What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
123 Comments
- xxTazxx, on 01/10/2009, -3/+51Climate Hackers? Really?
- ryan83189, on 01/10/2009, -4/+41I thought it was bad to dump chemicals in the ocean.
- zacharytelschow, on 01/09/2009, -35/+60So in order to prevent something that we can't even be sure exists (the recent temperature record would indicate otherwise) these guys think its a good idea to put 20 tons of fertilizer into the ocean? Maybe that will increase the amount of carbon dioxide the ocean can hold, but won't it also, you know... grow a ridiculous amount of algae? Won't green oceans that don't support life be exponentially more destructive than a modest raise in global temperatures?
I don't buy global warming, but that isn't the point. I haven't heard a single "solution" to global warming where the plan was less destructive than the potential warming itself. And that's assuming any of these fixes would work in the first place. - AriaStar, on 01/10/2009, -7/+21Okay...humans need to stop trying to "fix" the environment. The more we try, the more this planet gets ***** up. Sometimes the best fix is to do nothing and let the wound heal on its own.
- KMye, on 01/10/2009, -9/+19It would be such a classically human result if we make things much worse trying to make them better. This kind of idea/action is the number one reason why the breathlessly hysterical levels alarmists have reached is so dangerous.
- acormon, on 01/10/2009, -4/+12can we skip the mutant fish part and go right to the point where they're our ocean overloads?
- TheMoniker, on 01/10/2009, -2/+10Though it seems reasonable that geoengineering will eventually provide us with the tools that we need to reverse (at least a large part of) the damage that we've done, at present this is a little like trying to perform open heart surgery with little anatomical/surgical knowledge and sharpened stones. Though we do need to gain the relevant knowledge, this particular experiment has been called under heavy fire from top ecologists and climate scientists. Simply, we have no idea what the effects on the local ecosystems will be.
- serv, on 01/10/2009, -0/+8The UN has no power over anything anymore. The only thing they do anymore is argue, use child prostitutes, get killed, feed africans who are dieing of aids anyways, and flee from battle.
- TopherT, on 01/10/2009, -1/+9Well, it IS an experiment, they want to know what will happen. Oceans are very iron poor all over the world, preventing algae and many other forms of life from thriving. Certainly dumping iron into the ocean will create changes, probably leading to further death in higher animals such as fish. Perhaps changing the pH balance somewhat in the vicinity. Yet we have already depleated 90% of large fish stocks, the oceans are already changing in pH, leading to further deaths in large fish and huge rates of growth for jellyfish populations. If such experiments show that doing this would alleviate the disruptive changes from global weirding (crop loss, ecological stress, rising sea levels) would not some tools to combat the changes be preferable to none? At least these people are making an attempt, surely you must appreciate all that courageous science have given us thus far. Such small scale experiments are certainly not going to lead to worldwide destruction, shouldn't we know the outcome?
- SQLserver, on 01/10/2009, -1/+9Well Duh! The UN is the NWO in disguise and they gang up with every respectable scientific organization in the world because they want to tax good ole American corporations, the European Socialist Bastards!
- jbob2000, on 01/10/2009, -1/+9I, for one, welcome our new aquatic overlords.
- AmnesiacJack, on 01/10/2009, -7/+14Hack the Planet!
- spaceman84, on 01/10/2009, -1/+8I see I'm not the only one who's tired of all of these moronic douchebags on the Internet writing "hacking" everything. It sounds ***** stupid because it is.
- sykotik, on 01/10/2009, -0/+7Agreed. The Earth has been around a long time, I'm sure it can handle whatever the "fleas on it's back" throw at it, even if that means wiping the slate clean, though that can mean any number of things, not tied to the anthropomorphic Earth I presented.
My problem with this "plan" is this; sure they go out and do that, the algae grow, die, take the C02 down, BUT... it has to come back up sometime. It's a "work-around." A temporary fix. A band-aid. Until it's proven to me otherwise, that's all it will remain to me.
Their intentions are noble, but the implementation is too premature. - ozydingo, on 01/10/2009, -2/+9Did a quick skim through the paper. The section "IPCC Greenhouse Effect is Impossible" made me take a closer look, and made me immediately lose interest in reading any of the rest of the paper.
Here's a hint to the author. If you think you've found something so incredibly basic that someone with a high school diploma should be able to catch it, and you think many established scientists either simply missed it or think they can pass it off without others noticing it, then you are probably the one missing something. Like perhaps the 324 watts/m^2 back radiation also being absorbed by the earth's surface, and the fact that the Earth is not a cold body. (As well as the 102 W/M^2 going out from thermals and evapo-transpiration).
