Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

No matter what the cause of global warming, it may already be to late!

dailygalaxy.com — 500 Billion Tons of Prehistoric Organic Matter May Massively Accelerate ‘Global Warming’

Bury

zaibatsu 283 days ago, made popular 282 days ago

690 diggs
digg it

172 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

allaboutdatiki, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16"According to Zimov, when the organic matter left behind by mammoths and other wildlife is exposed to the air by the thawing permafrost, microbes that have been dormant for thousands of years will spring back into action. They’ll begin once again to emit carbon dioxide and methane gas as a by-product. Zimov says thought the microbes are tiny, they will start emitting these gases in enormous quantities simply because there will be a lot of them."

Okay, so first it's gunna smell bad. Really bad. And then ...

WE'RE ALL GUNNA DIE! :O
- sq377, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3WE DIDN'T LISTEN!
  - easy1234, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Isn't that scenario similar to the Permian extinction event?
- salomejones, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3More sloppy science. Next.
- pseudo.hero, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Anyone got a match?
- Thorox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6If the "permafrost" is thawing, shouldn't the name be changed?
- SuperWinner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So humans will evolve into a more 'Lizard on a rock' type of species, why is that so bad?
FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -14/+62"This will lead to a type of global warming which will be impossible to stop,"

So can I go buy a Hummer now?
- physphd, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8In Nevada.
positron, on 10/10/2007, -14/+33100,000 years from now, when we have colonized every substantial rocky object within a few thousand lightyears of Earth and man is know as the cockroach of the Milkyway, our only memory of global warming will be our unsurpassed terraforming technology. That which does not kill us only makes us stronger.
- rnwen2750, on 10/10/2007, -7/+43So based on a very unpredictable future we should just piss away our present?
  - krets, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6Si
  - Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8I wouldn't say that it's "very unpredictable."
    
    The Earth's climate will change dramatically over some period of time (warmer, colder, who's fault - doesn't matter).
    Humanity will not become extinct as a result of that climate change, even if the population is reduced to a fraction of what it is today.
    The survivors will have survived for a reason, and that reason is very likely to be a technological one.
    The survivors will thrive in a new climate with new technology.
    
    Hence, that which does not kill us makes us stronger.
    - wendelgee2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Unless it does kill us...
    - vanbacon, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Your to pessimistic
    - vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Shoot yourself in the kneecap. That which does not kill you makes you stronger.
      
      Nihilism for the win!
    - Mrstupid7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Unless the global warming becomes a runaway effect like on Venus.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Unfortunately, terraforming doesn't help protect against this.
  http://www.hdgamenews.com/uploaded_images/halo3_br ...
- Calcularius, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Not with fundamentalist christians running the government we won't.
- recipher, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12You don't think we'll blow each other up by then?
- elvisjulep, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Klaatu Barada Nikto, dork.
- PoopStick, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3There is no 'present', its either the 'near future' or the 'recent past'
- QwertyAccess, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"That which does not kill us only makes us stronger." It might just kill us, if not most of us. (Personally I like being alive)
Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -19/+5Simply not going to happen.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8No? That is most likely exactly what will happen. Of course I onlyhave logical thought and thought experiments to go on.
  - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Just like that Ice Age we were promised back in the 70's right?
    - trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Please site a peer reviewed journal that suggested "Global Cooling" existed. The media loved the story but scientists did not give any credit to it.
      - notque, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I don't have time, but there is evidence that there is a global cooling, and a global warming effect right now. The cooling is actually from the skies being polluted with a haze of pollution, and emissions from airplanes. Trails and such. I guess on 9/11 it was significantly hotter when the planes were grounded. Maybe you're talking about something else, just wanted to mention that.
      - noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1please given evidence for your claim as well besides hearsay from the internet. oh, and quite a bit of false information gets published in peer reviewed journals. falling back solely on journals is just an appeal to authority which is a no-no.
      - vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Appeal to authority is only a no-no when the authority is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
        
        http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to ...
      - noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1appeal to authority is always a no-no. what matters is the material itself. an authority on a subject can still produce faulty methodology and produce false claims. you need to examine the substance rather than the person behind it. ugh... pseudo-intellectuals like yourself are more annoying than the "zomg lulz" people you see all over the place.
      - vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Can you keep your denial straight?
        
        Is it:
        "falling back solely on journals is just an appeal to authority"
        or
        "what matters is the material itself"
  - noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1"Of course I only have logical thought and thought experiments to go on." which is relatively inconclusive. aristotle's position was that logical thought and thought experiments were all that were needed to deduce reality. science has certainly proven aristotle wrong on quite a few occasions...
    - vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That science was arrived at by... wait for it... logical thought and thought experiments.
      
