digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Oldest DNA Ever Recovered Suggests Earth Was Warmer

physorg.com — Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and, like southern Sweden today, had a relatively mild climate. Eske Willerslev, a professor at Copenhagen University, has analysed the world �s oldest DNA, preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap. The DNA is likely close to half a million years old

show profanity settings
expand all
  • vegasbright, on 10/11/2007, -30/+122Ummm, DUH!

    Ask any geologist what they think of global warming. Be prepared to hear quite a different story than those more interested in marketing the latest scare.
    • mjantz, on 10/11/2007, -37/+19If you do indeed ask any geologist what they think of global warming, they will most likely say it is a serious and urgent problem that we can and should do something about. Assuming the information in the last paragraph of this story is correct, and I hope that it is, it still does not change the fact that we face a serious crisis that must be dealt with.
      • Gothvanhelsing, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I am more woried about how we are going to lower the temp on Mars our effect seems to be warming that planet too. We earned all the problems of the warming Earth by breathing and farting, but Mars did nothing to us and our Carbon is warming it too.
      • floorman56, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Then tell me ...what is the "normal" temperature for the earth? How do we know that the earth is too hot?....maybe it's too cold and now just getting to normal. Can you show me any number that's "just right"?
        I mean i know if I have a fever if I go over 98.6
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -27/+17Look, the earth also used to be devoid of oxygen.

      That doesn't mean we want it to reverse to that state very very quickly, or even at all, right? Even if it's something humanity's ancestors lived in, you don't want to have climate go back 500,000 years in the span of 200.
      • manicleek, on 10/11/2007, -5/+30The earth was devoid of oxygen tens of millions of years ago, Greenaland is warm and forested just before each ice age, it will be green and forrested again, and then it will freeze again.

        The earth always warms then cools, global warming is a fact, but its also natural so get used to it
        • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -13/+9Just because natural changes exist does not mean that our current changes are naturally driven.
          • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21And just because our current situation is changing doesn't mean that the changes are unnaturally drive.

          • Railer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Given the many thousands of years of human history, and the claims "humans" have effected the weather from not worshiping the right God, to not sacrificing the right virgin, to now having sacrifice or personal liberties and consumer choices, to somehow appease the "weather Gods", it seems we continue to follow what every society through history has done when climate changed, we blame ourselves. It almost seems instinctual.

            You know in all those previous claims of humans effecting the weather, most of the learned men of the society also agreed they were correct, and each time they were mistaken, but only long after the fact.

            So your right the last 30 years (btw that's what we're down to, 30 years all other changes have been found to have natural causes) maybe Human caused, but I think I'll go with history on this one, and throwing that Digg user into that volcano, might make the masses feel better about the weather, but it's really not going to changing anything.
          • GiggleStick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What is most likely, Terr01. The climate is a rather large system.
    • silencerider151, on 10/11/2007, -21/+6Just goes to show that when humanity reached the industrial age the last time they had global warming too and most died out and the survivors re-started humanity.
      • spwpi10, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1If your saying humanity reached our state of technology before and then got wiped out, where are all the traces of the ancient power plants and ancient industries?
      • KennMac, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Wow I really had no idea anyone could be so sadly misinformed. He has to be kidding...
    • DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -13/+8scope out a map of the Triassic period sometime. The entire interior plains of the US were under sea. I got folks who just bought a home in Florida and I don't want it to be underwater like New Orleans by the time the mortgage is paid off (30 yrs)

      Sometimes the earth's natural cycles suck, much like my gf's natural cycles.
      • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1Really? I thought that most g/f mouths suck....
        • theholycow, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Only until they become wives.
          • floorman56, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Why does the bride smile at her wedding?

            She knows she doesn't have to give BJ's any more!!!!!
      • derkaas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Uh, the continents were not even close to being in the same locations 200 million years ago that they are now. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
        • threemagic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I came to say the exact same thing, derkaas.. surprised it wasn't posted sooner.
      • KennMac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You honestly think, that even if all the ice at the poles completely melted, it would cover interior sections of the continent? C'mon... God it's so depressing how misinformed people are.
    • sgglynn, on 10/11/2007, -7/+52Thats the problem, people are asking politicians, not geologists.
    • jjb123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4http://www.beatcanvas.com/pics/co2_temperature_chart_1.jpg

      I like this little graph, nice representation of the temperature patterns for a few thousand years, as you can see, we are right near a peak. I still think we should clean up our act our act though, always nice to live in a clean environment.
      • falstaff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Looks like that graph tends to confirm the idea that CO2 levels *follow* temperature changes, not the other way around. So current CO2 levels may be rising because temperatures are rising due to some other influence.
        • KennMac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Well, you're thinking logically... something most of America doesn't do.
        • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It does seem to confirm that. The warming doesn't seem to be caused by the CO2 but the CO2 seems to be caused by the warming.
      • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That reads from right to left?
    • daridave, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1last I heard, we should be worrying about overpopulation, not pollution.

