What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Windows 7 Needs An Extra Layer of Security view!
free.avg.com - AVG Anti-Virus Free 9.0 works with Windows 7, to provide the best protection against web threats.
159 Comments
- Anomaly100, on 04/11/2009, -10/+28"Historically, a large “core” of sea ice survived the summer. Around the margins of the perennial ice, new ice forms each winter and melts each summer"
No matter the amount of proof, this will be put in political terms instead of environmental where it belongs. Relatively soon, it may be too late to do anything if we don't work this out. We've got an outrageously beautiful planet to live on. Respecting it, just isn't that hard to do. Shouldn't we be thinking in terms of "whatever it takes, we'll do it" instead of debating this by now? - HuangFeng, on 04/11/2009, -2/+18Oddly the article you refer to has better charts that the one above, and there is still a large drop in the old ice from 2007 to 2009, which goes directly against what your article is trying to say.
- roostersheep, on 04/11/2009, -5/+20Well of course it hit a record low, it's ***** melting.
- osteor10, on 04/11/2009, -1/+15I see a vase, nope now 2 faces, nope a vase again.
- Trent1492, on 04/11/2009, -1/+12Must you just blatantly lie? From the National Sea Ice Data Center we find the following:
"Sea ice extent averaged over the month of March 2009 was 15.16 million square kilometers (5.85 million square miles). This was 730,000 square kilometers (282,000 square miles) above the record low of 2006, but 590,000 square kilometers (228,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
So unless you mean by " a while" the record low of 2006 then your a propaganda swallowing ideologue. - OffensivePrick, on 04/11/2009, -4/+13That sounds like you're talking about permafrost tundra, rather than sea ice...are you sure you're clear about what you're talking about...?
- williepepper, on 04/11/2009, -9/+18This is out of control.
There's only one thing to do.
Every year thousands of acres of trees get burned down here in the USA.
Those trees formerly sucked up CO2, but now theyre dead and burned, which produces lots of greenhouse gas.
We need to FINE THE FIREFIGHTERS because THEY AREN'T DOING THEIR JOBS.
It's obvious, if they wanted to put out a fire they could, but hey, if they sit on theyir asses they can get more overtime pay, so there's no insentive to put out the fire.
But if we fine them for every acre that gets charred we'd have money for the tax coffers and less greenhouse gas.
Oh, and they need to do more walking, those fire trucks also make lots of bad gasses. - biotch, on 04/11/2009, -6/+15oh .... < .1% huh? .... Is that how much of our total carbon emissions comes from power generators and gas powered vehicles?
No.
And how is creating a renewable energy industry in our own economy going to destroy our economy as compared with buying the vast majority of our oil from foreign countries? - Trent1492, on 04/11/2009, -4/+12How about the one where sea side cities are BESIDE the water and not underneath it. How about the one where agriculture has developed is NOW. Is this concept really that difficult for you guys?
- inactive, on 04/10/2009, -29/+35Global warming deniers have no leg to stand on.
- riot, on 04/11/2009, -4/+10I do not know how many people are here from canada but in western canada this has been one of the longest winters on record.
We have had - 40 C (-40F) weather about 4 different times for a few days at each time. He hit it in December, January, and February
We had snow in October and we still have snow in April. That is more than 6 months of winter. If 6 months of winter can not produce ice what can.
- Doofy, on 04/12/2009, -1/+6Both these headlines are true. Notice how they always use the "scariest" one.
1) Amount of Old Ice in Arctic Hits Record Low in Feb '09
2) Amount of New Ice in Arctic Hits Record High in Feb '09.
BTW the "old ice" doesn't just sit and melt in place at the "hot" arctic, it get blown/drifts towards Greenland and down the coast into the Atlantic and it melts down there.
Wind and ocean currents have much more to do with the Arctic ice cap than temperature.
