What is Digg?41 Comments
- inactive, on 09/21/2008, -7/+30No matter how much scientific evidence presents itself- this issue will never be resolved by anything other than a complete cultural change (best brought about by a new generation being raised in an environment-friendly culture). For every scientific reason, there is a justification, rationalization, and stupid remark to refute it, which is very convenient.
As a recent employee for big oil (I won't say which one), this mindset is dominant among these people. It's the best example of cognitive dissonance, if I have ever seen one. The mind cannot reconcile simultaneous motives: be good to the planet and inconveniently push to change our source of energy, or run with simplicity and just claim that oil has the highest "energy per gallon" and accept the rape of our environment (a truly rare thing in this universe, all passed off on the whims and claims of "there is no direct evidence").
Sadly, they choose the latter, with a bang. Some examples of this: a recently hired hydro-geologist, when asked where he thought the future of energy dependence lied, claimed that he thought it will be oil because, "I don't know, I like oil." Or what about the powerpoint presentation that revealed the presenters desktop background, the noble image of an oil tanker traveling into a storm on the seas, do people really have such high opinions of oil?
They cannot just take it as a necessary evil. That employs the dissonance- they must fully support their opinion. Who wants to feel guilt for earning easy money? Who wants to feel guilt for not doing anything at home to help?
What I should also note is something slightly hilarious- from my work IP address I checked Wikipedia's history to find an edit on the corporation, adding in the word 'allegedly' to a claim that the refineries were causing environmental problems in the immediate areas surrounding them.
Long story short, as much we all want this study (which is important) to impact society, it will falter, until we make this change with our new generation, expelling the dissonance that forces so many to turn blind to these blatant problems. So take these issues seriously, turn off your lights when not needed, take public transportation where it is slightly inconvenient- think of it this way, there are many people that would love to use public transportation, but cannot, because they don't have the option, you can make up for them. - DestroyFascism, on 09/21/2008, -1/+11Oceans do the same...
- MorganMghee, on 09/21/2008, -2/+9and due to the particulate pollution in the air (see 'dimming the sun') the amounts of oceanic flora have been steadily decreasing. Not only do they provide the priceless service noted above, they provide the majority of the earth's oxygen. Oxygen. OXYGEN!
- macattak420, on 09/22/2008, -4/+9gravityPersists+Digg= BEST ****ing post
- MrBussi, on 09/22/2008, -1/+6read this for a good brief criticism of that documentary.
also from article "A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions.[27]" - wunksta, on 09/22/2008, -0/+5oxygen is also essential to our life, however high levels of it are toxic
also, iron mountain was a hoax (although raising important points i think, such as the current military industrial complex) and reducing emissions doesnt mean we have to reduce the population - wunksta, on 09/22/2008, -3/+8@"If C02 causes global warming then how come volcanoes spew out a far greater amount of C02 than man and that has never driven climate change in the past?"
unlikely
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man ...
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002.../2001GC000 ...
@"If C02 causes global warming then how come water vapour is listed as a far stronger greenhouse gas is never addressed when methane and C02 are?"
it is addressed, yet its not a man made produced greenhouse gas. but a potential side effect from increased warming regardless could increase the water vapor leading to a larger escalation of water vapor
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/20 ...
@"If C02 drives global warming then how come temperature goes up first followed by C02 in all historical graphs?"
its more of an accumulation of all effects, not just c02 by itself. however, temperatures can impact co2 and vice versa. nothing is perfect or absolute and theres a lot of different variables. we do know that increasing any greenhouse gas will cause an effect on the atmosphere which could lead to increased temperatures. to say that only ONE will ever have an impact is to ignore the evidence itself, which is that they both have an affect on each other.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
@"How come in the last few years we have had a drop in global warming and the polar icecap actually is up 6% from this time last year."
theres variation and its not going to be a constant increase. the overall effect is a dramatic loss in the ice caps and increases in temperature. if you look at one of those jagged up and down graphs that rise up, pointing at one decrease on a steady uphill climb isnt evidence of a downward trend.
http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/model/co2/ ...
