backtop


Print 137 comment(s) - last by retrospooty.. on May 19 at 10:55 PM


  (Source: Disney)
Historic site could be flooded as soon as 2100

A new NPR report suggests that climate change may flood a famous North American historic site -- Jamestown, Virginia -- in the next 100 years.  Jamestown is just 3 feet above sea level in most places, according NPR.  And with climatologists predicting a 2 to 3 foot sea rise due to climate change by 2100, NPR believes the site might go underwater.

Dorothy Geyer, a natural resource specialist for the National Park Service -- which owns part of the colonial site -- comments, "We always knew that the island was at some point going to be in danger of being covered over, but we were thinking it's another 100 years, another 150 years. You know, it could be much — closer."

And Jamestown's preservationist glass blower Ron Rogers, who uses traditional techniques, remarks, "I think about [rising sea levels] on a weekly basis.  And the ruins are that much closer to the river. If we get another one of those [floods] it could possibly wash away the history here."

While flatlining temperatures may throw off that timeline, it's at least a remote possibility; a handful of coastal towns in Alaska are already allegedly facing destruction due to increased erosion from warming-induced melts.

Jamestown settlement
Jamestown, Virg. was the first successful British colony on the East Coast.
[Image Source: NPR]

Jamestown was founded in 1607 and was the first successful English colony in mainland North America.  It has been enshrined in such fictional works as the Walt Disney Comp. (DIS) movie Pocahontas. But recent archaeological studies suggest a far darker reality; analysis of human remains indicates that the early colonists resorted to cannibalism during the lean early winters of the colony.

Carl Hershner, a climate scientist at the Virginia Institute for Marine Science, tells NPR that other sites will likely flood first, but Jamestown will eventually be submerged as well.  He comments, "It'll be a hole in the ground, or a hole in water, with an old fort and a well at the bottom of it."

But the National Park Service is looking to develop levees or sea walls to keep out future rising waters, while analyzing the situation.  At the same time it continues to preserve artifacts from the site, lest the predictions of doom and gloom regarding flooding of the island prove true.

Source: NPR



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Uh Huh
By SAN-Man on 5/15/2013 6:06:50 PM , Rating: 3
I remember in the 1970s all the scientists thought we were headed for another ice-age.

The global warming stuff started to be fed to us in the 80s and I recall it was always a "few years away". For example in the early 80s they were saying things like "by 1989 xyz will happen" and of course it didn't. Then in the mid 80s they were saying "by 1997 x will happen" and again nothing. This has continued to this day. I recall in around 1998 we were told that "by 2010 the oceans will rise and south California and Florida will be under water"... of course that didn't happen.

I suppose the point is, my experience with global warming is like the boy crying wolf and the boy has been crying my entire life.




RE: Uh Huh
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2013 6:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
Climate Change has been disproved, soundly.

It's really disappointing to read an article that begins with the premise that Climate Change is an absolute fact. Especially this year when solid indisputable data has finally, once and for all, proved that despite higher C02 levels, there's absolutely no warming pattern whatsoever.

quote:
The global warming stuff started to be fed to us in the 80s


Yup. No lie, when I was in elementary school they were teaching us that there was a giant hole in the ozone layer and that "in a few years" we would be unable to breath the air outside and we would have to wear oxygen masks or something and full insulated suits to survive outdoors.

Can you image filling young impressionable minds with that kind of garbage? But I swear on the grave of my grandfather, we were literally indoctrinated and exposed to environmental scare tactics on a regular basis.


RE: Uh Huh
By Lord 666 on 5/15/13, Rating: -1
RE: Uh Huh
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2013 6:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
I find it hard to believe you wasted the time to make such a dumb fucking post.


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/16/13, Rating: -1
RE: Uh Huh
By Basilisk on 5/15/2013 6:34:13 PM , Rating: 1
If reclaimer77's being honest, he had ill-educated teachers.

If he's not being honest, let's continue to ignore him.

Regardless, his outlandish hyperbole removes him from serious consideration... again.


