What is Digg?53 Comments
- col381, on 10/24/2008, -4/+22Hmmm.. servere weather has increased in line with the predictions scientists were making about global warming 20 years ago... gee, I wonder if it is just a coincidence...
- sockpuppets, on 10/24/2008, -0/+7Global disasters, it's a natural problem.
- sockpuppets, on 10/24/2008, -0/+7Your pocket protector must be made out of meece fur.
- DeskFlyer, on 10/24/2008, -3/+8"More frequent and powerful hurricanes from the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico since the mid-1990s have created one of the most dangerous and costliest storm eras in recorded history, a USA TODAY analysis of weather data shows."
Hmm...a think a more accurate statement would be "Scores of clueless businessmen and homeowners who continue to brainlessly inhabit areas well known to be prone to hurricane activity tend to experience increasing devastation from storms that have been hitting the coast for millions of years".
This is not news. - cutchyacokov, on 10/24/2008, -0/+5Problem disasters, it's a natural global.
Wait, what? - mrsteveman1, on 10/24/2008, -0/+4You really get credibility for spelling through correctly
- wantguru, on 10/22/2008, -0/+4Natural disasters, It's global problem.
- RedStateRetard, on 10/24/2008, -0/+4The earth is moving closer to the sun?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?numb ...
hint: the perihelion and aphelion balance each other out - Richandler, on 10/24/2008, -0/+4Costly and deadly because people are building expensive homes in known storm areas.
- pstroll, on 10/24/2008, -1/+5I cringe when USA Today steps its foot into anything scientific. "Since the mid-1990s"?? nice sample
- inactive, on 10/24/2008, -0/+4Natural problems, It's a global disaster
- sp00nz, on 10/24/2008, -1/+4I'm sorry but your blog post isn't good enough evidence.. Get me something thats peer reviewed. Then we can talk.
- RedStateRetard, on 10/24/2008, -0/+3From the headline, I though this was an article about the economy and stock market. I'm just gun-shy these days.
edit: looking at the graphic should have tipped me off. The bars aren't in red (like my portfolio) - thedinomeister, on 10/24/2008, -1/+4:insert unresearched global warming comment here:
- Lewie, on 10/24/2008, -1/+3Meh, it's just a sign of the coming Apocalypse.
/s
//kinda - angryredplanet, on 10/24/2008, -0/+2We had people recording temps and weather patterns in most areas of the world since the 1920's. Not as accurate as weather satellites, but it's better than nothing. That does count as recorded history.
- clark24, on 10/24/2008, -3/+5OMG 2005 hurricane season SHATTERS records!!! Records that have stood for OVER A CENTURY!!! I mean, except, maybe there might have been a hurricane season that was worse in those other 4,499,999,900 years of Earth.
I don't know... maybe there's a possibility... probably not though... because 28 is a huge number. One century is a pretty good microcosm of the entire meteorological history of Earth too. I think we've pretty much seen all the weather variations Earth has to offer by now. - willrs, on 10/24/2008, -3/+5karma
- bfeagan, on 10/24/2008, -2/+4"Recorded history"
Because we had weather satellites in the 1920's. - ShoggothDreams, on 10/24/2008, -0/+2Meh. I saw this covered in the news a while ago:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/hurricane_bo ... - MacParrot, on 10/24/2008, -2/+3South Florida which has in the past been a hurricane magnet, didn't have a single significant storm hit from 1967 until Andrew in 1992. Many other parts of the SE and Gulf Coasts also didn't have much in the way of storm activity during that period. We're just going through a harsher than usual number of storms lately. While we should be concerned about our environment, blaming EVERYTHING on global warming pretty much means people will ignore it until it could be too late. Stop with the chicken little routine.
- darkcthulhu, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1Yep, totally not related.
- col381, on 10/25/2008, -0/+1Sarcasm I hope, given Sputnik didn't go up until 1957.
If not - major stupidity. - phosphite, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1The world hates the US and is bent on it's destrction! That or this is Al-Queda's new TERRORIST weather machine in action...
- joe7845, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1Right, because no one will ever put that data in a paper. It's just a matter of time, clearly; unless you think I made up the completely verifiable data in the spreadsheet I posted, and no one has pointed that out.