These are things the alarmists deliberately don't tell you. - WasabiBomb, on 04/11/2009, -2/+7Actually, it doesn't. Old ice doesn't have near as much salt in it as new ice.
- Logrusmage, on 04/11/2009, -1/+6I get it, and therefore I lold.
- daonlyfreez, on 04/11/2009, -1/+6Too. That would be the methane on the bottom of the ocean "melting" because of the acidification.
Educate yourself:
http://wakeupfreakout.org/ - Scruffydan, on 04/11/2009, -1/+6nonono ice accumulates in the arctic every winter. Then melts away in the summer.
What is happening now is that there is less ice (by volume) in the winter, and thus very little of it survives the summer melt season. - compulsive1, on 04/11/2009, -10/+14Do you even understand the essence of what you just read in the article?
Old (2 years old is not that old BTW) ice has been replaced by new ice. The overall amount of ice has not diminished - and it has grown recently- reversing the trend. Of course it's new ice- it has replaced old ice that has melted. In two years this new ice will be considered old ice again since it will melt less and less as the cooling trend progresses.
It's just grasping at straws and looking to find a doom and gloom angle in this set of observations. - Trent1492, on 04/12/2009, -0/+4"Let's cut to the chase and why don't you just state what you believe the necessary number of years is required to demonstrate a trend. Do you think a moving average of 3 years, 5 years..... what... is necessary?"
How about what the professionals define it. Thirty years. - offrdbandit, on 04/11/2009, -6/+10If it's not worth debating, why bother making your post? Or is it just not worth disagreeing with you?
- inactive, on 04/11/2009, -1/+5...old ice...that reminds me, I have to clean out my freezer.
- PorchSong, on 04/11/2009, -6/+10@Trent1492
And the sea has always been at current level? And how about the time when crop production occurred in the middle ages in latitudes much higher than today? It is simply amazing and arrogant how you take 20-40 years of data and think you can make "accurate" predictions concerning the Earth's climate. Even the most beginner statistician would laugh at you. That sampling verses the billions of years the earth has been around doesn't merit comment.
But still, you can not tell me the optimal temperature of the planet, can you? - Trent1492, on 04/11/2009, -5/+9How prosperous do think the people are going to be if whole are made uninhabitable?
- YZBot, on 04/11/2009, -1/+5To be more honest, 2008 had a higher minimum ice extent than in 2007. That means we gained about 400-500,000 square kilometers of multiyear ice from the low in 2007. Watching this years melt should help determine if it was just a fluke.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent ...
This website provides a view of the daily arctic sea ice extent. - Trent1492, on 04/11/2009, -2/+6Correction should have said:
How prosperous do think the people are going to be if whole areas are made uninhabitable? - Trent1492, on 04/12/2009, -0/+3"I Ike how dropped your arguments that NOAA and GISS are the same and that NOAA, being the same, You're right: people can read the comments above. Very big of you, since that was most of the discussion."
Good grief man! Where do you get the idea I ever dropped it? Do you believe if you just make stuff up that it is true. 2/3 of my last post was concerned with that very issue and yet you insist that I dropped it? Your a moron.
"corrects for UHI without conceding them and changed the subject."
Do you remember that part where I quote from GISS about UHI? No. Well then, let us copy and paste again.
From NASA:
"This derived error bar only addressed the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements. As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming"
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
See? Not only do the recognize it they take measure to correct for it. Like I said you are a moron. So let me see NASA says they account for it and correct it but in actuality you think they do not. Evidence?
The skew in NOAA, displayed in that graph,..."
NOAA does not have a seperate data base. How many times has this been told to you?
"...towards warmer readings the more recent it gets (which, by the way, is skewed from GISS which has been doing the same relative to satellite records over the last several years."
Yo. The above is baseless assertions. Are you even remotely aware that satellite monitoring has to be constantly adjusted for? They have to account for such things as the satellite slowly losing altitude. Why for goodness sake do you think that satellites are more accurate for reading the bottom of the troposphere than the instrumentation that sits in it? Secondly, have you noticed that over 70% of the planet is covered in water? Now unless you are going to insist that little Atlantis's are scattered all over the world ocean then you got some explaining to do about the upward trend recorded in the oceans.
