What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
130 Comments
- lukemit, on 04/28/2009, -3/+14Wow. Glaciers are beautiful.
- dstz, on 04/29/2009, -0/+11Great, a thumbnail sideshow.
- Trent1492, on 04/29/2009, -6/+16"Not to be a dick, but has anyone stopped to think that we are actually at the tail end of an ice age that ended 10,000 years ago?"
You need a mechanism to explain that. It is not an explanation to say "we are coming out of a Ice Age." You need to say how and what observations confirm that explanation. That the current warming trend is natural has been explored and rejected. - PeachCobbler, on 04/29/2009, -7/+17Perhaps my Geology course is misleading, but the global temperature has been decreasing since 2004. Furthermore, glacier growth/shrinkage is dependent on precipitation. No new snowfall, no glacier growth. Not to blow off the issue, but I believe the facts are often misrepresented and obfuscated.
- fandyllic, on 04/29/2009, -2/+10Umm that was in 2002. Give me an article for like 2007 or later and maybe you have some meaningful evidence. Several of the images from this article are far more recent than 2002.
Oh by the way: March 19, 2009 http://digg.com/environment/Scientists_Ice_cores_s ... - amish4play, on 04/29/2009, -2/+10No shiftclick, none of the scientists have ever considered that, you should give them a call. Who know you may be up for a nobel prize!
/s - Trent1492, on 04/29/2009, -0/+8"There used to be glaciers covering North America, then they melted."
Yes, an event that happened at the beginning of the Holocene, some 10,000 years ago. You need a mechanism. We have a mechanism to explain the waxing and waning of Ice Ages they are called Milankovitch Cycles and we are not in one now. Disagree? Then please tell me, how is it that the total solar irradiance has not changed in the past thirty years and yet we are still warming?
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irra ...
> That the current warming trend is natural has been explored and rejected
By zealots, but not by objective scientists: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2889526806 ..."
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Temp leads Carbon" Crock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8&fea ...
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&fea ...
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Solar Schmolar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&fea ...
"By zealots, but not by objective scientists: "
Oh, and BTW, your delusional. - Trent1492, on 04/29/2009, -0/+7"There's no scientific way of determining the exact cause of global warming."
No. Your simply repeating talking points. We have known since the 19th century that CO2 captures and reradiates heat. We can measure the amount of CO2 that humans have introduce to the environment. You may want to google the "Suess Effect" and the "Keeling Curve". We can make predictions of what a human induced warming would look like versus a natural one. You know such as the prediction that the troposphere will warm while the stratosphere will cool or that the North Pole will see the greatest warming instead of the Equator. Can you figure out why? Hint: think of what the observed effects of what the Sun warming would look like instead. - Trent1492, on 04/29/2009, -0/+7"No you don't need a mechanism to explai that we're coming out of an ice age."
Oh, when did the rules of evidence change? If you make an assertion you have a burden of evidence.
"You need to things. The scientific observation that say we had an ice-age..."
That would be the genetic fallacy of reasoning you are committing there.
."...and the physical observation that we aren't in one now."
Hold it, your saying you do not need evidence for your assertions but no evidence? I am just walking away from that idiocy. - squarepancakes, on 04/28/2009, -10/+17not cool.
- HuangFeng, on 04/29/2009, -1/+7Although the timeframe should be too narrow to easily pick up the slight warming due to GHG, the global average temperature has been rising since 2000, and also rising since 1997. 1998 was a peak and an exceedingly poor place to identify as the start of a trend. To claim that there has been a cooling trend since 1998 is purposely deceptive and highlights the proclaimer of such analysis as disingenuous. Discussing the troughs is likewise purposely deceptive and just as meaningless. Seriously, the people pushing these factoids are of exceedingly dubious standing.
Don't take my word for it: grab the actual data from UAH, the place where deniers like to get their data. Put the data into a spreadsheet, calculate the decimal year.month and plot it against avg tmp then run a regression line (line of best fit).
Example graphs from UAH data:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/neoporcupine ...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/neoporcupine ...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/neoporcupine ...
UAH data:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglh ... - Trent1492, on 04/29/2009, -0/+6"you need proof before you can make such a claim"
Here you go:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
"noob"
Science does not operate on "proofs" but evidence big difference. Moron. - agentsrecord, on 04/28/2009, -4/+10These pictures are making me thirsty.
- catvllvs, on 04/29/2009, -1/+7Except... glaciers are on land numbnuts. When they melt it goes into the water.
Fill your sink halfway. Place large block of ice on draining board. Let melt... just a guess, but I reckon the water in the sink is going to rise. - greenfyre, on 04/29/2009, -1/+7Other than the facts that:
- nothing happened at Copenhagen
- the names are mostly not climatologists
- the list is a fraud - fandyllic, on 04/29/2009, -10/+16Global warming denial is like a religion. Evidence and facts won't convince the believers.
