What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
319 Comments
- no2gates, on 10/06/2008, -11/+29I'm going to open my fridge for 3 hours tonight to do my part.
- justintsmith, on 10/06/2008, -18/+35Yep, just like the holocaust and moon landings. All fake. Thousands of pieces of evidence were planted or faked. It's the only explanation that fits my worldview.
- mcsenget, on 10/06/2008, -1/+15The most important greenhouse gases are:
water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)
carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%
methane, which causes 4–9%
ozone, which causes 3–7%
Note that this is a combination of the strength of the greenhouse effect of the gas and its abundance. For example, methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2—about 25 times more heat absorptive, but is present in much smaller concentrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas - LLLSecretChimp, on 10/06/2008, -2/+16That would definitely reduce CO2 emissions.
- malex, on 10/06/2008, -3/+16You know, there are people who actually study these things for a living. Maybe you should actually read what they have to say about it.
- LLLSecretChimp, on 10/06/2008, -1/+13Logic's making some big leaps today.
- bombula, on 10/06/2008, -8/+18Of course we're beyond the tipping point. The conservative estimates have consistently been wrong - exponentially wrong. Mitigation is largely futile at this point. Adaptation is what we must focus on. Here's a hint: don't invest in ocean-front property...
- CoreyHalliwell, on 10/06/2008, -8/+18You mean Sarah Palin?
BAM - inactive, on 10/06/2008, -17/+26No, there is no man made global warming. These are natural trends. What happens would have happened with or without us.
There is no link between carbon emissions and global warming!
Do you think if you say it enough times it becomes true? - inactive, on 10/06/2008, -8/+17*cue idiot righttard who believes scientists are all a bunch of socialist liars*
- bushout, on 10/06/2008, -5/+14I think it was obviously too late once Bush had accepted it's existence.
- UTKEngineer, on 10/06/2008, -3/+12@offrdbandit - No one said the excess CO2 would "destroy" the ecosystem. It is going to change it. The carbon we are currently burning was captured and sequestered, largely, when the earth was green pole to pole.
Releasing all that CO2 will simply revert our ecosystem back to that point... and destroy our way of life as fertile farmland is swamped or converted to desert, all our ports end up under water, and storm systems have orders of magnitude more warm water to feed off of. - Endit, on 10/06/2008, -16/+24*cue crazy Christian who doesn't believe*
- obama4prez, on 10/06/2008, -12/+20i hope we are beyond the "tipping point" ..maybe then everyone will stop talking about it
- Ragzouken, on 10/06/2008, -1/+9For the same reason you pollutomaniacs aren't burning everything you own.
- lazerus9, on 10/06/2008, -4/+12The polar ice sheet in Antarctica is growing.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_She ... - angryredplanet, on 10/07/2008, -1/+8"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ... - joe7845, on 10/06/2008, -1/+8#1: As the article itself explains, CO2 is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared. As the CO2 concentration changes, the equilibrium temperature of the planet changes (with all else being equal).
#2: You're talking about the paleo climate. It is true that the CO2 concentration is affected by temperature as well over the long run. It goes both ways. But if you look at a record of the last 150 years, and do a detrended cross-correlation analysis, there's a clear association and a lag in the expected direction, of about 10 years.
#3: The end of the little ice age does not explain the current temperature anomaly. You can confirm this as follows. Take a 2000-year temperature reconstruction, and detrend it. You can use a 3rd order polynomial to detrend, for example. So now you have a flat temperature series. Then determine how hot a year needs to be so it's in the top 5% of hottest years in the last 2 millenia. You will find that the last 40 or so years fall in that category. We're in the midst of a "climate event", unprecedented in millenia, no question about it. - marcz, on 10/06/2008, -0/+7How's the Bush fan club going? Still have a home?
- hhmmmm, on 10/06/2008, -1/+8I don't believe such a sun exists
- marcz, on 10/06/2008, -2/+9The sun isn't in the sky, dumbasss.
