Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Changing climate will lead to more extreme weather
noaanews.noaa.gov — New report highlights the likely changes in extreme weather and climate conditions under ongoing climate change.
cosmikdebris- 599 diggs
- digg it
- bamafun, on 06/21/2008, -13/+17It's been the most active tornado/severe storm season I can ever remember.
- TGMD, on 06/21/2008, -2/+11then you got a terrible memory.
- badqat, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5Or is really young...
- Laughsatyou, on 06/22/2008, -0/+5el nino?
- jgtg32a, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3@Laughsatyou
Hey hey stop it, don't bring up a well know and heavily document cause of extreme weather, IT'S GLOBAL WARMING AND WE ARE GOING TO DIE BECAUSE OF IT.
- badqat, on 06/21/2008, -1/+5Or is really young...
- 0xbaadf00d, on 06/22/2008, -2/+7Are you 6 billion years old?
- TGMD, on 06/21/2008, -2/+11then you got a terrible memory.
- socivitus, on 06/21/2008, -6/+7More hurricanes and excessive heat...what about the winters? We just had a 5 month winter in Illinois and it could worse! I'll take my chances with the southern heat of Tennessee.
- ReidFleming, on 06/21/2008, -3/+2I think I'm going to move to Boise. At least, when you're cold, you can put on warmer clothes. When you're hot, you can only get so naked. So, as far as I can tell, Idaho has a pretty low likelihood of natural disasters -- except for Yellowstone blowing it's top but that's going to hurt a pretty wide swath.
- IEatHamburgers, on 06/21/2008, -2/+3"At least, when you're cold, you can put on warmer clothes."
You won't be saying that when your car is stuck in a 3-foot snowdrift...- trueshadow21, on 06/21/2008, -2/+2Hah, I live in Alaska.
- IEatHamburgers, on 06/21/2008, -2/+3"At least, when you're cold, you can put on warmer clothes."
- ReidFleming, on 06/21/2008, -3/+2I think I'm going to move to Boise. At least, when you're cold, you can put on warmer clothes. When you're hot, you can only get so naked. So, as far as I can tell, Idaho has a pretty low likelihood of natural disasters -- except for Yellowstone blowing it's top but that's going to hurt a pretty wide swath.
- DeskFlyer, on 06/21/2008, -2/+5Good news for storm spotters and chasers. Bad news for everyone else.
- MikeSetera, on 06/21/2008, -28/+52"Global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases"
Right. 500 year sun cycles are nothing compared to DRIVING!- ReidFleming, on 06/21/2008, -19/+5So, even if the sun is the primary cause (or even the only cause), if we change our behavior, we might mitigate the potentially-horrific consequences. Why do you hate your home so much?
- Monkeman, on 06/21/2008, -3/+16Dugg down for the "why do you hate..." *****. Just like when O'Reilly or whoever says, "Oh, they want to limit wiretapping? Why do they hate our soldiers so much?" Attack the argument, not the person. Damn.
- chopsky, on 06/21/2008, -10/+3Spot on.
- expatcatalyst, on 06/21/2008, -10/+18So of course the sheep will digg you down for the truth!
- greenfyre, on 06/21/2008, -7/+14Right, thousands of studies by scientists http://realclimate.org/ is nothing next to some "aw shucks" comments on the net.
- Lenoxus, on 06/21/2008, -9/+13"500 year sun cycles are nothing compared to DRIVING!"
Someone needs to tell a major scientific organization about how this basic piece of common sense invalidates everything they've found so far. Seriously, the sun is really big and cars are really small! What's the deal?- Corrosionx, on 06/21/2008, -4/+7The sun is like 99,99% of the mass of our solar system, how much is a car?
I rest my case.- greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1And if we only had one car you might even be making some sense - looked out the window lately?
- Spudster, on 06/21/2008, -1/+8Way to completely lack any understanding about global warming.
Or that was sarcasm.
I really can't tell to be honest.- gryphon50, on 06/21/2008, -1/+3I can't tell either, I don't think anyone could be this ignorant.
- Corrosionx, on 06/21/2008, -4/+7The sun is like 99,99% of the mass of our solar system, how much is a car?
- rationalist, on 06/22/2008, -2/+4And NASA scientists are nothing compared to some sniveling ***** on the Internet hiding behind a pseudonymous screen name.