- borez, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1Convenient
- dddavid, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1If the article had been comparing the $ damages of storms over the years for their assumtion, you would be correct. However, the article is stating that the number of annual hurricanes (and tropical storms) has been trending upward, which of course has nothing to do with how many people are living near the coast.
- bedake, on 10/24/2008, -2/+3How the hell are people this dumb finding their way onto digg? This site used to have a slightly intelligent body WHAT THE ***** IS HAPPENING?
- inactive, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1I moved way the hell away from georgia - to california - just to escape from last year's horrible storm season. ***** thing sucks. Way too many tornado warnings for my peace of mind.
- santiago1, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1 LOL! Dugg for the cool sarcasm!
- angryredplanet, on 10/24/2008, -1/+2Wow, that's a quality link.
From the first paragraph:
"The temperature variance data is global while the hurricane data is U.S.-based, but seeing as how the United States takes up a major chunk of the northwestern part of the globe, I feel this study is valid..."
Because the author feels the correlation he makes of the data "is valid" we are supposed to believe him? That's a mighty big assumption the author makes right there. I'd be very careful extrapolating assertions from unrelated data.
The graphs have no legend so for all we know we could be comparing the number of people who love bananas to the average success rate of homeopathic hemorrhoid treatment.
The majority of the worlds climate scientists say we are causing changes to climate patterns and the causative mechanism for this is well understood and accepted. The theory is solid and the data matches the observations we are seeing and that have been modeled. I wish this was wrong, but climate scientists are > 90% certain it's not. In science it doesn't get much more certain than that. - judicar, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1> ... 4,499 years of Earth.
Fixed that for you. - j.carcinogen, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1What about the tsunami tragedy that killed 3 million people in Asia?
- col381, on 10/25/2008, -0/+1Jesus sp00nz, crawl out from under the rock you are living under...
If you want peer reviewed, how about the IPCC - setup by the UN and contributed to by hundreds of the world's top climate scientists ;
The key conclusions of their report in 2007 were :
- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
- Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18)[13].
- The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
- World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
o Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
- Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
- Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years
*In IPCC statements "most" means greater than 50%, "likely" means at least a 66% likelihood, and "very likely" means at least a 90% likelihood - col381, on 10/25/2008, -0/+1And now a quick word from "Reality" our programme sponsor..
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_F ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Pan ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessmen ...
Yes, folks with "Reality" you can keep your brain sparkling clean and free from all forms of stupid *****... and now back to our regular programme.. - fishshogun, on 10/24/2008, -0/+1I want to see the fema clean-up (aka ice melting, lead poisoning.....) efforts graff.
- stutimandal, on 10/24/2008, -1/+1Actually they don't break records when you compensate for inflation.
- marv0, on 10/24/2008, -1/+1YEAH! Even thought the majority of Americans aren't really like us! WE CAN FORCE THEM INTO OUR IMAGE, OR THEY CAN GO BACK TO ENGLAND!
- blarch, on 10/24/2008, -1/+1buried for "data show" because that one article told me that it wasn't cool
- phillymozart, on 10/24/2008, -1/+1The chart only goes back to 1982? WTF?
Why do the stats on everything pertaining to global warming have to be framed in artificial time frames. Hurricanes have been going on for thousands of years, but I will settle for at least the last 100 years. If Einstein's general theory of relativity can make it without doctoring the data, so can the "facts" on climate change. - kefland, on 10/24/2008, -1/+1we only have a little more than 100 years of records.... the earth is how old? hmm. yeah.
- canvashinder, on 10/24/2008, -0/+0Beware the destruction we allow, when we build upon the sand.
- kyzel, on 10/24/2008, -0/+0more people on the coast = more damage?
just throwin it out there - marv0, on 10/24/2008, -2/+3I think it's the McCain rallies praying to flush out the fake parts of America.
- jonnyboyca, on 10/24/2008, -1/+1God is pissed.
- clark24, on 10/24/2008, -2/+1Yea!!! Kill all of those filthy freedom loving fake Americans! I say we declare a holy war on fake Americans! Let's take back this country!
- RocksOFF, on 10/24/2008, -3/+2Dugg for the correct "data show"
- decx, on 10/24/2008, -2/+1you see, it's not about the geographic circumstances but all about god hating america, asia and africa
but god loves europeans...
that's what you get for beeing socialist bitches - joe7845, on 10/24/2008, -4/+2It isn't.
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/08/graph ... -
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is