What is Digg?166 Comments
- greydiode, on 10/11/2007, -10/+58To be the devil's advocate...
- Were each of these photos taken on or around the same day of the year? I understand it's glacier national park... but still, a lack of snow on other mountains and most of the snow present being confined to shade leads me to think that maybe this small glacier is just naturally temperamental. That is, maybe the glacier naturally grows and shrinks each year (as most small 'glaciers' do)... making it all the more necessary that the photographs be taken on the same day of the year.
- The 2006 shot of the lake would seem at first to be very different (or, in worse condition) than the 1998 shot. Closer inspection reveals the angle to be different in 2006 leading the viewer to believe that even less snow is present than in the 1998. - Holosiren, on 10/11/2007, -20/+43Notice that there are no dates. Only years. Really inspires confidence.
There's no context to these photos. Buried. - cminardi, on 10/11/2007, -17/+38Where are the photos of global cooling? Oh wait, you mean that this is presented with a complete bias towards global warming actually existing and having catastophic (theoretical) consequences. My bad.
- KennMac, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Wow, digg took down usgs.gov
You're all in trouble. - halik, on 10/11/2007, -11/+24I can make the same pictures in my back yard ... One in february and the other in september. Burried as sensationalist BS.
Climate change is a real problem, but using this kind of stuff to 'help' the cause is just idiotic. - Salzar, on 10/11/2007, -10/+22Ah wow glaciers melt, Big deal.
how did we get out of that Ice Age, cavemen with hummers? - zyl0x, on 10/11/2007, -8/+16Global warming is the new Paris Hilton.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15Where's the pictures of the glaciers that are expanding in the Antarctic? Hmmmmmm. Psst! Propaganda doesn't show opposing facts.
"http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html" - jerbaker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Are you asserting that the USGS is falsifying their pictures or performing an act of intellectual dishonesty? If so, what is your evidence?
- Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Who said it's biased towards catastrophic consequences? It shows a glacier melting. How the environment reacts globally to that glacier melting is another topic *that the article doesn't discuss*. Especially since this progress has been ongoing since at least the 1900's, and we didn't see any catastrophies from that glacier melting. (note that I'm only referring to that specific glacier -- I can't do much else because they don't provide global info)
So don't blame that article for conclusions you think it's trying to show yourself. - uberchaoslord, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6well given that this catalogues the decrease of the glacier over a number of years that the earth was actually cooling, and the glacier still shrunk, I'm not sure how this is relevant. I live near Banff National Park in Canada, and the glacier there has been shrinking since the 30s as well, but I'm not sure this is "more evidence" of global warming.
- mtgarden, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8In his book, Krakatoa, Simon Winchester (a trained geologist) comments that the Krakatoan eruption caused a global cooling of 1-2 C for at least a decade. That explosion took place on Aug 27, 1883.
My question is this: Are the original photos in this shot (circa 1900) revealing glaciers that were formed as a result of the global cooling from Krakatoa, or had the environment already recovered to normal by 1900?
Besides, what exactly is normal for the earth? I'm not arguing that global warming isn't happening or that it isn't a big threat. I just want to know how we have decided the baseline for what should be determined as normal. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Hey I guess your understanding of glaciers are at the level of a 4 year old child. It's ok kid, I'll just laugh at you not with you.
- jtb4, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4All that supercomputing power and they can't even survive the Digg effect......
- jerbaker, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Let me help you with the definition of "glacier":
glacier (glā'shər) - A large mass of ice formed over many years that does not melt during the summer. (glacier. (n.d.). The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition.)
Did you see that part about "doesn't melt"? Ya, that means you're wrong. Thanks. - MichaelE777, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Four pictures do not an emergency make.
- Scruffydan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3thats why relying on such a narrow data set is not recommended. thankfully climate scientists have a much more expansisve data set than just a few pictures.
These sorts of pictures do not prove climate change, but they are a useful illustration of climate change to non-scientists types - noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3We going to the beach?
- monkx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Seems like there are a lot of 10 yr olds on this forum today.
Yes, me too. - Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4No, there's not, as we have shown that the greenhouse effect is here, and even essential for life on Earth, while we have not seen signs of a new ice age coming. Venus has for example a greenhouse effect that went crazy. Earth has a more suitable one for life. And there are also plenty of evidence for CO2 levels rising, which should lead to a greenhouse effect getting stronger, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
What's debated is rarely that, and I'd dare say those who still do it hasn't studied environmental science much. It's all quite established theories.
