What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
83 Comments
- greenta, on 11/03/2008, -7/+24Now the question is....what are the long term implications of this change at the poles? Im tired of hearing this argument concerning "the debate over global warming". I feel that the scientific community and the public for the most part have accepted the idea that YES, global warming is occurring. The debate now has shifted to what implications that it will cause. A major issue that will be a consequence from this "polar proof" is how will it effect freshwater currents? Basic physics tells us that a large deposit of freshwater ice into the ocean will cause 2 problems: 1) A rise in oceanic levels, and 2) an altercation of the freshwater/saltwater currents that distribute and produce many of the climates that form the biomes of the world today. The Gulf Stream, for example, provides the warm water that shapes the climate of the Eastern Coast of the US, where I live. You dump in a lot of freshwater into a predominately saltwater current, the densities are thrown out of alignment, and the current could shift AWAY from the U.S. This means that the warm climate of the eastern US, the one that millions of people rely upon and expect for many reasons, may change, or disappear completely.
So finally, its great to hear more people talking about problems at the poles, which in my opinion, is the real issue. - cardgame, on 11/04/2008, -2/+17Yeah this study has already been reported a number of times on Digg and it still doesn't make it right.
For the Climate models, what model used, what parameters, what factors use to describe parameters, what was left out, what was added in, whos data, etc, etc, etc. Case in point, what about the effects of VOCs (ie methane et al) on the model. Here is a quote from the ACCENT study group on VOCs and climate models:
"Predicting the effects of global climate change factors (such as increases in ambient CO2, O3, ambient temperature and response to droughts and flooding) on BVOC emissions is highly uncertain and requires an improved understanding of the biochemistry and physiology of emissions, including updating “Guenther’s algorithm”. This should be an extremely high priority for future investigation."
VOCs are DIRECTLY related to fossil fuel productions and drilling, as well as cow farts, with the point being you cannot justifiably include this in a climate model and call it an accurate depiction of what happens to temperature. - greenta, on 11/03/2008, -1/+8Yea, that picture WAS real. It was measured in 2000, but the data has shifted and been explained just a bit since then.
http://www.theozonehole.com/metop.htm
Here is where it stands as of 2007. It has changed slightly, but is slightly hovering around the same, which still is mind boggling. Its also a seasonal event, as the ozone hole changes size throughout the year, so be careful with you first see pictures of it. - inactive, on 11/04/2008, -1/+7Science is about facts, not democracy.
- earlevel, on 11/04/2008, -1/+6>I thought weather and climate were two different things...
Climate is the average of weather (weather is what it is now, climate is what it usually is). Mark Twain said "Climate is what we expect. Whether is what we get." - kinerry, on 11/04/2008, -4/+9This doesn't prove that it's people doing it, it proves that it's merely happening.
- inactive, on 11/04/2008, -2/+6There used to be a mile of ice over my house.
What happened? When did we start using fossil fuels....late 1800's?
I concur, Dr. Fossil fuels are not the problem.
Taxing citizens for the weather, however, would be a problem! - crazyjake, on 11/04/2008, -12/+16are people still trying to push this crap? i am a meteorologist, and if you even mention the term "Global Warming" the response is always laughing. we have looked at the science, and we know that the only thing that can affect the global climate t this degree is the sun itself. nothing less.
- kelly, on 11/04/2008, -0/+4Thank you for saying this. I was going to but I wouldn't have said it quite as eloquently as you did.
- Jenga, on 11/04/2008, -5/+9Actually, I doubt he speaks for any climate scientists. Why don't you tell us what meteorological evidence you have for solar variability as the source of some recently observed atmospheric instability?
- inactive, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3I wished algore had promoted the idea of redirecting near Earth asteroids.
Imagine the world's frustration after taxing the citizens of the world for 30 straight solid years and we only change the planet's temperature + or - 1º?
Then, our pockets bare, a big rock appears in space that promises tomorrow will approach a 1000ºƒ.
I'm told it a dry heat.
