What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Think Choosing a Gift For A Teen Girl Is Impossible? view!
bestbuy.com - Hello-o-o! No WAY! Email, IM, chat, social networking & streaming audio/video are all on Netbooks.
85 Comments
- anonymous1986, on 07/17/2009, -5/+16I rarely look in global warming threads on digg, knowing that if I dipped a toe in, it’d come out marinated in stupid. It's no different this time.
- theskillwithin, on 07/17/2009, -12/+22Maybe CO2 doesn't cause global warming. Maybe astronomy and the history of geography are the places to look for answers, and not overpaid computer models that don't follow the scientific method.
- JeffDefacto, on 07/17/2009, -3/+11That's right. If it wasn't for their damn unions, those computers wouldn't even have jobs.
- TheMoniker, on 07/17/2009, -3/+10While the debate in the scientific community is over regarding such things as whether or not carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, whether or not the climate is warming and whether or not there is a discernible anthropogenic contribution to climate, there is still research because obviously there is still much to learn—especially about periods in the distant past. However, not knowing everything that there is to know about the climate system doesn't prevent climate scientists from discerning broad characteristics of the system, such as many of those surrounding anthropogenic global warming.
See here for more, with links to the peer reviewed scientific research:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicati ... - TheMoniker, on 07/17/2009, -1/+8"All the theories that say CO2 causes global warming rely on computer models for evidence"
This isn't the case, Callendar calculated possible warming due to greenhouse gases back in the 1930s, well before the advent of computer models.
"these computer models are really inaccurate and is not a valid test"
Their accuracies, precision and the associated errors are generally stated. The models are physics-based, which is to say that they are programmed with the relevant physical laws (in the form of discretized partial differential equations) and then fed solar input and anthropogenic emissions, they then run and produce output that is compared to observational climate data.
"sure there are greenhouse gases that might cause global warming, but CO2 is not one of them"
The underlying physics of absorption and scattering is quite well understood, are you stating that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? Not only is the basic physics understood, but its greenhouse gas properties have been measured since at least the time of Tyndall, more than a century ago.
"global warming causes the release of CO2 not the other way around"
There are natural sources and sinks of the various greenhouse gases (from nitrous oxide to methane and carbon dioxide). These tend to balance each other out for the most part though. However anthropogenic emissions aren't balanced by any natural sinks, and given that carbon dioxide has a residence time of roughly 100 years right now, it is building up in the atmosphere. Given that it's a greenhouse gas, as the atmospheric concentration of it increases, the Earth system warms slightly. This causes several things to occur; for instance, the solubility of greenhouses gases in the ocean is a function of temperature: as temperature increases, the amount of GHGs that the ocean can sequester decreases. Also, as the Earth heats up, more water vapour ends up in the atmosphere, amplifying the initial warming. - EddiePotato, on 07/17/2009, -0/+6You're 4th grade writing style suggests something unsavory is behind that link.
- Bowie, on 07/17/2009, -12/+17Surprise -- WATER VAPOR is a "greenhouse gas". Everytime you sneeze, YOU'RE KILLING THE PLANET.
(sigh)..
Last I checked, CO2 is considered a trace gas. It only makes up something absolutely miniscule, like 0.035% of the Earth's atmosphere. Not only that, CO2 is continually being absorbed by plants, and breaking down naturally in the atmosphere. Lets suppose you represented Earth's atmosphere as an apple pie. If you were to cut a slice of that pie equal to the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, that slice would be about the thickness of the wall of an aluminum soft drink can. Do the math!
If you believe that CO2 is causing global warming, you are essentially stating that you believe that minor fluctuations in the < 0.035% of Earth's atmosphere that human activity accounts for is significant enough to fundamentally alter Earth's climate model..... In other words, you're stating that you're ***** crazy, and take your science ques from politics and TV commercials. Take the politics out of it, and look at the data. If you do, you'll quickly learn that the only "inconvenient truth" here is that we simply don't know if anthropogenic global warming is real or not. Or even what difference it makes, assuming it IS real. We haven't even established what Earth's "ideal" temperature is -- For all we know, "global warming" could be "climate correction", and we should be happy about it, not treating it like some unstoppable boogeyman.
In the absence of real, tangible threats, human beings will invent one. - angryredplanet, on 07/17/2009, -1/+6Great set of video's... thanks!!
- TheMoniker, on 07/17/2009, -2/+7Dey took our jerb!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIzivCJ9pzU - TheMoniker, on 07/17/2009, -5/+9"Maybe CO2 doesn't cause global warming"
Maybe, but you haven't given any thinking person reason to doubt that this is the case.