http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf
@"Do people seriously believe that carbon taxes will actually change C02 output? It is like a scaghead having to pay more money for heroin, he will find a way but he won't kick his habbit."
no, i dont think they really real. i think its more up to the consumers and the individuals in their respective nations to help lead the way to more cleaner energy, transportation and industry. we also need to help push other nations towards that as well, but not through taxes i think, although taxes mixed with subsidies have worked in the past and are usually an efficient market practice, but im more for a free/fair market
@"Lastly, why is there such aversion to debate? I'm not saying I know all the answers, I would just like to see a fair debate to flesh out what's really correct and what's not."
i dont think theres an aversion to debate, i think its more people who are dead set against it or trying to find alternatives that make things difficult. yes, we may or may not be causing the majority, however find cleaner, renewable sources of energy are would better for us as a society and as consumers, the reduction in carbon emissions is an added bonus. minimizing the methane emissions and possibly using it as energy would also help benefit society more than just curbing emissions
thats my take on it at least, hope it helps - MrBussi, on 09/22/2008, -1/+5no, it arises from the fact, that the global mean temperature has been rising for the last 100 or so years
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/g ... - inactive, on 09/22/2008, -2/+6Dissolved carbon dioxide in seawater produces carbolic acid. Acidic water kills plankton and coral. The situation is worse than most people think.
This video is a pretty good primer on the non-linearities in the system
http://vimeo.com/1709110 - bugsy187, on 09/22/2008, -7/+10It has also been found that the average republican has his head up his ass to a degree that prevents him from purchasing reasonably sized vehicles and voting to curb emissions. The problem has been documented for at least the past 8 years. Certain phrases have also been discovered that affect his behavior. Murmuring "gun control" or "socialism" can steer his decisions. Other words like "abortion", "gay", and "family values" have been shown varying degrees of effectiveness.
- owenblacker, on 09/22/2008, -3/+6I'm thinking you should probably stop reading stories in "Science" and go back to the nice fairytale fiction you were at before…
- wunksta, on 09/22/2008, -0/+3the earths climate doesnt only depend on solar variation, and it has been factored
"Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004."
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Solar_Variabilit ...
could be more, could be less. the solar variation going down will decrease the overall trend a bit, but will still continue due to other factors. however, the big key that you are missing is that the solar variation is a cycle, its going down but will raise back up again, while other factors have possibly already increased - wunksta, on 09/22/2008, -3/+5satire?
- ChicagoDS, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3wasn't pbs all over this 3 weeks ago?
- Rotzooi, on 09/22/2008, -3/+5Global warming is so elitist.
- owenblacker, on 09/23/2008, -0/+2Erm, no really!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid = H2O + CO2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbolic_acid = Phenol. *So* not the same thing! - jasdf, on 09/22/2008, -3/+5Good thing this past year was unusually cold...
- MorganMghee, on 09/23/2008, -0/+2Your saying that it is discredited doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you say it.
- wunksta, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3its not really wanting the stuff we have, as if we are entitled to it, thats the problem
its more the fact that we (the political elite and their corporate buddies) have been using america as something to secure profits world wide, oppressing countries and manipulating foreign affairs to their advantage (its not just the us, but a lot of other countries as well, just speaking for my own you know)
call me an idealist but i think we could be able to work together. it doesnt have to be an 'us vs them' type world. right now we have the technology and the science to help everyone i think, its very possible and we can revolutionize the world - slapthemonkey, on 09/22/2008, -0/+2Sounds nightmarish
- wunksta, on 09/22/2008, -1/+3discredited? the graph and claims for that graph may have been disputed and the evidence reviewed, yes, but the entire report was not discredited. furthermore, that was the 3rd assessmnet report, have you looked at the newer one? theyve included more information and evidence, interesting stuff.
- Truzseeker, on 09/22/2008, -3/+5this is more global warming nonsense. .. get a clue NASA to hold press conference on the state of the sun http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/19/news-nasa-to ...
Ulysses ends its career after revealing that the magnetic field emanating from the sun’s poles is much weaker than previously observed. This could mean the upcoming solar maximum period will be less intense than in recent history which means we are entering a period of global cooling ! - bcrussett, on 09/22/2008, -3/+4Interesting article.
