What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy casts another employee in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Jarice Brodie has done some cool things in his life. Next: Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
97 Comments
- inactive, on 07/06/2008, -4/+22The problem is: as the CO2 dissolves in the waters of the oceans, the concentration of carbolic acid is increased. The pH drops. This kills corals and other critters. The result is mass extinction and environmental devastation.
- Jareth86, on 07/07/2008, -3/+14I believed in Global warming, until southpark told me not to.
That how I base all my major decisions. - duke_nate, on 07/07/2008, -1/+10Ahhh, sweet sweet Truthiness. :-)
- greenfyre, on 07/07/2008, -3/+11Now now, we must not make the same mistake the Deniers do and make unsubstantiated claims ...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/08070 ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=D ...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197 ...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article40 ...
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/n ...
http://www.esf.org/research-areas/life-earth-and-e ...
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2008/0 ...
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/western ...
There you go, substantiated - Disgod, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7Here's the problem with your little assertion, the CO2 that is produced by the planet is reabsorbed by other processes. It's a known cycle and scientists account for it.
The CO2 that we are releasing isn't being reabsorbed by anything, it's just adding more and more CO2 into the air. It is outside the system that which held the Earth relatively stable for the past 10,000 years, that's where the problem is. - bombula, on 07/07/2008, -2/+6It's astonishing how desperately morons like yourself want global climate change to be some sort of kook conspiracy. What possible motivation could Al Gore have to cook up a conspiracy about anthropogenic climate change? I suppose congenitally defective slackjaws like you and your knuckle-dragging fundie friends who ride around around in pick-up trucks and fancy yourselves clever by listening to Rush Limbaugh might actually believe that Al Gore et al have an agenda to somehow profit from the climate crisis, but that merely reveals the length and breadth of your ignorance and stupidity. Al Gore, like every VP before him, would be worth 100 times more right now if he had decided to make himself an oil industry mouthpiece instead of taking a stand on an inconveniently depressing issue.
As for the physics of anthropogenic climate change, you are spectacularly wrong when you claim that 'humans are not the reason why the Earth undergoes climate changes'. Humans have had a profound impact on global climate, as all the data suggest and as all credible scientists agree. Humans are, of course, not the only factor, but saying people cannot be the cause of climate change because other factors are at work too is like saying humans cannot cause forest fires because lightning can cause them too. - kh99, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4OK, I take back the part about Wikipedia - those numbers originally come from NASA and USGS.
- vikingcoder, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5This is a perfect example of only showing a partial view of the facts, and extrapolating it to support preconceived notions.
HotSaucePanCake is ignoring the fact that anthropogenic CO2 emissions accumulate, while oceanic & terrestrial emissions are negated by absorption.
Since the start of the industrial revolution, humanity has put out 1.2 trillion tons of CO2, half of that since the early 1980s. The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased 35% solely due to our emissions. That increase can be directly linked to humanity through parallel decline of the 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. That is because fossil fuels do not contain 14C precisely because they are fossil - much older than 10 half-lives of 14C.
The oceans are a net CO2 sink that are currently absorbing 7 billion tons more than they outgas each year. The terrestrial biomes are also a net sink that are currently absorbing 5 billion tons of CO2 more than they outgas each year. Volcanoes emit 150 - 200 million tons CO2 / year globally; that includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes. The most actively degassing volcano in the world, Mt. Etna in Italy, emits ~14 million tons CO2/year. Humanity emitted 28 billion tons of CO2 in 2005 from the burning of fossil fuels. That is more than all volcanic emissions during the entire 20th century.
It has been known for over 50 years that an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will make for a stronger greenhouse effect regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html
( table H.1co2 => http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tab ... )
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCyc ...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCyc ...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm - TJ11240, on 07/07/2008, -3/+7Then how do you explain the 100 ppm increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution? We're up to 384 ppm and counting
- LoCoPyRo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4"Even now, the water and soil are acting like great sponges, soaking up at least some of the carbon our industrial species emits every day and slowing--if not preventing--the climate-changing damage we're doing to our world."
The water and air are not sponges in the sense the author is describing. The oceans and atmosphere participate in the carbon cycle and exchange massive roughly equal amounts of carbon with each other to form an equilibrium. Human produced emissions actually only account for a small proportion of carbon released into the atmosphere. The problem is that there is no current process to counter-act human emissions and scientists think we are upsetting this equilibrium. This small increase has been building up over the past 100 years and is giving rise to the increase in atmospheric carbon levels we see today (this being the general consensus).
The funny thing is it isn't hard to counter-act this process. Carbon sequestration has been proven to work and is seen as a viable option by much of the scientific community. Independent studies have shown that if all the major industrialized countries of the world started massive sequestration and capture processes we could capture and begin reversing all human carbon emissions. The problem is that such programs would cost 1-3% of the Gross Domestic Product of these countries (that's GDP not budget so we are talking about a lot of money here). I wish I could remember the names of the series of studies, but it eludes me and I don't have my material with me.
