What is Digg?62 Comments
- novenator, on 07/08/2009, -2/+11FTA - "Research was conducted by the Pliocene Research, Interpretation and Synoptic Mapping (PRISM) group, led by the U.S. Geological Survey."
What an awesome name. I bet it would rock to work for this group.
Fascinating article. I've always found it fascinating how different realms of science can be joined to get new results. - StaticThunder, on 07/08/2009, -1/+9There also used to be ferns growing in antarctica. I'm not sure that we want to return to Pliocene levels of CO2.
- jimbo92107, on 07/08/2009, -2/+9Do the people that were right get to eat the people that were wrong?
- DavidCEisen, on 07/08/2009, -3/+10So based on the fact that every time you've ever dropped a ball it has fallen towards the Earth, you don't fell you can accurately predict what will happen the next time you drop the ball?
- DavidCEisen, on 07/08/2009, -3/+10"Since CO2 levels during the mid-Pliocene were only slightly higher than today's levels, PRISM research suggests that a slight increase in our current CO2 level could have a large impact on temperature change."
It's frightening to think what the warming of the deep sea currents could mean to the long term climate of the Earth. - SpinningHead, on 07/08/2009, -1/+8@Shwaavay
You should submit your comments to a peer-reviewed journal. I'm sure they will be very impressed and thank you for your insights.
Of course, life in the Plioscene was kind of a drag. - JohnWilsoniv, on 07/08/2009, -0/+6@Shwaavay
Forest fires naturally happen and so when we put out forest fires dead wood accumulates until mega forest fires happen that we can't control, and so that's another cycle we ***** up.
Haha, continuing now (with plenty of bumps) and being sustainable are completely different. - JohnWilsoniv, on 07/08/2009, -3/+9The carbon cycle naturally sequesters carbon through the ocean and plant life very slowly over many many years. If all the carbon on this planet was in the air right now you would NOT be able to breathe. Since we are taking that sequestered carbon from its reservoir in the earth, burning it, and thereby putting it in the air we are upsetting normal balances.
Everything on earth naturally works in a cycle, but when we come in and ***** with a very small piece of that cycle (burning fossil fuels) it tends to lead to positive feed back cycles that ruin the entire system. There are no positive feedback loops in nature, but there are plenty that we have created.
Also, to say humans haven't been around long enough is *****. We've also ***** with every other cycle in a considerable way (Water cycle vs pavement, nitrogen cycle vs fertilizers, phosphorus cycle vs fertilizers, carbon cycle vs fossil fuels, etc) - DavidCEisen, on 07/08/2009, -3/+9You sir, are wrong. The reason that part is worrisome is that it means that the long term effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere at current levels in dangerous. As the deep sea currents warm the ocean will expand and sea levels will rise. As the ocean warms, the Arctic ice will melt, causing the deep currents to warm more, the ocean to expand, and sea levels to rise further. We have a very small understanding of the mechanisms of deep ocean currents and how they store carbon, but this research could lead to a better understanding, and it doesn't seem like a happy ending.
Also your claim that humans haven't caused CO2 to increase is silly at best. You do realize what fossil fuels are made of, right? - WasabiBomb, on 07/08/2009, -2/+7Over the past 200 years or so, we've been releasing CO2 which has been sequestered in the for *millions* of years. What's more, we're actively removing the part of the cycle which gets the CO2 back into the ground- the trees.
How can we NOT be having an effect?! - WasabiBomb, on 07/08/2009, -1/+6One quick Google search later:
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/1000127/i ...
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1115-forests.html
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator4. ...
And that's just a small selection of the first page of results.
Now it's YOUR turn, @Shwaavay. See? It works both ways. - WasabiBomb, on 07/08/2009, -3/+8@Shwaavay- "Are you aware that the planet is actually more ripe with greenery than it ever has been? It has a lot to do with humans putting out fire and managing forests so that they don't turn into tinderboxes. Plus foliage probably grows thicker and greener in this CO2 rich environment."
Citation? Or are you just making it up and hoping we won't call you on it? - leif777, on 07/08/2009, -7/+12I'm confused... I thought the world was only 6000 years old.