RE: Uh Huh
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2013 6:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
Hyperbole?

If you think that's extreme, let me quote you some "predictions" from the 1970 Earth Day, made by some of the top scientific minds of the time.

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." — Harvard biologist George Wald

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

"Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." — Paul Ehrlich

"In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half. " — Life magazine

"Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." — Paul Ehrlich

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." — Kenneth Watt

And serious consideration? Okay then why did you post?


RE: Uh Huh
By Lord 666 on 5/15/2013 6:55:44 PM , Rating: 3
"It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet. Let's hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load." Stephen Hawking, 2010.


RE: Uh Huh
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: Uh Huh
By maugrimtr on 5/16/13, Rating: -1
RE: Uh Huh
By anactoraaron on 5/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: Uh Huh
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2013 1:09:47 AM , Rating: 1
Do I really need to put this in context for you?

Nah, I don't care if you sink or swim on this one really. Half our problems are caused by bottom feeders bringing the rest of us down.

I could not have possibly been more on-topic. AGW is merely the newest in a long list of doomsayer predictions that haven't come to pass and have failed to wipe out all life on Earth.


RE: Uh Huh
By kyleb2112 on 5/16/2013 3:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
You tell 'em Reclaimer. I'm old enough to remember the great ice age scare. We also completely ran out of oil in 1999 according to the propaganda drilled into my young skull in the 70's. I wish some of these people with QUESTION AUTHORITY! stickers plastered all over their cars actually did it.


RE: Uh Huh
By Nephiorim on 5/16/2013 5:35:20 AM , Rating: 4
Who says these warnings weren't valid if we had let things continue the way they were at the time these warnings were made? The whole point of a warning is to get people to change things. It's like driving straight ahead and you're warned to switch lanes else you will hit something. You do so, so you avoid hitting something. That does NOT mean that the warning was invalid just because you didn't hit something. Logic people, please.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 12:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
This is one of those things that when we can prove it's real beyond any shadow of a doubt and all other variables are insignificant, then it's already too late lol.

Right now, it's best if we don't pollute our own planet and stop arguing about it.


RE: Uh Huh
By Dorkyman on 5/16/2013 2:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
Allow me to mention that if the atmosphere was represented by a basketball arena filled with 10,000 spectators, the percentage of CO2 would be represented by--4 people. Many years ago it was three, now it's four.


RE: Uh Huh
By superflex on 5/16/2013 3:42:40 PM , Rating: 3
Many years ago is so scientific.
How about in the Cretaceous period, CO2 levels were approximately 1,500 ppm or 5x higher than today.
That's 15 people in your basketball arena.
My gawd. How did the dinosaurs survive for 200 million years with CO2 levels that high?


RE: Uh Huh
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: Uh Huh
By Nephiorim on 5/17/2013 6:58:01 AM , Rating: 2
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but you can't say there wasn't a change because of the warning because we're not living in a world where that warning hasn't occurred. It's all speculation. I would state that because of people warning of man-made global warning initiatives were deployed to change the energy mix to a more green one. That might have slowed down the increase, but it's an increase nonetheless. Also CO2 by itself might've been responsible for a temperature increase, but some other environmental phenomenon could be responsible for a decrease. Could just be a case of incomplete models, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to reduce CO2 emissions.

So again, I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you. I don't know the full extent, so I don't trust myself to make statements one way or the other. Would hope more people would do that instead of throwing these blanket statements around as if they were fact.


RE: Uh Huh
By Nephiorim on 5/17/2013 7:28:16 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and Reclaimer, I've been a lurker here for years now... Now that I've started to become (more) active I'm pretty sure we'll run into each other from time to time (which will most assuredly lead to some heated discussion). Some background: I'm a European (Dutch actually) progressive liberal. Middle of the road type thinker, sometimes we need to go left, sometimes we need to go right. Looking forward to sparring with you and the others ;)


RE: Uh Huh
By Stuka on 5/16/2013 6:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
The problem in the AGW context is that that person is shouting "There's something in front of you. Give me $700 billion so you can switch lanes!"