With relatively cheap solutions already available I don't see what all the fuss is about. The ideas presented in this article are ludicrous. Why would you 'seed' the ocean? The effects of doing such a thing and further affecting the equilibrium could be disastrous. The author mentions some of the dangers of the action right in the article. The same goes for the seawater splitting plan... 100 plants? Really? That would cost billions and would have unforeseen side effects on the environment, not to mention the emissions these plants would give off and the energy they would need to run (which also requires CO2 emissions). Last, the giant plastic CO2 collection sheets are just a more convoluted and more expensive carbon sequestration method.. why not just capture CO2 at the source? The maker of these sheets doesn't even give a way to transport or store the CO2.. which is the main problems facing sequestration methods.. this whole article makes me sick - chadszinow, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Did you read the article? All it said was the Arctic isn't melting just because of global warming. How does this article refute all of the science of global warming.
Love the headline too. I'll break it down.
"NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming" -Fact "Myth" -Opinion ", Will Media Report It?" -Opinion in the form of a question.
Not a credible source. - chadszinow, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4Take your own advice and come back in 30 years of climate study.
- greenfyre, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Scientists thought of that, did the studies, doesn't work - see the links I provided above.
- thatcoolrushguy, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Don't giant growths of algae emit oxygen?
- Sludgehammer, on 07/07/2008, -3/+6Actually, I was poking around wikipedia, and while I didn't find the 30 billion tons figure, the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the ... lists the amount of CO2 produced by fossil fuels as 27 billion tons per year, which means that we're just 3 billion tonnes short of increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by one percent every year. That seems like a pretty significant figure to me.
- vikingcoder, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Because grand delusional conspiracy theories do not trump scientific research.
- kh99, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3I don't know if there's anything to AGW or not, but it bugs me when people think their "common sense" approaches or, even worse, something they read somewhere that sounds right, makes it "obvious" one way or the other. Then we get conspiracy theories: if the scientists are ignoring common sense, then it must be because they have an agenda and are lying.
But IMHO the truth is that it's all very complex and even the scientists don't understand or agree. That's what I found when I searched for info about water vapor. Yes, there's more of it than there is CO2, but there's disagreement (or maybe just a lack of understanding) on the effects. Apparently we don't even know if the average levels have changed over time. But we know that the amount of water vapor varies for much different reasons than CO2 (and I don't think anyone is suggesting that human activity is adding H2O to the atmosphere), so trying to ridicule the idea of CO2 pollution by suggesting H2O is also pollution doesn't make sense. - Shiftgood, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4What about factoring time into the statistics you provided?
What are the Pre vs. Post industrial revolution % statistics? (like methane increasing by 150%)
What is the absorption rate of each type of gas? Where on the spectrum is their molecular resonance? Might a .06% increase in some of the more heavy elements actually be significant?
What is the lifespan of these elements as a gas? Water completes its cycle very quickly, how about C02 or CH4? these stay for a very long time so you have to recognize that their effects will be compounded.
*Im not saying this is pro or against global warming. But you cant throw up percentages and think the answer is clear. You have to apply it. - inactive, on 07/07/2008, -8/+11Global warming is a bunch of hooey.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11 ... - WasabiBomb, on 07/07/2008, -2/+5So how much excess CO2 is too much, HotSaucePanCake? After all, you seem to be presenting yourself as an expert. How much is too much? .01%? .1%? 1%? 10%?
At what point, in your little world, do we need to start cutting back?
MATH ANYONE???? - FasterGun, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.
"While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the 'wet' part of the Arctic -- the Arctic Ocean -- circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s," he added.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007 ...
So lets see here, the evidence you give for saying "Global warming is a bunch of hooey." is a NASA article saying that studies show that global warming is not the fault of Arctic Ocean circulation changes?
Please. - vikingcoder, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4What do those dumb scientists know anyways?
/sarcasm - greenfyre, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Having learned that it is a huge problem to overload one part of the planet, what possible logic would lead you to think it would be fine in another part? That's like learning that punching your kid in the head is damaging, so you switch to the gut.
- dark_helmet, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Smog != CO2. CO2 is colourless and odorless, however smog is not. CO2 is far from the most harmful emission of modern society, it just happens to be one that is created in larger quantities.
- vikingcoder, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4You are forgetting that CO2 doesn't immediately fall back out of the atmosphere. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions accumulate, and are currently the only net increase.
Since the start of the industrial revolution, humanity has put out 1.2 trillion tons of CO2, half of that since the early 1980s. The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased 35% solely due to our emissions. That increase can be directly linked to humanity through parallel decline of the 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. That is because fossil fuels do not contain 14C precisely because they are fossil - much older than 10 half-lives of 14C.