- SpinningHead, on 07/08/2009, -1/+6@Shwaavay
Greener than its ever been? Drive through GA sometime, then understand that in the late 18th century the average tree in GA was 9ft in diameter and there was little to know undergrowth. You do know that Rush Limbaugh has no science education to speak of, right?
BTW Nobody said the world wont be here. We havent suggested that the planet itself will evaporate. - WasabiBomb, on 07/08/2009, -1/+5I propose an experiment, @shig: I will drop a ball from a height of five feet onto a flat plane 100,000 times. If it fails to hit the target just *once*, I get to shoot and kill you. If it ever fails to hit the ground, you get to shoot me. Deal?
- StaticThunder, on 07/08/2009, -2/+6Without inductive inference you are powerless to make informed decisions about future events. Lucky for us it generally works. Its not an argument against global warming, its an argument against thinking and I can't believe anyone would seriously propose not taking action on ANYTHING merely because one is relying on induction.
- DavidCEisen, on 07/08/2009, -2/+5Did I say it was? Get some reading comprehension.
- 07dcolem, on 07/08/2009, -2/+5I'll ask my grandpa.
- DavidCEisen, on 07/08/2009, -1/+4Why do you hate knowledge?
- WasabiBomb, on 07/08/2009, -2/+5Also from that link: "Africa suffered the second largest net loss in forests with 4.0 million hectares cleared annually." By the way, 4 million is actually larger than 159,000. Shocking, I know. What's worse, that's just ONE country that has lost an order of magnitude more forest than we've gained. Nigeria and the Sudan tied for the largest net loss.
Again- do you have any supporting citations for your claim that we're gaining greenery? Or should we just assume you're making it up? - angryredplanet, on 07/08/2009, -0/+3Clearly, you don't do science.
- WasabiBomb, on 07/08/2009, -2/+5Actually, @danwgre, the situations are very similar. We don't know exactly how gravity works, but we're pretty sure what will happen if we drop a ball.
- jr2037, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3This may be off topic but has anyone noticed that reading internet articles all the time causes you to kind of skim for the the "meat" of the article? I've kind of gotten sick of reading long-winded intros, and author speculation, etc. I more and more just want the basic point, the facts, and then I move on. The article here is very to the point...wish more were written like this.
- DavidCEisen, on 07/08/2009, -2/+4You're proving that people can be very stupid.
- DavidCEisen, on 07/08/2009, -3/+5Well actually a lot more was different. For example most of the Earth's interior was a flaming ball of fiery death. CO2 doesn't make volcanoes explode--but if it did we would have a better chance to pass a real cap and trade policy.
- AwakeAmerican, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1*****.
- mwilhelm, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1Yeah, you're right. It's all about you.
Just YOU.
How's it feel to be the most important person in the world? - JamesWjRose, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1David,
Sorry to take so long to reply. YOu are correct, while it's generally safe to assume some items. I would not bet that 100% of the time dropping a ball would cause it to fall to the ground. There is the MINUTE posibility that the earth could be blown up at the moment it was released. Yes, I'm being more than a bit rediculous in my statement, but let's be a little fair. Your example doesn't quite compare to the original article.
All I am saying is that when comparing past events, it's important to realize that there are many variables that can affect the outcome. The more complex the situation the more probable that it becomes difficult to estimate future events.
Yea, I'm picky about those things. As a computer programmer I've seen code that should ALWAYS work go wrong (and I really, really mean always) - DavidCEisen, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1Hmmmm, that is a good idea. We could trick them into thinking that living on a very flat tropical island is a good idea. Its brilliant.
- bizzywho, on 07/08/2009, -5/+6Wait a minute...
If fossil records indicate that there was a "warming" period during the Pliocene era, doesn't that mean that it's normal for the Earth to go through warming periods?
If so, what is the point of all this "save the Earth" hippie crap that we're dealing with? It all just ends up with our government taxing us on carbon emissions and simply for not being "green" enough.
So is it man-made global warming? Or is it just another warming cycle that the Earth is going through currently? - SpinningHead, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2Give them their own island nation, then?
