What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
Amphibian invaders! Can frogs conquer the Earth? view!
funimation.com - Stranded frog platoon battles for Earth and our sushi. Season 1, Part 2 available 11/24
91 Comments
- Junkyarddawg, on 05/10/2009, -6/+38Reducing temperature by reducing incoming light = really, really, REALLY bad idea.
Let's say they cut the incoming light level by 25%. That's a 25% drop in photosynthesis worldwide. A 25% drop in crop yields. A 25% drop in plant CO2 uptake. And 100% scoring in own goal.
No destructive solutions to global warming! Please! - Protonz, on 05/10/2009, -1/+28Two words: Unintended consequences.
- inactive, on 05/10/2009, -5/+16This would be stupid to say the least. We're going to change the climate on the earth based off of 100 years of questionable evidence?
- Nateon, on 05/10/2009, -1/+9I love your math.
- angryredplanet, on 05/11/2009, -0/+7"Remember, in the 80's the worlds top scientist thought we were at the brink of the next Ice Age as we were in a global cooling cycle."
The media took this for a bit of a ride, which was highly irresponsible as the accepted science was not in agreement. With respect to climatic changes, there was 1 peer reviewed paper predicting cooling, 6 papers indicating cooling *may* happen, 20 were neutral while 44 predicting warming. Based on those numbers, it's clear how popular "global cooling" was with the scientists of the time. Mind you, climatology was in it's infancy then and climatologists have much better understandings of how things work now. The only cooling predicted these days is as a result of the thermohaline circulation changing or stopping as a result of runaway climate change.
"Then there was the hole in the ozone over the north pole;"
I believe that's the south pole you're thinking of and, yes, it is still there. The pattern of ozone destruction is highly seasonal but in general it has been observed to be growing, albeit slowly.
"Don't hear much about the hole in the ozone anymore."
Perhaps, but there is plenty of available information if you so choose to look for it.
"Some times I think the scientists are just trying to justify their salaries by coming up with this stuff."
This comment would fit the pattern if the scientific findings didn't correlate closely with scientists' claims. - Dustin00, on 05/11/2009, -0/+7*facepalm*
- KDX200rider, on 05/10/2009, -1/+8We need to progress very carefully in matters like this. It seems clear that we do not have a good understanding of how our earth's complex systems interact. "Global Warming" is a great example of that.
- chongli, on 05/11/2009, -0/+7Photosynthesis doesn't occur uniformly throughout the world. You can block a lot of light hitting the earth in areas such as deserts and have minimal/zero impact on food production.
- BalancingAct, on 05/11/2009, -0/+6Graph of past and present CO2 levels:
http://csccc.fcpp.org/files/f12.jpg - s0krat3z, on 05/11/2009, -1/+7You start with your family today and others will follow.
- Prism123, on 05/11/2009, -0/+6Global cooling was never a scientific consensus, the position of the national academy of science at the time was that they needed to collect more data and do more studies before they could make accurate predictions about the climate, which they then did and saw that it was warming. Also your referring to the 70s not the 80s. In fact a study was done that looked at about 70 studies on climate change from that period, and only 7 supported cooling, 20 were neutral, and the rest supported warming. For another thing even if there had been a consensus on global cooling that doesn't debunk global warming. Science changes as we learn more and get more advanced, in the early 70s we understood a lot less about the climate and what effects it than we do now. Which is why there was no consensus then which is why your point is moot.
- mikelly18, on 05/11/2009, -0/+6Green house gases allow the suns radiation (light and UV) in. This radiation in turn warms the ground. The ground then radiates INFRA RED radiation (heat), which greenhouse gases absorb. So they allow energy in, but do not let the re radiated energy out because it is in a different form. Now you're caught up.
- Rbstr, on 05/10/2009, -2/+8Dawg....That's not necessarily how it works. Photosynthesis and light blocking/reflecting methods aren't necessarily going to be on the same wavelength.
For instance, if the reflecting method only filters out green light there won't be much change in photosynthetic activity. - alexmensen, on 05/10/2009, -1/+7OMG perfect example of people writing an article about something they know nothing about. Really? Block out the sun? I wonder what the ramifications of that would be.....
