What is Digg?48 Comments
- WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I just did a bit of research on that site you linked to... you know, the one that says that there was a huge CO2 spike some 200 million years ago.
That huge spike is, in fact, two datapoints compiled by a scientist named Royer, who compiles phanerozoic (in other words, from about 550 million years ago to today) CO2 levels by analysis of plant fossils. TWO points. All of the other data on the chart they linked to estimates the atmospheric CO2 to be much closer to a third or half of what we're at now.
In other words, Royer's data may indicate that CO2 levels were three times higher then than they are today... but, given so few samples, it's entirely possible that those results are due to volcanic activity, rather than a sustained level of carbon dioxide- especially since all of the other data points contradict Royer's evidence. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Yay for strawmen! Either that is a lame attempt at a joke, or the author is seriously delusional. The links to pictures of various celebrities under such titles as "illustrious editors" is hilarious.
The article's author can't even get basic facts right before gagging on their foot.
"Today we have approximately 290ppmv [CO2]"
More like 377 ppmv in 2004.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2
"there’s a correlation of 1 degrees celsius for every 8.57 ppmv of CO2"
That level of idiocy is simply astounding. By that assumption, the temperature should have risen ~12 degrees celsius since the pre-industrial era (i.e. before the 1750's). - mxcl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Ouch. 75% of the world's oxygen comes from sea-algae. We don't want to kill those things. Plankton aren't the same, but I doubt plankton are the only affected organisms.
- darkever, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15inaccurate title.
should say: Global Warming will KILL US ALL, EVERYBODY PANIC! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Your house smells. Do you think its the garbage you leave piled in the kitchen?
No, actually we looked into and this house smelled long before we even moved in.
Oh, cool. You got a bathroom? or should i just ***** in the kitchen. - Sagan1337, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Firstly that episode isn't about global warming, and they don't say global warming is *****. They say that "we just don't know" about global warming.
Secondly you have to look at the reasons for their doubt. They were in the environmentalist movement back when we thought CO2 causes global cooling. (just as ashes from volcanoes have done in the past) So they say that science constantly changes. And when they shot that episode, the hottest year ever measured was in the eighties. Which would mean that we are already over the peak. Considering these two things they said that "we just don't know".
Since then the hottest year ever measured has become 2005. I bet if you asked them now, they would change their "we just don't know" to "probably" or maybe even "absolutely". - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Eco-hysteria.
Watch...
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=penn+teller+global+warming - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Copying my comments from one of the "upcoming articles" to this article. The copy doesn't work 100% because this main artcile doesn't reference another article with conflicting data.
=-=
Interesting article. Who would have thought that the density of a certain species of plankton could be measured from space by "different shades of green in the ocean". One would think that to obtain a measure of plankton in the water you'd simply take a water sample. But I suppose it's because of clever techniques like this that these global warming scientists get the big funding dollars.
Anyway, it's interesting to point out that surface temp of the ocean actually _went down_ during the end part of this experiment when plankton was decreasing. This was stated in another article linked from this article. This, of course, conflicts with the findings of the "satellite/plankton" study, which claims cooler water cause the plankton to increase.
And, as usual, the original reports are unavailable to the public. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
This is one of the most tired canards. Comparing modern science to a few sensationalizing journalists is utterly pathetic. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4As a direct reply to your comment...
Ever heard of mass extinctions?
http://hoopermuseum.earthsci.carleton.ca/extinction/extincmenu.html - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Change of Earth's tilt / precession / eccentricity = Milankovitch cycles
http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm
The oceans are sum-total absorbing CO2, not sum-total outgassing. "Sum-total" means there is outgassing, but the rate of absoption is greater.
The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2
(summary in popular press)
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,64236,00.html
(actual scientific paper)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/305/5682/367 - dilbert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So, what about the reduction of phosphate in waste water and the subsequent effect on marine life e.g. phytoplankton? It's fish food!
- unusualbob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Did we actually expect the earth to stop changing when we evolved? Its been changing for 4 billion years now and i dont see it slowing down for al gore.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"what makes us so arrogant that we believe we could/should do something about it?"