Just like the subject matter in the article and the melting of ice caps reducing Earth's albedo, there's a number of carbon feedback loops in the environment. Unfortunately, the majority of them (and almost all new ones becoming understood) are positive feedbacks (not the good positive).
Some others that I've come across:
As the planet heats up, air retains more moisture, increasing the greenhouse effect.
Rising temperatures lead to an increase in forest fires and arboreal pests/diseases, reducing the amount of carbon that can be removed from the atmosphere.
Increasing ocean temperatures leads to less dissolved nitrogen -> less plankton -> less CO2 removed from the atmosphere
When temperatures rise enough to affect the temperature in the deep ocean's sediment layers, methane that is currently locked away in ice sublimes and enters the atmosphere.
It's possible that increased temperatures could lead to greater cloud cover and reduce the greenhouse effect (an example of negative feedback) but it could also have the reverse effect. Most current models predict the Earth's temperature increase accelerating over time. Sort of like flicking over the first domino. - wunksta, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2sorry about the typos lol :P
- starmanjones, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2i have worse outlook. we won't. too many have nots wanting stuff we elites in the 1st world have. its going to grow. the earth is going to change and likely be less hospitable to humans. a sizable number of us will leave earth and take earth life with us. we'll terra form mars... live on the moon... build colonies as the earth becomes more and more hostile to life we know. some humans will stay... but many will die and in a couple hundred years most humans will live off earth.
- dbloss, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1The article onyl details solar heating, which doesn't vary significantly. Currently, focus is on sunspot activity, which varies significantly. During the recent decades, sunspot activity has been high, but is currently at its lowest observance in over half a century. Sunspots have a good historical correlation with temperature, whether it is a direct causation or indirect as propsed by Svensmark, I don't know. The historical variations are greater than 1.0 degrees C, which exceeds the 20th temperature rise. The current lack of sunspots may be preceeding a significant temperature drop from the latter 20th century. What I am waiting to see is CO2 changes with a cooling planet. Many scientists believe that the ocean's will absorb more CO2 than we are emitting. This is plausible since the oceans contain 50 times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Only time will tell.
- Kombaiyashii, on 09/22/2008, -4/+5I'm still on the fence with global warming so I hope you global warming advocates will answer me these questions...
If C02 causes global warming then how come volcanoes spew out a far greater amount of C02 than man and that has never driven climate change in the past?
If C02 causes global warming then how come water vapour is listed as a far stronger greenhouse gas is never addressed when methane and C02 are?
If oil companies are supposedly against current global warming pespective, then how come they are the most to gain from the suggested changes? I'm always seeing oil companies pushing global warming.
If C02 drives global warming then how come temperature goes up first followed by C02 in all historical graphs?
How come in the last few years we have had a drop in global warming and the polar icecap actually is up 6% from this time last year.
Do people seriously believe that carbon taxes will actually change C02 output? It is like a scaghead having to pay more money for heroin, he will find a way but he won't kick his habbit.
Lastly, why is there such aversion to debate? I'm not saying I know all the answers, I would just like to see a fair debate to flesh out what's really correct and what's not.
I think these are legitamite questions. If I get dugg down then I'll take it that there's a political drive here not interested in addressing questions but jumping on bandwagons and hysteria.
There's an interesting video on video.google.com called "the global warming swindle," I recommend everyone watch it to see both sides of the story. - JSUToots, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1Fuel the Film
The dependence on foreign oil, especially in the recent Bush administration, hurts the U.S. economy with the roaring gas prices. That in turn affects food prices and many more. Why rely on oil? I found an amazing movie which explains all these issues very clearly, and I highly recommend watching it… and showing it at work, school, or anywhere there are large groups of people. It truly raises awareness of global warming, 9/11, and how we can turn to alternative fuel such as biofuel to save costs and moreover, combat the impeding destruction of the environment. Biofuel does not put C02 into the atmostphere like gasoline.. which causes global warming!
http://www.myspace.com/fuelthefilm - NoozeHound, on 09/22/2008, -2/+3Yeah, you're right. We're all *****, because that's the basis on which America awards the most influential job on the planet.