- LLLSecretChimp, on 10/06/2008, -1/+8Global wraming is caused by excessive C20.
- JulioChavez, on 10/06/2008, -1/+7It only requires a single graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Co2- ... ( thanks to mcsenget in an earlier reply )
The level of CO2 ( and temperature ) is cyclical. Notice the far right side of the graph where is shows that we are approaching 400 ppm. This has never happened. Since human activities produce tons and tons of CO2 gas, it is reasonable to assume we are responsible for the unprecedented spike in atmospheric CO2 level.
However, if you think about what the graph means for the near future, it would be silly to think that any amount or type of legislation is going to prevent catastrophic climate change. We should limit emissions because they are toxic to humans and other species. We should maximize solar energy research because the Sun is the only thing that will provide us with the amount of energy we are going to need to have "climate control" for the Earth.
- greenfyre, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6Because we look at the science http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ... rather than operating from a 4 yr olds understanding?
- marcz, on 10/06/2008, -0/+6Oh wow, your intelligence has left me speechless.
- CoreyHalliwell, on 10/06/2008, -3/+9THAT THE BIRD IS THE WORD?
- TunaTheFrog, on 10/06/2008, -3/+9My Go Kart uses diesel
- Literaturfan, on 10/06/2008, -8/+14Great scientific article. Not for everybody. I agree absolutely with the disproportion between theory and practice
- greenfyre, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6Right, comics as a more reliable source than thousands of scientists.
- Terwa, on 10/06/2008, -2/+8That actually will warm up the surrounding room.
- angryredplanet, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6@offrdbandit
Point out where things become difficult to understand:
The greenhouse effect is well known and established in the scientific community and not even the most steadfast denier would attempt to deny that. Without this effect, which keeps surface temperatures stable, Earth wouldn't support life in the rich and diverse way it does now. Hence, greenhouse gasses have a blanketing effect.
Moving along, humans emit an astounding amount of greenhouse gasses in industry, transport, power generation and cattle farming. Not only that, we've been doing it for decades. Different GHGs last for different amounts of time in the atmosphere. CO2 lasts between 50 to 100 years in it's natural carbon cycle - meaning it has a cumulative and overlapping effect while in the atmosphere. As a result we've been rapidly increasing atmospheric GHGs thereby adding to the thickness of the blanket, will not subside for at least 50 years.
This is supported by science as best it can be, as it's very difficult to find a planet sized laboratory. We are in effect running the experiment live. The observational evidence matches very closely to the predictions made by climate models, only the predicted events are happening a lot sooner than our "worst case" models indicated a decade ago. The time for useless denier rhetoric is well past.
Can you think of an internally consistent theory, with directly determined data and observational evidence that matches the predictions so closely? You can carry on using ad hominem and jokes to prop your feeble argument and ego but the fact still remains: as a denier, you have nothing - no science, no scientific consensus and no alternative theory. Ignorance will not save you from the conclusions made from accrued scientific knowledge. - johnsna2, on 10/06/2008, -3/+91) Read the article. CO2 lets in visible light which heats up the earth. The earth then radiates back infrared energy, a lower form of energy which isn't strong enough to penetrate the CO2 and is even less likely to pass through molecules of other stuff that we put in the air, hence the relative heat trapping abilities of different compounds.
2) The earth is a relatively complex system, you can't just take CO2 into consideration. If you think temperature causes an increase of gaseous molecules you obviously have little understanding of science. What's going on right now can't be compared to hundreds of years ago because humans weren't burning fossil fuels. People who don't think global warming is man made don't deny the fact that we put CO2 in the air, its simple chemistry, combustion reactions yield CO2. The debate is over whether the CO2 is changing anything.
3) Whether or not this is a historically cool period is open to debate, depending on who you ask, sometimes depending on what side of the argument you wish to inform yourself about. Most people choose to inform themselves and believe what confirms their preexisting notions. Hence why I asked "how you are qualified to make such a judgement". And once again for emphasis: You cannot directly compare what is going on today to what happened hundreds of years ago or thousands for that matter. People weren't driving cars or flying planes around and emitting all kinds of gasses and disrupting the chemical cycling of our planet. - inactive, on 10/06/2008, -1/+6It's bad luck that this happens to coincide with a recession. The thing is, a few degrees would have minimal effect, but politicians won't start doing stuff about it until a city (And therefore votes) goes under water.