Even your "we manufacture our own reality" Bush administration now admits anthropogenic climate change is real and a clear and present danger; this digg links to a Bush government site reporting on studies by Bush government scientists - yet we are supposed to ignore all the actual evidence examined by all the actual scientific experts around the world, because you say so? - bloomanchoo, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.
- ReidFleming, on 06/21/2008, -19/+5So, even if the sun is the primary cause (or even the only cause), if we change our behavior, we might mitigate the potentially-horrific consequences. Why do you hate your home so much?
- HeartlandUSA, on 06/21/2008, -20/+20ABC News: Sun 'not to blame' for global warming http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s17405 ...
BBC News: 'No Sun link' to climate change http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm
- SpykerSpeed, on 06/21/2008, -10/+16This is interesting because Mars's temperature has risen as well as Earth's over that period of time. So if the sun isn't causing the planets' temps to go up, what is?
- Tr33fiddy, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2The Jesus.
- plutarch, on 06/22/2008, -2/+11"Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data."
Source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 (click for more info)
Help yourself to some real data analysis by actual scientists.
- MadFunk, on 06/21/2008, -2/+2Corporate and government media sources. Worth considering.
With all this clear "Climate Change/Global Warming is not a case closed" bias on Digg, I am curious: where else is this culture present? I hear only one side of the 'debate' on a regular basis, from the MSM and people I meet. Where are the dissenting voices outside of this website and its comments and the fringe sites of the net?- tony23, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1"I hear only one side of the 'debate' on a regular basis, from the MSM"
- That's the problem, you're listening to the MSM.
- tony23, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1"I hear only one side of the 'debate' on a regular basis, from the MSM"
- Laughsatyou, on 06/21/2008, -4/+5this just in! ABC news knows everything!
- SpykerSpeed, on 06/21/2008, -10/+16This is interesting because Mars's temperature has risen as well as Earth's over that period of time. So if the sun isn't causing the planets' temps to go up, what is?
- FizzanoMatrix, on 06/21/2008, -9/+30Report: stupid articles lead to dumber people.
- kmg90, on 06/21/2008, -1/+4I thought this was news 3 years ago
- BCCStu, on 06/21/2008, -3/+5Omgz.
- ruddy, on 06/21/2008, -14/+20the sky is falling! i feel like i have an moral obligation to buy a hybrid car and carbon credits.
- Lenoxus, on 06/21/2008, -8/+3Important lesson from the story of Chicken Little: disasters never, ever happen, so don't be a wuss and claim that they will.
- kingofinternet, on 06/21/2008, -5/+4i see your chicken little analogy
with an ostrich burying its head in the sand analogy.
- bmcnally, on 06/21/2008, -7/+20In other news, predicting that next year's hurricane/tornado/winter season will be "more severe than usual" is right about as often as flipping a coin.
- Troy64, on 06/21/2008, -3/+12I believe flipping a coin has been more accruate.
- MattFid, on 06/21/2008, -4/+19Report: Turning on lamp will light up room.
Report: Pissing into wind will get you wet.
Report: Falling linked to failure to stand upright.
How many of these stories do we need to read before people start seeing this as completely obvious?!- Tenlow, on 06/21/2008, -5/+3470,916 original stories. Not duplicates. Only then will mankind see. Or find out they were wrong. The problem with this stuff is while it is overwhelmingly likely that it's all our fault, it's entirely possible that it isn't. Not two weeks ago they were worried that the lack of sun spots was going to bring a catastrophic ice age. The week before that it was man made global warming. The week before that it was natural warming cycles. Next week it will be cow farts. The week after that it will be unchewed sewing machines. Someone needs to get on the damn ball and prove a theory already.
Although that probably won't change anything as troofers have proven that facts won't slow down retards.- greenfyre, on 06/21/2008, -2/+3The problem here is your use of "they" The "they" worried about sunspots is/was a tiny handful, the "they" worried about climate change is pretty much the entire scientific community.
I realize the media always say "Scientists ..." whether it is one person in one lab, or 20,000 world wide, but we need to be aware of this and everytime they say "scientists" pay attention to whether they mean 1, 10, or 10,000- Tenlow, on 06/21/2008, -3/+1Well your point is slightly flawed, as "scientists" is plural, so you should at least say "whether they mean 2, 10, or 10,000".