The oceans are a net CO2 sink that are currently absorbing 7 billion tons more than they outgas each year. The terrestrial biomes are also a net sink that are currently absorbing 5 billion tons of CO2 more than they outgas each year. Volcanoes emit 150 - 200 million tons CO2 / year globally; that includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes. The most actively degassing volcano in the world, Mt. Etna in Italy, emits ~14 million tons CO2/year. Humanity emitted 28 billion tons of CO2 in 2005 from the burning of fossil fuels. That is more than all volcanic emissions during the entire 20th century.
It has been known for over 50 years that an increased atmospheric CO2 concentration will make for a stronger greenhouse effect regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html
( table H.1co2 => http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tab ... )
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCyc ...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCyc ...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm - vikingcoder, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4Links are dugg down when they are nothing more than sophistry, logical fallacies & outright myths. Please provide scientific references to support your claims.
Willful ignorance concerning "small numbers" doesn't disprove scientific research.
Skepticism is necessary to science, but presenting the same trite canards & outright myths repeatedly because you don't like the answers is belief-based denial, not skepticism.
"Anti-alarmists" are anything but.
http://skepticalscience.com/Cartoon-about-global-w ... - Isidore, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3@kookbutt
Check out this NASA/JPL overview of the evidence
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
Evidence that humans are now changing the climate.
Who do you think knows more about this - newsbusters or NASA? - Jacare, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3but the ocean is by far the largest producer of C02. . .
- greenfyre, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4But instead we waste our time on science and facts and reality
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm - LoCoPyRo, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2I agree with most of the things you said, but I don't think we can't rely on the renewable power sources you mentioned.. at least not right now. Even at their unprecendented growth rates (over 100% a year in some areas)they only supply 0.8% of global energy use according to US Energy Information Administration estimates on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_consumption#Wi ... Adding Hydro power into the mix only brings us up to 6.8%. Hydro power also has many environmental concerns that people don't think about or mention, there is also the current concerns about the effect of biodiesel on world food availability and pricing. It should also be considered that most of these power sources currently can't run things such as cars, many heating systems, factories, the list goes on. This lack of versatility and in the cases of wind and solar power reliability can cause major problems. Maybe such options will be more viable in 50 or 100 years sure, but not anytime soon.. and it only took us 100 years to produce the current problems..
- greenfyre, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Then they die and make the whole area anoxic as they decompose
- sizzla, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3Why are you so bitter?
While your at it calculate the increase in radiative forcing from 30 billion tons of CO2 and get back at me.
If you don't know how to do this I suggest brushing up on some physics. Things are heating up. Rant all you want people. ***** is hitting the fan as we speak. - slimnickyy, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3And what about the energy used to carry out this process? Surely it would burn a lot of CO2 as well. People need to think and relax before trying to come out with half wit ideas. If you want to cut CO2 then invest in tech, esp for cars as that's where a lot of CO2 comes from. Also solar, wave, geo, and wind energy. Stop playing mad scientist with the planet. Hacking the oceans without good data of all the factors involved is a really bad idea.
- Disgod, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3First, I said relatively stable, which is true. In the past there were many more wild swings in global temperature than what we've seen in the last 10,000 years.
Second, yeah, it's obvious that there isn't anything different about human released CO2 and naturally produced CO2. If there was something different it wouldn't be CO2 anymore.
Third, The CO2 levels are still rising which means that the plants maybe having a grand ol'e time with the increase in CO2, but it isn't off setting enough of the CO2 to actually make a difference. If plants were offsetting the CO2 we'd be seeing the CO2 levels either rise slower, remain at a stable level, or start to decrease. We're not seeing that, we're seeing a regular increase in CO2 levels.
Oh, and we're destroying huge tracts of rain forest, which is lowering the total amount of CO2 being absorbed by plants globally. - aaeyers, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4It just baffles me how the same people who continually say we need to 'wake up' about how corrupt our government is and to ignore the mass media are the same people who listen to the mass media and push all these ideas about global warming.
People need to 'wake up' and go study some physics before trying to argue about things they don't understand. Humans are not the reason why the Earth undergoes climate changes, get over it. Yes pollution is bad, and we should always try to keep things clean and be efficient, but saying humans are the cause of 'global warming' is nothing short of ignorant. - WasabiBomb, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4While you, on the other hand, have clearly already made up your mind.
- mikemil828, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2And possibly make the current problems we are having with fish becoming more scarce even worse. Nice job breaking it hero.
- greenfyre, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2@aaeyers
You're joking, right? You honestly think we are getting our information from the media? And you claim scientific literacy?
HERE is some of the science. Examine it and then get back to us.
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm - Rikkochet, on 07/07/2008, -3/+5Protip: Calling everyone who disagrees with your argument stupid is not an effective method of argument. It just makes you.. Well.. Stupid.