      related ? (I'm asking, not being smartass.)
    • gothsquirrel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5That really doesn't tell us the earth was warmer it just tells us that the earth was warmer where greenland was. Ok so between climate change and the movement of greenland over the past hundred years, yeah greenland was once warmer. But just because it was doesn't mean that the whole world was. Good scientists shouldn't jump to conclusions like that.
      • gnalle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I also met geologists who were attacking the global warming theory, but It is worth keeping in mind that a fairly large percentage of geologists work for directly or indirectly the oil industry. That tends to change their perspective.
    • xxxcensoredxxx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Geologist? If I have a question about the earth's crust I'll ask a geologist. For long-term climate questions I'd rather ask a climatologist.
  • DeskFlyer, on 10/11/2007, -9/+9http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=94b7d021-c5da-4e82-b37f-53d338709fb1
    • Railer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I love that article, wasn't it nice of the globe to go into a cooling phase, just at the time we started using massive amounts of CO2. So our CO2 warming and the earth cooling would look like the exact same rate of increase we've seen for the last 300 years. Damn smart Earth there!
  • pilgrim3970, on 10/11/2007, -17/+12vegasbright and Deskflyer:

    sshhhh.... you'll wake the sheople.
  • djphatjive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+54This is news? I thought the earth has gone through many climate changes throughout the years.
    • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -20/+16And people speaking of current climate change never deny it. Tactics of current climate change deniers remind me of so called Intelligent Design advocates way too much. They are often the same people I guess.

      The climate change is a fact. Human involvement in it is disputed (by a small group usually funded by energy companies).
      • Arcleo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7As the above already stated, ask a geologist. Global warming advocates tend to only show information from the past 50 years. Look at it over 200 years and we are actually at a low. Look at temperatures since the last ice age, and we actually peaked quite a while ago (I don't remember exactly how long) and we are actually moving towards another ice age within the next 10,000 years or so. A large portion of the scientific community is still very much undecided about the recent rise in temperatures; you just don't hear from this group as much because "Don't worry we are fine" doesn't pull in the ratings on CNN. Pollution is definitely a problem, but its unclear whether its going to drown all coastal cities anytime soon.
  • zaibatsu, on 10/11/2007, -22/+21I think earth was warmer at one period in time. which these studies obviously suggest, but I think you can't dismiss the sharp rise in warming over a compressed period of time in the past few decades due to CO2 emissions.

    Just my take, I'm not a pro on this ***** by any means.
    • gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6You're right though. We've been warmer than this before but we've never gone up by 1°C in less than a hundred years. That's the problem. We're warming up too fast.
      • toconnor, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5"We're warming up too fast." Too fast for what?
        • Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6To easily adapt?
          • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Maybe. But there have been warming and cooling periods before, particularly in human history. A cooling trend was probably one of the reasons the Central Asian peoples of the Steppes pushed West, pushing Germanic peoples into Rome. The Medieval Warming helped increase trade and wealth, pulling Europe out of the Dark Ages, though after four hundred years, a cooling tend started. This kicked the Vikings off of Greenland and froze the Thames. Finally, the Modern Warming started in the mid-19th century. Humanity never collapsed, though the climatological trends certainly influenced history. If you look evn farther back, you can see other warming and cooling trends that did not cause animals to go extinct. They could stil adapt, even though it got a little warmer or cooler.
        • texpundit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I can adapt just fine. It's called moving inland and a little more north. If you're stupid enough to stay on the coast when the waters rise, you're no better than the idiot that blew her head off with commercial fireworks.
    • samdu, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15Actually, you CAN dismiss that the increase in warming is due to CO2 emissions, since at periods in the past, the Earth has been warmer than it is now, with lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. And vice versa.
      • keeganspeck, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas, and is by far not the most damaging. It is, however, the most abundant, among other gases we need to keep out of the atmosphere.
        • Railer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You're right, water vapor is another greenhouse gas that has a massive feedback, as well as cloud formations, both could easy offset CO2 a hundred times over, but those greenhouse gases are ignored by climate scientists.

          CO2 is not the most abundant Greenhouse gas, CO2 380ppm vs water vapor 4000ppm.
        • texpundit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yep. Need to keep that CO2 out of the atmosphere. Them damned plants are taking over and we need to CHOKE THEM OUT!
    • pbaehr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Take no offense since this is Digg and you're encouraged to post your personal opinion, but I think part of the problem is that too many people who "are not a pro on this *****" are demanding our attention. I really wish there was some way to remove the politics from this issue and just let the scientists make up their minds.
      • Homunculiheaded, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4But that's really an interesting problem with modern society. Whether or not global warming is happening, and whether we or not we can do anything about it is potentially of vital importance to everyone. However how many people are really in a sincere position to even have a real stance on the issue? Only people who devote all of their working energies to this question are even close to having enough facts. But even then how do we interpret their findings, how do we evaluate what they have to say? In primitive society you could easily gather all the information you needed to have in informed opinion, even for most of civilization this was the case.
        How do we go about making an informed decision, when we don't (and can't) possibly gather up enough data to assess the situation ourselves?
    • p51d007, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Anybody bother to check the OUTPUT from the sun in the last 22 years? As soon as the solar max ends, the suns output will go down, as will some of the "global warming"
      associated with it.
    • mikerand, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2The increased CO2 is likely not a huge factor in the current warming. There is evidence that the sun is currently in a cycle that makes the Earth warmer. Here's just one link that came up in google news about solar warming: http://www.abc.net.au/westqld/stories/s1971899.htm?backyard

