What is Digg?Sponsored by Toyota
What to do if your accelerator pedal sticks view!
toyota.com - Learn how to bring your Toyota vehicle to a safe stop if you experience a sticking accelerator pedal.
186 Comments
- JitMaster, on 09/01/2009, -9/+30FTA "The answer is I don't know. This is the major gap to be filled in our research community in the future."
Finally, some honesty, that there are really too many variables to predict what will happen. - greenfyre, on 09/01/2009, -18/+38FTA "it's just a matter of a short time (months to years instead of tens of thousands of years for the snow) before it makes its way back into the atmosphere."
And this leads to increased acidification, leading to massive marine die off? causing CO2 release? - frieddonuts, on 09/01/2009, -8/+26Before the deniers overwhelm the thread having not ...straight FTA
"That won't happen any time soon. Humans have added well over 100 parts per million of CO2 as well as other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in the last two centuries, and many scientists predict that ocean warming will raise the depth at which most carbon cycles back into the water. If that happens, the seas will hasten global warming as they spew CO2 back out into the air."
I think that you guys have some misguided belief that climate change scientists have some death wish for the planet. This is not the case- I actually clicked on this article hoping that nature had found its own way to self-regulate and correct our immense mistakes. But you need to take of the hater pants and understand that combined with the massive body of evidence, as well as the basic physical concept of the greenhouse effect, climate change is a sad reality. Give it up. - greenfyre, on 09/01/2009, -16/+29So, according to you the worlds 63 millions scientists who overwhelming accept climate science are deranged
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-science/the ...
http://climaticidechronicles.org/2009/01/21/new-po ...
While a few dozen industry shills and a few geriatric crackpots who never did climate research in their lives, plus a dozen or so who can't let go of their pet theories even though science has shown them to be totally wrong.
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-and- ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/6/95445/42 ...
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/# ...
are somehow right? Is that your claim?
Or is it more likely that the problem is
"American Adults Flunk Basic Science"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/09031 ...
# Only 53% of adults know how long it takes for the Earth to revolve around the Sun.
# Only 59% of adults know that the earliest humans and dinosaurs did not live at the same time.
# Only 47% of adults can roughly approximate the percent of the Earth's surface that is covered with water.
and some still think climate change is a conspiracy
Climate change Denier conspiracy theories explained
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/climate- ...
Paranoid Denier Conspiracy Theories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/towards-a- ...
Good radio download on Denier Conspiracy Theories http://all-embracing.episto.org/2008/06/29/dentith ...
Or is it more likely that - kafuka, on 09/01/2009, -0/+13Thanks. There is a problem with that theory of course though. A lot of (educated) people have of course said that it's too unpredictable what the increased sequestration of CO2 will do. There obviously is some sort of positive feedback in place that counters the effect of the "influx of carbonic acid". What we don't know is what that carbonic acid is doing. I doubt it's as simple as just raising the acidity directly (probably many other processes happening such as the interaction of the carbonic acid with bedrock, coral etc; so mostly a giant butterfly effect.)
- greenfyre, on 09/01/2009, -15/+27And that is supposed to refute actual science???
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate ...
Tell me how you imagine that works? - DankBuddz, on 09/01/2009, -9/+19Its funny, the only place this debate is "dead" is on Digg, the MSM, and the Republican party.
Capable people are well aware of the science behind it, and are a bit to logical and reasonable to allow politics to make a dumbass out of them.
No offense Shwaavay, but its entertaining to watch completely undereducated ditto-heads like yourself try to actually debate the subject. Its kind like watching someone debate against evolution, except you don't bring anything to the table. - RyanBlueThunder, on 09/01/2009, -0/+9Nice, this brings me back to my days taking geochemistry.
- greenfyre, on 09/01/2009, -5/+13FTA "it's just a matter of a short time (months to years instead of tens of thousands of years for the snow) before it makes its way back into the atmosphere."
That's not a sink, that's temporary holding tank at best - kafuka, on 09/01/2009, -11/+19Please at least have a high school chemistry background before you speak here.
Claim:
Global warming is fake because the Earth goes through periodic temperature fluctuations:
Yes the Earth does change but not at this rate. I severely doubt that our temperature can change so much in the last twenty years as ice core samples from hundreds of thousand of years ago (ranging from locations all around the world such as the Himalayas, Peru, the Canadian front etc.) have shown fluctuations but not something this fast.
