What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
91 Comments
- InGenUse, on 11/17/2008, -4/+27Nothing's locked up forever. We're just making a huge ass time bomb.
- inactive, on 11/17/2008, -3/+20ROCK ON!
- trogdor282, on 11/18/2008, -0/+10Well if we don't do something now, we're gonna release all the methane and permafrost time bombs that already exist.
I'm reminded of the garbage ball episode of Futurama... - inactive, on 11/18/2008, -0/+9Why can't the federal government just bail out global warming and be done with it once and for all?
- sekramer, on 11/18/2008, -0/+8I don't know, rocks seem a whole lot better than, say, a hole in the ground.
- KSUdesigner, on 11/18/2008, -0/+8Doesn't matter if it is the cause or not, it is a fact that it is a pollutant and we should do our best to avoid polluting the only known planet that can support life.
- fluxion, on 11/18/2008, -0/+7i say we shoot it at random planets
- supermanly, on 11/18/2008, -0/+7All the fossil fuels turning to CO2 disrupted the balance, this would put it closer back to what it was before.
We already ***** with the balance, now we're trying to ***** it. - subzero34g, on 11/18/2008, -1/+7Hey, if we take the next step and put the rocks in a forest, turn the rocks back into gas and then we get happy trees who turn it into oxygen :D! .. and then happy humans =)
Unless there's more to it then that =/ - thegrantman, on 11/18/2008, -1/+6Oman that's a good idea.
- Paulorific, on 11/17/2008, -0/+5Unless we shoot that ***** to the moon.
- brbrbrad, on 11/18/2008, -1/+61) Dig up coal
2) Burn coal
3) Turn burnt coal back into mineral coal
4) Bury it
.....
6) Profit! - anonymous1986, on 11/18/2008, -5/+10You're a complete retard who spews out ***** from his mouth
NASA, and the American Physical Society are just a couple of reputable organisations who say that global warming is man made and CO2 is the main cause of the warming.
NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_world
Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.
Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.
Causes of global warming
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.
APS American Physical Society:
A statement from the American Physical Society:
- The 46,000-member American Physical Society argues the need for action is urgent because the energy crisis is the worst in U.S. history. It also says that the physics and chemistry behind the human causes of climate change - such as heat-trapping pollution from the burning of fossil fuels - "well understood and beyond dispute."
From the report: "Science has also achieved an overwhelming consensus that the increase in greenhouse gases is largely of human origin, tracing back to the Industrial Revolution and accelerating in recent years, as carbon dioxide and methane - the products of fossil fuel use - have entered the atmosphere in increasing quantities. Modeling the climate has proven to be a complex scientific task. But although the models are far from perfect, many of their predictions are so alarming that conservative, risk-averse policymaking requires that they be considered with extraordinary gravity."
New Scientist: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
For a link to 37 reputable organisations who say that global warming is man made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ... - Paulorific, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5I said moon because the worst case scenario with these carbon rocks is that the moon will develop some sort of atmosphere. Win win.
- cynic573, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5Biggest Pop Rocks ever.
- mfc5200, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4Yea, but it buys us time...
- trogdor282, on 11/18/2008, -3/+7In the same sense that the heart has not been completely proven to be the cause of blood circulation. Scientists don't prove things, EVER. You're thinking of math.
- Thermador, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4This sounds fishy. Something is not on the up and up. Anyway, sounds like a band aid for a bullet wound. We should be changing habits, not rock formations. Are ridiculous as this system sounds, its an "easy solution" that just perfectly is a substitute for our crazy lifestyles.
If it doesn't seem to make sense, then it probably isn't true. - Namco, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4Oh. Okay then. Carry on.
- thecoolestguy, on 11/18/2008, -1/+5The solution to the global warming problem: not giving a *****.
- Redemption289, on 11/18/2008, -3/+7Better way:
More energy efficient products.
Invest in true alternative energy sources.
Maybe some carbon sequestration + trees.
Admit that some global warming is probably the price we pay for technological development. - Headinawheel, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4No, if you read the article, it stated Peridotite reacted with CO2 in order to form Limestone and other carbonates. How does that "Make a huge ass time bomb"?
