What is Digg?46 Comments
- kazem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14It'd have a better plot and acting though.
- johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9In the past, people dumped whatever they wanted to into the oceans and rivers. After all, why not? The oceans are so vast, and we are so small, nothing we could do could effect the planet.
Now we have mercury poisoning, we had people getting sick, and rivers catching on fire which caused the environmental laws to be strengthened.
We used to think that strip mining wouldn't cause problems, because there was so much land out there, and we're so small. Now there are farms in Montana and elsewhere that have poisened land from cyanide used to leech materials from the mines, and it will take billions to fix it.
So while we are a small species, we have more impact than we think - and the problem is that without some "doom and gloom", people don't react. It wasn't until the Hudson river caught on fire that people realized there was a need for environmental laws with teeth and the need to get companies to clean up their messes (which has been severaly weakened over the last 6 years).
If I'm right, and there is a problem, then we spend the energy to become more energy efficient (public transportation, higher miles per gallon, more alternative energy) - this can be done without "destroying the economy" I've seen people scream about. If anything, it will probably help it out (look at how Ford is doing, compared to other companies that jumped on the more energy efficient cars a few years ago instead of pursueing gas guzzlers, and imagine if America were the #1 exporter of energy efficient devices - instead of just the #1 consumer).
If you're right, then it doesn't matter - but I'd rather be wise and prudent then wait until every glacier vanishes and those that live on the coast find themselves treading water. Besides, I'm sure that Mother Earth will go on - the question is, will She keep us around after screwing her over for so long. *That's* the more pressing problem. - Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6and the glacier water people used to drink is now in the ocean. Things are never that simple. In ecology everything affects everything else.
- splammo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I was just at glacier national park. Many of their glaciers have decreased by more than %50 in the last few decades. An independent study came in and ran a bunch of different models. The most conservative one estimated that all of the glaciers would be completely gone by 2030. That is 24 years, which is well within most of our lifetimes. I am not positive but I think Glacier National Park contains almost all (at least the majority) of the glaciers.
@RadiantBeing - in a century we may have the solution, but 24 years may be a long time in technology but something needs to be implemented or changed well before then to solve this problem. - brendanc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Wow, water world might be coming sooner than we think...
- c5mjohn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It is assuredly a combination of both factors (and more). But the primary reason is deforestation.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16905 - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10A century ago, people could hardly have imagined nuclear fission and fusion, solar power, jet airplanes, space flight, mass-produced automobiles, genetic engineering, or the personal computer but we're supposed to panic about something that might happen 100 years from now? Call it a hunch but I have a feeling 100 years worth of technological advancement will sort us out.
- c5mjohn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ice melting on Kilimanjaro has not been caused by global warming but rather deforestation at it's base.
- craig870, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@blahblah
From a "stupid American". Educate yourself please http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ - blahblah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Um, they have found ways of understanding history by observing the marks it makes... the core ice sample from the arctic showed that carbon dioxide levels are higher now than they have ever been in the history that has been recorded in ice.
And once again, you and every other stupid American has confused weather predicting with climate modelling.
If we base all of our political opinions on "Well, it seems to me that if..." then we are gonna seriously ***** things over. - KenMo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I blame Bush.. oh yeah... and Haliburton.
Whew. I feel better already. Now where did I park my Hummer? - imightbewrong, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5i think these global warming stories are getting a little out of hand, but then again i had snow in my yard six months ago and now its like 100 degrees out!
- tonyspencer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We know glaciers have come and gone before, from geology.
The IPCC finds that generally, non-polar glaciers are retreating, although there are some local anomalies, and in some areas eg Norway and New Zealand, they are expanding, as are most polar glaciers, although as pointed out, less than half of the world's glaciers have been inventoried.
Also, they showed that glacier behaviour lags behind temperature change, and whilst it's early stages for work on determining the amount, early analysis indicates lag periods of between 10 and 70 years, which means the melting does not follow any of the established temperature rise data sets: global warming would have to have started half a century before we see it occurring.
Plus, high altitude glaciers are still retreating despite temperatures in the upper part of the atmosphere where they occur dropping over the same timeframe.
The supposed temperature rise also seems very consistent with not only short term (1,500 year) cycles, but also the long term 110,000 years cycles (highs for which are due to occur right about now) as well as many of the intermediate term cycles.
As in for the CO2 measurements, which rely on Greenland ice cores from GRIP and GISP 2, there is this from the GISP 2 site:
"The C mean annual air temperature at Summit and minimal occurrence of melt layers throughout the record assure the in-situ preservation of a broad range of gaseous, soluble and insoluble measures of the paleoenvironment."
However, I wonder what the effect of the temperature due to drilling, mechanical handling of the samples, and especially the fact that the cores no longer have the pressure of 3km of ice above them has on the pressure within the ice, such that many of the bubbles may therefore have been caused post-drilling, distorting the data...
It's a bit like the fact that we can't look at most species of deep water marine life, because the pressure difference in bringing them to the surface destroys them. - KenMo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why wait for Politicians? If it's so important, go out and get started. Lead by example, instead of waiting for the Government to solve all of your problems.
- szelij, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The glaciers at the poles are expanding though....explains where all the water goes to.
- etruscan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Kilimanjaro's glaciers aren't expected to last the next 15 years.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"they have only been keeping track of global temperature for about 80 years"
???