"The alleged greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect"?? Uh, there's no "magic." Warming due to the greenhouse effect: radiation comes in, less radiation comes out. Thus, energy is absorbed. In the figure, which depicts equilibrium and not "additional atmospheric solar absorption" (quote from the paper containing the original figure), it's 492 W/m^2 in, and 492 W/m^2 out from the point of view of the surface. - inactive, on 01/10/2009, -1/+8Probably the worst perversion of the phrase "yes we can" I've seen so far.
- graywolfz10, on 01/10/2009, -0/+6You missed the joke...
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -9/+15Unable to control the planet's average temperature, global warmists began polluting the oceans,
- jsffive, on 01/10/2009, -1/+7The people on one side want to dump a mere 20 tons of the stuff in the ocean, over the space of one hundred and fifteen miles, in order to obtain some data points concerning the viability of the theory. The other side basically says they shouldn't do it until we find out more about the efficacy of the theory...
So.. how exactly would anyone find out about the "efficacy", if they don't at some point, TRY IT?
I understand that it COULD have an impact on the environment... but it's only twenty tons... over one hundred and fifteen miles. I don't think THIS particular experiment will have such an adverse reaction, that nature can't ever recover from it. It seems like a good way to test a theory, with little or no irreversible side-effects. One would think that the proponents of man-made global warming would welcome methods for sequestering CO2 out of the atmosphere, but they seem to resist these attempts at every turn. Why is that? - kalvinb, on 01/10/2009, -1/+6Let's see, animals breathe oxygen and release carbon dioxide. Plants breathe carbon dioxide and release oxygen.
It is a mystery what could possibly make use of all this "excess" carbon.
Perhaps they should do something useful like help stop the destruction of the rainforest which has had a significant impact on the plant population.
Of course dumping crap in the ocean is so much easier. - chthonical, on 01/10/2009, -0/+5I seem to remember a Futurama episode about combating global warming with giant ice cubes... and it gave everyone the excuse to not curb their excessive polluting... and then they ran out of ice...
- TJ11240, on 01/10/2009, -1/+6Lets put this into perspective. There is a CONTINENT-sized mass of plastic soup circulating in the pacific ocean and we are losing our ***** about one boat of iron filings. For science's sake alone, it is worthwhile to see if this idea does in fact sequester enough CO2 to make it practical. Also, I believe a small constant supply would be much better than monster tanker loads spiking algae levels. This would create a sustaining environment instead of a bunch of dead algae 2 weeks later eating oxygen and creating dead zones.
- lead2thehead, on 01/10/2009, -1/+6At least you get to see Angelina Jolie's boobs.
- lead2thehead, on 01/10/2009, -4/+8A "hack" in the traditional sense is a quick, half-assed way of doing something, as opposed to doing it the right way which is time consuming.
- Niocan, on 01/10/2009, -0/+4I'm sorry there was a grammar error? You don't have to explode over the issue. The correction would be:
*98% of all carbon emissions come from natural sources, not humans; ...
But then I'd be a little off with the numbers, so here's another revision on that statement:
*97.1% of total carbon emissions come from natural sources, not human sources;
That number is cited from:
"Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2001), Figure 3.1, p. 188"
So thank you for pointing that out. - nick111, on 01/10/2009, -0/+4What do you think the UN actually is?
Because as far as I'm aware, it's a forum for nations to meet and discuss global issues.
Look at it this way.... in the article above, 200 countries wanted a moratorium on dumping iron sulphate into the sea. There would have been a couple of dissenters and a couple of abstainers... but you get the picture of the ratio.
Now, that ratio is repeated again and again and again, and it's almost always America (and their client-state Israel) on the dissenting side.
Want to know why you hate the UN, even though you know ***** all about it? It's because you've absorbed all this anti-UN propaganda over the last 8 years, without engaging your brain, and now it's "common-knowledge" to you. - nick111, on 01/10/2009, -0/+4Seriously though, do you not know, because there isn't anything, or because you don't have the mental faculties or honesty to find out before you open your mouth?
Because I don't know, and even if I did, this has no bearing whatsoever on whether dumping 20 tons of iron-sulphate in the sea is a good idea. Apparently (if you RTFA) 200 countries think it isn't. - graywolfz10, on 01/10/2009, -4/+8Go cut yourself on a rusty fence and just let it "heal" on its own.
- ifpk454, on 01/10/2009, -2/+6classic =)
- graywolfz10, on 01/10/2009, -0/+4NWO doesn't stand a chance against the NWA, even though NWO injected Eazy-E with AIDs.