      Many of the consensus scientists do not know much more about climate than the rest of us. Did you read the recent article where scientists didn't know the answers to basic science questions?
    • Railer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4"I think you can't dismiss the sharp rise in warming" - that's actually another myth propagated by environmentalists.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
      In 1910-1940 went up .55C or .55/30 = .0183C/year
      while 1950-2005 went up .7 or .7/55 .0127C/year
      so why did the 1930's warm up so fast when 90% of man made CO2 emissions show up after 1950? The only thing that makes sense is CO2 has little to do with climate change.
  • chopenik, on 10/11/2007, -14/+9Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Keep it quiet. Al Gore might hear you!
  • phoephus, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Where do you think all that carbon that's in all that oil that we are now burning, originally came from?
    • sgglynn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5bacon?
      • EricAnderton, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Yes. That's it. Bacon.

        Juicy, delicious, tyrannosaur bacon.
        • texpundit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21. Press Button.
          2. Receive Tyrannosaurus Bacon?
    • EricAnderton, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Exactly. If global warming is due to us burning fossil fuels, and increasing the gobal CO2 levels, then we are in effect attempting to return the abundant level of carbon in the biosphere to Jurassic levels. However, the difference is that nowhere near as much of that CO2 will be tied up in plants and animals this time around - I think it's going to stay in the atmosphere for a long time.
  • linkin1, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4hmmm I dunno which is more solid evidence...old DNA telling us how warm the earth was, or computer simulation telling us what it is going to be like in the next few hunder years....I say both are bullcrap.
    • enzideout, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I'll take hard evidence over a psychic computer any day.
      • Gothvanhelsing, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Does any one have the 900 number for Gore psychic computer? I need to know if I am going to meet my soulmate anytime soon. I say it has just as much chances of running a model of my life and telling me when to buy a ring, as it does telling me what Earth's temp will be 100 years from now.
  • kgool, on 10/11/2007, -8/+7Say it isn't so! I don't want my Prius to not be "in" any more.
    • sspooner, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Trust me, your Prius was never "in" to begin with.
    • mtheoryx83, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Your Prius hasn't been "in" for quite some time now.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What's wrong with a Prius? Gas is freaking expensive. Just because AGW is BS doesn't mean hybrids are bad.
  • jbus, on 10/11/2007, -18/+28"Please keep polluting at your current rate, it makes no difference to the climate or your environment." -BIG OIL

    I don't care what the oil industry shills say... Warming and cooling cycles for the earth are natural, but PREMATURE and EXCESSIVELY FAST warming cycles are not.
    • v3locity, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Finally, someone that understands that the earth does go through changes, that isn't the issue here. Our problem is how fast it is changing and the impact we have on that rate of change.
    • samdu, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7Define "Premature" and "Excessively Fast."
      • noreturn, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8The speed at which you ejaculate?
      • skav, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Dear Sir or Madam,

        It is my solemn duty to inform you that you have been pwnd.

        If you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact Pwnd Inc Customer Service, noob.

        Yours,
        Billy Mc0wnerer

    • p51d007, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3then ride a bicycle and leave the rest of us in our SUV's alone
    • rholloway, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5ugh. First it was humans are solely responsible for "Global Warming". Then, because data shows that we've actually been cooling since 1998, humans were responsible for "Climate Change". Now, you ***** have made it down to "Warming and cooling cycles for the earth are natural, but PREMATURE and EXCESSIVELY FAST warming cycles are not."
    • mighty_mouth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3There have been faster warmings in the past. See, for example, the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene warming.
    • Railer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3As for the ***** of "Big Oil", look big oil is not big oil it's big energy, it makes no difference if it's wind, solar, oil, nuclear or coal. Someone has to mass produce the product to sell to consumers, Exxon, BP have their fingers in all of the "energy pies" so in 50 years if everything is Nuclear and Solar, Exxon and BP will still be running the game, so they really could careless which type of energy is being used. SO stop bring up that ***** conspiracy theory.

      "PREMATURE and EXCESSIVELY FAST" Premature by whose standards? Was it premature when this all started at the end of the last mini ice age in the 1600's?

      As for Excessively Fast, it's simply not true.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
      In 1910-1940 went up .55C or .55/30 = .0183C/year
      while 1950-2005 went up .7 or .7/55 .0127C/year
      so why did the 1930's warm up so fast when 90% of man made CO2 emissions show up after 1950?

      The only thing that makes sense is CO2 has little to do with climate change.

      Nice try but you may want to stop drinking Al Gores Koolaid.
  • halfemptyfilms, on 10/11/2007, -10/+22Wait, so what effect will this have on Manbearpig?
  • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -19/+16This is extremely sad......all these unfortunately ignorant people whose thought process goes "Earth was warmer before? Well, nothing to worry about, then".