- joe7845, on 10/06/2008, -7/+12After personally analyzing the data, I can assure it is not a myth. First, excess atmospheric CO2 is clearly the result of human activity. Second, temperature anomalies are largely caused by excess CO2. A detrended cross-correlation analysis of the pertinent time-series shows this (so it can't be explained as coincidence of trends). You can detrend the data in many different ways to confirm. The results are crystal clear.
- UTKEngineer, on 10/06/2008, -0/+5Since when has limiting sulfoxide emissions been the solution to global warming?
- mille716, on 10/06/2008, -3/+8Yes, you should read more:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ... - greenfyre, on 10/07/2008, -0/+5So where is the bad science? If you meant this stuff http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ... show us what is wrong with it.
- greenfyre, on 10/07/2008, -1/+6If it's a myth, show us what is wrong with the science http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ...
"Climate Change Denial: Nothing but Lies and Frauds" http://digg.com/environment/Climate_Change_Denial_ ... - angryredplanet, on 10/06/2008, -0/+5If the sun is responsible for the current melt, how could ice develop there in the first place? What, the north pole was inadvertently and conveniently tilted away from the sun for millenia? Then what about the south?
There's a reason why sciencey stuff is left to the scientists. - greenfyre, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4@offrdbandi
Since you are such a student of paeleoclimate you also know every sudden release has resulted in mass extinctions ... or are you just parroting wingnut website talking points? - angryredplanet, on 10/06/2008, -1/+5@offrdbandit
GHG forced (including anthropogenic) climate change will still be around long after your economy recovers. It's not a problem you can shelve until it's convenient to deal with. That mentality has been going on in political circles and legislative assemblies for far too long. The time for abrupt and proportionate action was during the 90's. Your energy infrastructure needs an overhaul anyway and the sooner it's done the better. - offrdbandit, on 10/06/2008, -1/+5That's clearly a primordial crane, and as such cannot be used as evidence for a thickening ice sheet.
- greenfyre, on 10/07/2008, -1/+5So show us what is wrong with the science then http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ...
"Climate Change Denial: Nothing but Lies and Frauds" http://digg.com/environment/Climate_Change_Denial_ ...
Global cooling myth debunked http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Global-Cooling-Myth - greenfyre, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4Why do you parrot wingnut talking points without checking to see if there is any truth to them? debunked http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Th ...
- greenfyre, on 10/07/2008, -1/+5So where do the scientists argue correlation = causation? Show us http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Some-of-the-climate-ch ...
You're just repeating wingnut talking points and never looked at any of the science. Instead of facts we get the usual Gore Straw Man ... unbelievably lame and irrelevant. - greenfyre, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4Past ten years http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Global-Cooling-Myth
Human Causing it http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Humans+Causing+Climate ... - Melinda38, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4Methane will become a larger source as the tundras thaw and the methane trapped there is released into the atmosphere. This will accelerate the 'green house' gas problem.
It actually is not a 'green house' effect.
There is also the issue of CFCs still in the atmosphere that destroys ozone in the stratosphere and lets in more radiation. Fortunately CFC have been banned. Unfortunately many CFCs have a long life.
Well this is one subject I could write a book on..... - greenfyre, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4What are you, the Denier Peter Pan? "Yes children, if you believe hard enough all that nasty science http://members.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/globalwa ... will just disappear. Be sure to close your eyes now!"
- mywhitenoise, on 10/06/2008, -4/+8"How exactly are hurricanes and floods any more dangerous now than they were 50-100 years ago? "
Because they're more frequent and stronger, you stupid *****. - greenfyre, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4Solar Myth debunked http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Sunspots-and-Solar-Myt ...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 326 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 