I know we can fix the big rock thing but giving human's credit for how warm the planet should be is a little arrogant. - kelly, on 11/04/2008, -6/+9You should say , "man made global warming is false science."
or better yet
"man made climate change is false science"
The earth is changing its temperature from that of the norm, but we (or anything on the earth) have exceptionally little to do with it. It would almost certainly come from anomalies from the sun or a yet to be determined phenomenon... such as, (hypothetically speaking) the earth grew 1% throwing temperatures off around the globe. - kelly, on 11/04/2008, -1/+4Says the person who made a far-reaching assessment based on two lines of text in an internet message board.
You might want to look in the mirror next time you make such claims. - york2600, on 11/04/2008, -0/+3I'm currently working in Antarctica and I can back up the depleted ozone here. We have giant gallon pump jugs of sunblock down here and they let us know all the time that if we don't want to get fried by the ozone hole we better use as much as we possibly can.
- inactive, on 11/04/2008, -11/+14Naturally occurring cycle, used to justify one of the greatest scams ever.
STOP DRINKING THE GLOBAL WARMING KOOLAID! - gibbwake, on 11/04/2008, -5/+7Lies, Poltically driven bunk to institute a carbon tax. The ice caps are actually increasing.
Ice Cap Alarmists Cherry Pick Science To Fit Carbon Emissions Theory
Ice extent is actually approaching second highest level since records began
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, March 27, 2008
A spate of alarmist articles in the media over the past few days have attempted to cause a frothing wave of panic concerning an accelerated melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice caps. However, the basic facts of the matter reveal that the science to prove this theory simply does not stack up.
The cause of the great thawing? Carbon emissions of cause. The solution? Carbon taxes.
UN climate chief warns of 'accelerated melting' of ice caps was the AFP headline yesterday that announced the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) call for international tariffs on carbon emissions:
"Now there's enough evidence to show that there is accelerated melting of some of these large bodies of ice; west Antarctic ice-sheet, the Greenland ice-sheet," Rajendra Pachauri told reporters.
[...]
His comments came after satellite images by the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center showed Antarctica's massive Wilkins Ice Shelf has begun disintegrating under the effects of global warming.
The Australian further reported:
British Antarctic Survey scientist David Vaughan said the collapse was the result of global warming.
Scientists said they are not concerned about a rise in sea level from the latest event, but say it's a sign of worsening global warming. Such occurrences are “more indicative of a tipping point or trigger in the climate system,” said Sarah Das, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in the US.
Vaughan also told the New Scientist that the Wilkins shelf was 'hanging by a thread'
(Article continues below)
So the ice caps are all melting and it's panic stations, we need more taxes on carbon now, right?
Not according to Certified Consultant Meteorologist and Executive Director of ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, Joseph D’Aleo, who does not receive any funding from corporate interests and provides a somewhat bigger picture:
Let’s put this in perspective. The account may be misinterpreted by some as the ice cap or a significant (vast) portion is collapsing. In reality it and all the former shelves that collapsed are small and most near the Antarctic peninsula which sticks well out from Antarctica into the currents and winds of the South Atlantic and lies in a tectonically active region with surface and subsurface active volcanic activity. The vast continent has actually cooled since 1979.
The full Wilkins 6,000 square mile ice shelf is just 0.39% of the current ice sheet (just 0.1% of the extent last September). Only a small portion of it between 1/10th-1/20th of Wilkins has separated so far, like an icicle falling off a snow and ice covered house. And this winter is coming on quickly. In fact the ice is returning so fast, it is running an amazing 60% ahead (4.0 vs 2.5 million square km extent) of last year when it set a new record. The ice extent is already approaching the second highest level for extent since the measurements began by satellite in 1979 and just a few days into the Southern Hemisphere fall season and 6 months ahead of the peak. Wilkins like all the others that temporarily broke up will refreeze soon. We are very likely going to exceed last year’s record. Yet the world is left with the false impression Antarctica’s ice sheet is also starting to disappear.
