What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
211 Comments
- piper999, on 08/27/2008, -8/+39Its actually a 30 year sampling of data and most people realize how useless the sample size is but don't let that get in the way of a good apocalypse theory.
Just the other week scientist in the Antarctic found evidence of that continent being a tundra in the past rather than frozen over as it is now but somehow it all gets mistranslated into panic over the theory of a possible human influence on temperature. - ArenaRon, on 08/27/2008, -18/+47The earth is millions of years old yet we all get excited when an ice level drops below a 100 year sampling of data. Interesting...
- piper999, on 08/27/2008, -7/+29In other words there is more ice than last year?
- inactive, on 08/27/2008, -8/+24Here's an interesting chart that compares the previous averages, 2005, 2007, and this years current ice melting.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20080827_ ...
I've been following the sea ice levels all summer. Fascinating stuff, really. I actually have a bet going with a friend of mine who considers himself to be a global warming skeptic, and who swore up and down that this year wouldn't even come close to 2007. - inactive, on 08/28/2008, -11/+224.5 billion years of freeze and fry and some retards are going to get their panties in a wad over this?
- JBmtk, on 08/28/2008, -7/+18There is no such thing as global warming!
-George Bush - omegared, on 08/28/2008, -2/+11Most americans and diggers don't care about science if it means it disagrees with their opinion. But they do like science when it agrees with their opinion. Seriously what do scientist know anyway with their research and education, so elitist.
- xylona, on 08/28/2008, -2/+11I'm working on my PhD in Atmospheric Sciences and speak with well respected, leading arctic researchers frequently. These guys have been studying sea ice for the last 30 years and certainly are not ignoring the factors many previous posters have mentioned. Here's what they say about the decline of arctic sea ice, and its significance, directly from a publication:
"The results for temperature and pressure suggest that the Arctic may be a temporally leading indicator of greenhouse-driven changes despite its large natural variability. "
I'd take their conclusions on this topic any day over anything Al Gore says, let alone the drivel I'm seeing authored by the "expert" diggers in this thread...
If you want to educate yourself about sea ice, why not get it direct from the source instead of warped and regurgitated by a journalist, or worse... someone who believes themselves to be an expert on a topic whose source is that journalist...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ - greenfyre, on 08/28/2008, -3/+12I give some of the science above http://digg.com/general_sciences/Arctic_Sea_Ice_Dr ...
Since you feel the science is mistaken perhaps you can share with all of us how and where ... and if you believe it is sample size or span you should try starting by getting it remotely right - I am unlikely to believe your critique of the science when you start by showing you have no idea what the scientific basis is.
And yes, the scientists ARE trying to scare the crap out of you because that is what the state of things is. Try looking up methane clathrates just for chuckles ... as far as we can tell the last time they mobilized it killed 98.5% of everything on the planet. - MorganMghee, on 08/28/2008, -2/+10http://www.linktv.org/programs/outofbalance $16 million to fund 'skeptic groups', not scientists... to spread doubt and confusion, not facts and truth.
- piper999, on 08/27/2008, -4/+12Its not the scientists who are trying to scare people its the way their work is reported. It is essentially pretty mundane stuff spun up into something out of all proportion.
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -13/+21completely natural
- SickMonkey, on 08/28/2008, -3/+10My buddy is getting his PHD at Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Years ago there was a serious academic debate there among the researchers about global warming, but today every former skeptic on staff will tell you without reservation that it is happening at an accelerated pace and that it is for the most part a man-made phenomena.
But I guess science and research doesn't mean much if it doesn't fit into your view, does it? It's kind of like that Evolution crap they are trying to teach to our kids! - XTX7X, on 08/28/2008, -2/+9I can't believe somebody cited Michel Chrichton's State of Fear as a reputable source to counter actual climatology. Shoot me now.
And yes, I have read it. And yes, I went through my denial stage as a result... what a mistake. - greenfyre, on 08/28/2008, -1/+8See also http://digg.com/environment/A_catastrophe_in_slow_ ...
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -4/+11I can think of only one thing worse that global warming - global cooling.
- MorganMghee, on 08/28/2008, -0/+6most of new york would be gone, if you thought people were mean there now, just you wait..