That being said, I think I am going to start calling myself a scientist.
My point was that there needs to be more of a consensus than there already is. Or the media at large needs to start reporting on the consensus that already does exist because every time there is a mention of it in the news they make it sound like the global warming deniers are the majority, or that man made global warming is just a theory with no hard facts to back it up.
- Tenlow, on 06/21/2008, -3/+1Well your point is slightly flawed, as "scientists" is plural, so you should at least say "whether they mean 2, 10, or 10,000".
- greenfyre, on 06/21/2008, -2/+3The problem here is your use of "they" The "they" worried about sunspots is/was a tiny handful, the "they" worried about climate change is pretty much the entire scientific community.
- SpykerSpeed, on 06/21/2008, -2/+8If you repeat a lie enough, it will be accepted as truth. Just keep waiting.
- greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3Well 29% of US citizens actually believe that climate change is still scientifically controversial, so obviously you can fool some of the people all of the time.
- Tenlow, on 06/21/2008, -5/+3470,916 original stories. Not duplicates. Only then will mankind see. Or find out they were wrong. The problem with this stuff is while it is overwhelmingly likely that it's all our fault, it's entirely possible that it isn't. Not two weeks ago they were worried that the lack of sun spots was going to bring a catastrophic ice age. The week before that it was man made global warming. The week before that it was natural warming cycles. Next week it will be cow farts. The week after that it will be unchewed sewing machines. Someone needs to get on the damn ball and prove a theory already.
- pintomp3, on 06/21/2008, -17/+16oh oh, the local climatologists on digg will be here to claim global warming is a conspiracy.
- superkendall, on 06/21/2008, -11/+5And you're sure it's not because you are a climatologist?
The truth is in the middle, not on the edges.- pintomp3, on 06/21/2008, -1/+13that's like saying the truth about whether or not cigarettes cause cancer is in the middle.
- greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2So true, Nazi Germany was not nearly as bad as people were saying, or Rwanda, or Cambodia or Darfur, or Stalin, or ...
No, wait, they were all worse.
- greenfyre, on 06/21/2008, -9/+10That would be the Deniers, the climatologists know it's real
- superkendall, on 06/21/2008, -11/+5And you're sure it's not because you are a climatologist?
- StarWarsFever, on 06/21/2008, -6/+9***** DUH
- DestroyFascism, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Exactly what I was thinking...
- utahnkid, on 06/21/2008, -9/+23To even pretend that we have the capacity of determining something as insanely complex as what makes up the global weather is laughable at best. They can't even accurately guess something as basic as the temperature a week in advance.
- kingofinternet, on 06/21/2008, -4/+4you're comparing apples and oranges. while it may be difficult to predict with certainty which horse will win a race, you can expect a certain outcome, for example if the track were muddy.
- hfactor, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1*sigh*
weather != climate... The temperature a week in advance is NOT "basic"- utahnkid, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1"sigh"?
And thanks for further proving my point. We know DICK even when it comes to determining a SINGLE factor. Something that SHOULD be basic if we expect to make any kind of educated guess about ANYTHING related to the climate.
Chicks sigh before they make a point. You sound like my mom.
- utahnkid, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1"sigh"?
- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Meteorology and climatology are different fields - look it up
- Jareth86, on 06/21/2008, -9/+3No! No! No!
This is all a coincidence! Climate change is a hoax! This happens in cycles! The free market will solve everything, just give it time!
McCain in 08!- SpykerSpeed, on 06/21/2008, -2/+2McCain is for the free market? That's news to me.
- Spudster, on 06/21/2008, -1/+1I believe carbon taxes will solve global warming, not the free market.
- Laughsatyou, on 06/21/2008, -2/+1I believe you are retarded if you think carbon taxes will solve global warming.
- Spudster, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I believe you lack any knowledge about carbon taxes.
They put market value on what is essentially an externality. By putting a price on an externality, people through the economics of demand will lower their emmissions. This is basic Adam Smith market reasoning in case you're wondering.
- Spudster, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1I believe you lack any knowledge about carbon taxes.
- Laughsatyou, on 06/21/2008, -2/+1I believe you are retarded if you think carbon taxes will solve global warming.
- Jareth86, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2I believe your sarcasm detectors are all broken...
