extreme (from our perspective) global conditions is fascinating. It will help us improve our understanding of planetary climatology. But I get the sense it will be more about why the Earth hasn't had a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus, rather than debunking existing understanding of climate science today.

        Climate change's temperature effects are very regional. Predictions for my own country (Canada) show anywhere from 3-7 degree Celcius (6-12F) increase in temperature. The arctic melting is practically happening in our back yard... and the worst case models for change never predicted for these changes to happen so rapidly. Climate change is staring us right in the face and it's no longer possible to ignore that something is happening and happening very quickly on a geological time scale.

        I'm no zealot. Forget the politics, and for the FSM's sake forget Al Gore. Look at the science in it's totality. Don't let individual reports make you throw out all existing evidence, ("This single article I don't quite understand proves that all climate change science is false!"). That's an Intelligent Design strategy and you know it. Aside from all the politics and rhetoric, there's an actual explanation for what's happening that fits with all the data. With new, strange (and oh my how this is strange) data, our climate models will change, **and that's a good thing**. Otherwise, it isn't science, it's dogma.
    • skeptic2525, on 01/13/2008, -1/+1Actually, the article is referring to the polar ice sheets. It does not state that glaciers still existed in North America during the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum.
  • sporg, on 01/13/2008, -7/+11In other news a recent trip to the north pole revealed that it feels just as cold there now as it did 200 years ago. Disappointed global warming fanatics were urged to either drink the Kool aid now or find a new cult.
  • djdedeo0, on 01/13/2008, -9/+8We're all going to die! Ahhhhhhhhh. You must all buy Gores dvd and make him a billionaire. Ahhhh hurry.
  • TrevorBradley, on 01/13/2008, -3/+5Actually, on third thought, I'm not sure how this is used as an argument against global warming. Logically, at best we could deduce "If the glaciers are eliminated, the cause is unlikely to be natural". The earth not being warm enough in the past to melt all glaciers is expected without extra man made CO2 in the atmosphere.

    More interesting scientific results to dispute climate change would be evidence of rapid increases in earths temperature and rapid melts in the past.
    • danconia, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2Do we have absolute proof that CO2 levels today are higher today than they were during this period in the Cretaceous when the temperature was more than 10 degrees warmer than today? In fact are we even positive CO2 is what causes GW and not GW that causes increases in CO2? You might be sold on these points but there is so much junk science going around that I certainly wouldn't place money on these sorts of assertions.
      • TrevorBradley, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1Oh no, Cretaceous level CO2 was much much higher. And yes, there was very little (but apparently not NO ice) in the past.

        I is lozer, didn't read the article before posting. :|

        However, my point still stands. All this is telling us is that temperatures can rise to +10C and we'll still, occasionally have glacial ice forming. It doesn't tell us anything about future CO2 levels. And I'm also certain that no climate scientists (except the ones who study Venus) say temperatures will rise to those levels any (geological) time soon.
  • Necoras, on 01/13/2008, -7/+10What people seem to forget when talking about glaciers melting is that Greenland was called that for a reason... It was green... within written human memory. Not 50 thousand years ago, not 10 thousand years ago. Less than 5. Likely less than 2. The ice caps weren't always there, and they'll melt again. There have been mass extinctions before, and there will be again. The earth runs on cycles. We're in the middle of a moderate one. We're after the Little Ice Age. We're on the cusp of the next warming period. Did we nudge it forward a bit? Maybe. But more than likey the Earth was headed that way anyways. I'm just glad to be along for the ride.
    • rationalist, on 01/13/2008, -6/+3The actual climate data refutes your claim.
    • facewarts, on 01/13/2008, -4/+5Please don't confuse the dumb schmucks with facts. They "feel" there is global warming so there is global warming.
    • JoeVet, on 01/13/2008, -3/+5A quick reality check shows that Greenland's ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old and covers 95% of that island, so just how different could it have been only 1000 years ago? http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/greenlan ...
    • cameraflyer77, on 01/23/2008, -0/+0Best comment Necoras. Does warming matter? I can't say, and neither can Gore. Fear makes people buy and do fear-filled things. That's not saving the world; that's stuffing pockets. Just do your part, I'll do my part and we can feel good about it. China would do anything but pollute so what's the point of driving a hybrid? One volcanic eruption emits more CO2 than all the cars in... China! What about when Quait was burned by Iraq. What was the carbon footprint of that monster? May he hang in peace. Interesting underwater blog: http://hd2o.tv/flog

  • UnterDenLinden, on 01/13/2008, -7/+5OMFg teh golbal warmin iz a lie!!!111
    Al Gore is retarded noob!!!
  • darksydxx, on 01/13/2008, -1/+7I'm gutting my catalytic converter as we speak ! and my mom's car too.
    • Railer, on 01/13/2008, -0/+3Now take that the car and run a tree over.
  • facewarts, on 01/13/2008, -9/+13Sorry boys and girls. Global warming is not about science or fact !

    It's about scaring the masses in order to control, tax and gain more power over all you dumb schmucks !!!

    It's the perfect political scam. After all .... who doesn't want to save the earth !
    • fuzzmeister, on 01/13/2008, -8/+5Do you deny that the planet is getting warmer? The data is there, it isn't a conspiracy.
      • Digitel, on 01/13/2008, -3/+4wrong
      • Railer, on 01/13/2008, -3/+4Do you deny the climate aways changes?
        Do you deny all previous interglacial periods have been warmer than the current one?
        Do you deny warming in 1910 through 1940 accelerated at the same rate as it is currently?
        Do you deny ocean levels are not rising dramatically as predicted?