    WE are causing a much FASTER warming than has ever occurred before. And the more greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere, the faster it will get. THAT'S the problem, not just the fact the earth is getting warmer. It will get just as warm as it was before, and then it will keep on going, relentlessly, until it starts having detrimental effects.
    • rholloway, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8ugh..."faster" as compared to what? What do you think about this--receding glaciers in the Alps have yielded the discovery of 10th Century farming tools. Now, if using the brain of a marginal idiot, one can assume that cold spell came on pretty fast for people to completely abandon the equipment that helped them make food!
      The climate changes--that your arrogant ass happens to be here at the same time is merely a coincidence.
      • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1It's funny to read his comment. He's so convinced we will experience lightening fast, runaway global warming but if we all band together, sacrifice our standard of living, and wreck our economies, we can save the world!
    • Gothvanhelsing, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2if this is the effect of our using energy then tell me why Mars is warming just as fast then
  • ginin, on 10/11/2007, -12/+11This should not surprise anyone. Scientists have always argued that the ice that is melting now due to anthropogenic global warming is like 120k years old. These bugs and dna is way older.

    Translation: This does not refute global warming. Greenland's ice is melting very fast and massively in the last 30 years, learn the science. Global warming is real wether you like it or not
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Of course GW is real. But GW is not AGW.
  • uselessexpert, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Damn...Al Gore let that one escape?
    I'm still waiting on his response to the glabal warming challenge.

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1

    I guess, I just won't hold my breath for him to response...

    Jackass!!!
    • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2The reason Al Gore will never debate this buffoon is because he's already got the mass scientific majority on his side. Al Gore, the former vice-president of the United States, is not going to waste his time proving something that's already been pretty much proven.
      • PrettyLadyGrace, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0It hasn't been proven. In fact there's been a lot of scientific evidence lately that disproves it.
  • JD52, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5WTF are you people talking about! The earth is only 3000 years old! It's always been like this! /sarcasm
    • LonesomeFighter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1the bible says 6000 + the 2007. so if you gonna be a smartassy like that. say 8007 years old
  • bwhancock, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12 I thought the Flintstones car ran via their feet....so how did the climate change? That's a puzzler!

    Also, there is no such thing as good global warming, only bad things can happen and it's all our fault! I wish there was a way rock stars with giant tour buses, private jets, giant lights and sound equipment would tell more people this!
    • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Why even bother with you. You obviously know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about.

      And the rock stars with giant tour buses, private jets, giant lights and sound equipment? They're spreading the word to more intelligent people than you that something needs to be done about this. And besides the fact they're purchasing carbon offsets (which I'm sure you'll rag on too), what they are doing will far outweigh whatever emissions they create.

      In the meantime, I'll keep trying to convince people to believe science so that your children and their children will have as much as we did growing up.
      • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That's hilarious. It's OK because they're spreading the word to more intelligent people? Sure. Oh, and they're purchasing carbon offsets, so that makes everything better? Well, great! We can all just plant trees and save the world! Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. We can't change the climate by planting trees.
  • joegibes, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3How do they know it (the DNA) is half a million years old?
    • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I think they can determine the age through a correlation with depth??
      • elzrow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Just out of interest, how do you measure ice age using depth? =)
    • OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Yeah, I thought republicans didn't believe in carbon dating.

      Har har, I kid.
      • texpundit, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1No. But they believe in Carbon-based lifeform dating...sometimes. Those Senators can get pretty freaky.
  • iheartartoo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I like the picture of the warm, ancient butterflies.
  • kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6But... but.. . BUT.... GLOBAL WARMING.... WAAAAAAA
  • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -11/+7Well, the Gore-haters are out in full force today. Guess I'll just leave this discussion to the bafflingly ignorant dig-downers........good luck. No room for science in here.
  • Philodox, on 10/11/2007, -10/+8Say it with me: Global warming isn't concern about the temperature of the planet rising. It's concern about the temperature of the planet rising faster than anything that we have on record.

    Of course the planet was warmer in the past, when the planet was born it was a giant ball of fire and molten rock!
    • sspooner, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2And we have those kind of records for only a hundred years or so. This is simply a local fluctuation, the sort of which has happened countless times over billions of years. The treehuggers and libs need something to whine and worry about.
      • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Treehuggers and libs"

        No, you're not biased by political motivations. Not at all.

        You should be ashamed at yourself for voting Bush twice.
  • PhogHawk, on 10/11/2007, -10/+9This doesn't show that the earth was warmer, it shows that Greenland had a warmer climate at the time. One of the scary things about global warming is that it's repositioning climates around the world. It's not just a universal temperature increase.
  • ryanwarnersteel, on 10/11/2007, -11/+10Stop this extremely misleading *****. Yes, the earth used to be hot, much hotter than now or than we will ever see, and yes it happened "naturally" (without humans).
    The world is currently undergoing one such natural warming, but it is suplemented by humans, making it that much worse...and fast. 100% of peer-reviewed journal articles are RIGHT. Human induced climate change is a fact with overwhelming supporting evidence. Its so sad that diggers love to back science when discussing evolution, but not human induced climate change, BOTH of which are scientific slam dunks.
    • 2timegrime, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2slam dunk ? lmao
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3100%?
      Yeah.

      Did it even occur to you that you just lied, or does it come so natural that you didn't even notice?
      • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think he's besing sarcastic, but he should really use the tag.
  • zadadka, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5I think its fair to say that most parts of the globe have had entirely different ecologies to those that exist today, and some may have been different in the extreme....and geology provides a record of that.

    But this is all by natural cycle, as far as is understood (certainly by geologists).

    If you start choking up the environment with unnatural levels of CO2 (or any other gas) that the natural cycle doesn't factor in, and the ***** really will hit the fan.
    There are plenty of examples of this happening before, not man-made its true, but cataclysmic in event and results nonetheless.