- Zique, on 08/28/2008, -3/+9The scientific community would convince you otherwise, but who wants to rot the brightest minds on the planet by making them talk with conservatives?
- dontspamjay, on 08/28/2008, -5/+11antarctic ice:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09 ... - boxlight, on 08/28/2008, -8/+13Wow, Bush gets one right.
- greenfyre, on 08/28/2008, -1/+6We have the data and science and I have posted it repeatedly, yet you never point to any specific problem with the science.
The scientists who actually know what they are talking about and back it up with evidence an facts say you are wrong, you say you are not ... and we are supposed to take your word for it? - Singulariter, on 08/28/2008, -0/+5rtfa.
- greenfyre, on 08/28/2008, -3/+8@boxlight
If the science is wrong show us how it is wrong. We do not delight in anything, we merely report accurately what the facts seem to be.
1970s Global cooling myth - debunked
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/ ...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarm ...
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarm ...
Crichton, ripped to shreds http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Mi ...
Sea Ice reality http://digg.com/environment/A_catastrophe_in_slow_ ...
And yes, we are looking at desroying the world - here is some of the science, tell me how it is mistaken:
"How we know we're not wrong about climate change" http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/Presentations/O ...
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm - angryredplanet, on 08/28/2008, -0/+5@boxlight
That you reference Michael Crichton is enough of an indication of your credibility. To give you balanced perspective, have you read the IPCC's Fourth Assessment on Climate Change? I highly doubt it, so I'll post a link. The best thing is, unlike Mr Crichton's bestseller, you don't need to pay to read it: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/a ...
Politicians are also not the best people to be quoting in a scientific debate. Not that climate change is a debate any longer.
"Here's another one for you. "frighteningly new global phenomenon" ... "condemning future generations to global catastrophe" No response, huh?"
To humour you, can you disprove any of this? If you can, I'd be very interested in listening to you do so.
Your arguments are at best "Straw Man", hollow, without substance and have been proven incorrect or irrelevant many times over. I'd suggest that you stop reading tabloids and maybe read what the climate scientists helped to produce. After all, you trust your doctor to medicate you, your mechanic to fix your car, the software engineer to program software for your computer. Let the climate scientists do what they are trained and qualified to do. - 1ncu3us, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5Are we seeing the same in the Antarctic? What's the story in the south?
- greenfyre, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5The Stupid Cult of Cooling and the Goyder Line debate http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/05/21/the-stupid-cu ...
- SickMonkey, on 08/28/2008, -4/+8Here's something to ponder: A glacier (and there are many, many such glaciers out there) that took thousands of years to form, suddenly melts by 90%+ in just a few decades.
Please provide an explanation. - borez, on 08/28/2008, -5/+9But that's an Inconvenient truth for the climate change activists.
FTR: I believe this is a natural climate migration, you know, the same stuff that's been happening for centuries around the world. - greenfyre, on 08/28/2008, -3/+7How's no food for a start?
Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/02120 ...
Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
A few degrees more will be really nice - especially for plants! http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosph ...
Will Grasslands Overtake U.S. Forests Due to Warming? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/08 ...
Here some great examples of the reality of how increased CO2 is helping plants to grow 48 Wildfires Currently Burning 314,355+ Acres in 6 States http://digg.com/environment/48_Wildfires_Currently ... Corn could hit $10 as flooding may reduce output http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/corn-may-hit ... Climate change caused widespread tree death in California mountain range http://www.physorg.com/news137693059.html and Drought has hold on Oklahoma Panhandle http://www.hpj.com/archives/2008/jun08/jun23/Droug ...
Climate Change Threatens One In Five Plant Species by 2080 http://digg.com/environment/Climate_Change_Threate ...
Major food source threatened by climate change http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
"Leemans and Eickhout (2004) found that adaptive capacity decreases rapidly with an increasing rate of climate change. Their study finds that five percent of all ecosystems cannot adapt more quickly than 0.1 C per decade over time. Forests will be among the ecosystems to experience problems first because their ability to migrate to stay within the climate zone they are adapted to is limited. If the rate is 0.3 C per decade, 15 percent of ecosystems will not be able to adapt. If the rate should exceed 0.4 C per decade, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed, opportunistic species will dominate, and the breakdown of biological material will lead to even greater emissions of CO2. This will in turn increase the rate of warming" --Leemans and Eickhout (2004), "Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change," Global Environmental Change 14, 219-228
We have warmed 0.2 C/decade for the last two decades. - greenfyre, on 09/01/2008, -0/+4@ benoldays
"If you cant accurately predict what the weather will be like a year from now, let alone 10 years from now, then your theory if flawed"
If you do not understand that meterology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorology and climatology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology are different sciences then it really is time to go back to square one and start over.
