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
86 Comments
- bernandoo, on 12/01/2008, -1/+24It's amazing how little we know about our world.
- derekmas10, on 12/01/2008, -0/+16Dugg for convection returning "with a vengeance".
- AZExile, on 12/01/2008, -6/+21What interests me about this is that the convection "has returned after a decade of near stagnation" which is implied to be caused by global warming, and that "the phenomenon also helps to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere." Thereby helping to reverse the process.
It supports evidence of the Gaia Hypothesis. Just kinda interesting, I guess/ - Seapheous, on 12/01/2008, -3/+16So... Global Warming is to blame for the lack of convection over the past decade. But, "a dramatic loss of sea-ice in the Arctic during the summer of 2007" may have been the shot in the arm the North Atlantic needed for major convection to take place as it appears it did in the Winter of 2007 (also causing a colder winter?). So Global Warming is the cause and in this case the solution... Let's hear it for Global Warming!!! Yeah!!! Ok, now hold your breath to limit the CO2 output.
For the record: I am all for protecting the environment, but I don't think scientists have a good grasp on Global Warming, or Global Cooling, or Global anything... - greenfyre, on 12/01/2008, -13/+26And those would be?
I see you never state specifics, just make vague claims and innuendo. You see an error? state what it is.
And while you're at it, show specifically what is wrong with the science showing human caused climate change
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Humans+Causing+Climate ... - PopcornDave, on 12/01/2008, -0/+9Be careful when you sit on the fence as you'll get hit by the crap being lobbed over it by either side.
- frostbyt, on 12/01/2008, -2/+9Natural cycles of sea levels have been happening like this for millions of years. Natural weather occurrences have been documented for as long as man has been able to document.
You think this is something new? - TheMoniker, on 12/01/2008, -1/+7If by "global warming advocates" you mean "climate scientists" then yes, they're well aware of the various feedback loops. Even undergrads study the water vapour feedback, cloud feedback, thermohaline regimes (to which the original article relates), solubility pump feedback, ice-albedo feedback, isostatic adjustment/temperature feedback, DMS feedback, biosphere-albedo feedback, phytoplankton-iron feedback and biosphere-carbon dioxide feedback. They discuss which of these are positive and negative feedback loops (and, where it applies, which is which in which regime). In grad school and paleoclimatology/paleooceanography they get much deeper into these and other loops (depending on the time period that you're looking at).
- wunksta, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6@The only problem I see here is Environmentalists meddling in nature and peoples lives.
hahaha really? and people pumping so2 in the atmosphere or dumping toxic waste in peoples backyards never hurt anyone or nature. great job at telling us how we are wrong. go back and read a history book. - digghasnoethics, on 12/01/2008, -2/+7As far as the climate is concerned, change is bad.
Too much damn change, too quickly. - Ahnteis, on 12/01/2008, -1/+6It's not the planet that can't handle climate change. It's us.
- inactive, on 12/01/2008, -4/+8I think that's the cue for misinterpreted and un-resourced information to be used as evidence in a debate called "Global Warming"
- TheMoniker, on 12/01/2008, -1/+5Well, while sarcasm isn't new to me, it often doesn't translate well over the Internet. Add to that the fact that I see similar statements about ten times per day that aren't being sarcastic and well, you get the point.
- dbzssj44676, on 12/01/2008, -25/+29I see some paradoxes the article ignores to promote human caused global warming.
- wunksta, on 12/01/2008, -2/+6human emissions are devastating ecocsystems, even if they arent directly resulting in climate change. consider no2 and co2 affects on the ocean
- wunksta, on 12/01/2008, -1/+5we know nothing? sounds like an extreme statement. what field are you related in again? we know a lot but we are always learning. you can ridicule science and the discoveries weve made and the developments that have occurred because of the knowledge weve obtained all you want, but i suggest you stop driving your car, living in your house or using any electrical device or appliance you have. science has led to a LOT of knowledge about the world around us (and that include prehistory). so say what you want, it just doesnt make it true though.
"What we do not know is the extent of the harm, the extent of our influence, and the long term consequences of anything we are currently doing or plan to do."
and? thats like saying dumping toxic waste or continuing so2 emissions is acceptable because we just "dont know the extent of the harm". suffice to say ANY amount of increase above what the natural world can take it is most likely too much. - cromulent742, on 12/01/2008, -1/+5Most accurate comment made on this article. Easily.
