What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
157 Comments
- inactive, on 03/13/2009, -9/+20eh, I'll be dead by then.
- climatemaven, on 03/12/2009, -7/+14The problem is not mean sea level rise but how it interacts with high tides and storm surges to present highly damaging extreme flooding events. Not to mention the salt water intrusion throughout the Sacramento Valley, ruining crops and irrigation systems. You're talking about a region at risk for Katrina / New Orleans style damage already - without adding another five feet of salt water.
Perhaps (and I do mean perhaps) the Bay Area can absorb this sort of impact, but when you consider the damage globally, the migration patterns that will create and the overall disruption we're facing, it's irresponsible to be so blase about the problem. Do you really think your children, your retirement will ride this out untouched?
We know it's our pollution creating this damage, we have affordable solutions at our fingertips. We know enough about the risks to act - yet we allow a dinosaur of a fossil fuel industry to fund 'think tanks' to publish fear mongering and confusion. I believe we're a smarter democracy than that. We should get our science from scientists, heed the warnings and act - while we still have the opportunity. - offrdbandit, on 03/13/2009, -1/+8If you think there haven't been any natural CO2 emissions since the beginning of history, you need to take your head out of your ass.
Humans release such a minuscule amount of CO2 compared to natural processes (volcanism, microbes, animals, decomposition, etc). - oboshoe, on 03/13/2009, -0/+6Actually billions will go 6 feet under in 91 years regardless of what the economy does.
- offrdbandit, on 03/13/2009, -2/+8"How about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?"
"Oh, you can't bring up the NOAA. They have *facts*, and the deniers are allergic to them."
How about NOAA: http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunc ...
I guess scientists from MIT, Cambridge, University of London, USC, UVA, Pasture Institute, and NASA scientists who insist there is no proven link between human generated CO2 and temperature are all lying, yes? Or are they "bought" by the oil industry?
"A five year old can look at a CO2 chart and tell what is happening. What the hell is the matter with you people?"
Graphs depict correlation. Correlation does not depict causation. Increases in temperatures causes oceans to liberate dissolved CO2. Likewise, decreases in temperature allow oceans to reabsorb CO2 from the atmosphere. This is the correlation depicted in the graphs that "prove" AGW. It's simple oceanic chemistry, not the atmospheric voodoo AGW proponents suggest. - autoboy, on 03/12/2009, -3/+9So in the last 10000 years since the last ice age, as sea levels rose 400 feet, we've finally reached a limit for migratory patterns? Only in the last 5 feet do they change and create problems for wildlife?
- getoffmybridge, on 05/05/2009, -0/+6Dry land is not a myth, I've seen it!
- danj484, on 03/13/2009, -4/+9HAHA World Net Daily? Seriously now, let's try to quote some credible sources next time.
How about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. ... - gotikplage, on 03/12/2009, -2/+7Does that include the Adriatic Sea as well? The Venetians are probably ***** themselves.
- Dipsomaniac, on 03/13/2009, -0/+4There is more than enough ice to cause that much of a rise in sea levels if it's all melted.
- Dipsomaniac, on 03/13/2009, -5/+9That's the same logic that chemical polluters use to dodge lawsuits brought against them for dumping toxic waste. Their take is that if the plaintiff can't show that their cancer was specifically caused by a molecule from their plant, they're not responsible and the dumping is fine.
- inactive, on 03/12/2009, -5/+9What if the coastal cities did get flooded? Anyone think it would put an end to the global warming debate? Personally, I'm guessing not.
- KillerLettuce, on 03/13/2009, -3/+7This is a depressing day on Digg. Its like the 5th article I've seen in a few hours about global warming disasters.
- Yupp, on 03/13/2009, -0/+4Not sure when you went there but I was there last summer for a few weeks (before the recent flooding) and it smelled fine. As it was my first trip, I was fully expecting a stinky stay. But not so.
- autoboy, on 03/13/2009, -1/+5He uses the term "migration patterns." I've never seen that used for humans.
Sure, rising sea levels will result in human migration because some places will get flooded and no longer livable. New Orleans was not underwater once. The parts of the city badly damaged may never return to their former glory because people are moving to higher ground. Human migrations have been doing this for thousands of years because the see level has been rising. Its been happening for 10000 years at a pretty constant rate. If you look at the data, its actually slowed in the last 100 years. - inactive, on 03/13/2009, -5/+8I would love to see you call the hard-working men and women spending day after day collecting data in order to figure out what is really going on quasi-scientists.
