What is Digg?146 Comments
- zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -4/+61It's disgraceful that this issue has become so politicized that debating either side is futile and asking to be branded as a lackey by the other side. Even more disgraceful is that fact so many people blindly accept our politicians' views on this subject, while simultaneously (and correctly) being skeptical about their motives and understanding of other issues (like the DCMA, the Patriot Act, privacy rights, etc.)
- distrbnce, on 10/12/2007, -7/+42*****, now we have to put out the Sun too?
- mattowan, on 10/12/2007, -12/+44How dare you muddle all this emotion with facts.
- df12, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31Let's not forget other evidence for increased solar output in the solar system. A new "Big Red Spot" on Jupiter just appeared in the last year or so. Storms appearing recently on both Neptune and Uranus. All point increased energy input to those planets' atmospheres...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26You know Cheney use to be a major stock holder in the Sun, right? Damn the administration.
- Priebles, on 10/12/2007, -16/+34Talk about a real "Inconvenient Truth"!
- controlguy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19The real inconvenient truth is that a small part of the article is about the one lone scientists view. The rest of the article states that mainstream science indicates that, in fact, solar activity has been on the decline since 1990 and will reach a minimum in 2040, and that the melting of the polar caps on mars are due in part to its excessive orbital wobbles (which expose the caps directly to the sun). Mars does not have a large moon like Earth to stabilize its orbit.
So, in summary, what is the poster talking about? - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23I'm tempted to bury it because of your description, but in spite of that I will Digg it because of the article.
For the sake of argument let's say Habibullo Abdussamatov is right. There are other reasons to look at our carbon emissions. Here's an excerpt from a USA today article on non global warming related environmental changes CO2 can cause.
'Oceans naturally absorb carbon dioxide from the air. For nearly three decades, scientists have detected a steady increase in this absorption, corresponding to an increase in the "greenhouse gases" that hold heat in the atmosphere. One of those gases, carbon dioxide, produces carbonic acid in seawater. Under natural conditions, calcium concentrations in seawater buffer this acid. But the added impact from industrial emissions has overwhelmed this balance, the report concludes.
Scientists measure acidity by the "pH" scale familiar to every high school chemistry student. Since 1800, ice core measures show the ocean's average pH level has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1, making it 30% more corrosive, Feely says. Expected emissions will likely drop it to a pH of 7.9 this century, a 150% increase in acidity since 1800, he says."
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-07-05-ocean-acidity_x.htm
"We are running an open-ended experiment on CO2 levels, and this is not a sensible thing to do."
-Jerry Pournelle (I like that quote because he said it so much better than I can say it) I also like what he says because he puts a lot of blame back on the scientists who are too busy screaming that the end is near to come up with real solutions. - DEaDIRiS, on 10/12/2007, -14/+27"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
Probably the most accurate answer I've heard given in this debate - doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"A new "Big Red Spot" on Jupiter just appeared in the last year or so."
Damn Commies! - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19"if new evidence disproves current theories, scientists will accept it."
Not when it comes to global warming. Evidence that disproves or even weakens current theories is often shunned for no good scientific reason.
Also, global warming "skeptics" don't claim that global warming isn't happening . . . they question the magnitude of the human impact on it. It's not about "denying" anything, it's about rethinking the relative magnitudes. This article, for instance, is simply presenting an opinion that if global warming is happening on Mars, maybe the global warming happening on Earth isn't predominantly due to human emission of carbon dioxide. You can't just lump together "skeptics" and make blanket statements about how they think and act. - teetow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Way to go, world. Let's bitch and call each other names instead of contributing to find out the facts. Let's split ourselves into opposing halves and spend all our effort demonizing the other side. Oh, and let's question the findings of highly educated people on no grounds whatsoever.
If global warming is as bad as it looks, we deserve every degree (pun intended) of it for not fixing it when we had the chance. If it isn't, we got of lucky - again. - 10lbhammer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@ controlguy:
how *dare* you read the article all the way through before making a comment! how *dare* you not get inflamed purely by reading the title and the first paragraph! - jmoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7While I'm not dismissing your reasonings, it should be noted that Uranus is entering its summer (so to speak for the on the side planet, the south pole is moving into direct sun light) so it would be expected to get it atmosphere warmed up a bit. Jupiter's weather is largely driven by Jupiter itself, Jupiter puts out more energy than it receives from the sun (Jupiter's continued contraction generates a lot heat energy)
- sdrawkcaB, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16well since you say the story will get buried I just HAVE to digg the story to show you wrong!