D'Aleo also points out that last year when the Antarctic set a new record for ice extent, it got no media attention. Instead the media focused on the Arctic regions where the ice set record low levels. Earlier this year the ice cover in the Antarctic again continued to reach highs but was still ignored. Now a portion of the Wilkins shelf has broken away, suddenly the entire Antarctic is in grave peril of collapsing into the sea, according to the media and the selected few "experts" they quote.
Furthermore, it is entirely natural for sections of ice shelves to break away. In both polar regions, the cold climate causes water to fall from the air and form snow and ice. The ice that covers the land then becomes glaciers which are subject to movement as gravity weighs down on them, forcing them to the shorelines of each continent.
Then the glaciers spread across the surface of the Arctic and Antarctic oceans, forming temporary ice shelves which constantly drift and break over periods of time with seasonal and tidal changes helping to form cracks and weaknesses. When the colder weather returns, the shelves refreeze.
With different weather systems, fluctuations in tectonic activity and solar activity, the process is never the same and levels of ice have forever fluctuated on the planet for millions of years.
To suggest that a small portion of an ice shelf breaking is suddenly something completely new and frightening is patently ludicrous.
Indeed, as this figure from Cryosphere Today highlights, current world ice levels have now reached 1 million square kilometers above normal. You can see the fluctuation from season to season and that in the warmer seasons there is no doubt that in recent years there has been a more erratic trend in ice levels. However, this shifts both ways.
Furthermore, as we have previously highlighted, data from all four major global temperature tracking outlets shows that the Earth is no longer getting warmer and that we are now actually in a post-warming period of global cooling.
Other scientists backed this claim and have asserted that warming stopped some years ago.
We also know that Antarctic ice core samples show that the rise in carbon dioxide levels actually lags behind temperature rise by 800 years, and therefore cannot be the cause of it. The documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle exposed how Al Gore, in his film Inconvenient Truth, deliberately reversed these figures to claim CO2 causes temperature change, when in fact the opposite is the case.
When the AFP quotes some scientist saying that the ice caps are "hanging by a thread" with no actual scientific facts to back up the claim, the reaction should be to investigate and to debate the claim.
Instead we have politicians and the UN frothing and immediately announcing that the ice caps are all melting because of carbon emissions. Their pre-prepared solution, of course, is to embrace carbon taxes and offsetting measures, the companies behind which are now being bought up by vast globalist entities such as JP Morgan.
More - Man Made Global Warming Hoax Archive - Nordjak, on 11/04/2008, -4/+6Yet another huge peer-reviewed study supporting the anthropological global warming hypothesis, and instead of thinking critically and maybe even reading the study, Digg uses the comment section to spout off about the global warming "conspiracy." The issue has obviously been politicized, and yes, some people are going to make money off of climate change; but that doesn't devalue the science.
- GeorgeTirebiter, on 11/04/2008, -1/+3I did not initiate the use of the word "prove"; they did. And they proved nothing. Personal attacks are popular with the greenies, eh? BTW for a scientist, your spelling is pretty poor.
- wunksta, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2THE YELLOW FACE!! IT BURNS USS!!
- marmol, on 11/03/2008, -3/+5the third picture in the slideshow showing the depleted areas of the ozone layer of Antarctica is totally mind blowing. There is no way that can be real!!!
- atmenterprises, on 11/04/2008, -4/+6Explain how the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today without man-made carbon emissions. If carbon dioxide gas is still be emitted by humans, why has the planet's temperature continued to fall since 1998?
- atmenterprises, on 11/04/2008, -4/+6Sort of like Gore, except his savior is the carbon tax.
- 0dnj0, on 11/04/2008, -10/+12still buying the global warming scam huh?you all do know that there is absolutely no proof of man made global warming right? mars is heating up and so are other planets just like this one,must be all those suv's and anyway its a fact now that the earth is beginning to cool...its just cycles of the sun ........look into it ...