What's still debated is if humans are the culprit. - DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Thanks for your un-professional opinions guys. Seriously you're both completely speculating out of your asses.
- tucsonsun13, on 10/11/2007, -10/+13As an environmental chemistry graduate ....I firmly believe in the greenhouse effect and it's capability to alter our climate.
The evidence is overwhelming in many cases, and we can expect life to get significantly more difficult for everyone in the decades to come. Water shortages, flash floods, tempests/hurricanes, drought, famine, extinctions...these are just some of the problems arising due to accelerated climate change. The good news is that we, as humans, have an array of extremely intelligent engineers, chemists, etc that will be able to work towards addressing all of these issues. There is just not a uniform sense of urgency right now. Soon, there will be. When are survival is threatened, we work, and with remarkable speed at that. I'm more worried for non-developed nations than for my own. People in third-world countries have enough problems to deal with as it is. - WasabiBomb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If the current warming trend were completely natural, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, there's way too much evidence that we're responsible for the upcoming climate change, and therefore, we should do everything we can to try to prevent it. What you're saying is like pushing someone off of a cliff, and then insisting that gravity is responsible for their deaths.
- tybris, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I see 4 pictures. I can't draw any conclusions.
Anyway last time I was in Switzerland at the glaciers they were not at all worried since it's a natural 60-year cycle for them (they had an extensive display to educate tourists). The glaciers reached their peak in the 70's and were even smaller than they are now in the 40's. - rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, comprised of more than 2,500 scientists from 100 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.
You can check them out at: http://www.ipcc.ch/
Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil.
A joint declaration by the national science academies of sixteen developed nations supported the IPCC's findings, declaring, in part: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science."
To cite just a few more examples, the National Academy of Sciences in the US recently issued a report, "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions". The report begins unequivocably: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."
Also, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), among many others, have issued official reports containing similar conclusions about anthropogenic climate change.
A study of all peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1994 and 2004 found nearly one thousand concluding that anthropogenic climate change is real, and exactly *zero* refuting it.
The conclusions are based on numerous overlapping data sources, from Antarctic ice cores now analyzed back over 900,000 years, to daily monitoring of CO2 levels and temperatures at the US Government's Mauna Loa Observatory.
Here are some charts based on the data - note that all the source data, much of it credited in the captions, is freely available online - much of it at the US Government's NOAA Paeloclimatology Program website at:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html, which gathers data from satellites, ice cores, direct atmospheric measurements, and links to data from other sources around the world.
Here are some charts showing the past 400,000 years of CO2 levels mapped against average global temperatures, and today's anomalous, literally "off the chart" readings, primarily from the EPICA ice cores:
http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/images/CO2_and_Temp2.gif
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/CO2_CH4_Temp_440KyrBP.jpg
Here is 60,000 years worth of data from the Vostok ice cores:
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/vostok_co2_temp2_thumb.jpg
(note that the chart reverses the usual order, with today to the left)
Here are the past 1,000 and 140 years:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/temp1000yrs.jpg
Here's more detail on the past 140 years:
http://www.eds.org.nz/content/images/snapshots/glob%20temp.jpg
And here are Mauna Loa monthly averages, since 1958 until the current day:
http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/datasets/mauna/image3b.html
I'm curious - why do you people lie about publicly available facts? What are you so afraid of - and do you believe you can stop reality from happening by denying it? - jjmenden, on 10/11/2007, -10/+12How does one melting glacier equal global warming? Regardless of whether it's and ice age or a warm period, glaciers are continually melting and reforming.
- jimmoses, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Rewind to the early 14th century and replace "Global Warming" with "Black Death". You can shut your eyes and block your ears if you like, but don't bitch about other people being anxious about something which is potentially catastrophic.
- KennMac, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Why do people always refer to the number of diggs when the site goes down? It means absolutely nothing. A site can be getting a lot of page views, and not many diggs.
- jerbaker, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7No one is going to waste time trying to convince people who are unconvinced by science. It's a waste of time and I can prove it: Name the evidence that you would need to conclude that global warming is taking place and that it is anthropogenic. Not proof, but evidence. Can't name any, that's the first sign of an irrational belief. If it isn't falsifiable, it isn't rational.
- Jadart, on 10/11/2007, -8/+10OMG! Ice Melts!
- thorseth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3You should take a brake from watching fox news and read a book instead, preferably one on scientific method. And by the way you were suppose to name some evidence that would falsify your glorious "no global warming theory", which you did not! Turning the argument around when there is tons of evidence that you conveniently choose to ignore and an equal amount of falsifiable theories to back up what every uncorrupted scientist know to be fact.