- karmic, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13National Geographic? That is a suspicious source - Global Warming Deniers!
/the warming is probably a combo of factors. Russian scientists pointed to the Sun as a source over 5 years ago. - GreyICE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8And in other news, climates are incredibly complex systems where it is impossible to point at any one variable and say that 'you did it!' What do you think the term 'butterfly effect' was coined for anyway?
The problem that all the global warming skeptics have to deal with is very simple. CO2 blocks in the spectrum that the earth emits. It does not particularly block the sun's radiation. More CO2 = more radiation from the earth blocked = more energy retained. Global warming skeptics end up doing a lot of handwaving and verbal dance steps to cover up the fact that the science is really just about that simple. Its measuring the exact amount of energy retained due to excess carbon dioxide that is very, very tough.
Is the IPCC a territorial bureaucracy? Yeah. Do scientists have emotional little fights about this research like they do in every other field? Yeah. Do corporations blow this all out of proportion so that their damage to the environment looks better? Hell yes. - Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7its an interesting theory, one that diggers (myself included) do not have the knowledge to prove or disprove. However if this data is not published in peer-reviewed journals, then I will remain highly skeptical. Also one paper (even if it is peer-reviewed 'disproving' climate change is probable not enough to overturn the current consensus on climate change... but if it is the first of many papers that would be an other matter entirely.
- iamnotbatman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Because there is a well understood reason for the cooling period, and why it ended. The cooling was the result of an increase in a particulate pollution, which blocks sunlight. Government regulations beginning about when the cooling ended, lowered this type of pollution.
- osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That's true science.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7lzfootball:
>Why is it reported that CO2 emissions are leading cause to GW, but during the WW2 period global temps were lower than avg?
Individual years will go down and up, like the stock market. The trend, worldwide, however, would be up. Individual cities would have their weather change but not necessarily for the warmer, they might get more rain or become colder. If you go to Bergen in Norway now, there simply isn't any snow anymore. - MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I agree 100% that the sun is warming. Science proves it. That doesn't mean we aren't accelerating / worsening the problem by trashing the planet as if we are a bunch of tourists who have a nice clean home to return to in another solar system.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14Well there's that, and there's the fact that CO2 levels are the highest not ever recorded, but the highest ever according to the rock samples collected around the planet so far.
And there's the consensus opinion among climatologists.
Disregard it at your own peril. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Then maybe the increase in global temperature is causing greenhouse gases to build up quicker? That's the problem with jumping to conclusions. Correlation != Causation.
Good job @renork, beat me by a second. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8karmic:
>National Geographic? That is a suspicious source - Global Warming Deniers!
Actually it's National Geographic news, and they refer to this one Russian scientist's position as "controversial." - venson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Oh great... now we are screwing up Mars too!
NASA wake up and go GREEN - stop sending CO2 emitting robots to Mars!!!! - KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9expect for that whole pesky global dimming thing mars doesnt have to deal with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming - Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@scispaz
Ugh, you're making this too difficult.
Greenhouse gases are called that for a reason: they trap longwave radiation within the planets atmosphere. These gases are believed to be what kept this planet from turning into a giant ball of ice.
It is generally accepted amongst scientists (more specifically, climatologists) that increase in greenhouse gases is followed by the increase in global temperatures.
I'm not making anything up or taking some creative liberties here. I'm simply "regurgitating" fact and accepted science as it is presently understood.
Think of it this way: When you build an actual greenhouse, do you pump heat into the building? Or does the "greenhouse" effect naturally increase the temperature? - armyvet, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14Yes! It worked! I *love* reverse psychology!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7KaZa:
>I have heard that the temperature was warmer from 950 to 1300 AD than it is now (A fact that was left off of Al Gore's movie).
Whether or not it was or wasn't isn't relevant. Whether or not Gore flies on jets is irrelevant. Can you bring something to the table that is relevant, please?
The issue is 1) why, since the industrial age began, CO2 in the atmosphere has been skyrocketing, and 2) why globally average temperatures have been skyrocketing. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's simple, the Martians are also producing too much greenhouse gas.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9dan:
>I think the logical conclusion is that we still don't fully understand global warming and for hollywood celebrities and washed-up sore loser presidential candidates to suggest otherwise is just silly.
We know that CO2 absorbs infra red heat. We know that we're adding a metric ***** of CO2 in the air. Connect the dots. - Zaetha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Insert lame joke about rectal-sounding-name planet here and get dugg down in the process.