- Dralha, on 11/04/2008, -10/+11LOL The frothing fanatics of the Church of Global Warming Denialism are at it again, spreading their gospel of lies, distortions, and obfuscations on behalf of their lord and savior, big oil.
- Hrodrik, on 11/04/2008, -6/+7NOOOOO! IT'S A HOAX!!!
*browses around the internet for "proof", with tears in eyes* - BlackApple, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1You know why its a scam because they want us to burn more ***** oil. Look into it
- inactive, on 11/04/2008, -1/+2I have evidence that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists go along to get along.
To do other wise entitles them to a full body Sarah Palin ~ Joe The Plumber treatment - SQLserver, on 11/04/2008, -11/+12Listen:
People are going to come in here and say: "Volcanoes/the Sun/Sun Spots/whatever did it, not humans!"
These people are missing the point.
The fact is, these may be contributing to global warming. However, dozens of studies, common sense, and simple science ALL tell us that humans are also contributing.
The point is, spewing a ton of CO2, which will make it warmer, cannot be a good thing. We need to stop using fossil fuels immediately. - wunksta, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1actually, youre supporting man made global warming, well done.
if we add stuff to the atmosphere more than can be taken in by the environment, what happens? it doesnt go away now does it? - s0nicfreak, on 11/04/2008, -1/+2Sounds like a DP porn
- kelly, on 11/04/2008, -8/+9Even if it only contributes 3-4% to the total result?
Sorry, fossil fuels are not the problem. - offrdbandit, on 11/04/2008, -6/+7"The fact is, these may be contributing to global warming. However, dozens of studies, common sense, and simple science ALL tell us that humans are also contributing."
The fact is dozens of flawed and tenuous studies conducted by "scientists" with their minds made up about global warming have conclude, despite the lack of logical and consistent proof, "that humans are also contributing". "[C]ommon sense and simple science" require one to produce logically substantial arguments. "[C]ommon sense and simple science" require conclusions based on reason. This global warming/climate change cabal doesn't use "common sense and simple science" - they use propaganda to exercise political power. - WhiteMike87, on 11/04/2008, -2/+3Not the South Pole! That's where penguins come from!
- shig, on 11/04/2008, -1/+2You're not getting fried by the ozone hole. You're getting fried by that glowing ball of hate in the sky. It wants you to get off it's land.
Until you do, enjoy the UVc. - kelly, on 11/04/2008, -2/+3"you have a conclusion and you are moving everything around to fit."
No, I'm looking at the evidence suggesting that man caused it and its just not there, so I'm realizing it MUST be something else.
If anything, the notion that man caused it is the practice of moving everything around to accommodate it to fit.
"i dont have 100% certainty about climate change"
Let's get this strait, I'm not denying climate change. I'm denying that we're the cause of it. The risks are terrible and yet if it's a naturally occurring phenomenon as appears to be the case, then taking great measures to alter it could have catastrophic consequences.
And for the record, I'm not saying that we ought not look for more earth-friendly solutions such as bio-file, recycling etc... as it would indeed help our environment but we ought not be so gung-ho to fix this "problem" by doing ourselves a dis-service in the process especially when there's every reason to believe that altering our behavior would be inconsequential anyways.
Oh, and by the way, there's plenty of evidence to believe that the earth DID in fact grow. I'm actually writing a book about it. If you're interested, I'd be happy to send you or anyone else interested a pre-text. - wunksta, on 11/04/2008, -1/+2ghg emissions are not the only impact on temperature, as he mentioned. the causes for that particular period (little ice age) were most likely solar activity or volcanic activity and the warm period slowly came out of that, but some evidence suggests that it wasnt wide spread as believed
however, it doesnt change the current temperature increase and its causes
"The various studies differ in methodology, and in the underlying paleoclimate proxy data utilized, but all reconstruct the same basic pattern of cool "Little Ice Age", warmer "Medieval Warm Period", and still warmer late 20th and 21st century temperatures. In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medie ...