- KSUdesigner, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4Nobody's saying it isn't the primary source of nourishment for plants. It is a requirement for life, yes, but too much of it is not a good thing (which is when it becomes a pollutant). Similarly, water is one of the most essential parts of the human diet, but if you drink way too much of it at once you can die.
- grumpyrain, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4FTA> They calculate that Oman's peridotite alone could sequester
FTA> 4 billion tons of CO2 per year, one-eighth of the 30 billion tons
FTA> of CO2 humans emit annually.
Stay with me here. They are not taking *away* CO2. They are not even *reducing* it. They are reducing the amount by which it increases by, and it doesn't even look to factor in the growth of India and China. - Statopspin, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4but but but rocks....
- changedmind, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Why is this getting dug down? It's true - if we got rid of that mofo'ing sun the world would be a much cooler place.
- inactive, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3I really felt hopeful about the researchers (MIT perhaps?) who were developing a process based on photo-synthesis to convert CO2 directly into fuel using sunlight to power the process. Now THAT's a great idea.
- inactive, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3If by sun, you mean sons of bitches polluting our environment then yes
- trafficlight, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3How big is half an Oman? I'm not familar with the Arabic measurement system. How does that translate into VW Bugs or Libraries of Congress?
- PrintScrn12, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Nothing is "completely proven".
- RoflCoptah, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3but, what if u tape the buttered side of toast to the back of a cat and drop them. what lands on the ground?
- binky79, on 11/18/2008, -2/+5we are going to totally ***** up this planet.
- Narcowski, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Nothing, the cat hovers in midair and spins at an accelerating rate until a quantum event occurs and the toast and dat are both converted to pure energy.
- D0oki3, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2There's been dozens of new records set for early snowfall this year.
That's all I have to say. - inactive, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2I'm thinkin the sun's a better place for our waste...
- inactive, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2Stop climate change? How utterly ignorant.
- thegrantman, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2Oman = Oh man.
- plr4ever, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2what?
- DeskFlyer, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2Except for the fact that the toast always lands butter side down.
- bigbangbuddha, on 11/18/2008, -1/+3Awesome idea, can't wait to see what mess this causes in 50 years or so.
- Narcowski, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2The last thing we need is a race of mutant moon-people.
I vote we shoot it at the Monolith that's going to appear soon. - Paulorific, on 11/18/2008, -1/+3So...if what you're saying is true what's wrong with no increasing the carbon? If it's not significant then mind your own ***** business while the people with degrees in this stuff work it out. Either way it's not significant, right?
- argoff, on 11/18/2008, -1/+3FYI, once oil becomes sparse enough for gas to reach $7 per gallon, it makes economic sense to extract co2 from the air and turn it into gas. Besides, methane is a global warming gas, co2 is very questionable imho, methane has 10x the effect. I guess that's not as politically popular because most methane in the atmosphere comes from plants.
- seth553, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1I agree. Any technological solutions are a drop in the bucket if there is no behavioral change, particularly in the US. And unfortunately when you're trying to change the behaviors of humans, negative incentives still work best. On the bright side, carbon taxes would create an incentive for those who do the most damage to come up with the most innovative solutions.
But I think you hurt digg's feelings when you say that technological solutions have no value, so... yaay for carbon-sucking rocks! - Stormwern, on 11/18/2008, -1/+2Moron, nature doesn't produce any CO2, it's at perfect balance and we're screwing it up by burning fossil fuel. Perhaps you should spare the language when you don't know the first thing of what you're talking about, and you wont come off as a complete jackass.
It's simple math, CO2 was at 280ppm before the industrial revolution, now it's 380ppm, we need to get it back down. - MistrBrownstone, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1max, pass me that pipe you're smoking.
- MrSlumberjack, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1"(b) CO2 which can be sequestered or fed to plants"
?
You can't force feed CO2 to a plant. Plants have evolved to be able to take in a certain amount of carbon dioxide, being the amount that they evolved under. - Vodd9, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1What about reptilian-human hybrids that he claims some powerful people are? (Bush, British royal family, Rockefeller, etc.) Can you really believe that *****?
- zspade, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Can we just separate the carbon and oxygen, use the carbon to make diamonds and the oxygen to... breathe?
-
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is