"Maybe astronomy and the history of geography"
None of the natural forcings explain global warming, not Milankovitch Cycles, solar cycles, the PDO, ENSO events, etc. however, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions explain it quite well—and in a way that is both consistent with and supported by virtually everything we know of the underlying geoscience and physics. - anonymous1986, on 07/17/2009, -3/+7Yeah I guess we've got to keep debating whether the earth is flat or not....
- TheDougem, on 07/17/2009, -1/+5@Jlaugh
YES. Reasonable science has a huge PR problem with the general public, and with the economy in shambles and distrust of politicians at record highs, it's going to be hard to convince people to take measures to curb emissions, especially when a lot of the vocal and loud 'solutions' (The ones in the climate change bill, specifically) are in their inherent nature destructive, and are covers for politicians trying to use Climate Change to further their pet agendas.
Explaining things is -great-. I'm willing to accept that types of CO2 can be destructive. BUT. We need viable -political- solutions that are realistic, and take into consideration the outside world and the unintended consequences related to mass usage of alternative energies (Namely non nuclear solutions like wind and solar). The last thing I think all of us want is politicians twisting the environmental movement to dump a huge payoff onto the corn lobby (ethanol) and onto politically favored alternative energy companies without careful planning. Just look at the climate change bill - it's full of bull crap like this. - somnus, on 07/17/2009, -4/+8Name one thing that's 100% settled in science. It's always open to new and better ideas. If something is "settled" it's only because it's the best explanation available. Though many things, such as gravity and evolution are correct beyond a shadow of a doubt, the pursuit of the most accurate explanation never ends.
There is always more to learn. - TheDougem, on 07/17/2009, -3/+7@TheMoniker
It's late, I'm sleepy, and I'll have to take a look at your sources another time. I appreciate you referencing them and expressing a civil point of view. I remain a skeptic, but not an idiotic or moronic one - I want to focus on the inevitable political side of the issue.
The carbon neutral tax you referenced sounds like a great idea, especially with the tax cuts worked in. The problem with these taxes, however, is that there isn't really a viable alternative to fossil fuels just yet when it comes to driving. Corn Ethanol, the darling of many US politicians, has a ton of problems - and is being subsidized to kingdom come in favor of other, more promising avenues. Sure, it can encourage people to curb unnecessary driving, but there will come a point where people are unable to cut driving any further because their commutes don't allow them other options. I will point at the climate change bill the house passed to further highlight the poison that has snuck into the debate.
Geo-engineering sounds interesting - as long as side effects are considered I encourage that research.
Maybe so - there are some theories out there that a warmer climate could be more favorable for crop growth - but the third world has more immediately pressing concerns then climate change. You can't solve their climate change issues without resolving them first - rampant corruption and military and civil unrest tend to disrupt anything constructive.
I want to see China, India, and Russia agree to -enforceable- standards before the US signs on to any climate treaty. Especially China, since their reckless economic growth would offset many of the gains we could make - and since we buy a lot of stuff from them, well.. it would hold us more accountable for dealing with the manufacturing process and waste.
"Anthropogenic global warming is not controversial within the scientific community."
Maybe - but I'll concede this point. It remains controversial in the -public- arena for a multitude of reasons - the scientific community needs to find a way to present gradual, non-panicky solutions and I think we can all begin to get along and come to reasonable compromises.
Glad we agree on the last point. If we focus on that, and are aggressive about it, it will be a lot easier to garner widespread public support, rather then running around flailing our collective arms in fear and throwing wads of cash at unproven and untested 'solutions'.
Thank you for surprising me with reason and logic =D - HuangFeng, on 07/18/2009, -1/+5@Niocan : You have nothing but poorly thought out suppositions with no evidential basis and clearly have not taken the time to read the links that were provided for your benefit.
@loki49152 : Links lead to facts. Links to articles with scientific basis (not the direct article because you would most likely need a university account or journal subscription and a good chunk of scientific nous to acquire and digest, science daily does a reasonable job on reporting on science). Your attribution of 'double fail" is apparently self referential. - WATYF, on 07/17/2009, -0/+4Dey Tuk Er JAAAAAB!
- deejqu1k, on 07/17/2009, -10/+13Maybe the Earth has more control over its cycles than we humans do. Is it possible that we have less affect on the galaxy and planet than we would like? Man made global warming theory is not nearly as sound as television would have you believe.
- pyrite013, on 07/18/2009, -0/+3Another science whiz to add to the list of reputable global warming deniers.