    Try talking to biologists, not rock-lovers.
  • dbcjr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15This isn't the only evidence of global warming and cooling cycles BEFORE petroleum-based energy utilization was invented. Theories about Native American inmigration across the Bering Land Bridge involve three phases which are based upon the natural warming and cooling cycles the world has gone through.
    • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Who is arguing that the earth wasn't warming and cooling before we got here? Seriously, who?

      WHO?

      So WHY are you making it seem like someone IS?
  • WasabiBomb, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3All the article says is that GREENLAND *may* have been warmer. I'm not quite clear on the thought process that somehow interprets that to say that it proves this period of global warming isn't anthropogenic.
  • PjsPjs, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Call me crazy, but if CO2 is causing change to climate, then should it not be affecting our cardiopulmonary systems?
    • falstaff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Ehhh, no. CO2 makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, and human activity is responsible for only a small fraction of that. If humans tripled our CO2 output, the effect on your breathing would be less than if you added another person to the room.
      Also, CO2 is, ton for ton, the weakest of the major greenhouse gases.
      • PjsPjs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1// "if you added another person to the room" // DUH! // good point.
        Thanks
      • mikerand, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So have there been studies showing how the ~.01% of CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere affects temperature?
  • S1L3NTC, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Well, we know the bury crew all had off work today.

    We continue to ***** up our environment DAILY.
    How many of the SUV-with-only-a-driver-in-it crowd really think that excessive, single-serving lifestyles can continue indefinitely without any adverse effects?
  • ahhell, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5Lies! All Lies!!
    The Earth is NOT that old!
  • neau, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9We're still going to die.
    • Railer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2We're all going to die, just not by man made global warming. Although unnecessary taxes and regulations forcing up energy prices, forcing the poor not to develop their own energy sources will undoubtedly kill many.
  • ccrook, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11I don't disagree that climate change is occurring but the jury is still very much out on 1) what's going to happen 2) what's causing it - not what is correlated to changes.

    You can't tell me there is a consensus on that.
    • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Tell you what. Do this for me:

      - Do some research and teach yourself what a "greenhouse gas" is and how they work
      - Do some research as to how much of these so-called "greenhouse gases" it takes to have an effect on temperature
      - Do some research as to what the scientific consensus is as to the MAIN CAUSE of the sudden increase in warming we're seeing
      - Come back and admit you were wrong, and that there IS a consensus on what is causing this unprecedented fast increase in termperature.
      • freebsdmike, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1How about we let scientists do the research? Seeing how they (the scientific community) are still really divided I think it's safe to say he's right.
      • freebsdmike, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1How about we let scientists do the research? Seeing how they (the scientific community) are still really divided I think it's safe to say he's right.
        • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They're divided are they?

          Man, you're in the dark.
      • Railer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1- Do some research and teach yourself what a "greenhouse gas" is and how they work - I have the largest is Water Vapor
        - Do some research as to how much of these so-called "greenhouse gases" it takes to have an effect on temperature - a lot if you look at the geologic record, CO2 actually follows warming, it's a feedback not a forcing.
        - Do some research as to what the scientific consensus is as to the MAIN CAUSE of the sudden increase in warming we're seeing - no there is no consensus, and you cannot find me the list of the 2500 consensus scientists who say there is, I've tried, there is no list. I can however show you the Oregon Petition of Thousands of scientists who disagree with AGW
        http://www.oism.org/pproject/ - is that the consensus you want him to research?
        - Come back and admit you were wrong, and that there IS a consensus on what is causing this unprecedented fast increase in termperature.
        I'm back, I'm right, these is no consensus, and "unprecedented fast increase in termperature" is also wrong.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
        In 1910-1940 went up .55C or .55/30 = .0183C/year while 1950-2005 went up .7 or .7/55 .0127C/year
        so why did the 1930's warm up so fast when 90% of man made co2 emissions show up after 1950?
  • kaiyohtee, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Evidence suggests that 450,000 years ago, Greenland was further south via plate tectonics. This could partially explain why the higher temperatures were recorded.
    • rholloway, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5hey, I like the way you think. That's the new danger! We're all on the move because humans are, like, stomping on the land man!
      • HarryBauzonia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Global warming!!!!
        Quick, everyone up north jump up and down.
    • DaveV, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If Greenland was moving North at 6" a year (AKA hauling tectonic ass), it would only be 45 miles further north than it was 450,000 years ago.
  • proliance, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Funny how Mars is warming at the same rate as Earth. Must be all those darn Martian probes we keep sending.
  • nofx1510, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4No, Al Gore in disguise, your just making that up so you can sell more copies of your dvd. Plus whoever doesn't agree with this needs to realize that our cars and factories don't cause global warming, cows give off more methane pollution then we do. Global Warming is bunch of crap and this story backs up my statement.
    • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Moron. Why is it that cows give off more methane.

      BECAUSE WE LIKE TO EAT THEM SO MUCH SO WE BREED BILLIONS OF THEM.

      Also, cars don't typically emit methane, moron. CO2 is one of the major ones from industry. So don't go sounding like you have any clue what you're talking about, trying to say one thing about cars and factories and then talking about cows.