What we are effectively doing is randomly changing lanes 'cos something might be there. Eventually we will swerve to avoid nothing, and find ourselves buried in a sinkhole.


RE: Uh Huh
By Nephiorim on 5/17/2013 6:52:10 AM , Rating: 2
In an economy money needs to flow. If money flows become stagnant (ie banks no longer willing to lend out money because they're too afraid or too restricted to do so), that's when the system collapses. I'd rather have the $700 billion go into green energy than, let's say, development of new fighter jets. But in the end the money does need to be spent. That's why I don't get why people don't get more mad at companies or individuals sitting on billions and billions of dollars. Sure they're an example of where you might go yourself, the ultimate American dream so to speak. But meanwhile the cash they're sitting on doesn't generate jobs or whatever.

Money needs to flow, else we're done (in a capitalistic system anyway), AGW or not.

On a personal note: I'm not sure about man-made global warming myself, but I am a huge "fanboi" when it comes to approaching things logically. My statement was just to poke a hole in the logic (or lack thereof) that was used to try to prove warnings are useless. No more, no less.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 8:55:27 AM , Rating: 5
I am actually here at the USGS and I can tell you this.

1. Global Warming by humans is wildly exaggerated.

2. Global Warming is real but some people don't accept it because of #1.

3. The amount of manmade CO2/CO is actually very little overall but it is measurable. This little bit of difference will cause an affect on the balance of how much CO2 is being absorbed and how much is produced. Over time, it could accumulate to be significant.
Read this http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-...
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/news/oco-200...

4. REAL scientists are trying to say the human factor is small. But it is still significant enough to upset the balance of nature over a prolonged period of time.

5. If we continue our course and global warming continues then it would still take a very long time(hundreds to thousands) to destroy our species but it won't destroy the earth. A giant asteroid hitting the earth caused much more destruction and immediate change. Life adapts quickly but not quickly to something so instantaneous. Even so, enough had survive for us to exist today.

6. If a science documentary spend most of its time talking about the horrors of the worst possibilities, then it is more propaganda than science.

7. The current level of CO2 produced is not enough to throw off nature. Since we are destroying nature at a rapid pace, we can conclude humans slightly increase CO2 production and decrease CO2 absorption. That makes the delta greater and thus become a significant factor.

8. If we manage to do enough global warming and raise the sea level that high then I could care less about James Town. Most of Florida will be under and many other places. Thus lowering the human population. Lowering the human population will lower our pollution.

9. If the earth eventually become like the movie Water World, then there will be plenty of plankton. Plankton will convert CO2 to O2 and reverse the trend. At which point, the human race will either be already extinct or in very limited number. Our pollution will be insignificant then.

Conclusion: We cannot really destroy the earth unless we blow it up. We will go extinct before life on earth is eradicated. Once we go extinct, nature will rebalance itself. The human factor is more significant now because we are destroying nature's way of absorbing CO2 and releasing O2.


RE: Uh Huh
By nafhan on 5/16/2013 11:05:35 AM , Rating: 2
Beautiful post! My understanding of the situation lines up very closely with this.


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 11:09:30 AM , Rating: 2
Ok so you are trying to come off as an expert. time to dismember you via simple questions

1) Why is there no heat difference in 'carbon bubbles'

2) If you speak truth why have temperatures leveled off despite increases in carbon levels?

3) how many glaciers are growing and how many new ones are forming?

Remember I am advertising myself an expert in this topic. I come armed with information sources to back my claims. Your answers dictate my response.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 12:01:39 PM , Rating: 4
You are no expert. Go do the experiment yourself. Hot surface with sealed glass case on top of it. One with regular air and one with more CO2. It's a basic science done in a classroom. The advanced stuff involves detecting long waves and short waves of IR waves. CO2 is transparent to 92% of them. But it traps the long waves which has higher energy.

Tests show that the increase in CO2 resulted in a net gain of 1.8mw/m2 of energy. Considering the sun provides about 1000mw/m2, it is measurable but insignificant in the short term. CO2 can accumulate in the air for a long time so it can have a run away compounding effect. Water is more potent but it only last hours to days.

