What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
59 Comments
- DeathJux, on 03/20/2009, -3/+22Living in New Zealand, we have to wear SPF 75+ to survive a day in the sun without getting completely mongled by it.
If it were worse I dare imagine the consequences... - Cannon49, on 03/20/2009, -5/+22Its good hearing that we as humans have the ability to come together for the good of everyone and solve problems that affect us all.
- YEEK, on 03/20/2009, -2/+16For all the naysayers with some kind of weird, apocalyptic death wish who are bound to chime in on this... here is the simplified math.
A single molecule of CFC will destroy 100,000 molecules of Ozone.
A single can of hairspray could wipe out 1 million cubic feet of ozone.
No ozone... no life.
It's not conjecture. It's simple chemistry. - WasabiBomb, on 03/20/2009, -0/+11You didn't even read the article, did you?
- AndrewDB, on 03/20/2009, -4/+14I wonder what Space Bat has to say about this.
- WasabiBomb, on 03/20/2009, -1/+10There was a lot of debate over whether we needed to stop CFCs back then, too.
- Ajajadude, on 03/20/2009, -1/+10You do realize there were people back then who thought CFCs were fine and that the dammed hippies were just exaggerating, right?
You know, that sounds familiar! - inactive, on 03/20/2009, -0/+8Actually, to this day there is a small yet vocal group who are still convinced that CFCs are just fine. Ironically, the cite the fact that hole in the ozone has gotten better as proof, which just makes no sense at all.
- idontlikeyou2, on 03/20/2009, -3/+11proper scientific citation please ? Oh wait .....
- WasabiBomb, on 03/20/2009, -1/+8Why don't you do your research, as well, and tell us how thick the ozone layer is on average? You could also look into exactly how CFCs react with ozone.
You know, before you assume that you know more than the people who actually know what the hell they're talking about. - inactive, on 03/20/2009, -0/+7CFC acts as a catalyst - it breaks O3 molecules into O2 molecules, but it isn't itself consumed in the reactions. Thus, as long as a molecule of CFC remains in the atmosphere, it can continue to break apart ozone molecules. Really, it is just chemistry.
- BigVi, on 03/20/2009, -0/+7You forgot rise from the dead.
- SuperCujo, on 03/20/2009, -2/+8The rest of you wants to dribble and look retarded.
- YEEK, on 03/20/2009, -4/+10And you somehow know better then every scientist in the world?
It's simple chemistry. Try reading up on it before you bless us with your lack of wisdom. - spunky1973, on 03/20/2009, -1/+7A movie star that races, makes salad dressing and does environmental studies for NASA. Is there anything Paul Newman can't do?
- norman619, on 03/20/2009, -0/+6I suggest you read this.
http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/Robert ... - inactive, on 03/20/2009, -1/+6People said that at the time. Geez, does nobody remember what a controversy the ozone layer was?
- norman619, on 03/20/2009, -2/+7gread:
How old are you? I ask because most people who were born in the early 70's, like myself, are well educated on the science of Ozone depletion. They made sure we kids knew it back then. And unlike today with AGW, there actually was a scientific consensus on this and tehy were 100% correct. There was no debating it. ALL the scientific data said the same thing. If you are prodict of the youger gen then I understand your ignorance of the scientific facts YEEK presented since they stopped harping on it once we baned the use of CFC's. - Gareth321, on 03/20/2009, -1/+6I call ***** on you. I moved from here from South Africa a number of years ago. I could stay outside almost an entire day and not get burned. However, when I arrived here, I can barely last 30 minutes - over an hour and I start to peel. Longer and I'm out of action for a few days with severe burns. The same goes for my family, everyone I know who moved from SA, and everyone I know that's ever travelled to another country and experienced their sun. I can easily last several times longer in the sun in Australia [as can any of my friends and family]. Why do you think we have one of the highest skin cancer rates in the world?