"Anyway, I know this comment probably wasn't worth it, but I guess the 1% chance is good for a try. Upon seeing you were wrong, conceding a point can feel good; it allows you retain at least some credibility. You should try it sometime."
You are definitely a victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You poor little prick. - Trent1492, on 04/12/2009, -0/+3Does Everyone remember The Offensive Prick stating that the Urban Heat Island is not account for? Well take a look:
"Methods that have been used to correct temperature data are described in more than a dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). A series of data corrections was developed to specifically address potential problems in trend estimation of the rates of warming or cooling in the USHCN. They include:
1. Station moves and instrumentation changes (Karl and Williams 1987, Quayle et al. 1991),
2. changes in observing practices, such as observing time changes (Karl et al. 1986), and
3. urbanization (Karl et al. 1988)."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn ...
But hold on the Prick still insists that it is not accounted for to spite the fact that both NOAA and GISS say it is. Not only do they say that it is but NOAA provides citations of it being discussed in the literature. Here a few examples of these peer reviewed discussions:
* Karl, T.R., H.F. Diaz, and G. Kukla, 1988: Urbanization: its detection and effect in the United States climate record, J. Climate, 1, 1099-1123.
* Karl, T.R., C.N. Williams, Jr., P.J. Young, and W.M. Wendland, 1986: A model to estimate the time of observation bias associated with monthly mean maximum, minimum, and mean temperature for the United States, J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 25, 145-160.
* Karl, T.R., and C.N. Williams Jr., 1987: An approach to adjusting climatological time series for discontinuous inhomogeneities. J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 26, 1744-1763.
* Menne, M.J., and C.N. Williams, Jr., 2005: Detection of undocumented changepoints using multiple test statistics and composite reference series. J. Climate, 18, 4271-4286.
* Menne, M.J., and C.N. Williams, Jr., 2007: Homogenization of temperature series via pairwise comparisons. J. Climate, in review
* Peterson, T.C., 2006: Examination of potential biases in air temperature caused by poor station locations, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 87, 1073-1080, DOI:10.1175/BAMS-87-8-1073
* Quayle, R.G., D.R. Easterling, T.R. Karl, and P.Y. Hughes, 1991: Effects of recent thermometer changes in the cooperative station network, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 72, 1718-1724.
Yet amazingly he insists to spite everything that it is not accounted for. So the question is: Is Prick delusional or just a stupid liar? - Trent1492, on 04/12/2009, -0/+3"I called you a snide dick because you are one, very apparently."
LOL you can not stand heat, eh? Poor little prick.
"I use offensive I use offensive words, ..."
Because your an offensive prick-got it.
"i'd respond to snideness with snideness,.."
No, no you are a offensive prick by nature you admit to it. Who do you think your kidding?
"A. Sorry that I didn't take the next step for you. GISS and NOAA use the same raw data,..."
I have been telling you that from the START you stupid prick. Why do you pretend this had not been said to you TWICE now?
"but in both, the data are heavily (and differently) processed. I'd kind of like to let you keep talking out of your ass, but you're kind of obnoxious in a non-entertaining way (I understand I might be obnoxious to you too, the difference being that I'm right, here)."
Moron People can read what you have been saying prior to the above.
You: NOAA is a terrible temperature record to use for ranking years. It's been diverging upwards from GISS, ..."
Do you think that if you repeat a lie long enough that it becomes true? Here take a look:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/big3.jpg
Three different data sets all in rough agreement.
Want to see more data sets like this? Here:
http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/02/27/4-global-temperat ...
Notice no NOAA. Now for the Zinger here is a web site that has every GLOBAL temperature data set. Notice no NOAA. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:12/plot/ ...