      Hit the showers, fool.
      • nofx1510, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2So your saying if humans weren't around that cows and how about the wild buffalo that use to be in the billions, until we killed them, wouldn't be around. Hmmmmmmm...... Its all our fault, yep, you got that one right, why is it that 450,000 years ago the climate was 5 degrees hotter then now, no humans back then. Also I was proving a point with the methane statement, I know a car emits CO2 and actually if you want to get technical a car emits CO but the catalytic converter changes it over the CO2, moron. Go watch your Al Gore propaganda and cry yourself to sleep.
        • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHHAHAHAHHHAHH

          You really think there were more cows before humans came along? HAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHA. Do you even KNOW how much beef North America ALONE consumes?

          My God, you're dumb.

          And CO2 is a byproduct of combustion. No catalytic converter required. AHHAHAHAHAHAA
  • 2timegrime, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3look whats in Antarctica http://tea.armadaproject.org/deaton/12.6.2004.html
  • bwhancock, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I'll do a serious post....

    1. How much of global warming is caused by humans?
    2. How much of man-made global warming is bad?
    3. Is there anything positive that can come out of man-made global warming?
    4. How soon does planting a tree make up for a 2,000 mile trip in an average private jet?
    5. What do you do if you can't afford carbon offsets like rock stars?

    • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2I can afford carbon offsets. I'm a college student.

      It's expensive for rock stars because they use things like private jets, etc. Also, carbon offsetting is not about planting trees, at least that's not a very good way of doing it. A lot of carbon offsetting, on the consumer level, is done through investment in renewable energy. The math is pretty simple as to how much it costs to offset X amount of CO2 as long as you have your information.

      Nothing positive can come of man-made global warming in the long run because we are overwhelming earth's natural ability to re-absorb the carbon dioxide fast enough. It's a runaway effect, any scientist will tell you. We'll simply put too much crap in the atmosphere, and then when it's too late, even reducing our carbon emissions to 0 won't help us.

      How much of global warming is caused by humans? Just look up a statistic of how much CO2 and other greenhouse gases we've put in the atmosphere. That's how much.
      • bwhancock, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2The earth does 770.3 Gigatonnes and man about 27 Gigatonnes - round up to 800 Gigatonnes.

        So we are responsible for 3.4 percent of the greenhouse gases in the air annually.

        • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1How much CO2 does it take to drastically change the temperature? Without that piece of information, your post is useless and its implications non-existent.
    • nofx1510, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Its not the fact that our pollution is good, but its so small compared to the large picture and every other being that pollutes. You driving around in your hybrid car that still uses gas is not gonna make a difference. You know where all those fancy batteries that are in your car came from, factory had to produce them, do you think the factory runs on hybrid technology, no, the factory pollutes, were do you think that factory is, China, were there are no environmental laws. All the environmental supporters in America need to realize were not the only country and were not the country who is doing the injustices when it comes to the world, they need to look at the big picture, by the way Global warming is a democratic theory to take votes.
    • freebsdmike, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Yeah everyone should quickly give their money to Al Gore. After all he's the one selling the carbon credits he yells about.
    • DaveV, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Interesting. Not one person answered your questions.
  • oana77, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Yes it is very interesting that to know that it is half a million years old but how?
    Oana,
    benvarimblogspot.com
    • GiggleStick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Did you write that Oana? I wasn't sure, cuz I see Oana77 at the top of your post, but then you signed it Oana, so now I'm not sure if it's really you or not. I wish more people signed their posts, so I could be sure exactly who wrote it, without having to rely on the username in the header of each post.

      -GiggleStick
      readmystupidblog.com
  • bsbdeb, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3New school environmental hazzard: Cow farts
    Old school environmental hazzard: Dino farts
  • Genetico, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0Who the hell cares? We were a crappy species to begin with anyways. The earth will be fine and enter a new cycle of her life. One without us.

    So quit acting like you all of sudden give a damn cause Al Gore learned how to use PowerPoint and google earth. It's not like anyone is still gonna do anything about it...Oh yeah great! Lets throw the biggest hippy music jamboree festival the world has ever seen and show the corporations that things are gonna change...does all this Live earth crap not seem like a familiar episode of south park to you all? For ***** sake! I serious LOL is in need right now cause what do you accomplish by getting kanye west to ask if anyone make real ***** anymore up on a stage. The money? great the money...What is done with that money...pay the performers, pay the stage crew, pay the lighting, pay the sounds, pay the broadcasters, pay the marketing team, pay pay pay pay, and whats left goes to funding research of concept products that could one day possibly aid us. *****. Politics all politics. and the people themselves are to blame for it all too. If it is true and the rate that the earth is warming is increasing then it's very logical. Only way anything could be prevented is if everyone stopped driving cars...now. No excuses no hybrids..no, just stop driving cars. throwing money at the problem will not make it go away. If you seriously did give a damn...Stop driving your car.

    But until that happens. I'll call a big ol' ***** on it all. Enjoy your worldwide concerts.
    • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So you agree there is a problem that needs to be addressed now.....good!

      As for the concerts, 2 billion people are expected to watch. It's not just going to be music, it's going to be information. You can't tell me that's not going to have an effect.