- soccermatt34, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2A four year study to observe a three year trend? I would definitely like to see more longevity of the data
- Trent1492, on 09/22/2008, -1/+2Hello Double,
Just because you do not like what someone has to say, or do not like that person; does not mean the data they are presenting is in error. So the question I want you to answer is this: What kind of evidence do you need to convince yourself that climate change is real and man-made. - lornali, on 09/23/2008, -1/+2A very thought provoking article
- doubledmateo, on 09/23/2008, -0/+1I suppose I didn't make it all that clear in my post. I don't doubt that Global warming is happening or that mankind is having an effect on it. What I see as a problem is the way the issue is always portrayed. It's nearly always done in a very polarizing (Us, the intelligent environmentalists, v.s. them, the neanderthal gun toting morons that think the environment should be destroyed) way that does little to help the problem at hand.
Essentially, I feel this is one of those subjects that needs some finite answers, and a lot less wishy washy babble, or environmental feel goodery.
I have a lot of frustration with so many articles on the subject because they only talk about correlations that support their hypothesis. It feels at times as if some of these researchers are just looking for anything that will validate the field they've devoted themselves too. It just feels way too much like modern day soothsaying. Yes they may be using factual data, but the way they interpret the data is far from perfect. It often feels like pseudo-science (I'm not talking about evidence that the earth is in a general warming trend, or that CO2 gasses are on the rise, I'm speaking of the way this evidence is used to "prove" that catastrophe X will surely happen.)
It's as if we're all sitting on a giant ticking time bomb, and instead of focusing on a way to deactivate it, we're having a discussion on which part will blow up first, or what temperature some the explosion will be when it goes off. Stuff that isn't very consequential in the face of imminent doom. - Ferretman, on 09/22/2008, -3/+4An interesting enough article, though buried as inaccurate since it cites the discredited IPCC report.
- tao52nyc, on 09/22/2008, -3/+3Then I guess we're lucky we haven't had an "unusually warm year" in a decade or so...
- owenblacker, on 09/22/2008, -2/+2Carbonic, not carbolic.
But yeah, what he said :o) - inactive, on 09/22/2008, -7/+6Man made global warming is a fraud. Driving SUVs isn't going to destroy the earth. And I'm not paying for no damn carbon tax either once they start requiring it because all the money will go to the elites that created the global warming scam.
- doubledmateo, on 09/22/2008, -3/+2I also get rather frustrated with the Global warming arguments, mainly because it seems like away for eletists to spout off how much smarter they are than all those "other morons" that are destroying the world with their CO2 emissions. It just really feels like an ego stroking exercise most of the time, meanwhile any useful solutions seem to be few and far between. The overarching theme I seem to see is more of a political one, insinuating that liberals will be the saviors of the planet while the evil republicans seek to destroy the earth with their stupidity and war mongering.
If the CO2 issue is as devastating as stated, then much more extreme measures need to take place. No matter how much people cry about the devestation of the earth and the plight of the Polar bear (really sick of that one) change won't happen as long as it requires people to spend more money or be inconvenienced. For every environmentally conscious person there are a thousand others who just couldn't care less, so no matter how many Digg articles vilianize modern industry, the situation is going to persist.
Digg away, my friends. - WhoDoneIt, on 09/22/2008, -4/+1Oprah?
- paulieslim, on 09/22/2008, -6/+2no Whammies! no Whammies! STOP!
oh sorry you landed on "methane gas released by the meat animals"
no burgers for you - Catspaw, on 09/22/2008, -15/+7 Carbon dioxide is not a threat -it is essential to life on earth. The idea for this global warming hoax appears to have emerged from the Iron Mountain Report. This was authored by a group of intellectual elitists in 1966 who were asked to devise methods by which a government could become more powerful, [1]. War, they wrote, would be impossible under a single, world government, so other methods for controlling populations would be required. A new enemy that posed a threat to life on earth was needed.
1. The Police State Road Map, (2005), an e-book by M. Nield, Ch.7.5/ Ch.14 at policestateplanning.com.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is