- TheMoniker, on 07/17/2009, -6/+9"Last I checked, CO2 is considered a trace gas. It only makes up something absolutely miniscule, like 0.035% of the Earth's atmosphere. Not only that, CO2 is continually being absorbed by plants, and breaking down naturally in the atmosphere."
Right, but, unlike water—the residence time of which is a few days—carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) remain in the atmosphere for extended periods of time (carbon dioxide's residence time depends on many factors, including the concentration of carbon dioxide itself, but is presently around 100 years). So you have carbon dioxide just building up, year after year. New Scientist magazine did a few articles on this topic that go into further detail: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climat ... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climat ...
"If you believe that CO2 is causing global warming, you are essentially stating that you believe that minor fluctuations in the < 0.035% of Earth's atmosphere that human activity accounts for is significant enough to fundamentally alter Earth's climate"
It is, as discussed in detail above.
"Take the politics out of it, and look at the data. If you do, you'll quickly learn that the only "inconvenient truth" here is that we simply don't know if anthropogenic global warming is real or not."
This is simply not true, and I invite anyone to look over the data themselves, in the peer reviewed scientific journals (e.g. Journal of Climate, Geophysical Research Letters, etc.) at their local library, university or college. Alternately, for a summary with links to the research, see here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicati ...
"For all we know, "global warming" could be "climate correction", and we should be happy about it, not treating it like some unstoppable boogeyman."
Virtually all of the scientists who study climate, ecology, oceanography ... well, virtually every area related to this, disagree with you. Their views are summarized here, again with reference to the peer reviewed research: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicati ... - TheMoniker, on 07/17/2009, -3/+6Regarding Landsea, we should also note that he stated that, "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades [...], and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."
Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weather/july-dec05/ ...
Regarding Mann's temperature reconstruction: the strategy of stating that global warming somehow depends on Mann's older temperature reconstruction (not his newer one, or the 11 other reconstructions that agree with his, but specifically one of his older ones) is tired. It is however quite clear: try to build it up to the point where it seems that a very large part of our understanding of climate science depends on it, then knock it down. Regarding their criticism that Mann's Principle Component Analysis is flawed in some way, I'll point out that the data retains the same shape even if you use a centered PC: http://www.realclimate.org/images/WA_RC_Figure1.jp ... or remove the PCA step altogether: http://www.realclimate.org/images/Rutherford_fig2. ...
I'll also point out that the National Academy of Scientists conducted a review that broadly supported Mann's reconstruction: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world."
I'll also point out that Mann redid his graph taking suggestions from the criticisms of the NAS and the shape is surprising (just kidding, it's another hockey stick)! http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full.pdf+ ...
Which is supported by a number of other reconstructions:
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full.pdf+ ...
Regarding your discussion of the outdatedness of reports, what effect do you believe that this has? Do you think that this effect is large enough to overthrow the notion that anthropogenic global warming is occurring? Also note that it is virtually the entire body of relevant climate science research that supports the notion of anthropogenic global warming, as is evident in the journals (Science, Journal of Climate, Geophysical Research Letters)—not simply the IPCC reports or the works referred to therein. - TheDougem, on 07/17/2009, -1/+4@ vikingcoder
You're missing my point - read the second paragraph of my above comment - The POLITICIANS who make these decisions are siezing the climate change issue and using it as political fodder - paying off favored environmental groups and backing their own agendas in their states and districts in an approach that strongly resembles simply throwing a fat chunk of cash at the problem and hoping it will go away.
To win the public over and gain real support for these efforts, I'm simply asking that these solutions are gradual, sensible, avoid doing hard damage to the economy, and are given some time windows to prove themselves. Rushing out and buying several thousand windmills and building them hastily to SAVE THE PLANET OMG is going to cause plenty of problems - would you have planned for maintaining those windmills? What if weather isn't cooperative? What happens when they break? How about the effect they have on the environment? So on and so forth. And with Ethanol - it's gotten huge boosts in the climate change bill when evidence is growing that large concentrations of the stuff in gas can damage the majority of engines that use gas while ultimately causing more pollution then oil because of what it takes to produce.
I'm suggesting that we slow down and collect ourselves instead of recklessly rushing to action. My views on climate change are not the point here. - TheDougem, on 07/17/2009, -4/+7Godwin's law point for you sir.