Right. There's no possible way to stop dumping 6.5 Billion Tons of manmade CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. There's just nothing we can do about it! Except, you know, mandate limits on CO2 output... but that would be hard! Way harder than mass extinction...
Now, watch this drive... - rednesss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Here's a simple scenario: the sun's output has increased ever so slightly or the tilt of the earth is changing minutely, it causes the world's oceans to heat up ever so much (they do cover 70% of the earth's surface), the ocean releases a bit of the billions of tons of CO2 that it has bottled up, CO2 levels rise. Hmmmm, rising CO2 is not responsible for warming, it is just a by-product. Perform your own experiment at home, take two cans of Pepsi, one has been chilling in your fridge, the other has been sitting on the dash of your car in the middle of August, now open them both.
I always laugh at people who can't differentiate between correlation and causation. By the same philosophy vegetables cause car crashes because statistically everyone involved in car crashes has eaten vegetables in the previous 24 hours.
Preparing to be dugg down. - TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Okay, there was one study that said it "could" happen...
There's a big difference between Could and Will..
Any real scientist wouldn't look at this information strained as it is as say that it's going to definitely happen. Tt's just a hypothesis so far, with a little information studying it, and not all the information agrees... this is what science is about...
This article is interesting but it's just scare mongering... - mattsidesinger, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"Global Warming is going to strike... two days before the day after tomorrow."
- superpumas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am sorry, I thought I had explained what I stated was "simplified". The study has nothing to do with fish adaptation , just decrease in marine biodiversity. I should also add that this increase in CO2 and a decrease in marine biodiversity happened over a long time frame(m.y.) But what you should get from this is that an increase in C02 means decrease in marine life overall. Why should we be concerned? I guess you could study the amount of carbon that was prevalent then and apply the geologic principal of uniformitarism that increase CO2 now will cause the same effect now, that it has in the past. Keep in mind that most marine organisms I am talking about now (excluding fish) are composed of calcium carbonate now as they were 250m.y. I apologize for my over- simplification of using fish as an example. I hope though that you can see a connection.
- gardnmi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I never liked seafood anyway.
- nitsedy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+14So how does this fit with the high CO2 levels from a few million years back? How did the oceanic eco-system survive back then? http://www.internetwasteland.com/?p=304
- Natant45, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't understand what is so never ending about such a debate, when the half that don't believe we can have a large if not catastrophic impact on the earth ask for proof then are given such proof and straight up deny it...
furthermore with the increase of CO2 (an insulating molecule due to its large mass) the problem seems to be ready to increase exponentially...
for more
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/warm_marine.html - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1P.S. This is why I encourage people to read the reports on global warming. It's the only way you'll ever find out that these "global warming scientists" can't even tell if the temperature is going up or down _today_, let alone what it's going to do 100 years from now.
Also, please pay attention to _how_ their data was obtained. In this example, they are not making claims on plankton growth based on measurements from water samples, but rather from "shades of green seen from space". Once you see this, take the time to search the internet for a study where water samples measuring plankton were compared to "shades of green seen from space" and the two matched. I doubt you'll find such a report. - mroffroad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It takes a brave politician to stand up alone against a tidal wave of religious hysteria. Such a man is Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma. He has publicly denounced man-made global warming as a "hoax" and held a hearing in Congress yesterday (12/06) to expose it as such.
One of those who testified was Dr. David Deming, professor of geology and geophysics at the University of Oklahoma, who described the incredible dishonesty of scientists who have become global warming advocates.
Jim Inhofe is waging a valiant struggle, and it would have been helped had he someone to testify about how "global warming" is an issue of religious fanaticism, rather than just misguided science.
"Global warming" (or more specifically man-made or "anthropogenic" global warming) is a secular religion believed in by people who have abandoned Christianity.
One of the most ancient and widespread convictions of most cultures known to history and anthropology is that one's life is made most meaningful through sacrifice and suffering.
The genius of the concept of Original Sin - the core concept of Christianity - is that it lifts the terrible burden of this conviction from people. The sacrifice and suffering of Christ on the Cross "saves" anyone accepting it from having the burden upon themselves.
The vast majority of global warming fanatics are from Western cultures. Not a lot of Chinese or Hindus or Moslems are in a tizzy about it. These fanatics are almost all ex-Christians, born and raised in a Christian culture which they grew up to reject.