- xtmno3, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4Ah, no.
...
Well, that's where it all falls down, of course. - mamboboy, on 12/01/2008, -3/+7...thinking things such as "how the hell did he stretch his anus that wide?"
- wunksta, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4one of the bases of the ice age theory is the milankovitch cycles, changes in solar variation or extreme volcanism. co2 and other ghg are usually what is considered to have helped the earth out of ice ages. while interruption of the thermohaline cycle COULD disrupt heating patterns and somehow lead to an ice age, theres not enough evidence to indicate such and given this article, shows that more research is needed.
but thanks for more misinformation. you should definitely alert nature of your hypothesis that its el nino thats the cause for this, im sure they would be very interested - Naieve, on 12/01/2008, -2/+5Just an fyi to everyone.
Human caused CO2 is annually about 3 percent of all CO2.
Factoring in the sun, volcanic activity, oceans, and the rest of the earths ecosystem, etc... there are literally millions if not billions of factors directly affecting our climate.
I'll be generous, human CO2 is perhaps 0.1 percent of the problem. With the changes lobbied for by the environmentalists we can perhaps make that 0.09 percent of the problem,..
You are pointing at one of the smallest straws on the camels back and saying that is what broke it.
It was involved, but until you actually make a WORKING model that factors in all the things being ignored, you have not even scratched the surface before screaming bomb in a crowded theater.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Personally I am all for well reasoned efforts to promote sustainable green technology. The problem being that to date environmentalists have ignored reality and in fact made things worse. They lobbied strongly against nuclear power for decades, ensuring we instead emit CO2 and other pollutants straight into the air in ever increasing numbers. They promote biofuels, which literally make us more dependent on the Oil model for transportation thus stifling the possibility of change, while the rainforest is cut down and finite fresh water is used to grow oil. They tell the western nations to take money we could invest in a long term solution to our energy problems and to use it for pointless attempts at putting a bandaid on a bullet wound to an artery. Did they ever realize that China would make up for Kyoto in a year?
You cannot even begin to address human pollution until you make a viable alternative that the rest of the world can afford with some subsidizing by western nations. The energy equation needs changed completely. This takes technology, this takes research.
So far the environmentalist movements have been impatient children. They scream disaster before having any proof, they push technologies that are counterproductive and before they are even mature enough to make any sense (corn vs algae...), they block technologies that could help ease the problem and whose waste can be reasonably contained, they are impatient children.
Step back, think logically, you are all emotion. - wunksta, on 12/01/2008, -3/+6*cough*******cough*
emerging complexity is the result, not the manifestation of some kind of pseudobeing in regulation of the planet - frostbyt, on 12/01/2008, -2/+5How wonderful it is we can see natural cycles happen in our lifetime. What a wonderful world we live in.
- omaryak, on 12/02/2008, -0/+3It's amazing how little people read of articles:
"But there is little doubt that, in the long-term, ocean convection will decrease if northern latitudes continue to warm at the current rate." - jeffkee, on 12/01/2008, -1/+4Better than another Rocky series coming back to life. Or for that matter, Star Wars.
- wunksta, on 12/01/2008, -3/+6@Finalreminder
did you try clicking the links? it takes you to where you can read the articles and comment on those specifically - inactive, on 12/01/2008, -6/+9"I don't think scientists have a good grasp on Global Warming, or Global Cooling, or Global anything..."
No truer words spoken! - directrix13, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3I'd say its more like the Captain Planet Hypothesis.
- Testiculese, on 12/01/2008, -5/+7The convection would actually be *lessened* by the influx of fresh water, not strengthened. The basis of Ice Age theory is that the Earth warms up for whatever reason, the ice melts, dilutes the salt in the oceans, and the convections can no longer sustain themselves because the water isn't as 'thick', once they stop, no warm water flows around the world, and the Ice Ages begins.
It's probably more due to the fact that the El Nino weather pattern is returning from it's 10 year on/off cycle. - xtmno3, on 12/01/2008, -3/+5Not the best take on the world, but at some point I have to draw a line as to what I actually have time to give a damn about in a given day. I still wonder where that point is, but I am always reminded of the following quote from Slartibartfast in THHGTTG movie:
"Slartibartfast: Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I think that the chances of finding out what's actually going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, "Hang the sense of it," and keep yourself busy. I'd much rather be happy than right any day." - xDynaBlade, on 12/01/2008, -2/+4So someone flushed the north atlantic after leaving their ***** in it for nearly 10 years?