Also, I believed science was supposed to encourage debate - slamming the door on all discussion when valid counterpoints are being raced is rather childish. - TheDougem, on 07/17/2009, -4/+7@fury420
Then we should direct our efforts to confronting those problems rather then the CO2 boogeyman that politicians have been whipping up. I think that would do far more good then anything else. - Jlaugh, on 07/17/2009, -3/+6Show us some of the underlying physics and geoscience then oh physics and geoscience guru. Please explain it in layman's terms. K thanks.
- TheDougem, on 07/17/2009, -3/+6@TheMoniker
That may be true - but that doesn't change my overall point. With a lot of science still raging, and a lot of people saying OMG WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING NOW people are prone to pushing too hard and taking things too far. A lot of the 'solutions' we're seeing to deal with carbon are excessive and seem oriented around crippling our economy and crossing our fingers and hoping everyone else does the same. Also, we're seeing politicians hijacking the issue and using a hopelessly complex and abusable carbon credit system to garner power and money.
I am all for improving the environment - I'm just saying that instead of taking drastic measures to curb something that remains highly controversial, and potentially economically destructive, we should focus on improving trash sorting, recycling, curbing tangible polution, promoting nuclear power, electric cars - so on and so forth, while encouraging other countries to do the same. These are problems that we know and understand very well, with extremely little doubt- and most people can agree that it makes sense to deal with them. Let's do that first - and then we can focus on cutting the malicious carbon if it still seems necessary. - greenfyre, on 07/17/2009, -3/+5Thank you for those irrelevant factoids. Now how about you address the actual science?
The basic CO2 science is 150 yrs old
"The man who discovered greenhouse gases"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227081.500 ...
"Global warming: blast from the past"
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/global ...
Try to drag your knowledge of science up to at least 1870
Sense from Deniers on CO2? Don't hold your breath....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c&fea ...
What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what ...
Does CO2 correlate with temperature?
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/03/do ...
The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
Yet more CO2 http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/yet-more-co ...
A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/10/di ...
Calculating the greenhouse effect http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ... - fury420, on 07/17/2009, -6/+8maybe you didn't read the article at all. maybe if you did you would have noticed that this is actually about "the history of geography" and has very little if anything to do with computer models
- Enterres, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2Let me get this straight - they discovered an organism that grows magnetic crystals while looking at sediment deposits from an ancient time when every being on Earth was in distress?
MIDICHLORIANS! - lanemik, on 07/17/2009, -2/+4Thanks Einstein for the insight. While the sum total amount of carbon on earth has not changed (duh!) there have been different levels of carbon in the atmosphere and those differing levels have correlated with changes in global temperature. During the PETM there were wetlands and peat bogs nearly all the way up to the poles which is why there are oil deposits on the north slope of Alaska now. We are drilling out the carbon that was taken out of the earth's atmosphere (thus cooling the planet) and pumping it right back in the air thus warming the planet.
- Opiate, on 07/17/2009, -7/+9Junk science, doesn't conform with globalist view of AGW. Silly deniers, thou shall not get in the way of world government, after all we absolutely require it to save us from ourselves.
- Silencer7, on 07/17/2009, -6/+8Again, you don't know what you're talking about, but these are common misconceptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI - kreatre2007, on 07/17/2009, -4/+6Who ever wrote this article does not understand the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide. It's become a habit among the global warming crowd to shorten the term to 'carbon'. It makes me believe that no one actually knows the difference.
- inactive, on 07/17/2009, -1/+3Bury Bury Bury, The Americans and their fudged data are out n force!
- Bowie, on 07/18/2009, -0/+2
Tell me what "IPCC" stands for, then tell me theyr'e an objective, unbiased source in the same sentence.
I'll wait. - inactive, on 07/17/2009, -4/+6How can there be global warming? There weren't any humans around to cause it back then, right?
- siamesedream, on 07/17/2009, -10/+12maybe you didn't understand the fact that he was making a point on the flawed argument for human-caused global warming
- greenfyre, on 07/17/2009, -7/+8"Maybe CO2 doesn't cause , "
HELLO!!!!!!!!!!! The basic CO2 science is 150 yrs old
"The man who discovered greenhouse gases"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227081.500 ...
"Global warming: blast from the past"
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/global ...
Try to drag your knowledge of science up to at least 1870
Sense from Deniers on CO2? Don't hold your breath....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c&fea ...
What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what ...
Does CO2 correlate with temperature?
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/03/do ...
The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
Yet more CO2 http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/yet-more-co ...
A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/10/di ...
Calculating the greenhouse effect http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ... - Silencer7, on 07/17/2009, -8/+9Hey, good thinking!