- dha07030, on 06/21/2008, -2/+5So in other words different weather means weather will be different, ***** brilliant!
- Infowarmachine, on 06/21/2008, -3/+1id sooner blame haarp
earlier this week we had a hail storm in houston.. in JUNE.. a week from the summer solstace?- crazyjake, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2GOD YOU ARE STUPID!!!
Hail potential is increased in the summer time due to the increased instability, height of the freezing level and wetbulb zero, and increased surface heating. you only get hail from thunderstorms. so basically what you said is comparable to: "6 months ago we had snow. In December... a week from winter solstice"
please don't try to make insightful comments about weather unless you know what you are talking about.
/meteorology 101
- crazyjake, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2GOD YOU ARE STUPID!!!
- WWJeffersonDo, on 06/21/2008, -10/+10Check out the documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Very interesting and eye-opening.
- kingofinternet, on 06/21/2008, -3/+6... if you are a moron.
i bet you thought 'loose change' was eye opening and interesting.- WWJeffersonDo, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Exploring all information you possibly can on any given topic is not moronic. Not validating information by just accepting one's word is not only ignorant, but aslo asking for increased propaganda.
I bet you watch FOX News like a good American.
- WWJeffersonDo, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Exploring all information you possibly can on any given topic is not moronic. Not validating information by just accepting one's word is not only ignorant, but aslo asking for increased propaganda.
- gryphon50, on 06/21/2008, -2/+7put out by a conglomeration of oil companies, right? I'm sure it's not biased or anything.
- greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2What was surprising is that the Deniers had the guts to label that turgid propaganda piece for what it was, a swindle. From Ball lying about his credentials to repeating every disproven Denier myth the thing is one long embarassment.that was totally traashed the day it was released.
- kingofinternet, on 06/21/2008, -3/+6... if you are a moron.
- Pedestrian101, on 06/21/2008, -2/+5Of course changing climate leads to different (more extreme if you wish) weather, it's been happening for over a Billion years.
- rationalist, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2And you know this how, exactly?
Can't be from the folks who actually examine the actual evidence for actual average temperatures over hundreds of millions of years - because they have formed a consensus that contradicts yours.
So, how do you even know what has been happening for "a Billion years"?
Citation needed.- Pedestrian101, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1It's common knowledge that weather patterns change over time, the world has been around for over 4 Billion years. It was once even covered completely by ice. I don't know why you're trying to find fault in with what I said, because I don't know any scientist that would think the weather has stayed the same for however as long as the earth has been around. And of course it can be a problem.
- rationalist, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2And you know this how, exactly?
- Dralha, on 06/21/2008, -9/+3Check out "The American Denial of Global Warming." Very interesting and eye-opening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio - nastronomical, on 06/21/2008, -4/+4Pay attention now "highlights the likely changes". OK likely isn't proof..it's a guess, a theory...like global warming!
- jabberwolf, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2yes but sea temperatures are.
And water holds a hell of alot more energy than any air temperature change.
But the earth has a way of self regulating, by dissipating energy with storms, cloud cover, etc...
And the self regulating method, basically will be kicking our asses on the ground for the next century.- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Nah, it will take slightly longer to cause our extinction. Not much, but a bit
- rationalist, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2A theory in science does not mean what "theory" means in common speech. See "theory of gravity", then defenestrate yourself in defiance of the mere "theory".
- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1If you stick a loaded, functioning shotgun in your mouth and pull the trigger "it is highly likely" that you will blow your head off.
Granted I have no proof, but if you would like to test your 'guess' theory go right ahead.
- jabberwolf, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2yes but sea temperatures are.
- JPMaximilian, on 06/21/2008, -1/+7I thought the lack of sunspots was the problem? So which is it global warming or global cooling?
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-s ...- greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2Climate change, as always. The myth of sunspots and cooling etc is just the Deniers trying to confuse the issue. All their stuff is debunked all over the net at sites like this http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Just bookmark it and you can work with real knowledge instead of propaganda - brad3378, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2They don't call it either - now it's called "Climate Change" so they can cover both sides of the fence so that when it snows in Iraq (like it did in January) or when it floods in Iowa they have something to blame it on.
I'm curious if anybody has read an explaination for the global cooling that occured between 1940-1970.
You'd think that with World War II happening along with massive industrial growth during that period that the opposite problem would be true.