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -5/+6Let me fix that headline: "Can hippies excuse taking more of your money from poking a stick in the dirt?"
- inactive, on 07/10/2009, -0/+1Science? Is that what you call it? Why don't you have them move half the NOAA sensors off the blacktop or away from hot air ducts and then we'll talk about science. http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
And since you're so interested in science maybe you can look up a few facts about the sun. - WasabiBomb, on 07/08/2009, -3/+3-This message brought to you by Exxon.
- AwakeAmerican, on 07/09/2009, -1/+1Apparently they think that climate change was caused by CO2 emissions, rather than the CO2 levels being affected by climate change.
I wonder...if they wanted to save the Earth back then would there be a tax on farting? - JohnWilsoniv, on 07/08/2009, -1/+1@WasabiBomb
Actually because we put out forest fires lots of dead wood accumulates and so when forest fires do happen they become much worse than they would be otherwise.
The earth has gone through horrible extinctions in the past too. That doesn't mean that we're not causing one right now (the sixth extinction) and it doesn't mean we have the right to sit around and watch it happen.
Same for global warming.
Also, i think that you might look at greenpeace and peta and all of those ridiculous college student run organizations and say "They're just a bunch of extreme hippies" (and i agree) but the fact is humankind is going to have to start limiting itself to protect the environment through responsible decisions because we've become far too powerful, too important, and too obtrusive to do otherwise. We cannot live without the environment, and so we can't ***** up the environment, or the atmosphere, or other species if we want to continue living. - SpinningHead, on 07/08/2009, -2/+2I say we just make everyone who refuses to believe its happening move to the coast.
- piper999, on 07/08/2009, -7/+7"Can Ancient Fossils Predict Future Climate Change?"
Al Gore's been doing it for years. - undervalued, on 07/08/2009, -5/+5Its the new divination, the bones, the bones know.....
- DavidCEisen, on 07/08/2009, -2/+1***** no, keep them away.
- WasabiBomb, on 07/08/2009, -3/+2Just because it's happened before does not mean we can't be causing it now.
Forest fires are natural. As a matter of fact, some species of pine can't germinate unless they've been through a fire. Does that mean that we don't have to avoid starting forest fires? - realeskimopimp, on 07/08/2009, -5/+4Answer yourself this:
What is the difference between now and the time when earth was active volcanoes, lava and fire?
BINGO! Billions of years ago, CO2, Methane and other greenhouses gasses were in the atmosphere instead of buried beneath the oceans and the earths surface!
I wonder what's going to happen when we take all the CO2 condensed as oil and release it back into the atmosphere???? - shig, on 07/08/2009, -3/+2That's the problem with inductive inference. Who's to say, with 100% accuracy, what happens the next time the ball is dropped? Even if dropped a 999,999 times to the ground there's still a chance that it will fail to hit the ground on the millionth attempt, and therefore any prediction cannot be considered knowledge of the future.
There are rules to the scientific method involving experimentation and falsifiability. The ball must be dropped before any knowledge of the event can be known. - RasSeferino, on 07/09/2009, -1/+0The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented and directly correlates with the increase in the use of fossil fuels.
- Rudegar, on 07/08/2009, -3/+2in case you didn't forget the /s
then all us in the rest of the world who are no taxed over it
and are not named bubba or think our sister is kinda hot
and 99% of scientists some of which I know myself
believe this
you can call us "the world outside usa" - Tylerdurden03, on 07/08/2009, -3/+2fulibs, just look at DavidCEisen's reply.... I don't think anyone that questions global warming (man made) could have asked for a better comment.
"Why do you hate knowledge?" See, it's not even a matter of debate. You simply are ignoring the facts. There isn't another side of the argument. Just shut up, listen to what Mr.Tree Hugger has to say and let Obama take your money in the sake of saving the world from carbon. - Trent1492, on 07/09/2009, -3/+2You sad sack. You equate science with hippies. What a delusional fool.
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -4/+3"Ancient" can mean no more than 6000 years. So called "science" is really getting annoying.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is