Yes I got the joke, Yes I am a moron. - diggydougie, on 01/10/2009, -1/+5I don't really see a down side. We have been harvesting the oceans since forever without replenishing the stock. The way I see it this is a lot like the dust bowl where the farmers overharvested without using fertilizers. If we keep taking the fish out without cultivation we will end up with no stock. Might as well put up a "fished out" sign on all the beaches. All that iron does is to feed the plankton which is the bottom of the ocean food chain.
- diggydougie, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3That's called overfertilization. It's a bad thing with farmers as well. So don't do that.
- diggydougie, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3Who?
- jhoogy, on 01/10/2009, -1/+4Yes also ask geologists if the carbon dioxide has increased as rapidly as it has in the last 200 years. Its the rate of the change that is alarming. It is called climate change not global warming by the way as some areas will probably get colder due to the collapse of the some ocean circulation systems which transfer heat to some of the colder regions i.e. Europe
- noahhoward, on 01/10/2009, -1/+4Changing the atmospheres composition will affect human levels.
- inactive, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3http://student-kmt.hku.nl/~ruud7/sockpuppets.jpg
- Vash_aka_TK, on 01/10/2009, -2/+5Just don't piss off Captain Planet.
- Psyber1an, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3Two words give me pause, and they came to me while reading your comment.
Unintended Consequences
If you want to unwind a ball of string, you can't add more string...you need to stop doing what caused the problem for as long as you were doing it previously (100+ years)...UNWIND what we have WOUND... - andyd273, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3I just hope this doesn't turn into another Yellowstone National Park situation, where by trying to preserve it (keep it from changing naturally) they almost destroyed it.
Elk populations start to decrease a little -> Kill the wolves, ban hunting by the Native Americans -> Elk population explodes -> Elk eat all the food, die off in record numbers from starvation and disease... and on and on. - ChildeRoland420, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3If the plankton grow too abundant, they can crowd out other creatures.
- SouthsideIrish, on 01/10/2009, -1/+4Well, at least global will not be happening for the next decade or so, since we have been in a decade long period of global cooling. But of course the global warming will come back, after it stops cooling.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5 ... - tgc1, on 01/10/2009, -3/+620 tons? Is that a typo? Because honestly, that is an infinitesimally small amount of fertilizer when you are talking about the entire earth and it's 75%+ coverage of ocean. Now if you're talking several hundred million tons of fertilizer, then maybe we have a problem.
ie. All i'm saying is that 20 tons is like a few truck loads, whereas oil tankers have spilled several hundred thousand gallons of fuel into the oceans at certain times. That is not even a remotely significant value. - nick111, on 01/10/2009, -1/+4It's actually Iron Sulphate.... which If I cast my mind back 30 years, is made up of Iron, Sulphur and Oxygen, all of which are chemicals.
Oh and Iron Sulphate is a chemical as well. - graywolfz10, on 01/10/2009, -0/+3they can write letters dammit!
- compulsive1, on 01/10/2009, -4/+6Of course UN is against technological ways of solving "the problem".
"The problem" has been made prominent only as a way to collect taxes on what every one does every day- use energy.
With oil bound to run out sooner or later, there needs to be a replacement source of taxes established.
If it were proven that CO2 can be regulated through technology, there would be no urgency left for the general public to voluntarily submit to unnecessary taxation.
Watch out. Only carbon taxes and credits will be officially accepted as a way to prevent impending doom. All well-meaning scientists will be bitterly disappointed because their work (as valid and scientifically sound as it might be) will be rejected on ridiculous and superficial grounds. - zacharytelschow, on 01/10/2009, -0/+2I couldn't agree more. As I say in the first comment on this thread, I haven't heard a single global warming "solution" where the plan itself is less destructive than the potential warming.
- noen, on 01/10/2009, -2/+4ilovemycarbondioxide dot com is an Exxon propaganda astroturf site.
- pradaaddict, on 01/10/2009, -2/+4Evidence for Large Decadal Variability in the Tropical Mean Radiative Energy Budget
Bruce A. Wielicki, et al.
Science 295, 841 (2002)
He is far from an ignorant ass. There are many scientists that are drawing data that paints a very clear picture without coming to final conclusions that demonstrates that Global Warming may not even be happening and that this is nothing more than normal fluctuations in the atmosphere.
I hate to tell you this, but we are all ignorant when it comes to Earth. There is so much about this planet that we still do not understand and what it is capable of.
Global Warming proponents draw final conclusions, that is what we call bad Science. The data alone should draw conclusions and the data tells a much different story from what Al Gore claims.
If anything zacharytelschow is very correct in his opinion that the worst thing we could possibly do is try to fix a problem we aren't sure even exists. Extreme cures could potentially be the worst solution to climate change. - zacharytelschow, on 01/10/2009, -0/+2Makes me think of the Simpsons episode where they kill one invasive species with another until they have lions roaming around.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 