I suggest starting here http://digg.com/environment/So_just_who_does_clima ... and then here http://members.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/enviro/globalwa ... - inactive, on 08/27/2008, -8/+12Well actually, the melting season still has a few weeks left, so we can't say for certain. Though to be fair, this year certainly looks to be giving last year a run for its money. See my above post for a chart which makes comparisons between this year, last year, and 2005. Really, it's terribly fascinating stuff.
- greenfyre, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5@ruddy
You refer to Lindzen who has been thoroughly debunked as a crank http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ri ...
You want to pretend that historic climate change is something newly discovered and that this somehow puts anthropogenic climate change into question. Hello!!!
Of course there has been climatic variation throughout the Earth's history. You know, I know, the climate scientists know because they are the ones who discovered it!
It's very simple basic stuff. It's taught in bloody grade 4 for crying out loud. It's in every 'How and Why Wonder Book' that a 6 year old reads, so stop pretending it's some freaking great revelation.
The scientists know about it, it is part of the science, It's accounted for in the models. They know far more about it than you or I and they are the ones saying that this is NOT part of the same patterns
There has always been variation, and all climate events have causes. Orbital variations, sun cycles, volcanoes ... there is always causes.
No one is saying those things have stopped happening. Of course they are happening. How in God's name would anthropogenic climate change stop all other climatic factors? Those variations are still happening, and anthropogenic climate change is happening as well. It is _on top of_ not instead of. No one ever claimed different, so you saying this as if they had is absurd.
@regeya
I have posted some links to the science above http://digg.com/general_sciences/Arctic_Sea_Ice_Dr ...
I look forward to your critique of the actual science - inactive, on 08/28/2008, -5/+9what about 2000 BC?
- fugazied, on 08/28/2008, -3/+7sssh don't bring science into it, the global warming skeptics have a gut feeling the scientists are wrong.
- boxlight, on 08/28/2008, -5/+9> No one's saying that global warming is going to destroy the world,
Oh no?
"All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster."
-- Barack Obama - inactive, on 08/28/2008, -5/+9Yes, there is no proof! It's a hypothesis, *****! So why the ***** do you people constantly come out and insult and berate the scientists trying to determine what the truth is? Nobody knows whether global warming is real or not - our understanding of climatology is very limited. Yet, any time anyone tries to study it, you mock them. It's just ***** science. Nobody is saying the world is going to end, nobody is saying you need to change your life, at least nobody with any scientific credentials, so just shut the ***** up and stop worrying about it.
- greenfyre, on 08/28/2008, -0/+4"That's right, there ..."
Sorry, I trained as a scientist, I go with the science.
If we look at the trend http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhsh ... http://www.manchesterismyplanet.com/pictures/globa ...
Every peak is followed by a cooler period. Each peak is hotter than the previous one, and each 'cool' period is hotter than the previous cool period.
By focusing on the cool periods and/or only the preceding hottest years one can argue that climate change stopped in 1973, 1983, and 1990 as well as 1998
Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998 http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
Collected debunking of "Seven Graphs" http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=An ...
The Stupid Cult of Cooling and the Goyder Line debate http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/05/21/the-stupid-cu ...
What the IPCC models really say http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008 ...
Global Cooling-Wanna Bet? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008 ...
Richard Lindzen claims global warming stopped in 1998 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/richard_li ...
NOAA: 2008 Fifth Warmest July on Record for Globe Also, the seven months from January to July 2008 ranked as the ninth warmest seven-month period for combined average global land and ocean surface temperature. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080815_ ...
Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/07121 ...
And the first six months of the year 2008 were the ninth warmest since record keeping began in 1880, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported. http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080716/ap_on_sc/s ... http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_sc/story ...