Yet what they didn't reject and still retain is a belief in Original Sin, that human beings by their nature are deserving of divine punishment.
What happens when you believe in Original Sin yet reject Christianity's salvation from it? The politically correct option of the moment is to believe in global warming.
You transform Man sinning against God into Man sinning against the Earth. It's a primitive form of animism, that the earth itself is alive and a supernatural being, the "Gaia" Earth Goddess.
But "Gaia" doesn't forgive, she only punishes. Which we deserve, for we have sinned.
"Global warming" is thus not a scientific hypothesis to be tested, but a religious faith to be believed in. For the distinguishing feature of a religious type of belief is the refusal to accept any disconfirming evidence.
The most famous image of Algore's Inconvenient Truth video is him standing in front of a huge satellite photo of Hurricane Katrina over New Orleans. Claiming the storm was our fault through man-made global warming, he apocalyptically predicted an inevitable succession of such storms in the years to come.
Yet this year's hurricane season has just ended - without one single hurricane of any size making landfall on the US. This of course is dismissed by global warming religious fanatics - for like any religious fanatic, only confirming evidence counts, disconfirming evidence never.
The question, then, for Jim Inhofe to ask of global warming advocates is:
What would you accept as falsifying, disconfirming evidence for global warming and that we are its cause? How would you go about proving it wrong?
This is the key question of science. Whenever it is not asked, science is absent.
What real scientists do when they are conducting real science is to try as hard as they can in every way they can imagine to prove a hypothesis wrong. They never go about only trying to prove a hypothesis right.
It is only after they have exhaustively failed to disprove a hypothesis that it gains scientific credibility.
This is exactly and precisely what global warming scientists are not doing with their research. They are being paid billions of dollars in government grant money to "prove" anthropogenic warming and dismiss evidence against it.
So we have a secular fanaticism masquerading as science, demanding we all sacrifice and suffer. One solution to the lunacy is to organize a Christian missionary movement to evangelize global warming scientists and advocates. Bringing them to Christ could heal their souls - and save us from them. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Does that explain the increase in CO2 during previous warming periods (that seems to lag warming), i.e. less plankton to turn CO2 in O2?
- betasp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Your experiment will do nothing but prove that fish cannot adapt to new surrounding in seconds. The CO2 increases and subsequent ocean warming will take years and years. During that time, creatures (including humans) will either adapt or die. Even you admit this type of change has happened in the past, so what makes us so arrogant that we believe we could/should do something about it?
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Changing... yeah.... everything changes right?
So if we continuously, erm, "liberate" 6.5 Billion Tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year, for, oh, say a few decades... measurably changing the composition of the atmosphere itself...what could possibly go wrong, eh?
I mean all change is good, right?
Change can never hurt you, right? - Sagan1337, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The source is the journal Nature... Also the study doesn't say it could happen, but it sais that it has happened in the last 10 years. You clearly haven't even read the article if you say that this is just a hypothesis.
- superpumas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It is understandable why there are some many skeptics out there questioning the increase of atmospheric CO2 and decrease of biodiversity in our oceans. An increase in earths temp. will obviously kill off millions of marine organisms that live in a very specific "temperature" zone(aside the fact of a change in ocean salinity, pH and light penetration).
Here is a simple experiment to try, go to a pet store and buy some salt water tropical fish. Dump the fish into a tub of cold fresh water(Temp ~ 60 F* pH 7.1) and see what happens. The results will be pretty obvious.
Now try to imagine non-mobile marine organisms such as corals and sponges. They have a very hard time migrating to "ideal" conditions and will of course die off. Since the reef structure supports a lot of marine life such as fish, they too will eventually die off since you are cutting off their food supply.
I have done a little work on the Permian mass extinction(250 m.y.), by studying the fossil record you can see a significant change in marine life right at the extinction boundary. The size and number of bivalves (clams) just about ends at the boundary. By studying the carbon isotopes at the boundary you see a huge spike in CO2 and the lack of marine life. However this has been simplified and is more complex.