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley20 ... - greenta, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Thank you. As the Gulf Stream travels north, the warm water transported by the Gulf Stream undergoes evaporative cooling and brine exclusion. The cooling is wind driven: wind moving over the water cools it and also causes evaporation, leaving a saltier brine. In this process, the water increases in salinity and density, and decreases in temperature. These two processes produce water that is denser and colder (or, more precisely, water that is still liquid at a lower temperature). In the North Atlantic Ocean, the water becomes so dense that it begins to sink down through less salty and less dense water. (The convective action is not unlike that of a lava lamp.) This downdraft of heavy, cold and dense water becomes a part of the North Atlantic Deep Water, a southgoing stream. Allright, the wind does also play a factor in the cooling of the gulf stream, however, as a result produces water that is more dense than the salty water.
My question then becomes, if an ocean current has nothing to do about water, how would a cold dense freshwater layer subside a saltier layer if that layer disappears due to inputs of freshwater? The input of freshwater would SIGNIFICANTLY alter the cold water cycles underlying the gulf stream and its physical composition. - argusbargus, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1You correct, proof is not for this "Phil Donahue" pop-science. Proof is for real science.
Science is about cause and effect. You need to prove cause and effect by performing experiments. The experiments are designed to conflict with the null hypothesis. In other words, proof by counter example to the opposite of the hypothesis. What is generated is facts and does not require consensus by some self-important group.
Lately, there has been a watering down of science by pretending that co-relations are cause and effect. It is not. No matter if you get a perfect score with a co-relation, it does not prove cause and effect. No matter how many times you reproduce a co-relation, it does not prove cause and effect. Peer reviews does not make it any more real.
This pop science is nothing more than heuristics. This is the pairing events with pre-conceived ideas of the way that things should work. For example, this year is dryer than last year, and I am told that Global Warming is real, therefore, my witnessing of the dryness this year is due to Global Warming. This is pure junk science at its worst and is harmful to the progression of real science. This is the so-called "accumulated evidence" thus far. It does not matter how much crap you accumulate, it will not turn into fact. It doesn't matter how many self-aggrandized morons claim that the crap is fact, it is not. This is the sweet spot for manipulation by others with alternative agendas; cults; and insanity.
Since the oil companies are introduced into the discussion, I'll ask you this: who benefits when you pay the same amount for using 1/10 the energy because you went green? Quite an ingenious way to get you to pay more and receive less, don't you think? - Jakerzon, on 11/05/2008, -0/+1You bet.
- Devilboy666, on 11/05/2008, -0/+1You're the retard!
- inactive, on 11/05/2008, -0/+1Stop trying to blame one contributing factor.
- socialfly, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1Refer again to this link http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article ... . Sheila Watt-Cloutier is an activist who has first hand knowledge of the impact of climate change in her environment.
- gibbwake, on 11/04/2008, -1/+2The ice caps are not shrinking - theyre 25% bigger in 2007 compared to 06. A eugenics movement is behind this. There is no big deal made of the fluoride in the water, genetic engineered food, chemicals in the air as you say, or cross species chimeras. Its all Co2, one of the 4 essential ingredients to life on earth, what plants breath to create air and food for us - but no - ITS A TOXIC DEVIL GAS THAT MUST BE ABOLISHED AND YOU MUST BE TAXED FOR YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT. Explain to me how much youre in favor of a carbon footprint (exhaling) tax, Im interested in your reasons.
- wunksta, on 11/04/2008, -0/+1so bitch about it but dont show why its wrong? good job there.
- wunksta, on 11/04/2008, -1/+1which article was that?
and if you disagree, please show evidence to the contrary. - inactive, on 11/04/2008, -2/+2Why does a bumble bee fly?
Science says it's impossible.
Yet the bumble bee flies.
Perhaps science is insane? - crazyjake, on 11/04/2008, -4/+4holy crap!! are you serious?? no really... are you joking?
- wunksta, on 11/04/2008, -1/+1then you should have no problem showing evidence to the contrary.
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is