. "Addressed by A."
Only in your fantasy world.
"We could also (but won't) get into a discussion about how relevant it would be if February was the 9th warmest year since we came out of the LIA, as whether or not it's 9th, I would imagine it was certainly within the top twenty or thirty."
Did you ever think what are the chances of having such a warm GLOBAL winter in SPITE of a La Nina and little or no sunspots? Ever think about that?
"I'm out, can't take any more of this."
Run Forresst! Run! - Trent1492, on 04/12/2009, -0/+3I am getting a error message. Tell me, do you really think that linking to a global warming denial web site out weighs the peer reviewed science? Really. You are one seriously misinformed prick. The fact of the matter, is that you guys only got bluster and the fossil fuel companies. You people seriously think that a blog post by shill for the fossil fuel industry is good source. Damm that is stupid.
- mastgrr, on 04/11/2009, -1/+4It's all about the long-term average. Just because there's one day that particularly stands out, doesn't mean that there's no trend.
Scandinavian countries have seen a drastic reduction of the length of winter. - twomeyw23334, on 04/11/2009, -2/+5Does a decade of average cooling count as a leg.....?
Oh yeah... I forget, if I consider a 7 year moving average, it's still warming. Funny how it went from 3 to 5 to 7... I think the "math" formula is -however many years is necessary to demonstrate global warming is continuing- is what is important to look at, and anything else is just "noise"...
Of course, any large average going back to the last ice age will show warming, but this doesn't imply it was caused by man.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Tem ... - cezx, on 04/11/2009, -2/+5I am denying global warming. almost 10 years ago everyone was saying we will ***** die in ten years time. CLEARLY this is the case as i am dead from global warming
NOT
However i support clean energy and pollution-free, self-sustaining environments so shut the ***** the up before u even say anything. - Trent1492, on 04/12/2009, -0/+3"At December's U.N. Global Warming conference, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis."
No such thing happened. Why do you guys just feel you can make up anything?
"The earth's temperature peaked in 1998."
The past ten years have been the hottest on temperature record. A single year does not make a TREND.
"It's been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels."
Again you are lying. From NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
"Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008."
So in summary last year was the hottest year since 2000 and the 9th hottest on the record. Has anyone year is not a trend yet? - Trent1492, on 04/11/2009, -1/+4Tell me, how does your article contradict the data about sea ice cover and volume?
- bugalou, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2150 years of records is jack ***** in the time the earth has been around. I am a huge weather and climate nerd, but even I think the case is still out on global warming. Most of my peers agree. We have not measured and metered the climate for long enough to know a god damned thing about what it is truly doing. That being said, I agree we need to pollute less and taker care of our planet. I don't know about global warming though, I would like some real science to prove that and not records based on a small fraction of the Earth's climatological history. Sure it is warmer, and some ice is melting, but who is to say this doesn't happen normally every 150,000 years or so?
- bluearrow, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2Good I'm sick of 6 months of winter each year in Chicago. November to April, we just had a blizzard last week!
- inactive, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2Cows produce more greenhouse gases than the entire world transportation sector, yet politicians almost never discuss it, and environmental lobbyists and other green activist groups seem unaware of its existence.
Livestock are responsible for 18% of greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide, according to the U.N. -- more than all the planes, trains and automobiles on the planet.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/15/opinion/ed ... - Trent1492, on 04/11/2009, -1/+3"Warming and Cooling indicate 'changing' temperature. If the earth is warming, the temperature is increasing. The earth has rarely seen drastic changes in temperatures in a single year baring some huge even (comet, large volcanic eruption)."
What does that have to do with what I posted up? The claim was that since the poster has seen snow in Seattle, London and Vancouver and that means that the global temperatures have dropped. I then posted up the empirical data contradicting his anecdotes.