Maybe we just need to start driving cars built between 1940-1970 again to make this "problem" correct itself?
- greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2Climate change, as always. The myth of sunspots and cooling etc is just the Deniers trying to confuse the issue. All their stuff is debunked all over the net at sites like this http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
- MrGiblets, on 06/21/2008, -5/+7It's always sad to see the number of people who think climate change is a myth or conspiracy when an article like this shows up. :(
It won't hurt to make small changes here and there, I promise!- jhelmer, on 06/21/2008, -3/+5If "small changes here and there" was the prescription, I wouldn't be as worried. The problem is that you have ***** like Al Gore wanting to radically alter our economy and way of life. I have read estimates that the latest cap-n-trade idiocy that was defeated in congress recently would have cost the average family over $2k a year. I don't know about you, but for me $2k/yr is more than "small changes here and there". And that scheme didn't go anywhere near as far as the far left wanted to go. That was what they felt they might be able to pass.
Worse still, even if we agree that global warming is real (it probably is) and that it is mostly caused by man (I suspect we are a factor, but I suspect it's been way overstated) the "solutions" the ***** in the environmental movement want won't make a difference! Lomborg looked at the numbers and came to the conclusion that if we fully implemented Kyoto it would slow down global warming - slightly. Very slightly. He estimates that the temperatures we are expected to hit by 2100 will be postponed all the way out to 2106! So, in other words, the enviro-nuts want us to implement all these massively expensive changes for practically no value. I have no problem with looking for alternatives to fossil fuels, but the preachers in the church of global warming are asshats that are just using the scare of climate change to implement what they really want - lots and lots of big government meddling.
There have been a couple of experiments where they sat experts down, gave them the information and asked them to prioritize where our money should be spent. Global warming inevitably comes in at the very bottom. It costs a *lot* of money to do very little.- rationalist, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1What are you criteria for choosing to believe Lomborg over the global consensus of expert climate change researchers?
What are your criteria for judging the veracity of his projections?
What is your basis for determining that global warming is or is not real, and that it is or is not caused by man?
What reason do you believe "enviro-nuts" have for arbitrarily favoring "lots and lots of big government meddling without, as you assert, any basis?
Can you provide citations for the "couple of experiments" you claim were conducted with experts who, you claim, prioritized global warming "at the very bottom"?
I'm calling your bluff and suggesting you are parroting lies, half-truths and making deliberately misleading statements to support your ideology - statements which you cannot back up with facts. Ironically, you are doing precisely what you accuse others of doing. The difference is that those others are the world's leading experts on the subject, and their conclusions are based on publicly available evidence, while you are merely spouting propaganda.
So, put up or shut up.
- rationalist, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1What are you criteria for choosing to believe Lomborg over the global consensus of expert climate change researchers?
- Laughsatyou, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2it would have zero impact.
- jhelmer, on 06/21/2008, -3/+5If "small changes here and there" was the prescription, I wouldn't be as worried. The problem is that you have ***** like Al Gore wanting to radically alter our economy and way of life. I have read estimates that the latest cap-n-trade idiocy that was defeated in congress recently would have cost the average family over $2k a year. I don't know about you, but for me $2k/yr is more than "small changes here and there". And that scheme didn't go anywhere near as far as the far left wanted to go. That was what they felt they might be able to pass.
- Corrosionx, on 06/21/2008, -3/+2BOOOORING!
- dd240sx, on 06/21/2008, -1/+2no ***** California is burning here and Midwest is flood with water
- jgtg32a, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4California is always on fire
- transform100, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Pot heads...
- jgtg32a, on 06/22/2008, -1/+4California is always on fire
- Daishi03, on 06/21/2008, -2/+8Isn't the climate supposed to change? The climate isn't the same as it is now even 2,000 years ago, it's supposed to change all the time. Us making it stop would only disrupt the process even more. Why not just do what we do and adapt to the changes? That's what are species evolved to do, adapt. We're so adamant on not changing anything yet that is when our species flourishes.
- rationalist, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2The changes in average temperature human activity is causing are more dramatic and rapid than past changes that were the result of natural causes.
Biological adaptation through evolution to dramatically changing climate is a very slow process, not something that can happen within a few decades.
Life on Earth thrives only within a relatively narrow band of temperature highs and lows. Even a small change in average temperatures will result in dramatic changes in our ecosystem.