        You may want to look into your science before you start with the denier *****
  • rationalist, on 01/13/2008, -9/+10So amusing to see the denialists reaction to a scientific article like this.

    On the one hand, it is instantly credible in their minds because they think (incorrectly, btw) that it supports their denialism - while at the same time all scientific articles that refute their denialism are not credible.

    On the other hand, they ignore the fact that the very publication of this article shows how science works - by reviewing the *evidence* - all of it - and letting it guide the conclusions - not the other way around.

    First of all, these findings will be peer-reviewed and studied. They may end up being inaccurate - or the conclusion may end up being erroneous. Or, this data will be logically reconciled with other data and a rationally consistent explanation will be suggested.

    What will not happen is for reality to suddenly change, and for all the decades of evidence collected by thousands of researchers all over the world to suddenly morph into something else.

    Reality being that which, when you cease to believe in it, still exists. Reality also being a state with which many of the commenters on this thread have but a glancing familiarity.
  • danconia, on 01/13/2008, -3/+11Wow that seemed like an incredibly unbiased article. Perhaps the first of this kind to talk about Global Warming.
    I guess we all should have been suspicious when a politician was appointed as the spokesperson for the subject.
  • tunapez, on 01/13/2008, -2/+1No ice please, make it neat.
  • SemiSarcastic, on 01/13/2008, -5/+1Well of course we can have a hot/semi arid planet, I mean just look at Mars.
    • TrevorBradley, on 01/13/2008, -0/+2Actually, Mars is cold/arid. Like Antarctica, much of which happens to be a desert with little to no precipitation.
  • muchachoburacho, on 01/13/2008, -6/+3I can't understand how this has happened. I've known about man made global warming since i was in grade school. It is fact, there is no question to that. Ever since al gore came out with his ***** movie everyone's hopping on this anti al gore platform, and completely denying all scientific reason. Plus this article never denied the existence of man made global. All this article implied was that we may not have accurate predictions of how much ice will melt and seas will rise. I don't understand why it has become so insanely popular to be anti climate change.
    • WindyT, on 01/13/2008, -2/+3You can see how rapid the sea has risen at Sydney, Australia harbor over the last 120 years
      http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends ...
      So when scientists discuss sea level rising, you can bet your bottom dollar that chart isn't whipped out, right? Admittedly, it's just one point on the globe and it could be that Sydney harbor just happens to be rising up at nearly exactly the rate the sea level is. Consistantly.

      I started getting skeptical when I found out that 2/3 of the Global Climate Models were using "fudge factors", but it's not clear as to the amount of "fudging" going on with the various models.

      If you'd like to see how much the GCMs vary on their predictions as compared to the IPCC's total predictions, go here
      http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/a-s ...
      where you can find that some models have matched the IPCC's predictions and which have not.
      You may have made up your mind, but allow others to check the math. The error(s) with some models, and their hidden fudge factors may exceed acceptable limits for unwavering belief for some.
  • remotehuman, on 01/13/2008, -1/+0New News In: A warming climate can now somehow support snow armies
  • Telexen, on 01/13/2008, -1/+6This has been known for a while...at least by anyone who can put two and two together.
    How else do they think we've been able to measure temperatures and CO2 content in our atmosphere for the last 650,000 years, during which there have been six (we're in the 7th) full interglacial cycles (periods of warmth after ice ages)? Ice cores had to have survived during interglacial periods for this to be possible.
    It's unbelievable how anti-environment buffoons will use studies and facts that actually support global warming to argue against it.
    • wrongonce, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1You get an "F" for not reading the article and/or not understanding it.
      91MM>>650k.

      "deposited on the ocean floor 91 million years ago during the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum. This extreme warming event in Earth’s history raised tropical ocean temperatures to 35-37°C (95-98.6°F), about 10°C (18°F) warmer than today..."

      "“Until now it was generally accepted that there were no large glaciers on the poles prior to the development of the Antarctic ice sheet about 33 million years ago,” said Richard Norris, professor of paleobiology at Scripps Oceanography and co-author of the study. “This study demonstrates that even the super-warm climates of the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum were not warm enough to prevent ice growth.”"
  • LemonDefragger, on 01/13/2008, -2/+3Hooray! Time to break out aerosol cans again!
  • Goodanswer, on 01/13/2008, -3/+1YES!... I still get to have ICE in my jack and coke's.
  • facewarts, on 01/13/2008, -1/+2This is not about facts or science. It's about control of the masses, political power building, bureaucratic funding and trillions of dollars in new taxes and mandates. The absolute perfect politician's dream scam. This is why they have almost all jumped on the global warming / climate change bandwagon,

    After all ... who doesn't want to save the earth ?
  • JonForTheWin, on 01/13/2008, -2/+1>on earth during intense period of global warming.

    You mean global warming has occurred in the past without humans? Gee never would have guessed . .
  • cameraflyer77, on 01/24/2008, -0/+0I'm sure human impact is real, but the hype is about money and power. Gore did what Michael Moore does; present one side as truth. And to disagree with ANY part is like calling the earth flat and demanding equal time. Drive a hybrid if you want, but China, India, Mexico, won't do a damn thing to help. So what's the point?
  •  

    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.