- s0krat3z, on 05/11/2009, -1/+7They were indeed recorded. Although it's not quite as easy to check as it is to make a stupid comment on Digg.
- inactive, on 05/10/2009, -1/+7But the world would look ***** weird.
- inactive, on 05/11/2009, -0/+5These guys obviously didn't see the episode of Futurama; something's just going to hit the mirror, flip it around, and turn it into a crazy death ray.
- yerdaddy, on 05/10/2009, -1/+6Treat the disease, not the symptoms.
- angryredplanet, on 05/11/2009, -0/+5Once the sulphur particles are in the upper atmosphere, how can you control where they go? Once seawater is misted how do you control where it goes? Nice ideas, but do they really fix more problems than they create?
"...he said, studies showed that putting sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere caused drying in vulnerable regions such as the Sahel and India."
We don't fully understand the systems we're messing with and the possible negative implications are beyond scales. That's no reason not to investigate, but it strongly indicates the need for very cautious procession. - DanNZN, on 05/11/2009, -1/+6You two do know it is possible to do that without death (or mass birth control) right. Maybe not now but if we focus on those technologies that would let us colonize space we could lighten the planet's load a little some day.
- s0krat3z, on 05/11/2009, -0/+5You do know that the words "technologically easier" were used in the original comment right?
- TheMoniker, on 05/11/2009, -1/+5Wow, that's nearly all of the denialist talking points on the same page.
For starters, their plot of temperature doesn't match basically every other known record. Here's NOAA's: http://exit78.com/climate/wp-content/uploads/2009/ ...
Their graph of solar irradiance doesn't match the satellite data (courtesy of the World Radiation Center): http://www.pmodwrc.ch/tsi/composite/pics/org_comp2 ...
Again, from the Max Planck Institute:
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/ ...
It goes on and on.... - Pother, on 05/11/2009, -0/+4This is the "condom" method of saving the Earth from GCC (Global Climate Change)...
We've already got a bunch of folks promoting the "abstinence" method, and the "family planning" method...
Of course there's the "it'll never happen to me" crowd too...
Funny how the same problem solving techniques for one type of problem scale to and fit an entirely different problem! - KingGorilla, on 05/11/2009, -0/+4DESTROY THE SUN
- jgzman, on 05/11/2009, -0/+4Well, 'someday' is nice. What would you recommend for today?
- Pother, on 05/10/2009, -1/+5It is now the cult of global "climate change".
Warm or cool, they're right both ways. - disappointed, on 05/11/2009, -1/+5Right. You tell China, I'll tell India. Bring a gun.
- inactive, on 05/11/2009, -2/+6The Earth is getting hotter, and like it or not, it won't stop, no matter how much we curb our enthusiasm towards greenhouse gases. Even if we were wiped from the face of the planet, it would keep getting hotter. Check prehistoric CO2 levels.
- inactive, on 05/11/2009, -0/+4Who is going to get rich off of it ?
- Dustin00, on 05/11/2009, -1/+5I agree. You need more science.
- bigbenorr, on 05/11/2009, -2/+5trees account for a small percentage of the oxygen produced on our planet. I think something like 75% of it is produced by green algae, cyanobacteria, and phytoplankton in the oceans. The ocean seeding idea is designed to increase this effect.
- cinder, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3You're also the guy behind the whole swine flu thing, huh?
- disappointed, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3No, they aren't. Basically, sun light comes in through the gas, hits the ground, warming it. Heat radiated from the ground goes up, hits gas and comes back down. Just like a real greenhouse.
See wikipedia/google for a better explanation. - Shwaavay, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3Yeah it's just you... couldn't you infer from the name "greenhouse gas" that it works something like a greenhouse? Sunlight comes in and makes heat, then is trapped by the CO2 because CO2 absorbs the infrared light that is how the planet cools.
- inactive, on 05/11/2009, -1/+4"I would never say anything against the revered Al Gore."
WHAT. - offrdbandit, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3It's your patriotic duty to pay for it.