- inactive, on 03/20/2009, -0/+5It's a little hard to trust the people saying GW isn't real, though, after the whole CFC debacle. The science of showing how a CFC molecule acts as a catalyst to break apart O3 molecules into O2 molecules was really quite simple and straightforward, and yet even then you had a lot of people saying the hole in the ozone layer was nothing but hysterics. However, we cut CFCs and it fixed the problem. Now those same people are saying that global warming is nothing but hysterics.
And I mean, when I see people try to use science to justify their stance on global warming, it's always completely bogus - like claiming that the sun is responsible, when the sun's contribution is only 25%. So it really makes me more inclined to think their position is less based on science than it is simply that they have issues with the suggestion that there are any major environmental impacts from our activities. - ryan83189, on 03/20/2009, -3/+7Well now I feel like a real ass petitioning to increase the level of chlorofluorocarbons in all aerosols 10 times and require people bleed their compressors every year.
- norman619, on 03/20/2009, -0/+4I'd like to know how much of the expanding holes is due to the gradual weakening EMF of the planet. Please don't misinterpret my question as denying the fact that we have a big hand in the depletion that went on. We sure as hell did. There are no natural sources of CFC's. I'm just curious. I know a weakening of the EMF will mean more holes in the ozone as multiple poles develop which punch holes in the ozone layer allowing more radiation to reach the surface.
- BigVi, on 03/20/2009, -3/+7ALRIGHT! WE CAN BRING CFCs BACK!
- mike158, on 03/20/2009, -6/+9im glad we didn't accidently the whole ozone
- Trent1492, on 03/21/2009, -0/+3Evidence?
- Trent1492, on 03/21/2009, -0/+3You did not read the article did you?
- angryredplanet, on 03/21/2009, -0/+2No.
- Wawin, on 03/20/2009, -5/+7If the ozone hole problem would have happened today, people would say it was probably due to some unknown causes and that we shouldn´t destroy whole industries by removing cfcs.
- angryredplanet, on 03/21/2009, -1/+3@norman619
I think you'll find the consensus for AGW very similar to that of anthropogenic ozone depletion. The chlorine/bromine-ozone experiment was very easy to replicate and implicate, as the causative chemicals aren't naturally emitted in any serious quantities. We knew what it was, how it was happening and took real, tangible action against it - mitigating a potential disaster.
With AGW, climatologists are equally as sure that we are having a larger impact on climate than suspected. The greenhouse effect has been scientifically demonstrated and replicated by molecular UV absorption/re-radiation. We know we are increasingly burning fossils that are releasing causative agents. We are familiar with climate forcings and feedbacks. We know of the potential disaster coming, yet there is no mitigation. The evidence shown implicates our entire transportation and food industries as well as electricity generation. There's denialism left and right, and governments that are being lobbied to "minimise the science" on an issue that many scientists firmly believe will be mankind's biggest trial. Given the scale of this I hardly blame the governments, or the sceptics and "deniers", but ignoring this issue will not make it go away. - KRG12345, on 03/20/2009, -1/+2That ability has yet to manifest itself on Digg.
- idontlikeyou2, on 03/21/2009, -1/+2Scientific citation is not being told. Its about getting info and anlyzing it. Thats the difference between tin hat wearers and normal people. What the point of asking "reasonable" questions (if thats what you think it is) if you can't even resonably anaylze the data infront of you. All I see is a bunch of a conspiracy theorist that tries to see something that's not there.
- SuperCujo, on 03/20/2009, -2/+3Weather patterns
- jenshik, on 03/20/2009, -3/+4*****. I'm a kiwi too, I don't wear sunblock and I rarely get burned. And there are only a few people I know who do get burned, and they are the ones with very fair skin (who would get burned anywhere in the world).
- frieddonuts, on 03/23/2009, -0/+1On behalf of Digg, I would like to apologize. I hope your attention span grows back.