- mtekk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@sultantravi:
I am aware that many species that thrive in water are very sensitive to changes in pH, for years now we've heard about the changing ecosystems in lakes due to acid rain lowering the pH too much. About keeping the pH over 8, there's a maximum on that also, if the water becomes too basic it starts kill things off also. I don't know what level that is at but I'm sure it's safe to say much over pH of 11 isn't good either. So if for some reason a calcium gas was being absorbed by the oceans at a faster rate than CO2 there would still be a problem. - sandfish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Okay, whether it be solar activity, or human activity, or both causing global warming, don't you all agree that we should be advancing our energy technology in the cleanest way possible regardless? I personally wouldn't mind finding a way to suck all the excess C02 out of the air (and other harmful chemicals), we have to start thinking about air quality and human health more, not just global warming alone.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Global warming is powered by the Sun: total power of 470,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts of heating energy
Um, compare that to your toaster and SUV and I would say the sun kicks the "man-made" theory in the derriere!
Source: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/MatthewTsang.shtml - cosmicv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We also know an increase in the power output by the sun would warm both Earth and Mars, but that fact doesnt seem to be allowed in your philosophy.
- Renork, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ mrfoos
I love that we said the same thing at the same time and I am currently -4 while your +4.
@ Ajajadude
Actually it is fairly well known that warming causes a large release of CO2 from soil. It is part of one of the possible plans to terraform Mars.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/05/22_icecore.shtml
"We are underestimating the magnitude of warming because we are ignoring the extra carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere because of warming,"
"The warming caused by our release of CO2 triggers changes in the Earth system that lead to release of more CO2 to the atmosphere,
or
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/32409/story.htm - lzfootball, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Why is it reported that CO2 emissions are leading cause to GW, but during the WW2 period global temps were lower than avg?
If I can get an honest answer, not just buries, I would greatly appreciate it - Dhalsim007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Good stuff by NatGeo ... I'm surprised that more researchers aren't making this correlation yet.
- MrWashy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What bugs me isn't that people have various ideas about science but that most are way too lazy or ignorant to really understand how the scientific process works. A single report buy one astronomer doesn't disput the massive amounts of data we have. While it does provide an interesting and study-worthy path of investigation is does not disprove or invalidate a currently accepted theory. It takes years and years of data to do that. Occasionally, very very occasionally, a single scientist will hit upon a revolutionary idea, but those are not born overnight, nor are they thrown about haphazzardly.
Face it, folks, the biggest force on the planet is us. We have the ability and the tools to wipe the world clean for evolution to begin a new. hurricanes and tsunami's may kill people and devastate cities, but only we can make the planet uninhabitable. The over 6.5 billion people who live here make a lot of waste and it stays right here with us.
Oh, buried, not for the content of th article, but for armyvet's silly "statement". - Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@renork & mrfoos
Unfortunately, I don't believe science can back that up. - mtekk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Remember that a pH of 8.1 is still basic, neutral, which water is "supposed" to be at is pH 7 (I think it's typically 7.4 though). Water's ability to absorb the CO2 is related to its temperature, since a gas' solubility in a liquid is related to the temperature of the liquid. I'd like to see a test of how much CO2 ocean water could actually take in (and the resulting pH) before it'd end up warming up to the point that it becomes saturated. It probably has been done, but I've never seen data on it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Mars has no moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
Ugh, Mars has two moons, though small... - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6It's an interesting theory, whether or right or not, so I dugg it.
- Ajajadude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Medieval Warming Period.
- SultanTravi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3mtekk: With regard to what you said about pH....
As someone who has maintained multiple marine aquariums with corals, I can tell you that keeping the pH above 8 is vital for the survival of a lot of these creatures. Lower levels will stress the animals, making them more likely to die. If the sea were to drop to 7 without the animals having enough time to evolve and adapt, there would be catastrophic consequences.
That said, I don't see much CO2 production going on 100 years from now. - insomniacdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'd just like to say that if scientists had to gamble their career in order to say that they think something is true, NOTHING would get done in science.
- KaZa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I have heard that the temperature was warmer from 950 to 1300 AD than it is now (A fact that was left off of Al Gore's movie). The Anasazi Indians, the precursor to the Pueblo Indians, culture died off because of the surrounding area could not support their large city states. At their height, they were getting their food sources from over 50 miles away. But, when their weather changed, the people were not able to grow extra crops and were not able to export the excess to the cities. The cities then fell into chaos and in-fighting.
- spankaccount, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Few people dispute the need for the Patriot Act. Even the ACLU has dropped it's cases against it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is