What is Digg?177 Comments
- inactive, on 06/29/2008, -2/+29Climate*
- mojoe1185, on 06/29/2008, -15/+37One man should be held responsible for the most CO2 emissions, Al Gore. He as VP did more to stop nuclear power than anyone else. So we were forced to and continue to have to burn coal instead.
- mjklaser, on 06/29/2008, -2/+16The 'ice melt' data of the Arctic sea ice is the most compelling. Nice job, NASA (but how do you get accurate and reliable 'average global temperature' data from 1885?)
- atlandrew, on 06/29/2008, -9/+20Since when is correlation the same as causation?
- eliot2000, on 06/29/2008, -20/+29Today's parade of angry denials of scientific fact will be held below this comment. Please make an orderly line.
- gryphon50, on 06/29/2008, -1/+8yeah, pretty much. You forgot to add biased and Republican too.
- Dotcommer, on 06/29/2008, -1/+8On the ice melt one, I thought to myself "it cant be that bad" then I drag the slider to 2007 and went "holy *****".
- x00x, on 06/29/2008, -9/+15If only Earth's weather was as cool as this compelling visualization.
- OmegasLastWord, on 06/29/2008, -5/+11I'm kind of tired of this. Any time theres a global warming-related article the first thing people do to attempt to diffuse any argument or belittle is to mention Gore : let me say on behalf of all the competent people that stand behind this theory that Gore is completely irrelevant. He may have publicized it, he may have brought it to Washington moreso than anyone else, but this was an issue before him, and, hey, as seriously as it gets taken by the world, will be an even bigger issue after him.
- hauntedchippy, on 06/29/2008, -1/+7No one is argueing that climate change will destroy the planet, only that it could be made uninhabitable to humans.
- seaofcheese, on 06/29/2008, -1/+6ON the Co2 emission one you can you can watch the soviet collapse
- Piontek, on 06/29/2008, -3/+8Hmm, I think not. Heard of the Ice Age?
- SpinningHead, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5Thats the same argument used for years by the smoking lobby. I cant tell you 100% that you will get cancer if you smoke, but there is enough correlation and understanding of causal mechanisms to be relatively sure that you will be better off not smoking. If nothing else, not smoking means you wont be struggling for air when you do physical activity. If nothing else, getting off fossil fuels and scrapping your Humvee means cleaner air, water, and a more independent energy policy.
- kbro, on 06/29/2008, -3/+7I don't get it. 1998 was the hottest year on record, but that is not what the "time machine" shows.
It looks to me like the years that are actually displayed are cherry picked. Most years are not even really present in the data. Why not show every year?
It would be pretty spooky to me if a government agency like NASA purposefully didn't show all the data. - aladrin, on 06/29/2008, -2/+6Don't forget that there's -more- ice at the South Pole now, too. Google reviews quite a few reports about it.
- geneusutwerk, on 06/29/2008, -7/+11The 2007 ice melt is crazy.
- martynda, on 06/29/2008, -4/+8What is interesting is that usually we always hear about climate/earth change in the thousands or even millions of years. This has all happened in the last century and even noticeable during most of our lifetimes. Scary!
- celticspringers, on 06/29/2008, -5/+9We have pushed our luck as far as it can go, time to get ready for whats coming...
- Wakkyweed, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3Either there are too many global warming deniers on Digg, or you guys don't get sarcasm.
- carpanthers91, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3this thing should go back more than the 1980s for a better simulation
- tbom, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3Addressing your first paragraph, the average global temperature plots are temperature anomaly plots. The data for each timestep (~5 years, except for 2000-2007) are, assumingly, a comparison of some sort of a gridpoint mean value against an observed gridpoint value. So what you're seeing plotted is, for each timestep, for each gridpoint on the map, the observed gridpoint temp minus the average gridpoint temp.
For a NASA product, I find these average global temperature plots easily misunderstood or exploitable by non-scientists. We don't know how the long term average temperatures are computed, there is uncertainty in what the actual timesteps are supposed to be (are they 5 year averages or 1 year, and what's happening between 2000-2007), we don't know the horizontal resolution of the dataset, the map projection exaggerates the land area of the polar regions, etc...
I'm not saying I'm doubting that there's been warming happening (for whatever reason), I think this NASA product could have utilized a better, more accurate way to display that particular average global temperature dataset. - hauntedchippy, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3You are aware that 4 degress is a big change don't you?
- Dralha, on 06/29/2008, -8/+11Correlation can imply causation when a causal mechanism is known. Like the greenhouse properties of CO2. Which the denialists routinely deny in their complete reality denial.
- rationalist, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4"In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence. Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in.
In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behavior over the last century."
(pasted from GristMill - since the denialists simply cut and paste the same discredited arguments over and over, I feel justified in cutting a pasting the debunking.) - ericjohnson0, on 06/29/2008, -8/+11Eliot, there IS climate change, but how much is caused by humans if any? In the last few days we've heard all about ice melting at the North Pole but everyone is missing (or burying) the fact that volcanic activity has greatly increased beneath the arctic oceans:
http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/6/27/3765 ...
Link goes to an explanation and several good articles. - vikingcoder, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4Too many deniers.
- hauntedchippy, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3Anthropogenic
- MrFurious2k, on 06/29/2008, -2/+5I think they're saying anthropomorphic global warming is a lie.
- rationalist, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4Ah, the tired water vapor argument, mixed with the Mars argument.
Objection: H2O accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect; CO2 is insignificant.
Answer: According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. The 95% number does not appear to come from any scientific source, though it gets tossed around a lot.