      Your ignorance & lack of comprehension does not disprove anything.
    - noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1..? science can have its roots in thought experiment, but validated by... wait for it... actual experiment. you can do all the thought experiments in the world but they don't mean anything if they don't match up with physical reality. just because something is logically valid does NOT mean it is physically true. it's not actually science until you, you know, perform an experiment to verify your thought experiments or take observations thus making your *hypothesis* valid. simply making a hypothesis isn't science. maybe you should examine your last sentence in relation to yourself, but just to help you in the right direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method .. pay careful attention to the 4th step listed *****.
      - noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How do you propose we experiment with the climate? We can't.
        
        Sometimes thought experiments and observation are all you get.
      - vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Denying scientific research does not disprove it.
      - vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Anthropogenic global warming denial is an example of affirming the consequent.
        
        Natural causes have produced global climate change effects before.
        There is global climate change occurring.
        Therefore, the climate change is due to natural causes.
      - noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@ Viking,
        My current thought process is:
        Natural causes have produced global climate change before.
        There is global climate change occuring.
        We know there is a current, natural warming trend
        The current warming is accelerating faster than previously observed
        Man may be causing additional warming
        We can change our ways
        Man made warming can be stopped
        We still have to deal with the effects of natural warming
        
        Natural global warming will still occur regardless of whether we stop anthropogenic warming or not.
KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10What's more alarming is the potential for the bad type of black oil being unearthed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_oil
- krets, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7What about the potential unearthing of a large catacombs where aliens from one planet hunt aliens from another?
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5What about the potential for waking up a giant atomic fire breathing bipedal reptile and having it go on a rampage across Japan and NYC:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla
  - krets, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Did you really need to clarify that you were talking about Godzilla?
    - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I felt I did since it has become very clear to me this reference would most likely shoot over the heads of many Diggers doing a great imitation Gamera.
      
      You know... The atomic jet propelled.... OH NEVERMIND!!!
- KeepSwinging, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Or a pissed off evil giant robot that can transform?
BigManOnCampus, on 10/10/2007, -11/+28Some people clearly need fear as a daily dietary supplement.
- SpaceParanoids, on 10/10/2007, -7/+30Denial is much easier to swallow.
  - fgsfds, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Because the ONLY alternative to being scared into doing the right thing is obviously to deny that the problem exists, right? After all, it's simply not possible for at least *some* people to do the right thing BECAUSE it's the right thing.
    
    [/sarcasm]
  - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Nah. I like to swim in denial. It's very refreshing!
GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6This will be on the frontpage in about two hours.
- mozzer, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Hitting Digg's front page causes global warming. Must bury for the sake of Al Gore.
- SiNN4R, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You were off about two hours.
  - GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Pretty darn close though. Digg is now Zaibatsu's personal newspaper. He cannot lose. Everything he posts makes the frontpage now.
sputnikv, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14normally i wouldn't care, but *****, i live in miami. if the sea level rises even two feet, i'm underwater.
- Morwynd, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5You're only two feet tall?? ;)
j0hn, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Good. I'm tired of living on this damned planet anyway.

Mars or bust.
eyefone, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Pics?
spaceninja, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Death by poo... nice.
wynja, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Nooooo, we're all going to die....... wait that was going to happen anyway. It'll just be more interesting this way.
minnymoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13great, whats next?
"Don't Recycle, We Don't Care Anymore."
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I say we all go out and buy huge dump trucks for everyday driving!
  - noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3no need for buying dump trucks; i already have an internet connection.
SilentJay74, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Here is what worries me. If there are microbes that the human race has not been exposed to, what kind of virus might be released into the atmosphere that we will be vulnerable to?
- vikramraja, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That is a good question- will some ancient disease come back and wipe us off the planet before we are all underwater, or roasted?
- Logicexe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5A virus would almost certainly not be able to infect us, not immediately anyway. It would have to mutate enough to infect some modern animal. Bacteria can cause infections, but those are treatable and will probably be much easier to treat than modern bacteria because these guys haven't been exposed to antibiotics and become immune.
  
  And yes, this is a very real danger. It's a debatable point as to how likely this sort of hyper warming situation is to occur, but positive feedback loops are fairly well understood and supported by good science and good evidence. This is merely a worse case scenario.
  - noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4it's also debatable whether or not a virus would be able to immediately affect us prior to mutation or not. there is a chance that it would.
    - Logicexe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2A non-zero chance yes, but it's more likely that it wouldn't. Of course, that doesn't mean the risk is negligible, it might only take a few weeks/months for that (un)lucky mutation to occur. Even then, the virus may not even be very harmful and I assume those areas aren't very densely populated (correct me if I'm wrong) which would reduce the risk of quickly spreading to large populations.
- easy1234, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Perhaps the Spanish flu buried in the Alaskan permafrost. Or whatever.
bromac, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2I've been telling people this for a while.