To all the skeptics out there, don't quote O' Reilly or Rush, do your own research and get your hands dirty, last time I checked, those guys are and were never scientists. - XZanatos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1CO2 itself causes marine damage. Global warming is still real, but just the increased CO2 is harmful as well. When CO2 is dissolved into water it increases the acidity of the water a bit. This increased acidity dissolves hard shells and makes it more difficult for hard shelled creatures to build shells.
LINKS:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/00/05/coralReef.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4226917.stm
http://starbulletin.com/2005/10/18/news/story13.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400772.html
OR GOOGLE IT "co2 acidity oceans" - lowfalls, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA.....oh wait, thats not funny.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think the world is saved. You know scientists say it's gonna ***** up rapidly, but the US government along with Internet trolls from the same country say it's all ***** and made up. What evidence do they have? None, but that never mattered...
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@betasp
It's that "or die" part that I'm personally concerned about.
"what makes us so arrogant that we believe we could/should do something about it"
A little thing called 'self preservation'. - superpumas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” - Mark Twain
To each man his own I guess, this always is an never-ending argument - XZanatos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@chriskzoo
Great to see someone pulling out the "they were wrong before so they must be wrong now" arguement. Great because I needed a good laugh.
Lets apply your example to other areas of human life. We used to think bleeding people and giving them mercury were good medical ideas; now we use IVs and give people (non-poisionous) antibiotics, but.... we were wrong before.
I could find dozens of things we thought in the past which we don't believe anymore, but I won't bore everyone here. Its called PROGRESS and ADVANCEMENT. Its the discovery and application of knowledge. Get used to it - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13Global Warming has already reduced ocean productivity and is killing numerous forms of life both on land and in the seas.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-11-21-warming-species_x.htm - wiremonkeymommy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1what part of 'System Failure' do you not understand?
Oh.. never mind, keep arguing... no really, it helps, I mean.. come on, the Earth is listening and really cares about your ability to produce scientific research based on denial and profit motive in an effort to silence your opponents.
/is the sarcasm tag really necessary? - washingtonydc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This really isn't surprising--however it could pale in comparison to the effects of the ocean's salinity changing due to our growing climate crisis.
- trollick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think we are OK, at least until vikings are able to return to lush Greenland with their cows and stuff...
- rednesss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@Vikingcoder
Do you mean to say that there are more variables to this whole "global warming" thing than just how much I drive my SUV??? To think that the sun, and how far away we are from it and when and how the earth is pointing toward it or away can influence climate??? I don't know, but AlGore is so charismatic and knowledgeable, he invented the internet after all. - Ramtech, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It may be *****.. but.. its just a matter of opinion and where you can get some real facts.. the choice after that is totally up to you..
- julielacombe, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9Rofl, isn't global warming supposed to be "*****"? :) At least, that's what Penn&Teller seem to think...
http://geeksaresexy.blogspot.com/2006/12/environmental-hysteria-is-*****.html
Yeah, I know, This is *****, but entertaining nonetheless.. - Ramtech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Penn and Teller ***** is about "Enviromental Histeria"... not global warming.. they talk only about 2 lines about it... the rest is about the "Enviromental Histeria". Read people... geez...
- dschrute, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I'd rather have scientists -not Penn and Teller - decide whether the earth is in danger.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@dschrute
How could scientists ever hope to compete with stage magicians in matters of truthiness, though?
After all, those "scientists" are only concerned with living the high life on government grants while Penn & Teller are simply looking out for what is best for Humanity. They are truly selfless individuals.
/sarcasm
(unfortunate that I have to specify that) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2PWNT.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8Funny, its the same people now promoting global warming that were promoting the next ice age just 30 years ago.
Is the Earth warming up? Yes.
Is man the cause? Maybe.
Does it matter? Nobody knows. - pyper, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5http://www.digg.com/videos_educational/*****
nuff said
argg beat to it - cJw314, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0"SENATE ENVIRONMENT PANEL CHAIRMAN BLAMES MEDIA, HOLLYWOOD FOR GLOBAL WARMING 'HOAX'..."
"'The Public Has Been Vastly Misinformed'... "
(via drudgereport.com)
The 'media' is reporting global warming is a "hoax", so aren't we supposed to dismiss it and move on?
/sarcasm
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is