CO2 sequestration in the ocean is normal but too much CO2 causes the acidity to rise:
CO2 + H20 -> H2CO3
carbon dioxide + water -> carbonic acid (weak acid)
Yes the oceans do self-regulate (as any ecosystem can recover from a bit of shock) but it's obvious that it's not recovering fast enough. - HannibalLecter, on 09/01/2009, -6/+13The oceans can absorb more carbon dioxide, but as Kafuka pointed out, that means the oceans are becoming more acidic due to the influx of carbonic acid. The carbonic acid is wreaking havoc on ecosystems because of its corrosive effect on shellfish, coral and anything else that uses calcium in its body. The loss of shellfish and coral will mean massive loss of habitat and food for fish and other life forms in the area. The oceans aren't a convenient place to dump CO2, it creates its own problems.
- greenfyre, on 09/01/2009, -4/+11Or you could try learning the simple basics
To detect climate trends requires a minimum 30 yr data sequence
What cooling trend?
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/07/wh ...
El Nino, Global Warming, and Anomalous U.S. Winter Warmth
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
How to decide climate trends
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/12/ho ...
Results on deciding trends
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/re ...
otherwise all you are looking at is short term fluctuations in weather. - rxbudian, on 09/01/2009, -1/+8Moving trash around does not solve the problem of having too much trash.
- DankBuddz, on 09/01/2009, -8/+15Cap and Trade is one of many solutions.
Blame the lobbying and free market for that.
Sorry, but the decades of research and observation by thousands of scientists world-wide isn't some US government conspiracy. - greenfyre, on 09/01/2009, -4/+11An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water
http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/22/an-introduct ...
"If steps are not taken to curb carbon emissions, agricultural productivity could fall dramatically, especially in
developing countries"
Global Warming and Agriculture
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2008/03/ ...
"The century of drought: One third of the planet will be desert by the year 2100"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-centu ...
Warming climate could cause key crop yields to plummet
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/09/global ...
Billions could go hungry from global warming by 2100
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16384-billio ...
World’s poorest women will bear brunt of climate change
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=336033
Climate lying and fraud moves from science to politics
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/climate- ... - mwalker05, on 09/01/2009, -4/+11im no scientist here, but dumping our pollution into the ocean just doesnt sound like a good idea. we are talking about radically changing the ocean's ecosystem
- neognostic, on 09/01/2009, -7/+14Why do we see the same people on Digg argueing all the same "er" issues?
Birthers, truthers, deniers, deathers, and birthers? - wrathchilde, on 09/01/2009, -0/+7Well, damon, I read your arguments and appreciate your input.
A little background; I did my thesis in oceanography on how erupting underwater volcanoes enhance the weathering of of submarine silicate minerals. You are certainly correct, and at equilibrium a balance is reached and a relatively steady state pH for the ocean is the result. That is why marine chemistry is particularly stable on the long term. However, the reaction kinetics (rates) you reference operate on the mixing time of the ocean, this is, 1000 years or so. The current rate of input for CO2 to the surface ocean has no chance to react with the silicate minerals that would be weathered. It simply doesn't "see" it yet. Rates are important. The current observations suggest rates of input for CO2 that cannot be quickly accommodated by the geochemical buffer. - wrathchilde, on 09/01/2009, -1/+8I would like to address your question as best I can. It does, however, require a little assumption since you ask about help versus harm, which are subjective.
You mention that the cyclicity for warming and cooling is "brief" this is correct on a geologic timescale, that is 20,000 years or so. I don't consider this brief in the human social context.
Your question is:
"if this is the case, why are we concerned about a runaway greenhouse effect, if it could well be more help than harm?"
Runaway greenhouse effects would be those that completely swamp the other forcing factors (orbital wobble, tilt and eccentricity, "Milankovich" cycles). This is the process predicted to have so-called rapid climate change impacts, with timescales on the range of centuries, not millennia.
The last clause of your question is more problematic "more help than harm" I'm not really sure what you mean, but it is a logical fallacy nonetheless. It is called begging the question. When the conclusion is predicated on an assumption in the question without providing a substantive argument there is no available alternate solution.