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png - Jiggles1875, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4they have only been keeping track of global temperature for about 80 years.
The problem I have with the whole global warming argument is that they are using
80 years of data to summarize 1,000 years of climate change. It simply is not good science.
Furthermore, i find global warming and climate change to be logically flawed
for the following reason: We don't have the technology to predict
the weather 2 weeks from today yet global warming fanatics expect us to
believe they can predict the weather and climate 50 or 100 years from now?
that doesn't make sense to me.
There is also proof that the greenland ice sheet is growing and the avg temp of the earth has only risen 1.4F in the past 100 years. - longboarder543, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I never liked those glacier things anyway. THEY MOVE!
- schloemoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4johnhummel, I think you miss my point, I never said that we should not take care of the earth, in fact I quite clearly stated that we should. I however do not believe that we can destroy the earth in 100 years and then fix it in another, that's just stupid. Your last paragraph I believe is the most insightful.. The earth, I believe, will continue to thrive, will we?
- c5mjohn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are 27 glaciers in Glacier National Park, down from 150 in 1850. There are 497 glaciers in California. There are 160,000 glaciers in the world of which 67,000 have been inventoried.
- schloemoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Like I said, don't give yourself too much credit.
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Air_Quality/Older/Natural_Air_Pollution.html - Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3And you could die within the next hundred years... Key word being could
- orangeu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2schloemoe,
You are right! Mother nature can take care of herself. The earth has had a balanced eco-system for thousands of years. The problem is that the balance is being disrupted by human intervention. Everything we are doing is contributing to that unbalance, and she can only do so much! - shefftim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Have a look at this article that reports that the tropics have expanded - based on the fact that the jet streams have moved 70 miles towards their respective poles.
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0526-climate.html - shefftim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Have a look at this article that reports that Greenland is benefiting from warming:
"The 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit rise in temperatures over the past 30 years has extended the growing season by two weeks while melting glaciers have exposed land for grazing and warmer seas enable fishermen to catch warm-water cod."
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0718-greenland.html - distrbnce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"all BUT disappear"
Isn't that a good thing...? - splammo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My bad I didn't mean all glaciers period. I meant in the United States, and it was totally unsubstantiated guessing. Good call on the correction. However I don't think that the glaciers in California would have a particularly different fate.
- etruscan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" question. If the glaciers had never started melting in the first place, would it have mattered that deforestation had sapped the glaciers of moisture-laden winds? In other words -if something isn't disappearing you shouldn't need to replenish it.
I'm of the mind that deforestation around the Tanzania area is certainly at fault for hindering the regrowth of the ice caps. I also believe that global warming is making them disappear. - shefftim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Have a look at this article that says the tropics are expanding:
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0526-climate.html - HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1New York State is fairly usable don't you think?
- Anamith, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"It's like boxing a glacier. Enjoy that metaphor, by the way, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier is."
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"Ice melting on Kilimanjaro has not been caused by global warming but rather deforestation at it's base."
Its probably a combination of both factors. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2IF.
- Doofy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+41750: The Little Ice Age is ending and the glaciers are beginning to retreat.
1794: Captain George Vancouver of the H.M.S. Discovery, along with Lt. Joseph Whidbey, describes Glacier Bay as "a compact sheet of ice as far as the eye could distinguish". Glacier Bay is a mere 5-mile indentation in the coastline.
1879: John Muir records his "discovery" of Glacier Bay. The glacial ice has retreated up into the bay 40 miles from where Whidbey saw it.
So what could have melted 40 miles of that galcier between 1794 and 1879?
Be careful, If you answer "The Sun", you lose all your government grant money.
http://www.nps.gov/glba/indepth/learn/about/history/timeline.htm - duzytata, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Yeah, but it will take a 100 years to get politicians to do anything so we have to start now! ;-)
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1up your ass
- kadio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1not when we dont panic and then act
- schloemoe, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7For some reason I think Mother Earth is in more control of herself than we think we are. I appreciate the need to recycle and take care of the earth, it is our stewardship, however the world has been around a heck of a lot longer than we have, maintaining its own ecosystem along the way. This whole gloom and doom that we hear about the glaciers and ozone and such seems to me to be a little ridiculous. Let's stop giving ourselves so much credit and realize we are just a mite on the back of an elephant, we do not control where it moves, we just make it's back itch.
- W00K13, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2hey schloemoe, 6,000,000,000 mites all producing pollutants and waste everyday is alot, no matter how you slice it.
Mommy, what was snow like? - circeus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4And this just in... Al Gore Sprouts Wings and a Halo!!!
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Imagine if today's crop of environuts were around when the glaciers covering North America were melting.
Hello. When a glacier melts, the land underneath it becomes usable again. - splammo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Think about where many of the glaciers are. Very severe terrain. I don't know how "usable" the land becomes.
- c5mjohn, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Antarctica has over 90 per cent of the ice in the world. Since Antarctica is expanding that should negate much of the sea level rise from melting glaciers in other parts of the world.
- kampfy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Except when you realize that every major advancement in science usually comes at a detriment to the environment. What was the last pro-environment scientific achievement...solar energy? What can those power so far? iPods?
- KriLL3.2™, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Key word here is "Could"
All two hundred thousand million million million million billion trillion atoms that compose the earth could suddenly, simultaneously and spontaneously cease to exist (10^10)^100 to one odds on that one, I dunno how much larger the odds of this are, not alot I'd say.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