- TheMoniker, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2I think that the MOC's exact words were: "just like the prodigal son, I've returned. Anyone steppin' on me will get burned. I came to get down, I came to get down--so get out yo seats and jump around!"
- Isidore, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2Rapid climate changes in the geological led to mass extinction.
The human race, as a species, has survived many changes, but it was no fun for those who didn't.
Most of our cities, national boundaries and ownership of resources were established within the last couple of centuries. The earth's population is much greater, or dependance on technology and infrastructure is much greater than before the Industrial Revolution.
People fleeing flooding in say Bangladesh, cannot just walk away to an unpopulated area or go live in the US because of passport and visa restrictions. - wunksta, on 12/01/2008, -1/+3poes law
- palehorse864, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2This winter... Convection returns WITH A VENGEANCE!
/Don Lafontaine - maz2331, on 12/02/2008, -0/+2I'm super cereal about it.'
- Metasquares, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Cow farts do more to bury dbz than human activity ever could!
- Testiculese, on 12/01/2008, -1/+2(I shouldn't have said "The basis", that's miswording on my part.)
There is plenty of research in the area of disruption of the convective flows that suggest it's reduction is a major influence in kickstarting ice ages. Whether it is the smaller ice ages or the larger ones I don't recall, as I read about this stuff years ago.
The El Nino cycle lasts about 10 years, which exactly coincides with the snowfall records over the past 10 years. When we were in the On cycle, snow was a-plenty. With it cycling back, we should see weather patterns consistent with the early 90's, and a strengthening of the convective currents, perhaps a re-buildup of ice cover as well.
I had the idea that the previous off cycles weren't as noticeable because we had not reached any 'critical mass' point with our greenhouse emissions, but this off cycle's warming trend was more noticeable because of our increased emissions.
But thanks for the pompous ass comments. I'll be sure to correct you with such subtle ***** remarks when you goof something you haven't taken as a profession. - bowlagoat, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Great observation, that was an extreme statement, one might even call it a hyperbole. And what exactly are your credentials? I wasn't damning science, just stating that the Earth is, as of yet, far too complex a system for us to understand with any sort of confidence. And this article illustrates that point.
"suffice to say ANY amount of increase above what the natural world can take it is most likely too much."
What does that even mean? Exactly how much can the natural world take? What do you mean by "the natural world"? Is it the same natural world that periodically kills off just about everything in it with ice ages or impacts from asteroids? The same natural world that produced humans?
If you are afraid we will erase life from our planet, you are mistaken. Life can exist in every extreme condition we can find even the vacuum of space, save for the surface of the sun, but we haven't been there to find out.
If however you are afraid that we will make the Earth inhospitable to humans, your worries are at least grounded in reality.
Did I ever say that we should sit and do nothing when we see evidence that we are on a dangerous path? No. What I was saying, was that we should acknowledge that our solutions to these possible problems are very rough and, judging from history, bound to cause problems themselves. So lets not buy into the idea that science will solve our problems. Lets understand that science creates as many problems as it solves and use it as a tool instead of a religion.
If you are reading the last lines first, this statement is long winded and against popular opinion. Don't waste your time actually reading or considering it. Just hit the thumbs down button, I'm not talking to you anyway. - wunksta, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1sorry for being a dick
- Metasquares, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1It's just a negative feedback mechanism. The earth has both positive and negative feedbacks, which is one of the reasons the system is so complex.
- scottblystone, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1but are you?
- craiginct, on 12/02/2008, -1/+2Did the inventor of the Internet, Al Gore include the stagnation of the convection in his An Inconvenient Truth? The six (or seven) warmest years on record for North America has been in the last 10 years. Could Mother Nature have been adding to our abuses???
- bubbadigg, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1or until the earth moves further away from the sun and the planet cools again.
- MacParrot, on 12/01/2008, -2/+3"At least they're not taking out guns and shooting each other."
We should be so lucky - Finalreminder, on 12/01/2008, -8/+9@Greenfyre
""You don't have permission to comment on this page.""
Speaks volumes really doesn't it.
Translation - This is the truth and it's not debatable. - remccain, on 12/01/2008, -1/+2ZOMG! Does that mean that Global Warming™ is finally here?!?
- diggFM, on 12/02/2008, -0/+1Time to start buying up cheap time share in Greenland!
-
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is