"Why would you take this action that causes more harm than good" is not a question. You have already predicated your solution on the answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question - Bloodboiler, on 09/01/2009, -1/+8"All this hype and nobody knows anything "for-sure", so at least open your mind enough to realize that nothing in the global-warming research is fact, it is all theory and conjecture."
Science doesn't do absolute final "for-sure" facts. Religions do.
To paraphase/abuse a saying: "If you meet a absolutely sure scientist on the road, kill him (because he is an impostor or an *****)". - greenfyre, on 09/01/2009, -3/+9RotFL "YOU show where the science is right?"
OK, here: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate ...
Your turn - DankBuddz, on 09/01/2009, -1/+7@Zarchon
I don't think Cap & Trade is a good solution. Unfortuantely, lobbyists in DC feel otherwise. - TheMoniker, on 09/01/2009, -2/+8"Cretaceous and at around 8000 ppmv during the Ordovician, There was no runaway global warming then so there is some negative feedback mechanism to limit temperature rise."
Regarding the Ordovician Period, I don’t believe that it presents the problem that you believe it does. The matter isn’t as simple as, “according to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot then.” One of the issues to consider is the fact that most of the world’s landmass was gathered at the South pole in a supercontinent known as Gondwanaland. Having the majority of the land at one of the poles allows for glaciation events even with higher carbon dioxide concentrations. Also of interest is the fact that the Appalachian mountains were just being created, exposing a large amount of easily weathered silicate rock to the atmosphere (which would have acted to take down atmospheric carbon), coinciding with the start of the Late Ordovician glaciation.
Two other points that relate to your post are that, during this period the sun had a lower output (it's a main sequence star) and also that there are both positive and negative feedback loops in the Earth system that would naturally limit the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Fossil fuel emissions however are not governed by these natural feedback mechanisms. - vikingcoder, on 09/01/2009, -4/+10The oceans have been absorbing CO2 while the Earth has been warming up. Using all caps doesn't make the observational records disappear.
The oceans are a net CO2 sink that are currently absorbing 7 billion tons more than they outgas each year. The oceans have also played a major role as a sink for up to 30% of the anthropogenic CO2 produced during the industrial revolution. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/1190876 ... http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/1188390 ...
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 ...
"no one will listen"
Because what they are presenting are misleading partial truths and outright myths in defense of their ideology. 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.
"Denier" isn't some sort of ad hominem slight, it is a descriptive term like skeptic. What else should you call somebody who denies knowledge presented to them based on nothing more than belief? - vikingcoder, on 09/01/2009, -2/+8The products of clean companies become cheaper. The products of dirty companies become more expensive. Clean companies can outcompete dirty companies and the cap decreases over time.
Cap & trade isn't the only solution, and not the one I prefer either since it can be gamed by the largest industry on the planet. I'd prefer a free-market solution, but again that same industry has spun so much misinformation that discussions on this topic are equivalent to discussing evolution. - kafuka, on 09/01/2009, -2/+8Thanks for that. Hadn't took chem in too long; I reminisced of the days of sitting in a lecture hall for Chem Reactivity.
- WhiskeyLemur, on 09/01/2009, -6/+12But what we do know is insufficient to accurately predict what will happen. It's good to hear scientists admit this, because when you think you know it all, you stop researching and start assuming.
- greenfyre, on 09/01/2009, -5/+11OK, so "in the absence of any other evidence must be considered to be correct" if you're feeling pedantic.
But since we're being pedantic and talking about "most flawed ": "Many of the ..." does not mean _all_ ... so stop pretending you made a conclusive point and deal with the ones that track back to the peer reviewed literature and show us how it is wrong then. - greenfyre, on 09/01/2009, -6/+11Same silly claim, so why should the answer change?
If you can't show that it is wrong in any way, then it is right. - greenfyre, on 09/01/2009, -13/+18Except it's not about "belief" ... this is not a matter of religion, but science:
Science Reinforces Human Role as Climate Change Impacts Accelerate
http://www.wri.org/press/2009/07/science-reinforce ...
The Human Hand in Climate Change http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
Attributing Mankind
http://cce.890m.com/attributing-mankind/
Understanding Why Climate Change is Human-Induced:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-goldstein/under ... - angryredplanet, on 09/02/2009, -2/+7@Ferretman
"Real scientific work shows a variety of trends and *possible*, *theoretical* causes for them. ... Skeptics realize that the science is still very much open on this issue and are astonished at the flat ignorance of the scientific method demonstrated by the Warmite rush to judgment.