- Trent1492, on 04/29/2009, -0/+6"Could because of my work. I spent 5 years working with some of the most complex (and often overly sensitive and wildly inaccurate) computer models in the world - you know, the kind used to make climate change predictions :)"
OK, then I call upon you to show me the articles you have had published in peer reviewed journals.
Google Scholar
http://scholar.google.com/ - greenfyre, on 04/30/2009, -0/+5i) My bad, didn't provide the facts to document my statement:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/d ...
ii) You find me someone who a) fits your description, b) disputes anthropogenic climate change based on actual science - I know of no such person. - greenfyre, on 05/01/2009, -0/+5"all that disagree are shills"
Yes you are ...try and find anywhere I have made such a statement (your delusions do not count)
"There are obviously qualified people that disagree with your position or there would be no controversy"
False. There is no scientific controversy because the qualified people don't disagree.
The political controversy is due to the unqualified. Case in point - you disagree, but have yet to demonstrate the vaguest clue about the science.
b) If you imagine they exist, how about you name them and the relevant research? - greenfyre, on 04/29/2009, -0/+4*****:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/glacier-mas ... - greenfyre, on 04/29/2009, -0/+4If by "silly" you mean "fact based, intelligent analysis", then sure:
Myth: Modern changes simply part of natural cycle http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Mo ...
Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11088-blame- ...
Humans causing it:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wa ...
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Humans+Causing+Climate ...
How do we really know humans are causing global warming?*
http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/11/how-do-we-re ...
# The Real Climate Collection including “For complete beginners:”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ... - scamper22, on 04/29/2009, -4/+8I don't deny global warming.
I just don't see what's wrong with the planet warming up a bit.
What's that make me in your little analogy there... the anti-christ?
Just build some levies, move some people from low areas, build better irrigation systems... sure beats all the hoopla we're doing trying to prevent it, even though it is too late to prevent it.
To top it off, we might get some decent weather in Canada.
So I say, embrace global warming, - vikingcoder, on 04/30/2009, -1/+5Translation:
"What do those stupid scientists know? I worked on commercial simulators for oil & gas companies, so I know more than they do!" - akchrs, on 04/29/2009, -3/+7Are glaciers made of ice or frozen water?
- greenfyre, on 04/29/2009, -1/+5Especially when you don't have any - try reality:
Myth: Modern changes simply part of natural cycle http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Mo ...
Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11088-blame- ...
Humans causing it:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Wa ...
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Humans+Causing+Climate ...
How do we really know humans are causing global warming?*
http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/11/how-do-we-re ...
# The Real Climate Collection including “For complete beginners:”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ... - notashighasyou, on 04/29/2009, -1/+5not anymore
- HuangFeng, on 04/29/2009, -2/+6Religion is like religion.
Climate science is like climate science.
Scientists are like scientists.
Al Gore is like a politician.
Deniers are like Hannity, Limbaugh, Cavuto, O'Rielly, Beck, Curry.
Environmentalists are like hippies.
I am like Huang Feng.
Ice cream is like so good.
Comparison between these groups is pointless. - ashadocat, on 04/29/2009, -3/+6I'm amazed young guy didn't repeatedly call me sheeple...
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!
also everyone should check this out it's hilarious.
actual quote --> "the current cultural belief in global warming exists not in the realm of reasoned scientific debate but in a state of religious fanaticism"...
this guy is pretty good at *****, you have to hear his technobable. starts at about 5:10 - Calcularius, on 04/29/2009, -2/+5"It refroze real quickly back up."
Grammar Nazi will not be happy. - Trent1492, on 05/01/2009, -0/+3"No publications, ..."
Just like I thought. - forgeflow, on 04/29/2009, -8/+11hate to be a dick, but - what temperature increase? do you mean the .67C increase over the last century? that one? because, that's entirely enough energy to melt a glacier. yeeaaaahhhh. (rolls eyes).
- inactive, on 04/29/2009, -0/+3Glacier ice is not the largest reservoir of fresh water on earth. It is only when you add the polar icecaps that it is.
It is estimated that the volume of groundwater comprises 30.1% of all freshwater resource on earth compared to 0.3% in surface freshwater; the icecaps and glaciers are the only larger sources of fresh water on earth at 68.7%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater - sexmaniac, on 04/29/2009, -2/+5Maybe they'll grow back after the post-apocalyptic ice age...
- mlc1138, on 04/29/2009, -1/+4Suddenly, we're all climatologists.
- funkeepickle, on 04/29/2009, -2/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_cooling_co ...