Oh, wait, no, not good thinking at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI
Now at least you can't pretend you haven't been told. - badfish0116, on 07/17/2009, -8/+9Nobody is denying climate change you moron...we are saying that the climate is ALWAYS changing.... The climate on Earth has always been chaotic. Also any time you bring up the holocaust in a debate not about the holocaust you instantly lose.
- greenfyre, on 07/18/2009, -4/+5@Niocan "That's all you can come up with? "
and you came up with nothing
@loki49152
i) Can you guess what happens if you click on a link? Any idea at all? Try it ... don't be frightened
ii) like Niokan, you provide nothing - badfish0116, on 07/17/2009, -5/+6Yeah...That is the whole point. Obama and Al Gore have said the debate is over..
- TheMoniker, on 07/17/2009, -5/+6Anthropogenic global warming is hardly a political invention; it's supported by essentially all of the relevant research in climate science.
- angryredplanet, on 07/17/2009, -2/+3Over fishing?? You have got to be kidding me, right?
Man caused over fishing doesn't exist.
Fish science is about counting ALL of the the fish to be certain of our total impact. Those random sample models just aren't science and you can't trust them.
Oh come on there's plenty of fish in the oceans! Don't let those socialist fish regulation bodies try to deny you your fish and grab all your cash. WAKE UP!! The fish are just getting smarter and are dodging our nets, echo-sounders and lasers.
A person told me there are still heaps of fish around in all the oceans and they know heaps more than the fish counters. I also read another person's book that said it's all a plan for a global monopoly of the fishing industry by the shadow government.
We aren't polluting the oceans enough to have an effect... the concentration of our pollutants is heaps less than the total amount of water. They are TRACE pollutants.
WHAT ABOUT THE WHALES?? Whales eat all the fish.
We CAN'T reduce fishing unless developing nations also commit to fishing reduction targets. Especially now while the economy is broken, we can not afford to let another fish live.
There has been many times in the past when there's been tons less fish in the oceans.
But the fish scientists in the 70's said we were under-fishing!
Meanwhile we've still got problems like clowns on unicycles, folk dancing and naked people, if over fishing were real it probably wouldn't be very important because man is not to blame. - EvilMerodach, on 07/17/2009, -1/+2Without the natural greenhouse effect the surface of the planet
would be about 33°C colder on average, and most of the globe would
be frozen.
After water vapor, CO2 is the largest contributor to the greehouse effect.
CO2 is thought to contribute between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect.
And now Man is largest producer of CO2 on this planet by several
orders of magnitude, adding some 24 billion tons of CO2 into the
atmosphere each year.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide remained between 260 and 280
parts per million for the 10,000 years between the end of the last glacial
maximum and the start of the industrial era.
Measured atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are currently 100 ppmv
higher than pre-industrial levels, 387 PPM.
This is a significant contribution to CO2's greenhouse effect! - Bowie, on 07/18/2009, -0/+1An easy HOWTO when it comes to shutting up people who believe we're causing global warming:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Only 0.035% of our atmosphere is CO2.
Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.
Guess how much of Earth's atmosphere is water vapor?
Bonus points: Now, precisely why the ***** are you still concerned about CO2 levels? - TheMoniker, on 07/17/2009, -3/+4"Moniker, the only evidence I have seen for this dismissal of volcanic activity"
I wasn't discussing volcanic activity in particular, though we are aware that volcanic carbon dioxide emissions are roughly two orders of magnitude less than anthropogenic emissions: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432
"Also that graph is misleading"
Which graph? There are a lot of graphs in the materials that I linked.
"there are countless other [variables] to be considered"
There are, and they are taken into account in the study of climate.
"they never mention any effect that actual *heat* produced by anything has on the climate or temperature"
In general, it is orders of magnitude too small to contribute anything significant to the climate system, though I know of people trying to work it and similar small scale effects (including such things as the effect of ocean biota on ocean circulation!) into climate models. There have been several papers exploring the urban heat island effect and its possible effect on large scale warming, a few of which are:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7015/fu ... and: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-ab ... - banditboydavid, on 07/22/2009, -0/+155-million years ago... Wasn't that when gas guzzling USV's first came out?
- Bowie, on 07/18/2009, -0/+1Hi. 0.035%.
Have a nice day. - somnus, on 07/17/2009, -1/+2@anonymous1986
Did we stop when we learned it was spherical, or go on to learn that it was somewhat egg-shaped, then how it may have formed, then how the moon was formed, then how the shape, tilt, and speed of rotation has affected life? Etc, etc. -
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