According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,2291 ... the decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_warming
2007 7th hottest year http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,2291 ... - greenfyre, on 08/28/2008, -1/+5@bradysdaman
How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005 ...
The Human Hand in Climate Change http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
Myth 'Natural emissions dwarf human emissions'http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/233610 ...
Attribution of 20th Century climate change to CO2 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
Humans cause climate change, US body accepts http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg1992 ... - mlbwebdesign, on 08/28/2008, -5/+8Personally, I strive to be #1. We have failed. Let's pull it together for next year people!
- spyd3rweb, on 08/28/2008, -5/+8So for how many decades back does the satellite data go? Now how old is the earth? Don't you think its a little early to start saying what is average for the earth and what isn't? The earth's climate constantly changes caused by natural cycles.
- greenfyre, on 08/28/2008, -2/+5So what is your point? Or did I already go too far in assuming that you had one?
- Hiltonizer, on 08/28/2008, -5/+8shhhhhhhhhhh
all the cool kids will bury you. - Bamboolemur, on 08/28/2008, -4/+7What is your reasoning behind this? Are you telling me there is a concerted effort out there to scare people to conserve energy?
Where is the evidence of such a conspiracy? Who heads it, the Masons? - greenfyre, on 08/28/2008, -2/+5So your logic is "If you don't know if your ancestor in 3000 BC had cancer, there is no way science can say you have cancer now" did I get that right? Obviously I did.
- angryredplanet, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4@shadowmerchant
Have you ever considered why the rest of the planet is doing similar things in taking action to mitigate the predicted changes? Your argument about "watermelon leftists" is not true as they don't exist outside of the US, so how can they be the problem globally?
To make your comment make sense at this point you need to concoct a conspiracy theory... - inactive, on 08/28/2008, -10/+13It boggles the mind that the same people (liberals) who slam the religious for believing the Earth is 5000 to 6000 years old, will in a sec throw up the same defense when it comes to climate record. To them the earths climate began the day we started taking measurements. They seem to toss out the fact that Countries such as england had at one a very hot/wet climate. The records show it and its UNDENIABLE.
There is NO-PROOF Global Warming attributed to man is occuring. Watching a hollywood docu-drama (not documentary....which it aint) is not proof. You people by far are the worst hypocrits. - angryredplanet, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3@ruddy
"This might be a little abstract, but you should be able to see a correlation between "the war on terror" and "global warming". both can be used as a leverage to disarm me of my liberties."
No not abstract, it is however a little paranoid. You seem to forget that there is another world outside the US. This is not an exclusively American problem. It's not about the erosion of your American liberties!!
How do you rationalise the views of the vast majority of climate scientists saying "change things now or else we're gonna have a serious problem" into "it's a global political conspiracy to take my dime and erode my freedoms"? It's a non-sequitur. - Zique, on 08/28/2008, -6/+9The hottest year in the world was 1998, 1934 was the hottest year in the USA. Try some more salt.
- greenfyre, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3Re "Deniers"
I reserve 'skeptic' for those who acknowledge the evidence, but thoughtfully maintain doubt based on some small evidence or logic that, though meagre, is nonetheless reality based. They are honourable people who push science forward through their constant, reasoned questioning and thoughtful critiques of the dominant paradign.
Hence a different term is needed for the hysteric paranoids who rant, distort, and lie, who have no evidence or rational logic for their position but persist in _denying_ the very existence of the overwhelming scientific evidence.
Another possible term 'skeptic' ... skeptical?? In a matter of only a few weeks we have seen the appearance of hoaxes like the APS story, the NASA backtracks story, David Evans, and so on. Frauds so transparent that a lobotomized squirrel would feel an inkling of suspicion and some inclination to fact check.
And how does the Denier community respond? They fall all over themselves blogging and digging and spreading it. They damn near pee their pants in excitement to post this weeks "coffin nail for global warming". If it sports any claim of climate denial they will believe it no matter how absurd or idiotic ... and I should call them skeptics?
I would have thought 'Denier' fit's like a glove, but I am open to other suggestions. - greenfyre, on 08/28/2008, -0/+3"1 in 15 chance of setting a new record by mere statistical noise"
and you accuse others of junk science??? -
Show 51 - 100 of 218 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
.jpg){kind=link}