      And you know what? I happen to be having a Live Earth barbeque at my place tomorrow evening. I'm using it as an opportunity to give my friends more information on why and how to reduce their impact on the environment. You know why? Because whether or not you believe in man-made global warming, whether or not you believe the world's scientists are in on a big conspiracy to scare the public, we're overconsuming, wasteful, insidious little creatures and sooner or later, we're gonna have nowhere to put all of the crap we produce. Here where I live our landfills are running out of space. We may have to export our garbage. EXPORT OUR GARBAGE!!! That's when you know things are going downhill.

      Environmentalism isn't a fad, or a scam people.....it's an inevitability.
  • ChadMonahan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Damn that George Bush! His powers are greater then we ever imagined, melting Greenland that long ago.
  • HarryBauzonia, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Global warming alarmists and fundamentalist creationists have something in common:
    It's the belief that the earth has always been as it exists now, and that if some condition changes, it's because humans did it.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Thanks for the straw-man argument.

      Nobody I know thinks that. But please, go ahead and invent things that Liberals think -- I can't stop you.

      It's the RATE of change that is the issue. If the globe gets warmer over centuries rather than years -- then life and humans can adapt.

      The Earth's atmosphere USED to be made of Methane and Ammonia -- so if you think THAT would be OK to go back to, I think your understanding of science is a little flawed.
    • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2No. People who believe in global warming believe that earth naturally warms and cools over long periods of time (who doesn't?). We believe that since the speed of warming we're seeing is unprecedented, and science points to man-made greenhouse gases as the culprit, it's only fair to blame humans.

      Tell me, what's your theory on why the earth is heating up so fast compared to regular long-term changes? Let me guess, carbon dioxide and all the other greenhouse gases no longer act as "greenhouse gases" so it's gotta be something else.
  • smurfsahoy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4As for all the "scientific slam dunk" BS, you cannot use that as an umbrella term here. There are a ton of questions, in a progressive gradation, relevant to this issue. Only the first few are well established:
    1) Is the globe warming? Yes.
    2) Is it warming faster than usual? Yes.
    3) Are humans to blame? Well, not entirely, obviously, but it's pretty clear that they are playing a very large part, yes.
    4) HOW are humans doing this? This is where the science starts to break down. The media tends to just parrot "CO2 emissions! CO2 emissions!" That's simply wrong. They may have an effect, but for instance, there was a 40 year period this century where CO2 emissions were increasing exponentially, and temperature globally was actually going steadily down. It is much more complicated than greenhouse gas theories alone. Human involvement is likely to have a lot to do also with ecosystem interference (building roads and killing stuff), urban heat island effects (covering ground with concrete with hot houses on top of it), etc. How any of these relate to one another is poorly known, yet these relationships are important if we are to understand and do anything about global warming.
    5) Is it a bad thing? Yes and no. A lot of the doomsday predictions have just simply not happened. Hurricanes are not more frequent, islands aren't going underwater, etc. Many of the negative predictions are more long term, and can't be really confirmed or denied for certain at all. And keep in mind, global warming has many positive things associated with it. California actually came out 2 billion $ ahead from a recent el nino (sort of a mini global warming preview in many respects), because even though storm damages rose, etc., the growing season for crops was also longer and much more profitable due to warmer weather.
    6) Assuming it is bad, how do we stop it? To assume that we stop it by doing exactly the opposite of what we did to start it (or our part in starting it) is naive. It could be something completely different that is required. Since nobody has successfully done anything that has resulted in a reversed trend as of yet, none of the proposed remedies are really on too firm a scientific grounding. Especially not since we don't even know exactly by what mechanisms man is contributing (see #4)
    7) CAN we stop it at all? Even if we find out how to stop it, if it costs hundreds of trillions of dollars, it may simply not be feasible. People will not vote for it, and they won't stand for deplorable living condition drops in order to stop something that won't happen until 50 years from now. It may simply be infeasible to worry about doing anything. And if you can't stop it ultimately, then what is the point of breaking your back trying?
    8) Is it worth stopping it? Even if we know how, and we know that global warming is bad, and it's possible to act out the cure, that doesn't necessarily mean that global warming is worse than said cure. Highly in-depth cost benefit analysis must be done, using data that we just don't have right now, before doing anything drastic that might alter our economic landscape.
    • Bud128, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Please don't try to cloud the issue with rational arguments.
    • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1CO2 emissions are not perfectly correlated with temperature. We all know that. Just because CO2 levels are X high one year does not mean that the temperature will be Y high the same year. It's complicated, but the fact remains that the more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more heat trapped within it. All the specific calculations may be complicated, but the core issue is deceptively simple: More greenhouse gases = More heat trapped = The earth is warmer than it normally would be without human-caused emissions. The question is, how much greenhouse gases can we put in the atmosphere before really screwing things up? Remember, that stuff stays there for a long time. It's not like if we stop polluting now, the earth will cool off. If we all just died off today and there were 0 human-caused emissions, the earth would continue to warm because of our activity for the last 100 years. It gets worse and worse, it doesn't just depend on what we're emitting now.
      • smurfsahoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0It is not a simple equation like that. It could be: More greenhouse gases = more plant matter = more sunlight energy being channeled toward growth of organisms that then trap CO2 in their structures = stabilized heat (at least for as long as there is more room for plants and plankton to grow). Just an example. And to demonstrate how other human factors complicate this - most CO2 is produced by us in highly industrialized or suburbanized, paved areas with little greenery. That also happens to be where most of our long term data weather stations are, because they used to be in the wild 100 years ago, but have been swallowed up by development. So not only does the plant growth/ heat stabilization reaction to the gases not happen where most of the CO2 is, but we then measure the effects right at that very same worst case scenario spot. Out in less developed areas, however, nature could be lapping up that extra CO2 quite happily, with few adverse effects.