- jumpenjack, on 05/11/2009, -1/+4ice core
look it up - mah2cent, on 05/11/2009, -1/+4I am not at all comfortable with a "scientific solution" to a problem of false information. There is a lot of studies available to any who really want to know that shows the average temperature peaked in 1998 and has dropped since then. But lets put that aside for the moment and just consider what would happen if these geniuses are wrong. There are ALWAYS unintendedconsequences of every thing we do, so what could possibly go wrong? How about starting an ice age, or reductions in food production (as stated in a previous post)? Or maybe it results in real climate changes that end up creating vast deserts all over the world which were previously the major producers of the food supply. There is no real way to judge what the possible consequences are and most science only looks at possible solutions and never considers the possibility of "side effects".
The earth has been going through temperature and climate cycles for its entire history and no one has been around (recorded history) long enough to understand the cycles, much less predict when or what triggers them. I know that there are "explanations" by various scientific studies, but no conclusive evidence. It seems like on a daily basis we get a new explanation of what killed off the dinosaurs, but as yet no one has agreed on that theory.
So, what if all the hysteria regarding global warming (which has recently morphed into climate change) is in fact a normal cycle of the earth and not necessary a result of human error. (I am not denying that we do not pollute our environment.) But if plant life grows as a result of co2 uptake, it seems to me that more co2 is good for increased food production for a growing population. Just mah2cent. - KingGorilla, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3Mr. Burns
- mwilhelm, on 05/12/2009, -0/+2The Aurorae are not caused by holes in the ozone.
But yes, people justify their existence any way they can even if it means flagrantly lying or more minimally, pushing your opinion as fact - mwilhelm, on 05/12/2009, -0/+2sooo... I should cut down more trees then?
- inactive, on 05/10/2009, -2/+4A more convenient solution is already available and will soon be implemented on a grand scale:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyTm_0D0uS8 - mwilhelm, on 05/12/2009, -0/+2So, we have finally arrived at the industry-supplied solution to all of our problems.
Let me guess, we can do it - for the nominal fee of trillions of dollars borrowed at interest and an investment in private industry research.
Why don't we just take the free course and clean up our damn waste?
Nah, that would be too easy - and no one would get rich. - mwilhelm, on 05/12/2009, -0/+2I understand your point but the argument of proactively waiting until conclusive evidence is reached before we take action is self-depreciating in EVERY situation.
No, no one knows what or how the climate changes except that it occurs over long periods of time (1,000s of years) except in the presence of external influence.
Our situation and the one with the dinosaurs is similar, regardless of the initial stimulus (meteor, cow farts, etc.). Bearing that in mind:
I don't see any major meteoric impacts in the last 100 years
I don't see any massive increases in volcanic activity in the last 100 years
I don't see a world-wide die-off of plant life in the last 100 years
I don't see substantially increased solar activity in the last 100 years
So what could be causing the climate to shift at an unprecedented (as we have observed over 100k+ years of semi-reliable climate records) rate?
I'm open to any other suggestions but I do see 600 million automobiles spewing noxious and/or greenhouse gasses into the atmo and rampant pollution, and destruction of nature for 100 or so years.
Of course, correlation does not imply causation - unless the evidence is irrefutable.
Which it is. We cannot unequivocally rule out human exacerbation of the current climate cycle, so as scientists, we must proceed with the weighted probability of our actions being instrumental until previously-cited irrefutable evidence has arrived.
Science is not innocent until proven guilty.
So we can waste another decade trying to figure out who dunnit and how it happened or we can use the few years we have left to initiate education and best practices to brace for the impeding and inconceivably destructive climate shift. - mwilhelm, on 05/12/2009, -0/+2and banker fantasy-land.
- amish4play, on 05/10/2009, -0/+2Are you talking about C02? :p
- Digg32539, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2If we can increase the temperature in Siberia, think of all the resources that could be harnessed!
- s0krat3z, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2Sure it does. You made a stupid comment. I highlighted its stupidity by mocking it.
Or were you reincarnated as Hitler? - protodon, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2Well we're on our way to Type I
-
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