If and when a tipping point is reached, a positive feedback loop may result in average temperatures rising above that narrow band optimal for life on Earth.
Humans today are highly dependent on our current ecosystem.
The reality is that we are causing a change that we can stop causing, or at least slow the damage we are creating. Not to do so is akin to refusing to apply the brakes on a runaway train.- Daishi03, on 06/22/2008, -1/+0We are a natural product of this planet what we do to it is NATURAL. Whatever our involvement with the climate is NATURAL. Why is it that we sit here and put ourselves on a separate box from the rest of the creatures on this planet? Would we call bee hives natural? Of course we would, so that means our houses are natural, our cars are natural. It doesn't matter if in "nature" changes in climate happens slower, that is irrelevant because the planet will survive no matter what. Life will always find a way to adapt and survive. If the polar bear can't make it, than they can't make it. The adaptable survive while the unadaptable die off which will create new ecosystems, new creatures, new possibilities.
We cannot stop this from happening, not even slow the damage short of extermination or colonizing other planets. Let's just ride the ride, don't get bent out of shape about it, understand that it will be impossible to have every human being give a *****.
"If and when a tipping point is reached, a positive feedback loop may result in average temperatures rising above that narrow band optimal for life on Earth."
That will NEVER happen. Nothing we can do will destroy all life. The band is much broader than a lot of people like to think. Earth has major extreme temperatures on both sides of the spectrum and life still flourishes. Deserts or arctic, life still finds a way.
- Daishi03, on 06/22/2008, -1/+0We are a natural product of this planet what we do to it is NATURAL. Whatever our involvement with the climate is NATURAL. Why is it that we sit here and put ourselves on a separate box from the rest of the creatures on this planet? Would we call bee hives natural? Of course we would, so that means our houses are natural, our cars are natural. It doesn't matter if in "nature" changes in climate happens slower, that is irrelevant because the planet will survive no matter what. Life will always find a way to adapt and survive. If the polar bear can't make it, than they can't make it. The adaptable survive while the unadaptable die off which will create new ecosystems, new creatures, new possibilities.
- rationalist, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2The changes in average temperature human activity is causing are more dramatic and rapid than past changes that were the result of natural causes.
- lazerus9, on 06/21/2008, -2/+2Go to the beach while there is still time:http://youtube.com/watch?v=6X0FjlybCqs
- gryphon50, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2sit tight and the beach will eventually come to you!
- D3koy, on 06/21/2008, -1/+4Wow, didn't we already know this?
- Laughsatyou, on 06/21/2008, -3/+4better cork those volcanoes and cool the sun, you silly people think that humans are the main cause.
- jaxcs, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4That's right, climate is too big to be mucked with just like our waterways which lead to the ocean, we can dump effluent, pcb or whatever into it and it will be fine.. oh, wait. It's like the ocean, we can dump anything into it and it will just be absorbed... oh wait. It's like our fisheries, there's a bountiful amount of fish in the water and we can pull as much fish out of the water as we want... oh wait. It's like oil, oh wait. It's like clean drinking water aquifers, oh never mind. But climate is different I tell you!
- greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2Yeah, actual knowledge from reading real science will do that too you
- Eric3k, on 06/22/2008, -0/+2More downpours, more rainbows!
- notSLICK, on 06/22/2008, -4/+3all the people who still think we are in a natural climate swing are lying to themselves.
we knew this would happen 30 years ago, but it happened faster than they predicted. - plutarch, on 06/22/2008, -6/+7And once again the anthropogenic global warming denialists (for whom digg is becoming a friendly home) come out of the woodworks. It really gets tiresome refuting the same ***** talking points over and over. Attention Digg AGW denialists: help yourselves to a lesson in real science. Here are some places to start:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004 ...
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/04/a_histor ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/168 ... (Oreskes, N. Beyond the Ivory Tower, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (including corrections), 21 January 2005)
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/Chapt ... (Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong?", in Joseph F. DiMento, Pamela Doughman: Climate Change. MIT Press. ISBN 026204241X.)- C02Charlie, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2Science doesn't work on "consensus." It works on data. Politicians, on the other hand, deal almost exclusively in consensus.
Scientific consensus once held that the earth was flat. Consensus does not define truth.- greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2So talk about the science, provide some actual evidence
- brad3378, on 06/22/2008, -1/+3You seem to know what you are talking about, so I'll ask you first.