Just because you do not agree with them does not invalidate their excruciatingly difficult and arduous education which led them to conclude, at least tentatively, a certain explanation. And I promise, that conclusion will be peer-edited and tested many many times before published and hailed as the truth.
And not to mention, scientists tend to know much much more than you, and understand how these things work on levels you couldn't imagine.
But hey, you seem to be a real scientist. I'm sure you know what you're talking about. Those guys with Ph.Ds, PSH, what do they know. Ivory Tower Intellectuals, you call them, right? - S1ngular1ty1, on 03/13/2009, -1/+4Well only 1 W/m2. I guess that isn't a lot, it's not like we are talking about an entire planet here with billions of square meters of land.
Seems you fail at math.
Here is some more reading for you to educate yourself on:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/56/6/1627.pdf
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/
http://zeus.nascom.nasa.gov/~pbrekke/articles/hali ... - VotePaul, on 03/13/2009, -1/+4Actually the Earth has been cooling for the last 10 years. The cycle peaked in 1998.
As for solar activity it hasn't been this low in since 1715.
Our data show that there are additional changes occurring in sunspots, independent of the sunspot cycle, and these trends suggest that sunspots will disappear completely. Such an event would not be unprecedented, since during a famous episode from 1645-1715, known as the Maunder Minimum, the normal 11-year periodicity vanished and there were virtually no sunspots visible on the solar surface.
Finally the occurrence of prolonged periods with no sunspots is important to climate studies, since the Maunder Minimum was shown to correspond with the reduced average global temperatures on the Earth.
http://www.astroengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2008 ... - jmwood42, on 03/13/2009, -2/+5global warming - right or wrong, does it hurt you that #^%$^#* badly to live a little cleaner? Sure would be nice to still have forests, drinkable water, wildlife etc 50-100 years from now. I hear a lot of crying about our kids' futures lately, how about directing a little bit of that sympathy towards the environment they are going to have to live in, or are taxes the only concept you can fathom?
- username7410, on 03/13/2009, -0/+3Attention New Orleans ... you're *****. Isn't the French Quarter the highest point at 3' above sea level?
- alittleroy101, on 03/13/2009, -0/+2autoboy - google "human migration pattern"
If that is too complicated for you, then put your pointy thingy over this here sentence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration
Just because you've never seen it before, doesn't make it a mystery. Instead of making excuses, just admit that you ***** up, and get over it. - trixdropd, on 03/13/2009, -0/+2Cheap coastal property, here I come!!
- S1ngular1ty1, on 03/13/2009, -1/+3How many times must I prove you wrong.
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050408-2.htm
"One of the natural forcings may be variations in solar activity, which appear to be correlated with climate change [2]"
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/sun/solarvariati ...
"Researchers believe that changes in sunspot activity or other solar events may affect Earth in ways that are indirect but that can have a significant impact."
The relationship between the sun and Earth's climate is not fully understood. The sun has more profound effects on the Earth's climate than the direct amount of energy it irradiates on the Earth. Solar input can stimulate bacterial life which releases carbon dioxide, it can cause more cloud formation which traps in more heat, and it can increase plant life around the world which also increase carbon dioxide and water vapor in the air.
Every article I have read says there is definitely a link between climate change and solar variation, but that the effects are not completely understood at this time even though solar variation tends to correlate with temperature changes. - Dipsomaniac, on 03/13/2009, -6/+8Spare us the propaganda, okay? That video is the retarded offspring of scientific research, and holds no conclusions worth the name.
- Dipsomaniac, on 03/13/2009, -9/+11Oh lord, here we go again.
There is NOTHING to indicate that the strong temperature changes seen in the last 40 years are related to the sun. Absolutely nothing. Solar output has not trended up or down in any wavelength. Flux is maintaining a steady average. Nothing that the sun has done could have caused the warming.
Okay? Okay. - mousky, on 03/13/2009, -0/+2The sky is falling. The ocean will rise an annual average of 0.65 inches each year. We think.
- blacklilyninja, on 03/13/2009, -0/+2GOOD GOD! PANIC NOW. my mobile home on the prairie wont survive the rising waters of the ocean! must rent a semi truck to move the home.
oh wait
2641 ft above sea level
- 5 ft
-----------
CERTAIN DEATH
(insert tornado joke here) - inactive, on 03/13/2009, -5/+7I'll believe it when I see it.