It's happening. What's your game plan?
crescentfreshld, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7You mean too late?
- wassim2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think global warming has gotten to his brain.
codehkr, on 10/10/2007, -13/+9Stop talking about these global changes. Humans will adapt to the new environment. Its called Evolution!
- Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Evolution takes many many years.
  global climate change normally takes give evolution time, but rapid climate change doesnt.
  
  it is kind of like dropping a human on Mars and telling him to evolve!
  - vikramraja, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I agree...
    Evolution will not save us
  - noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3except our long term knowledge of climate change does not account for rapid spikes and troughs which average out below their maximums and minimums. you cannot make an accurate comparison between the spikes in high resolution data and the data created by the interpolation of low resolution information to match the higher resolution.
- N256, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2We're already fit to live in the new environment genetically, we just need to adapt how we live.
- isellmacs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Evolution isn't something that happens that allows us to live as much as it is something that happens that allows us to not die.
  
  Regardless of the likelyhood of this actually happening, if it does then humans may indeed evovle.. the alternative is complete extinction of our species.
- Terrk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Codehkr, Adaptation does not = Evolution.
lordchronos, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3I guess I'll have to buy a larger airconditioner someday
nunchuks, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4i could just hear the radio address now... "the cia has just learned that these mico orgamisms, bent on destroying freedom, have recently been seen multiplying at enormous speeds. let us not forget last winter when these origamisms tried to cripple us with runny noses and mild fevers. we as americans have a duty to destroy these orgasms, now labeled as the bacterias of evil, before they try to kill my daddy. so today, in the name of freedom, we'll destroy all the microscopes in the world, because karl rove told me that if we can't see it, it doesn't exist. after we have done so, corporations can rest in peace and keep polluting the earth. AMERICA, ***** YEAH! thank you.
- elvisjulep, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4nothing is more painful than bitter people trying vainly to be funny.
- donkevin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1lol orgasms
didiman, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Buried for not knowing English.
- NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I think this is why the rest of the world hates us
yoda17, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4So we can stop hearing about this now?

Yeah.
- isellmacs, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0I sense Ostridge in your ancenstry.
nonnald, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/too
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/to
zwendkos, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13oh come on.. it's TOO late

/frustration
- donkevin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2QFT. Dugg up.
Veritate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7A bit histrionic, but if global warming (which IS occurring, even if we're not the cause) is accelerated significantly, I'd like to see the updated predictions. Given that Zitmov says it would outpace even the gloomiest of current estimates, that would be a bad thing. I believe humans will survive, but we'll have a lot of problems first.
PabloMac, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Wait minute...I thought global warming was manmade...?
- easy1234, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2They like to say that a lot.
NeilAdmirari, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Even if this hits the fan, it's still makes sense to slow down CO2 production to achieve slower warming.
It is not change that kills - it is change that is too quick to adapt to.
- Zarchon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+02 questions
  
  What percentage of our atmosphere is comprised of Co2 gases, and then, What percentage of those gases are we rtesponsiblle for? If you don't know then you really shouldn't be giving advice.
  - Mrstupid7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think pre-anthropogenic levels of CO2 were around 220 to 250 ppm and now we're at 380 ppm, most of which came after the industrial revolution started.
  - vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1CO2 was at 278 ppm before the industrial revolution. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D. It is currently at 382 ppm & rising an average of 1.6 ppm/yr (average over the past 20 years). That is a 37% increase.
    
    Since 1751 roughly 315 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these emissions have occurred since the mid 1970s. The oceans and land surfaces are net CO2 sinks that absorb over 3 billion tons of carbon more than they outgas every year.
    
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCyc ...
  - Zarchon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0And yet neather of you Einsteins answered my question. I'm just guesing here but doesn't CO2 make up like .05 percent of the atmosphere. We increaded that number by %37 percent based on your numbers. So doing the math that's .02 percent our fault. So, global warming gases, 100%, we contribute .02 percent. Does it make sense that dealing with .92 percent of the green house gases is going to make a difference?
    - jloutey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Einstein didn't guess about verifiable facts. Don't tell people get the facts if your unwilling to do the same.
MerryMortician, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8what a load of *****.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2A nice steamy pile. Yes.
BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5The scientist's name is Sergei Zimov. In Russian "zima" means "winter". How appropriate.
- Knobee, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4And here I was thinking that Zima meant a cool clear semi-alcoholic beverage. I bet that next you'll tell me that Smirnoff is the last name of a comedian...
JJsays, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6The greatest thing one could do I suppose is "commit suicide" on behalf of saving the planet. You know who you are, and you know that is the most you will be able to do. If you cared so much, this is without question the thing to do. What are you selfish?
glucoseboy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"so this is it.... we're all going to die....."
hydrashok33, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4For those believers in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) give the 125,000 dollar prize for proving it a shot. junkscience.com has a great contest and with 125,000 payoff it would be well worth your time. If you can prove it that is....
- vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That contest is a publicity scam. The rules states that if you answer the question, they'll change the question.
  