What is the official explanation for the global cooling phenomenon that occurred between 1940-1970?
Was there too much smog blocking out the sun?
More importantly, what should we do about China & India refusing to clean up their act?
Is this issue worth starting a war over?- greenfyre, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1It was an artifact of the difference between how the British and US took measurements "The explanation was in different ways used by US and British ships to measure temperatures," http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/29/2258 ...
- greenfyre, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1re: China and India - they are asking why we don't. Given that our per capita CO2 production is still 4 times greater than China's, and 10 times greater than Indias, they suggest (not unreasonably) that we should bring ours way down to match theirs.
A not unreasonable position given i) we caused 80% of the problem, and ii) in many ways they are already ahead of us (for eg CHinese fuel efficiency standards are much tougher than here, and have been for years)
- greenfyre, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1"And once again the anthropogenic global warming denialists (for whom digg is becoming a friendly home) come out of the woodworks."
Take heart those of open minds and firing neurons, all of the posts the Deniers are trying to digg down are on the frontpage and rising.
While the Deniers are clearly the ones that can be fooled all of the time, the rest of the axiom seems to hold.
- C02Charlie, on 06/22/2008, -2/+2Science doesn't work on "consensus." It works on data. Politicians, on the other hand, deal almost exclusively in consensus.
- MyFirstDigg, on 06/22/2008, -3/+0Climate not changing, will continue to have extreme weather.
- nastronomical, on 06/22/2008, -4/+2Pay attention now "highlights the likely changes". OK likely isn't proof..it's a guess, a theory...like global warming!
- rationalist, on 06/22/2008, -0/+4"a theory"...like gravity.
- randumbusername, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1i have a weather calender sitting right next to the crapper titled "2008 Weather Guide Calendar With Phenomenal Weather Events". out of the ordinary weather events were happening long before "Global Warming" became popular.
- waluum, on 06/22/2008, -3/+1Climate change ≠ human-caused global warming
- alagusis, on 06/22/2008, -2/+0'extreme' weather is so early 90's
- idontlikeyou2, on 06/22/2008, -3/+3The climate denier crowd sure is strong and stupid today
- MyFirstDigg, on 06/22/2008, -3/+0I like to consider myself someone who believes that the climate is changing, but it isn't the radical end-all doomsday device a large majority of you annoying uber-nerds/enviro-nazis make it out to be.
P.S. Just because we don't hang on every word from scientists who are still arguing amongst themselves doesn't make us stupid, but it sure as hell does make you a lemming.
Cheers- rationalist, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3What is your criteria for determining what the fact actually are with regard to climate change?
If there is a possibility human activity is exacerbating it - to the point it might have damaging effects on humanity - is it not important enough to find out for sure?
If so, by what means do you suggest we find out?
Serious question. - greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1Except the scientists are not arguing among themselves, not the real climate scientists who are actually doing research and know what they are talking about.
The handful of industry funded professional Deniers who spend their time lying and distorting are not doing science http://digg.com/environment/92_of_neutral_Eco_skep ...
- rationalist, on 06/22/2008, -0/+3What is your criteria for determining what the fact actually are with regard to climate change?
- MyFirstDigg, on 06/22/2008, -3/+0I like to consider myself someone who believes that the climate is changing, but it isn't the radical end-all doomsday device a large majority of you annoying uber-nerds/enviro-nazis make it out to be.
- 1dog, on 06/22/2008, -1/+1It could affect the food supply. Then countries that don't have a lot of food to start with, will have to eat *****.
- JohnLawson, on 06/22/2008, -4/+0Little known fact, Global warming is caused by all the "*****" gases that flow from Al Gores mouth. =)
Mixing science with politics = lose
Let the politicians stick with slow bureaucracy and the scientist stick with science.
(for the record= I believe in global warming being caused by humans... just not the way the al gore beleaves it to be.)- rationalist, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1How do you know? What is your basis for determining whether what "al gore beleaves [sic]" is correct or not?
- C02Charlie, on 06/22/2008, -2/+0Humans cause global warming the way fish cause floods and termites cause volcanoes. Apparently most of us AGW "deniers" just don't understand how truly powerful we really are!