- BrokenBrick, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2The ocean is also the largest producer of oxygen. . .
- atmenterprises, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Hey greenfyre - please stop stalking me or I'm going to tell your boyfriend.
You missed the point, which is what I've come to expect. You're also a troll given most of the comments you've provided on here. If NASA manipulated any temperature data, regardless of region, they can do it for any region's temperature data.
Oh, is that mommy I hear? I think your dinner is ready. Better climb out of the basement and go eat before it gets cold. - vikingcoder, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3Nice display of willful ignorance there by looking at only one side of a natural cycle.
The oceans are a net CO2 sink that are currently absorbing 7 billion tons more than they outgas each year. The terrestrial biomes are also a net sink that are currently absorbing 5 billion tons of CO2 more than they outgas each year.
Since the start of the industrial revolution, humanity has put out 1.2 trillion tons of CO2, half of that since the early 1980s.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCyc ...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html
( table H.1co2 => http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tab ... )
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm - HotSaucePanCake, on 07/07/2008, -12/+14Are you happy idiots?
Composition of dry atmosphere, by volume[5] ppmv: parts per million by volume
Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 383 ppmv (0.0383%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.745 ppmv (0.0001745%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
The total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3.0×1015 kg (3,000 gigatonnes)
emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently (30 billion tons)
MATH ANYONE????
here are your citations... (note they aren't ***** stupid news outlets or dumb ass scientists)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide - greenfyre, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Instead of your little "propaganda" rant you could have clicked on the links and looked for yourself.
Q A & B How would I know? I am talking about the science. I guess you would try google if you wanted to know.
C Disingenuous. Sewage is regulated (also a result of living), food is regulated, etc - totally specious question.
D. Subsidize with what money? what would you tax to raise that money?
THE UN AND IPCC
The science itself was not done by the UN, it was done in Universities and Researcjh Institutes all over the world over many decades. The UN merely brought it all together. Any attempt to falsify would be immediately spotted by the scientists who did the actual work.
Are you saying you didn't know that?
THE CO2 SCIENCE DEBUNKING
Ah yes "The Swindle" My favourite part is Ball claiming to be in a Dept that never existed with a degree that his University never offered - classic Denier Truthiness
The "Swindle" was exposed as a fraud when it was released
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/monbiot-on-the-channel-4 ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/1 ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/abcs-australia-expert-sw ...
see also http://digg.com/environment/The_Great_Global_Warmi ...
and now off to work, more later - Shadow503, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3But the system isn't being held stable, plant life has been increasing to compensate. There is nothing chemically different from human released CO2 and natural sources.
http://www.purgit.com/co2ok.html - greenfyre, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2@ superkendell For there to be "both sides of the scientific debate" there must be science on each side.
Go to a legitimate science based site like realclimate and look through the cooment threads - see what actual science based skepticism actually looks like.
It is tough, intelligent, hard core, and utterly fact based.
When you get some (current, relevant, credible) science we will always listen.
@ CyphreDias
Of course it is easy to be dismissive when you begin with the lie "assume" it is science, here it is, deal with it
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm - CyphreDias, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1I forgot to mention that technology now exists to perform weather modification. In fact, treaties have been signed promising not to use it. If we do begin to see a warming, it could be the result of weather modification technology. It's possible that the problem would be artificially encouraged to ensure the desired policies were pushed through. Why is it that no-one in the mainstream media is discussing these obvious considerations?
- LoCoPyRo, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Because even though we only produce a small amount of CO2 emissions compared to the earth and atmosphere (as the poster said) there is no force to balance these emissions. Please do some reading about the Carbon cycle TJ11240. This is pretty simple to understand
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ... - executorzz, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1What possible motivation could Al Gore have? How about selling you carbon credits so you can have another tax for using things that you already use.
He's a businessman. His family owns hundreds of thousands of shares of Occidental Petroleum. - StEligius, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Let us see, take many tons of material burn it you get ash and gas. Gas and some solids go into the atmosphere more solids are dumped. Solids are small now and more than likely partially water soluble. Back to the mountain, it is in smaller pieces also partially water soluble. Conditions around right now are different then when the mountain was created so when you expose the sequestered contents of that mountain you are changing the water solution in the aquifer and gas concentration of the local atmosphere. Acids and organic compounds leach out of Coal.
Does the "Planet" care no. Do organisms that are used to conditions that they evolved in halfway up the side of a mountain or in the valley below, yep kind of. Roots don't dig that deep so fora and fauna today are only going to have contact with soil that has been in development the last tens of thousands of years.
Have you seen mountain top removal, it should be called "mountain removal". If small small people can do that they sure as hell can change the parts per billion of CO2 and CO in this atmosphere. It just takes time and effort. Turning rocks into smoke for as long as we have have bothered to write stuff on dead trees. -
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is