        I'm no climatologist, and that was all just off the top of my head, but it's that SORT of thing that makes it silly to say blanket statements like "gases = heat!" with utter conviction, as if nothing else matters. Those annoying calculations you speak of do not just cancel out, and you have no reason to believe that they will. It is just as likely that they will totally screw up the theory when examined closely. 40 YEARS of the exact opposite relationship between CO2 and global temperature than was predicted is NOT just a statistical blip. It points to deep lack of understanding and predictive power.
        • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1No, sorry. Reputable studies measure CO2 far, far away from urban/industrial centers.
    • DaveV, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately #3 is under debate and all the rest depend on #3. #5 is unknown. #6 is a supposition.
  • Hangender, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2This cannot be...George Bush's influence stretches that far back?

    /Scarasm

    Anyway, there are a lot of evidence that erons ago the Earth was indeed, warm. However, that is not the point of the Global Warming debate. Now, the scientists are concern about the rising ocean and other changing factors that could wipe out whole coastal cities. This would have a devsating impact on the U.S. economy, not even factoring in other countries.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Who didn't already know the earth was warmer?

    If you like a sudden 20 degree change, the oceans rising 200 ft, and perhaps large dinosaurs and animals adapted for this heat -- then by all means, continue on with the new "Global Warming ain't so bad" argument. Amazing that such things come from people who say; "Global Warming is a Commie-hippy myth, but if it is happening, it isn't because of people, and if it is because of people it's going to be good anyway."

    You know, there is only so much FAITH you can string together before becoming a fool.
    • smurfsahoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0"You know, there is only so much FAITH you can string together before becoming a fool."

      Uh, like the faith you have in your belief that the oceans are going to rise 200ft, and there will ever be "sudden" 20 degree changes? Even the most ardent global warming naysayers would project such things as happening 100+ years down the road. If predicting climate, one of the most unpredictable things out there, 100 years in advance does not involve flat out faith, then I don't know what does.
      • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Funny, I don't think the oceans are going to rise 200ft. I'm pretty sure no one else does. I don't pretend that we have all the answers to what is going to happen in the future, either. I do know that the science on human-caused global warming is solid, and people should pay attention to it even if they are Republicans. There, I said it.
  • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3@ZanzipharTwoTut

    So I guess you're claiming conspiracy in the scientific community.

    I bet you've got some questions about the 9/11 attacks. Am I right? Am I right?
  • PrettyLadyGrace, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1the earth's climate is quite dynamic. right now, we are technically in an cool phase because for most of the earth's history it has been considerably warmer than it is right now. Furthermore, many of these past climate changes have happened quite quickly compared to the life span of the earth. What's going on right now is quite normal, and there is no real hard evidence that CO2 emmisions are actually causeing the earth to warm. Even if it is because of CO2 emmisions, the amount of the co2 we relase into the atmosphere is much less than many natural emmisions. For example, livestock such as cows and sheep emmit much more CO2 than we do.
  • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@PrettyLadyGrace

    Yes, there is hard evidence that CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm. It's the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. They warm the earth. Natural, man-made, whatever. CO2 in the atmosphere warms the earth. We learned this in elementary school. No hard evidence indeed.

    I find it disturbing and extremely depressing that such idiocy exists.

    Oh, and the fact that people come on here and say things like "livestock emmit (sic) much more CO2 than we do" is appalling. Do you have a source for that? It's just not true. People care more about talking ***** about man-made global warming than they do about having their facts straight. Grow up and learn how to support an argument.
    • DaveV, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Yes, there is hard evidence that CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm. It's the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. They warm the earth. Natural, man-made, whatever. CO2 in the atmosphere warms the earth. We learned this in elementary school. No hard evidence indeed."
      Self contradictory.

      "I find it disturbing and extremely depressing that such idiocy exists." Ad Hominem

      "Oh, and the fact that people come on here and say things like "livestock emmit (sic) much more CO2 than we do" is appalling. Do you have a source for that? It's just not true. People care more about talking ***** about man-made global warming than they do about having their facts straight. Grow up and learn how to support an argument."
      Poisoning the wells.
    • smurfsahoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0"We learned this in elementary school. No hard evidence indeed." They taught me in elementary school that Columbus was a hero, that there are only about 40 ways to put together US coins to add up to a dollar (yes, I had to prove my teacher wrong on this one), and that if you have sex, you will get sick and die (slight dramatization added by me). So yes, let's follow Mr. Teacher on this one blindly as well.
  • llnk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1�?
  • Trent0090, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Whatever, we all die anyway. If it all comes down, tough. This world wasn't gonna last forever. We will either colonize other worlds or perish here.
    • jdhammer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1THAT'S the spirit.

      You're going to die anyway, but I bet you don't drink poison or swallow razor blades for fun.
  • in2deep, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Cool story!! One word to describe it....cool!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.