- S1ngular1ty1, on 03/13/2009, -1/+3It seems NASA disagrees with you.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/ ...
Who should I believe, hmmm. NASA or some idiot on Digg. I know, NASA. - orion2013, on 03/13/2009, -0/+2I will Still be Alive! Thank you Science and Technology!! Thank you!!
- astrixx, on 03/13/2009, -1/+330 years from now they will be able clone your body, give it a couple decades to grow, and then transplant your brain into the clone, thus renewing your life. Unless you got shot in the head or something....
- DarkPrincess74, on 03/13/2009, -0/+2Well yeah but movies with many of Hollywood's leading actors are.
Hale Berry, Kevin Costner, Nicolas Cage and Dermot Mulroney star in Boredom...the movie. - Jaryd2006, on 03/13/2009, -0/+2To raise "along the coastline" as opposed to just raising in the middle...?
- jeffbw, on 03/13/2009, -5/+7"Quasi scientists"? These are people who spend their lives studying the climate, and ninety-seven percent of them agree.
- adamerica2007, on 03/13/2009, -4/+6All of my professors agree that global warming is occurring - that isn't really up for debate anymore, as most legitimate scientists concede that temperatures have steadily been rising in recent decades. The real debate is whether it's part of a natural cycle, or a problem [partially] caused by humans. Either way, sea levels will almost certainly be rising over the course of the next couple centuries, regardless of why it's happening.
- trollick, on 03/13/2009, -0/+2"$100 billion in property [...] are at risk"
So, basically the damage will be tiny compared to current economic meltdown. Meh. - Dipsomaniac, on 03/13/2009, -4/+6No, it's the producers who deliberately distorted what real scientists said who have no idea what they're talking about. You really like supporting scientific fraudulence in the form of mediocre youtube videos, don't you?
- S1ngular1ty1, on 03/13/2009, -5/+7Yeah, NASA scientists and paleoclimatologists don't have a clue what they are talking about.
- inactive, on 03/13/2009, -2/+3I don't think they necessarily created the debate. After all, I can definitely think of some legitimate criticisms of the theory of global warming. However, they've really done an excellent job in completely destroying any possible scientific discourse on the subject by so thoroughly politicizing it. And let's face it - the kind of ***** the neocons spew actually hurts the case of people with legitimate complaints about global warming. I wonder if they even realize that - they go out, and they spew crap that clearly is not science to support their claims that global warming is a conspiracy or a hoax, and because it's so obviously unscientific, it hurts the position of anyone who does bring scientific objections to the table.
- tractordriver88, on 03/13/2009, -2/+3Some scientist said in 1988 that we would be doomed in 20 years. I'm still alive and well, as is everyone around me. The debate rages on.
- Dipsomaniac, on 03/13/2009, -2/+3Like, most of the Netherlands? Other large chunks of Europe? Large parts of Nova Scotia?
- S1ngular1ty1, on 03/13/2009, -1/+2Whoa, that's heavy!
- alittleroy101, on 03/13/2009, -3/+4Lose. Lose. Lose. For *****'s sake, it's clear that you wont 'loose sleep over it all.' There's apparently not much going on up there to keep you up at night.
- S1ngular1ty1, on 03/13/2009, -1/+2Scroll a little way down to see the chart showing co2 vs temp throughout the geological record.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_cl ... - tractordriver88, on 03/13/2009, -2/+3Their is not a thing we can do about it. Plus, within 91 years, those cities will suck anyway. They will just have to build somewhere else. Big whoop.
- DarkPrincess74, on 03/13/2009, -0/+1I'm totally going to invest in Otisburg now, despite all of the fabulous cities that were setup by Lex Luthor inc.
- Mullinator, on 03/13/2009, -3/+4Science only works in fads? What the hell is evolution then?
- S1ngular1ty1, on 03/13/2009, -1/+2Wow, error page not found. That proves everything !
- S1ngular1ty1, on 03/13/2009, -1/+2You don't have anything. You don't post facts you just bash whatever other people post because you don't really understand the subject. I feel sorry for you, really I do.
- acrankygeek, on 03/13/2009, -3/+4If levels rose enough to flood all costal cities, that would put an end to the debate about the long-term trend of global warming, but not the debate on whether it is man-made.
The real question is will the debate die when all of these BS predictions turn out to be untrue? -
Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is