Skeptics follow *science*; Warmites cherry-pick from the Huffington Post."
So, given that you're a rational sceptic who follows the science and is able to pick through misinformation and denier garbage, you'll concede that anthropogenic climate change *may be possible*, and as commonly accepted peer-reviewed science positions it as *highly likely*, you would lend this weight?
I'd like to focus on this statement: "...the flat ignorance of the scientific method..."
This is not necessarily true. Parts of the theory are based on empirical facts that have already been demonstrated via scientific method, as such they do not require re-demonstration. In science, unless something is found to refute an aspect of a circular wheel, we do not move to reinvent it. Similarly, we know about greenhouse gases, about absorption spectrum of carbon (etc), about albedo, about solar irradiance, about oceanic pH levels, about Milankovitch cycles, about volcanoes, about energy imbalance... etc. The ACC theory stitches it together in the context of our warming planet, much the same as general relativity included curved space-time as an explanation to the perceived force of gravity. Curved space-time may not be the correct explanation for gravity but we use it because, for all practical purposes, it works (except at the quantum level however here we open a can of worms). Climatological factors as interrelated systems means that an effect on one inevitably means an effect on all. - greenfyre, on 09/01/2009, -8/+13@neognostic "Why do we see the same people on Digg argueing all the same ..."
"Things Americans believe"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Things ...
22 percent believe President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.
30 percent believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
23 percent believe they've been in the presence of a ghost.
18 percent believe the sun revolves around the Earth. - DankBuddz, on 09/01/2009, -4/+9Getting your terms mixed up again?
You figure out the difference between weather and climate yet? - greenfyre, on 09/01/2009, -12/+17How about you show us how the science is wrong then?
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate ...
Science Reinforces Human Role as Climate Change Impacts Accelerate
http://www.wri.org/press/2009/07/science-reinforce ...
The Human Hand in Climate Change http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
Attributing Mankind
http://cce.890m.com/attributing-mankind/
Understanding Why Climate Change is Human-Induced:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-goldstein/under ...
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 ...
How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005 ...
Humans cause climate change, US body accepts http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg1992 ... - Countess666, on 09/01/2009, -0/+5actually its mostly dead body's... plankton body's that is.
- WasabiBomb, on 09/01/2009, -1/+6Uh, @mdhenshaw? Both of them DID respond to your "CO2 is not a pollutant" link. @vikingcoder moreso than @greenfyre, but both are responses. It's not their fault you aren't willing to consider what they posted.
- WasabiBomb, on 09/01/2009, -1/+6The thing is, you don't put the endpoint of a space elevator at the geosynchronous orbit level- you have it further out, so that the center of mass for the entire thing is at the geosynchronous orbit level. That way, objects on the way out will eventually be slung out- you'd only have to lift it to the halfway point, beyond that it's basically free energy.
You CAN have the endpoint at geosync, but then you have to make sure that your incoming mass is equal to or greater than your outgoing. If you're harvesting asteroids, this probably wouldn't be a problem. - vikingcoder, on 09/01/2009, -4/+9The cooling trends come from cherry-picking specific zero-points to support a preconceived notion in defense of ideology.
Juvenile insults such as "warmite" only show how pathetic you are. - vikingcoder, on 09/01/2009, -2/+7The word "theory" has different meanings depending upon the context in which it is used.
Your beliefs supported by playing semantic games do not cause the accumulated scientific knowledge to vanish. - jj2me, on 09/01/2009, -5/+10I don't think the deniers and neocons realize what a puzzle they are to the rest of the world. We just can't figure out how they can think like they do. Here's some tidbits from some of the research:
From http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_in ...
"conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritar ...
"According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations.[11] Nevertheless, there is no connection between authoritarianism and either low or high intelligence." - vikingcoder, on 09/01/2009, -4/+9There are uncertainties and nobody can accurately predict what will happen, but that doesn't mean nothing will happen.