If you people yelling about AGW are so damned concerned, do yourselves and the rest of us a favor: STFU and die already! The sooner you're gone, the sooner the planet can go back to being "normal" (whateverthehellthatis!)
As for me, I'm gonna burn a few extra hydrocarbons this weekend and if you don't like it, PISS OFF!- greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2I just love the way you raise serious points, provide evidence, refer to actual science by real scientists - yup, you are easily one of the intellectual giants in the Denier crowd. OK, about average actually
So how about some evidence instead empty ranting- C02Charlie, on 06/22/2008, -2/+0I gave you a solution to the crisis you allege to be AGW: so DO IT!
(And oh yeah...
PISS OFF, TOO!)- greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1While there is no question that your intellectual robustness is staggering, truly epic, I am afraid I still don't quite see how it relates to the actual evidence, the science itself http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
which even a brain dead mouse knows is the only thing that matters
- greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1While there is no question that your intellectual robustness is staggering, truly epic, I am afraid I still don't quite see how it relates to the actual evidence, the science itself http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
- C02Charlie, on 06/22/2008, -2/+0I gave you a solution to the crisis you allege to be AGW: so DO IT!
- greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -1/+2I just love the way you raise serious points, provide evidence, refer to actual science by real scientists - yup, you are easily one of the intellectual giants in the Denier crowd. OK, about average actually
- ultraJesus, on 06/22/2008, -1/+6I've always found it somewhat perplexing how Digg is completely pro for a lot of different scientific theories, like evolution and such, but when anything that could have a link to man made climate change appears everyone turns into, at best, an apathetic ***** who claims that there is nothing that can be done to help humanity, or at worst one of those dicks who disbelieves everything that supports climate change on the grounds that it is some grand conspiracy because one scientist comes up with some contradictory evidence, who they then praise as the only "true" scientist just because it fits in with their selfish pre existing conclusions. Sounds a lot like intelligent design.
- nachomonkey, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1"Changing climate will lead to more extreme weather"
Reckon? Let's move on and attempt to do something about it. - greenfyre, on 06/22/2008, -2/+1Huh? I realize it is plural, my point is that the media uses it indiscriminantly, EVEN when it is only one person, but the public tends to assume scientific consensus with every media report. I thought I was fairly clear about that.
- Kanten, on 06/22/2008, -1/+0I already saw this movie, and it sucked.
- XternalHD, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Everyday you learn something that you already learned.
- Gneisbaard, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Wind energy FTW!
- usaisscrewed, on 06/22/2008, -1/+0Congress responds by passing the Fair Weather Tax. The American public go along with it but complain when their taxes increase 200%. X'-D
You reap what you sow! - astro4554, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1What is the relation between CO2 and temperature?
http://fichierforum.iservio.ca/GlobalTroposphereTe ...
After listening to most presentation of the march 2008 climate conference in NewYork, I am not convince there is a human caused relation to "global warming" or climate change or "extreme weather"...
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/audio.cfm- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1The basic science of CO2 and temperature was worked out 150 yrs ago, but to get a handle on the relationship to climate:
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc
r4-syr.htm
Yeah, I'm not surprised you don't name the Heartland Conference, I'd be embarassed too http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008 ...
- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1The basic science of CO2 and temperature was worked out 150 yrs ago, but to get a handle on the relationship to climate:
- ulmanor, on 06/22/2008, -0/+1Dugg especially for the patronizing "What Is an Extreme?" infographic.
- MrNatural, on 06/24/2008, -1/+0Two things I mistrust about the whole global warming scare job:
Algore has made over $100 million selling climate change apocalypse.
Congress is thinking up ways to tax us for it.
How do we know what the best climate is for our planet to thrive? Certainly not Algore or Congress!- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Gore made the money with Google and apple investments bundle http://valleywag.com/tech/bogus/al-gores-inner-ent ... - show where he has made even $1 profit from green investments
For the planet? unknown? for humans? moot since even if it were different from the current state any sudden shifts would kill us all
Hint - all of our crops, forests, fisheries etc are adapted to the current conditions. Yeah they would recover after a few hundred thousand years, but that's a hell of a long diet (weight loss 100%)
- greenfyre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Gore made the money with Google and apple investments bundle http://valleywag.com/tech/bogus/al-gores-inner-ent ... - show where he has made even $1 profit from green investments
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