- Gareth321, on 03/21/2009, -0/+1That's a good way to describe it. You can just feel it 'burning', rather than warming.
- MrsPhillips, on 03/20/2009, -0/+1I was in New Zealand when my husband did the Taupo Iron Man. I had really bad burns between my fingers, on the ends of my toes, and on my lips because I neglected to put sun screen there. By the way, I'm not fair skinned, and after living in Hawaii for 3 years I already had a very good tan. The sun FELT different, more like fire.
- aladrin, on 03/20/2009, -3/+4I'm surprised nobody has screamed 'We could fix the problem 20 years ago, but now the deniers won't let us fix the current problem.'
The difference is that we can -prove- CFCs were destroying the Ozone. We can't -prove- GW is affected in any significant way by anything we do. - inactive, on 03/20/2009, -0/+1I couldn't even find any sunblock over 50 when I was living in Dunedin- maybe Countdown thinks the frozen south doesn't need anything that high?
- evomenthe, on 03/20/2009, -3/+3It only takes 15 minutes to get a sunburn?
- twiztidsinz, on 03/20/2009, -2/+2First off... I believe you mean Global or Trade Winds, not Weather Patterns.
Second off, things accumulate in the middle and around, but not at, the poles.
Something in the Northern Hemisphere would go north to the pole, or south to the equator.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatech ... http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/global/circ. ... - gread, on 03/20/2009, -1/+1What does "mongled" mean exactly? Doesn't the sun normally shine in NZ?
- verygoodyear, on 03/20/2009, -1/+1I see a great parallel universe book here.
- angryredplanet, on 03/21/2009, -1/+1@Gareth
"I can easily last several times longer in the sun in Australia"
It depends on where you are. I've had sunstroke a few times from being out too long, it takes a day or two to sort yourself out afterwards. Also had bad sunburn more than my share of times after forgetting my hat/sunscreen.
I've never been to NZ, so I can't compare but your description of the "burning, not warming" sensation below is very accurate - and it happens after only after 5 to 10 minutes of exposure. - twiztidsinz, on 03/20/2009, -9/+8I always wondered how / why using CFC's in what I'm guessing was mostly in the Northern Hemisphere caused a hole over the South Pole.
- moneymanager007, on 03/20/2009, -4/+2oops
got saved by a whisker - manatee, on 03/20/2009, -4/+2LOL!
- spyd3rweb, on 03/20/2009, -6/+4Ozone is created by the suns ultraviolet rays reacting with oxygen in the air, as long as there is sun and oxygen there will be ozone. The ozone hole created annually during the winter months in antarctic only occurs because of extreme low temperatures and a weather phenomenon known as the polar vortex. The hole does not occur at the north pole because the temperature there does not reach -85 degrees. It is not caused by human activity and never was, the hole completely vanishes and fills in to normal levels during the summer months. There is real science that can explain this, and it is not attributed to humans, but what you see in the media is a heavily twisted lie.
- dmm219, on 03/20/2009, -4/+1This is good stuff. I agree with the Ozone arguments. They are pretty valid, and the current data, does a good job of verifying most of the early predictions (though not all of them). The problem with C02 global warming is that its foundation is built on simulations or models. Human's have never been able to make decent models concerning weather, nature or human behavior. In essence, actual real life data does not fit the GW models scientists have used to study GW. This is a big problem. I doesn't mean that
GW doesn't exist (it does), it doesn't even mean that humans are not causing it. But it DOES mean that we have only scratched the surface of understanding the earth's climate at this point. Any honest scientist admits this.
By the way...our current economic crisis? You can thank human behavior models of risk managment for that one. Models didn't only turn out to be false, but disastrously so. And these models were created by nobel prize winning mathematicians...doesn't make me hold out too much hope for ANY model out there trying to predict Weather. - yourbrokenoven, on 03/20/2009, -5/+2how were they able to measure this after their priceless satellite was destroyed during a botched launch attempt?
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is