  http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
  Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
alphonseragusa, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8I for one welcome our new permafrost degrading, carbon dioxide emitting, prehistoric microbe overlords.
flytronix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Aeronaught, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Is it too late to change the title?
Speed, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"This will lead to a type of global warming which will be impossible to stop,"
I'm investing in Air Conditioner now.
- johnnysaucepn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah, just make it worse for the rest of us, why don't you!
  - Speed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ok, sounds good.
Logicexe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I love reading the comments on articles about global warming. It's like you guys are all having a contest to see who can come up with the biggest strawman.
- noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2i'll have to bury you for repeating everyone's favorite "counter argument" like a parrot. if you can correctly pick out a straw man argument i'll retract my insult. far, far too many people throw out that word at things that aren't even close to what constitutes a straw man fallacy.
  - Logicexe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"The greatest thing one could do I suppose is "commit suicide" on behalf of saving the planet. You know who you are, and you know that is the most you will be able to do. If you cared so much, this is without question the thing to do. What are you selfish?"
    
    No one is suggesting this as a solution to climate change.
    
    "First, What? Secondly, Gore and his ilk want to use fear to take your money in the form of all kinds of ridiculous taxes. Please point me toward the source that says anything at all like, ""We should take away freedom from citizens and give corporations and republicans all the power or terrorists will eat your babies!". Can you liberal enviro-weenies even pretend to be intellectually honest?"
    
    No one is advocating taking away freedoms, just encouraging people to take the environmental consequences of their actions in everyday life. Although I do admit is a little more of a red herring since it's dodging the issue of whether or not global warming is true and going for the purely political route.
    
    Then there's always the anti-alarmist bull****, as if declaring that someone is an alarmist magically makes them incorrect.
    
    OK, so maybe they're not all strawmen, how about we generalize it to logical fallacy and call it a night?
    - noumuon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2for your second example, i retract my insult. the first statement reads more like a joke.
  - vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1True, the statement "straw man argument" is often incorrectly used as a catch-all to refute an opponent in a debate. It is valid here though. Here are a few examples already present on this page.
    
    Any mention of Al Gore as a refutation of scientific research.
    Any mention of the "70's cooling scare". This is the same as above, just pointing to sensationalizing journalists instead of a self-appointed celebrity spokesman.
    Claiming that a natural effect disproves an anthropogenic cause since the effect overwhelms the cause.
dhVyse, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4"While some dismiss the 52-year-old as an alarmist crank.."
Yeah, I'm one of those people.
WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Ohhhh....sh*t! (No pun intended)
Xabora, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2pfft, learn to adapt.
Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4This is Global warming: Resistance is futile, prepare to be assimalated.
ravens32681, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It probably is too late, but that doesn't mean which should just stop thinking about the environment. At least we can try to curb the problem instead of screwing up the world even more.
- Zarchon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0What part of too late don't you understand? We're all gonnabreath the spore. Let's get it over with so we caan start evolving.
Arcnite, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7regardless of global warming... "going green" is simply a good idea
- skidooer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Until 50 years from now when we find out "going green" comes with it's own unwanted consequences.
  - ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Like what? I guess you have nothing to say.
  - ISIfunded911, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Like what? I guess you have nothing to say.
p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1So, now mammoth ***** is causing Global Warming too? Good one, Church of Global Warming Krazies.
mos6507, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2This is not good news, but why can't this organic material just act as fertilizer for plant growth to sequester the CO2?
- Mrstupid7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The plants will die and release CO2 by rotting or be eaten up by animals which breathe out CO2 or one of many other pathways CO2 comes from.
Kizilbash, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Great.
So should we start evacuating the Netherlands now?
xlar54, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Too late? Good.

Now people will quit b*tching about it.

You have to love when people complain about something without presenting a solution. You nor I can do a single thing to stop it, if its for real anyway.
heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No ***** eh ?
Terrk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Damnit, water world was a terrible movie. But it looks like it wasn't too far fetched.
kmattso, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Those damn mammoths are going to screw things up for the rest of us!
WarMachineWCLH, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If it's unstoppable does this mean I won't have to ***** hear about it ever again? Cause that'd be the best news I've heard all ***** month.
Show 51 - 65 of 65 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.

No matter what the cause of global warming, it may already be to late!

Login or register to add a comment