"The fact of the matter is, the earth could set a record breaking temperature in 2010, then cool 0.1 degrees every following year for the next 100 years and the alarmists will claim it is still warming the entire time. 50 such years of cooling would be followed by "WE JUST HAD 50 OF THE HOTTEST YEARS!!!!!!!!"
Do you often construct phantom arguments that your opponents never made?
"...but unless the temperatures are actually increasing at an alarming rate..."
They are at a rate of 0.2 c per decade and looks to be accelerating.
"...or some new science demonstrates that there actually is catastrophic warming due to human pollution, ..."
If you would actually pay attention to what is being said then you would have the answer to that question. The science is demonstrated and it is not good for the long term future of our civilization.
"..claiming that 2009 is super hot compared to 1850 is just as irrelevant as someone claiming the winter was bad in their random location on the planet."
You do know what the word trend means, no?
"We are obviously in a warm phase, the earth has seen many such phases before,..."
The Genetic Fallacy. Care to explain why past warming and cooling trends preclude the present trend from being man made?
"The short term trend has still been cooling..."
You are aware that the past decade has been the hottest on record? And I see you answered my last question you really do not understand what the word trend or climate means.
"...and is bucking the alarmists computer predictions with every passing year. (If they were correct, 2009 should have been much hotter)
You just make up facts don't you? Did you read anything I posted up? I am sorry but you are not entitled to your own sets of facts. - alain4911, on 04/11/2009, -1/+3Snowy where you live is not global climate.
At cezx
April snow in Toronto is very normal. We get an average of 8cm every April. Besides remember how 3 weeks ago it was 14C IN MARCH!? Still has nothing to do with climate change, but it's a good example of how anecdotes are meaningless. - Trent1492, on 04/11/2009, -3/+5"Oh c'mon people. A cow produces 5 times as much green house gas as a human does."
I did not know that cows operated coal fired power plants, drove cars, and to fuel those activities excavated carbon that has been sequestered in the ground for tens of millions of years. What sort of pills are you taking? - inactive, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2Citing a recent Pew Poll in which Americans ranked the economy at the top – and global warming at the bottom - of a market basket of political issues, Inhofe calls cap-and-trade legislation “a form of global taxation” and believes it can be defeated again, even though it has the full backing of the Obama administration. The realization is slowly but surely growing here that duplicating Europe’s failed cap-and-trade scheme would be a knock-out blow for the U.S. economy because it would dramatically increase energy costs and cripple the nation’s dwindling manufacturing base. The Detroit News aptly called cap-and-trade “a giant economic dagger aimed at the nation's heartland.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Cap-and- ... - OffensivePrick, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2See, I know it's possible for people to be this dense, but I just don't think it's the case here. So good trolling, I tip my hat to you.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4852 - Trent1492, on 04/12/2009, -2/+4"Your comprehension skills are obviously lacking, not surprising considering your view on this subject. I clearly pointed out how I can be convinced, and will quote myself..."
Your not paying attention are you? - Trent1492, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2One other thing did any one mention that Antarctica is a continent and that a volcano near one islands fails to explain the rest?
- Trent1492, on 04/11/2009, -2/+4http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
National Sea Ice Data Center:
"Sea ice extent averaged over the month of March 2009 was 15.16 million square kilometers (5.85 million square miles). This was 730,000 square kilometers (282,000 square miles) above the record low of 2006, but 590,000 square kilometers (228,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
See how easy it is to explode the lies? - Trent1492, on 04/11/2009, -2/+4"To bad that making areas warmer tends to make them more inhabitable."
Oh, do tell, how Bangladesh and other low lying areas on the planet are going to be more habitable when they are inundated by salt water. Will the people of Bangladesh and south Florida suddenly develop salt water farming? - Trent1492, on 04/12/2009, -1/+3"NOAA is a terrible temperature record to use for ranking years. It's been diverging upwards from GISS,..."
NOAA and GISS use the same data set. Please try again.
"...which itself has been diverging significantly upwards from UAH and RSS"
Which have also been trending UPWARDS.