Read up and get educated. - HuangFeng, on 04/29/2009, -1/+3I wouldn't place belief one way or another. Evidence shows warming. The science overwhelmingly indicates human produced green house gasses are responsible. "Silly" is to ignore the research.
- Arkyll, on 07/16/2009, -1/+3I was watching something about refreezing the water pools in the glaciers. These scientists put a white blanket over the pool of water. It refroze real quickly back up.
- funkeepickle, on 04/29/2009, -2/+4First of all, stop being dishonest. Parkinson only talked about trends in the antarctic region in that article, the rest of what you posted in simply putting your words in her mouth. Second, for various reasons, the antarctic region is going to be the area least affected by global warming, although since that article was posted antarctica hs starting warming these past few years. See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99 ...
And even when Antarctica WAS slightly cooling, the degree of tempurature change was nowhere near that of the Arctic. "The net change is about zero" is a flat out lie, whether you were talking about the Arctic and Antarctic change combined or the average change of the entire globe, and you have absolutely NO scientific evidence to back that up. Hell, your very own article states says "The Arctic also shows a mixed pattern of sea ice trends over the 1979-1999 period, but in contrast to the Antarctic, the area with shortening seasons in the Arctic is far greater than the area with lengthening seasons." Prove me wrong if you can. I'm absolutely sick of all the dishonesty and ignorance from the deniers. - funkeepickle, on 04/29/2009, -0/+2Close, the average global temperature was actually at its highest in 2005. Although the temperature has slightly cooled from 2006-2008, this type of short-term cooling (I'm talking about 2-4 years here) has happened before in the context of longer-term warming these last few decades. There's no reason to believe that this is anything other than an anomaly.
Source: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat - Trent1492, on 04/29/2009, -2/+4"There used to be glaciers covering North America, then they melted."
Yes, an event that happened at the beginning of the Holocene, some 10,000 years ago. You need a mechanism. We have a mechanism to explain the waxing and waning of Ice Ages they are called Milankovitch Cycles and we are not in one now. Disagree? Then please tell me, how is it that the total solar irradiance has not changed in the past fifty years and yet we are still warming? - inactive, on 04/29/2009, -1/+3It's not the world that needs saving...
- KingVegas702, on 04/29/2009, -2/+4Warming?!!? hell yeah!! tube tops mini skirts and hoes 365 24/7!!
- zjbird, on 04/29/2009, -2/+4No shift, you're the first one. We haven't all already figured out that we are simply in a warming period. We also haven't suggested that our pollution simply speeds up this already seemingly dangerous process. In fact, no one watches the news. We all live under rocks.
And yeah, some of these pics are just ***** propaganda. - vikingcoder, on 04/30/2009, -0/+2The historical temperature changes were primarily caused by Milankovitch Cycles, orbital parameters of the Earth, which caused changes in the solar irradiance. There were, of course, singular events such as comet strikes & super-volcano eruptions that caused significant changes. When the solar irradiance increased, the oceans would warm up and release CO2 into the atmosphere; as can be demonstrated by warming up a carbonated beverage. The increased atmospheric CO2 concentration kept more solar energy in the atmosphere, which warmed the oceans further releasing more CO2. The amount of water vapor also increased, further increasing the temperature. As more ice melts from the warmer temperatures, the Earth's albedo (reflectiveness) changes because dark oceans absorb more energy than the white ice did. There are many feedback cycles, so CO2 being a lagging indicator does not disprove its spectral absorption anymore than an automobile engine charging a battery proves the battery can't start the engine. Natural climate change does not disprove anthropogenic climate change anymore than the preponderance of natural death can be used to disprove homicide. http://deschutes.gso.uri.edu/~rutherfo/milankovitc ... http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankov ...
The historical CO2 concentration temperature lag was predicted years before it was discovered.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v347/n6289/ab ... http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1990/Lorius_et ... - greenfyre, on 04/29/2009, -1/+3Want to try to be more wrong?
http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/ - inactive, on 04/29/2009, -5/+6There's no scientific way of determining the exact cause of global warming. There are many variables all playing a part; some natural and some caused by humans.
- smdyson, on 04/29/2009, -2/+3Do you really think that?
I am all for polluting less, but we can't change the effects the sun has on the earth. - Evilblobs, on 04/29/2009, -0/+1Beck doesnt deny climate change, just that its a result of humans and that it can be avoided.
- dullly, on 04/29/2009, -9/+10Actually NASA has a satellite which is the most accurate thing we have to measure arctic ice and the data shows that the ice has been growing for 2 decades. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antarctic_02 ...
This is science so it cannot be ***** with. - inactive, on 04/30/2009, -0/+1Congratulations on linking either sheep who believe what the media feed them or pro-profit CO2 tax sources.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