Falsifiers:
If CO_2 and methane turn out not to be a green house gasses
Global temperature turn out not to rise in correlation with emissions
That glaciers (chunks of ice that do not melt in the summer) are not retracting faster and faster every year
That the north pole will not be ice free in the summer with in the next decade.
etc.
I don´t see your list yet...
PS. The weather in Denmark (where i live) has broken 53 records this year(100 years of measurements). - rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Are you under the illusion that being a "rightwad" somehow exempts you from the consequences of reality? It's the same planet, with the same planet, no matter where you see yourself on the political spectrum.
You want to argue what the best policies are for dealing with the reality of anthropogenic climate change? Fine, that is a legitimate topic for political debate.
But to deny a global consensus of thousands of leading scientists who have sacrificed decades of their lives in many cases studying millions of data points, sharing their data for peer review with everyone else, to deny that because it is uncomfortable or inconvenient, that isn't legitimate politics, that is just irrational madness.
You owe it to yourself to educate yourself on the actual science behind global warming, which exists completely independently of Al Gore or anyone else. - skyfire1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'll donate my porn stash. :)
- sean65, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3That sword cuts both ways.
- sheepster, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3here is a working mirror:
http://loadsofshows.com/Grinnellquad_frMtGould1938_2006_highRes-m.jpg
the rest of the images took to long to load and were just higher resolutions of these individual images. - goltoof, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2What makes you so sure? Have you done the research to prove it?
- t0ken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Glaciers do melt, but not in 100 years without some help.
- aybdude42, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7WTF?
- SkittlesUSA, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Yes! And seeing how carbon dioxide is considered a "pollutant" we should stop breathing and destroy all plant life to ensure the earth does not become contaminated with the filthy no-good gas called carbon dioxide! It is, after all, only an activator of photosynthesis.
- insaneavocado, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2 They just say that because so that oil companies will keep drilling in their oil fields.
- goltoof, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Thousands of years... but don't worry, the earth will be fine, it's just us who are screwed.
- rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The reality of anthropogenic climate change exists completely independently of "Al Gore".
You might as well try denying evolution because you don't like Richard Dawkins.
Oh, wait, you probably do. - WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Why? Who's interest is it in to prevent warming?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Or not, tee hee.
- somegeologist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What! You haven't heard of the Knobtwiddler solar system warming theory. Sheesh read some books.
- n3xu5, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Repeat photography of the glacier taken between the years 1938 and 2005 (as shown below) demonstrate that the glacier has retreated significantly over the past 65 years. Interestingly, The Salamander and Gem Glacier have shown little change in area over the same period of time. The Salamander receives its name for its shape and its coloring, which comes from the serratia bacteria that grows on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinnell_Glacier - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Buried for propaganda
- rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Your statistic is false. That is like saying that 40% of the world's scientists have disagreed with the current theories of evolution via natural selection. The reality is that there is overwhelming consensus both that anthropogenic climate change and evolution are real. What debate there is occurs within those parameters, such as whether or not sea levels will rise a foot or many feet in the coming decades - not whether we are responsible.
No one has ever claimed that global warming hasn't happened in the past. What is different today is that climate change has accelerated outside the normal variations explainable by natural causes -at least over the past 900,000 plus years that have been researched - and, the change is accelerating. That climate change closely tracks changes we are making to the earth, its surface reflectivity, waste absorption and atmospheric composition - and scientists have tested and verified explanations for the link between the two.
"who can say that it's mans fault and know that this is empirically evident?" The overwhelming consensus of thousands of the world's leading climate researchers, that's who. - kjr07, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5This effect is happening all over the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850 . Date is irrelevant; glaciers don't go away in the summer and come back in the winter.
Also,
1. Global cooling was never a mainstream scientific theory. Some scientists suggested its existence back in the 70's, some of the media sensationalized it. Please, before you try to use this as a rebuttal, provide me some evidence that there was a scientific consensus behind it.
2. Are you guys honestly ignorant of the arguments scientists are making for anthropogenic climate change, or are you just trolling? - climateHeretic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The HAARP project, wasn't that in Remo Williams : The Adventure Begins? Oh ya we can control the weather with our "LASER". Actually HAARP is the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program studing the Ionisphere and radio science. From the HAARP website;.The small effects that are produced, however, can be observed with the sensitive scientific instruments installed at the HAARP facility and these observations can provide new information about the dynamics of plasmas and new insight into the processes of solar-terrestrial interactions.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 164 discussions
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 