Please see this paper (PDF), the textbook referenced here, and this article at RealClimate.
There is a very important distinction to be made, as you will read if you follow the link to Real Climate, between water vapour's role in the Earth's Greenhouse effect and it's role in climate change. If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report or at NASA's page about forcings in its GCM, you won't find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/222357 ... - rationalist, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3These arguments have all been debunked years ago. Why don't you look through the list here, find your false assertions, read the responses, and follow the links to actual source data.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Then make up your own mind, rather than mindlessly parroting false propaganda. - 3leggedHorse, on 06/29/2008, -1/+4What makes me laugh is the CO2 and the targets that have been set. I will eat my hand if they drop those levels, It's not practical and governments know it. Unless some exotic new power source is discovered.
Where is Zefran Cochran when you need him. - rationalist, on 06/30/2008, -0/+31) the ol' "temperature is flat" argument, based on the "1998 peak" myth. Debunked here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/ ...
2) The ol' "the sun is more active, causing warming" argument.
Debunked here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30 ...
3) the ol' "Mars is warming" argument.
Debunked here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712 ... - calon9, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3I'll digg you up and stop reading comments here since I know what they'll all consist of. It's sad how politicians and lobbyists have successfully politicized this issue and created an army of armchair scientists on both sides of the issue (but more so on one side). They have tapped into the nature of human minds unwilling to fully gather and understand knowledge for themselves: we fill in the blanks of knowledge with fear, opinion and blissful ignorance.
I'd love to cryogenically freeze myself for a few hundreds years and emerge to a time when the histrionics have calmed down and mankind respects and cares for the only planet we have. But, alas, the rising temperatures would probably cause a premature thawing in my pod and I'd awaken early which would suck major over-heated donkey balls. - rationalist, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4Hey, maybe the gravity fad is over, too - why don't you defenestrate out of an upper floor of a tall building and find out for us, won't you?
- InfiniteNothing, on 06/29/2008, -2/+5Strawman. Also, false. The truth is, humans probably have the power to destroy every living thing on this planet with a nuclear winter.
- rationalist, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Actually, the data is drawn from numerous different sources, including:
- Satellite Data
- Radiosondes
- Borehole analysis
- Glacial melt observations
- Sea ice melt
- Sea level rise
- Proxy Reconstructions
- Permafrost melt
Here is a link to what is considered one of the most reliable sources of data about global temperature changes:
the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
And actually, we do have accurate observations from the previous tens of thousands of years (in fact, many hundreds of thousands of years), in the form of ice core borings. The accuracy of those cores has been demonstrated by using the analysis of ancient data to predict more recent data, and the actual findings have matched the prediction models closely.
In fact, there have been three types of models reviewed: one, where only natural climate change is occurring, the second where only human causes are factored in, and the third where both natural underlying causes and human effects are included. The actual data did not line up at all with natural only over the past 100 years, it lined up much more closely with the model that used human-caused only, but the data lined up extremely closely with models that included natural causes and the added effects of human industry.
To call the informed consensus of thousands of leading experts all over the world, many of whom have dedicated decades of their lives to tediously gather, accumulate, analyze and report individual data points, "a ridiculous conclusion", is, no offense, the height of ignorance.
You owe it to yourself to become informed about the actual facts, rather than being satisfied with reading and regurgitating propaganda. This is too important, and the data is all freely available in the public domain. - rationalist, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3All the data this is based on is in the public domain, freely available on the Internet. Why don't you go look at it for yourself rather than being duped by propaganda, fueled by wishful thinking?
- inactive, on 06/29/2008, -1/+4Even if C02 is the cause and not natural cycles ... then isn't the US military contributing about 10 zillion times more C02 than all consumer related enterprises combined?
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/article ...
Once again - "conservative" or "liberal" we are being told as normal people "do as I say ...not as I do." - inactive, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3It's still not that bad.
Look at CO2 emissions at India and S Korea.
The only one with reduced is Russia - inactive, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3Yes methane is increasing
http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/yhst-9326 ... - rationalist, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Debunked:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/ ... - tbom, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2I noticed this too. In the Average Global Temperature section, it appears that the data display changes only after one scrolls through five years. It updates on every time you cross a year ending in '0' and '5', with the exception of 2005, where visitors sees the same data plot for the timeframe from 2000-2006 and see a new plot only for 2007.
Wish there was a better explanation on what the data represent in the temporal dimension. - rationalist, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2The breadth and depth of your data-laden, carefully reasoned and critically analytical comments are a breath of fresh air in the midst of all these pesky, annoying, um, actual facts.
- inactive, on 06/29/2008, -0/+210 zillion?.....really?
- tribaal, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2And China rise.
- inactive, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2sigh... you didn't read the link
- greenfyre, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Actually the targets will be reached, what is being debated is whether we do it voluntarily, or if we continue our plunge into climate catastrophe and get wiped out like the arrogant little bugs that we are.
Some of think that is not a difficult choice, but apparently it is for some people. - rheaume, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Fire up the stars and stripes hummer, were going for a lynchin'
USA USA USA~! - ratboy4001, on 06/29/2008, -1/+31996 held more ice than 1979. Between 1979 and 1996 the annual levels of ice fluctuate pretty consistently, but after 1996 they enter a state of consistent decline. Why then?
Edit: My question still remains after viewing the CO2 emission's time line. There is no heavy increase to relate to the steady decrease in ice. The temperature time line reflects the ice levels. -
Show 51 - 100 of 179 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is