"...perhaps in part because it makes no adjustment for UHI."
Blatantly false.
From NASA:
"This derived error bar only addressed the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements. As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming"
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
See how easy it is to expose the disinformation? Not only are they aware of the UHI but they correct for it such as carefully monitoring a stations in one area and correcting the temps in that area to that station. See the Climate Reference Network site for further information:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/img/uscrnlogodescript ...
Their are other methods and perhaps you should go learning about these methods before parroting Exxon-Mobile talking points. - OffensivePrick, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2I do keep saying that. *****. But a quick read over some of your other posts from a search for "Trent Dunning-Kruger" (you're so proud of dropping that when someone disagrees with you, no?) that you are just an ass, and not a troll, at least.
I just skimmed through most of the above *****, but unfortunately, I saw I'd missed one of your posts, and your misinterpretation of the link you provided may be letting you rant on thinking you're right.
This link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn ...
is not referring to NOAA's methods, it's referring to USHCN, a small subset, located only in the US, of all of the global stations that go into the temperature record. At least by linking to it as if it were about NOAA, you've implicitly acknowledged you were wrong about NOAA=GISS, but unfortunately it's strike two.
It's too bad, we might have had a meaningful discussion here if you'd just originally said something like "What difference does it make if it's 9th or 12th warmest, it's still reflecting a marked warming trend" or if you had found a GISS ranking that put it at the same rank, which is entirely possible. But I really have a difficult time letting blatantly incorrect statements like "NOAA=GISS" or "NOAA does correct for UHI," especially when they're delivered with such hilariously condescending conviction. If I have any psychological disorder, it's not a DKE, it's, at least on the internet where there aren't really any social considerations, not letting something drop when it's absolutely clear I'm right.
Toplink here has a little more on NOAA and UHI about midway down...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aww ... - twomeyw23334, on 04/12/2009, -2/+4"You can not think of anything that would convince can you?"
Your comprehension skills are obviously lacking, not surprising considering your view on this subject. I clearly pointed out how I can be convinced, and will quote myself...
"if you want to convince me the alarmists are correct, start by debunking Shaviv's work and explaining why or how the sensitivity is so large."
I'll take your silence and straw man tactics as an acknowledgment of being wrong:) ... unless you actually think the obvious fact that a planet with an atmosphere retains heat better than a planet without it debunks Shaviv's work, in which case I'd recommend you check into an institution. - Trent1492, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2How can you say that when the paragraph doesn't say that and the graph on your own link clearly shows that it is not the hottest since 2000."
Your right what I should have said is that it the 9th hottest year on record and the coolest since 2000, in a decade that is the hottest on record.
"9th hottest on the record" this is irrelevant ...."
Only if you want to distract from Mrjhmm assertion that 2008 was the coldest since 1980.
"This is irrelevant considering our instrumental record starts in the coldest period in the last 1000 years."
Now that is irrelevant. You need a mechanism to explain the past thirty years of warming. All natural mechanisms have been ruled. If you actually investigated what was being said you would know that. - HuangFeng, on 04/12/2009, -1/+3Shaviv's paper is somewhat interesting, although he needs an awful lot more research because of the approximations used, the questionability of the limited measures used, and the mismatch with current climate measures which he handwaves as lag.
If I read the rebuttals correctly, Shaviv makes some false claims about the rebuttals, has them pointed out and does not follow them up.
Also Shaviv's own paper states that cosmic ray flux may only partly describe the climate variability, that the correlation is possibly coincidental, that the link between cosmic ray flux and cloud formation is under debate, that the cloud formation mechanism is not proven.
While I think what Shaviv has is interesting, it looks more of a fishing exercise for correlations rather than solid evidential research. He needs more research specifically to answer the criticisms because as it stands I would consider it debunked, particularly if Shaviv puts no more effort into publication. If he continues to direct his energies to only blog posts then his credibility is all but lost. -
Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