Your opinions based on soundbites and gullibly swallowing misinformation do not cause the accumulated scientific knowledge to vanish.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.h ... http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-ab ... Since there are so many uncertainties, especially with regard to what human beings will choose to do and how large the climate response will be, "we don't pretend we can do it accurately. Instead, we do these 400 runs and look at the spread of the odds." - Barackalypse, on 09/01/2009, -2/+7I was actually being facetious, given all the crazy schemes I have read about here on Digg to deal with the problem. The gravitational potential energy of an object in geosynchronus orbit is something like 15 kWh per kilogram, so I suspect it would not be cost effective at all.
- vikingcoder, on 09/01/2009, -1/+5I did. It's an ideological opinion column that has no addressable points ("people are just confusing carbon dioxide with carbon monoxide") because it is pure sophistry.
Any item can be a pollutant when it is in a different location or concentration than normal. A lengthy exposition about a particular item's properties combined with misdirection does not change this.
"polluting digg with spam talking points"
Like...
It's been cooling since 1998.
The current warming is caused by the Sun.
The climate has changed before.
They predicted an ice age in the 70s.
Models are unreliable.
The temperature records are faked!
CO2 is not a pollutant.
Al Gore [...]! - Mikey129, on 09/01/2009, -2/+6But when the earth's core stops where will be send our terranauts?
- vikingcoder, on 09/01/2009, -1/+5The paper referenced by WND doesn't say what you've been told it does. I'm actually rather surprised that they linked to it; that is extremely unusual.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf The estimated increase in GMST (global mean surface temperature) by well mixed greenhouse gases from preindustrial times to the present, 0.7 ± 0.3 K; the upper end of this range approaches the threshold for "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system," which is considered to be in the range 1 to 2 K.
--
The Register link claims that the HadCRU data shows cooling, which is wholly inaccurate and based upon cherry-picking to support a preconceived notion in defense of ideology.
Using the 30 year mean, the hottest 28 years of the record are the past 28 in exact sequential order. In terms of the single years, the hottest 23 have been in the past 28 & the hottest 12 have been the past 12. A period of 30 years was chosen because that is the definition of climate and is the span of the reference period that HadCRU (1961-1990) is based on. The HadCRUT3v temperature record covers 1850 - current. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17 ... http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outreach/glossary ...
The cooling of 2007 & 2008 is expected as it was caused by the Southern Oscillation, i.e. La Nina & El Nino. 1997-8 was the strongest El Nino on record. 2008 was the hottest La Nina-influenced year with no El Nino ever recorded. This is why pointing solely to the temperature difference between 1998 and 2008 is not relevant to a discussion of the long-term trend. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7z.h ... http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitori ... - damonjacobsen, on 09/01/2009, -5/+9did you read your article?
When calcification slows, less CO2 is released, and more can be absorbed by the oceans. However, less calcification may lead to less net sinking of carbon, thus slowing and therefore reducing CO2 uptake at the surface.
It remains unclear which effect may dominate, but either way, ocean acidification affects the capacity for oceans to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide, with implications for future climate change.
Once again "it is unclear". All this hype and nobody knows anything "for-sure", so at least open your mind enough to realize that nothing in the global-warming research is fact, it is all theory and conjecture. - vikingcoder, on 09/01/2009, -7/+11mrjhmm,
The epoch you are referencing, via an ideological opinion column, occurred over millions of years. The discussion is on the coming decades. Pointing to such sophistry only shows your gullibility.
You have already admitted that this is simply a matter of belief for you and that you pick & choose which scientific theories to believe.
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Climate_Change_H ... - vikingcoder, on 09/01/2009, -1/+5"evolution have had proper scrutiny, and little contrary evidence"
The creationists would disagree with you. Why are you any different than them?
By the way, ideological opinion columns are not equivalent to the scientific research papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Try linking directly to the paper rather than to something like World Net Daily. I nearly spewed my drink onto my keyboard when I saw that link. - vikingcoder, on 09/01/2009, -5/+9Science is not determined by what you believe, or what your opinions based on gullibly swallowing misinformation are. You seem to be very confused about what science actually is, and are truly no different than a creationist.
Try walking off a tall building while vehemently declaring that you don't believe the theory of gravity scam. Enhancing the natural greenhouse effect is exactly the same. - vikingcoder, on 09/01/2009, -6/+10mrjhmm,
The extreme irony here is that you've admitted that you pick and choose which scientific theories to believe. Your belief does not make a field of science a religion, it makes you an ignorant, gullible dupe. -
Show 51 - 100 of 192 discussions