Every scientist will agree that CO2 does trap more heat. However, it is not the only one. CH4, O3, N2O, halocarbons do so as well. CO2 is just the biggest contributor. We can also agree that water/water vapor is more potent and does more global warming. In fact, the ocean absorbs 95% of GW.

What the vast majority of scientists are saying is that there is just too many variables to conclude CO2 is our doomsday. CO2 is definitely one of them along with a slew of others. It is being blamed because it is the top contributor amongst the chemical composition that makes up our atmosphere.

These research did not account for so many other variables. We have not collected enough data to form a conclusion for the entire earth's climate change. Even to today, our data for something of this scale cannot be considered reliable but we have to use what we got. So what makes you think these scientists spamming data of the past 200 years reliable?

Conclusion: can CO2 cause global warming? yes
How much? not that much to panic
What should we worry about more? pollution, bad drivers, war, obesity, cancer, diseases, BS politicians, economic collapse etc... it's a long list before GW.


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 1:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
Your model does not include cold and warm fronts, stationary versus moving fronts, nor low atmosphere versus high atmosphere. a simple lab experiment indeed...

Not only that you ignore the various dynamics of the atmosphere where higher temperatures leads to more water in the atmosphere which leads (with cosmic radiation and other factors) to clouds.

Focusing on one tiny portion of the whole is inately bad science. it is like saying gasoline can catch fire while ignoring dozens of other aspects about gasoline.

The thing is science is about observation, theorizing, modeling, testing, and proving

AGW proponents have only mastered theorizing. no models have worked for them, NONE. However three models from anti-agw forces DO work and have passed all stages. They are Cosmic Radiation plays a critical role in cloud formation (CRE and another scientst, forget hisname), generalized weather predictions (farmers almamac), and bad weather station placement (mr. watts).

In fact there are many who place an immeadiate asterisk on your contention of heat trapping by carbon. you see they, like me, also acknowledge the heat is released rather quickly (to an extent) in an observable and well known phenonimum known as nightfall and that the idea of heat increasing incrementally is incorrect (your talking a 1.8% increase on a 0.4% of the atmosphere. if all the 'new' excess was retained then we would be talking a clear and very significant increase in the temperature. however even this 1.8% figure is incorrect as most cooks will ackowledge. if you dont cook the meal hot enough and long enough you wont heat center. this is the law of diminishing returns (and while the sun pounds us with huge quantities at ground level it is vastly more prior to our atmosphere, prior to our upper atmosphere and so forth). in fact a carbon atom at full temp repels additional heat to a level, including back where it came from.

You are right the dynamics are not wholly understood but to say we are heating, when evidence shows a cooling trend, is empirically not true. and thats the rub... is it within natural variation and the ability of Earth to self regulate, or is it not?

This is where other evidence comes to play including periods of higher and lower temperatures and periods of higher and lower carbon counts.

Ofc I could cheat and cry entropy, it will all cool anyways, but again outside of mans control, timescale is too large, and like the idea of increasing carbon amounts increasing temperatures... you, I, our great grandchildren, their great grandchildren will never be able to detect a provable (besides academic guesses) variation in the temperature.

Forgive typos, long night and I need to get the truck in for repairs which only makes my day worse.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 2:23:13 PM , Rating: 1
You are not an expert. You are someone who reads a bunch of comments and scientific articles. Then you think you know something.

1. My model does not need to include any fronts. It's a test to see the effects of CO2. It's called isolation to prove CO2 does trap more heat.

2. CO2 is not .4% it is only about .04%
This is composition of air in percent by volume, at sea level at 15°C and 101325 Pa.
Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%
Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%
Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314%
Neon -- Ne -- 0.001818%
Methane -- CH4 -- 0.0002%
Helium -- He -- 0.000524%
Krypton -- Kr -- 0.000114%
Hydrogen -- H2 -- 0.00005%
Xenon -- Xe -- 0.0000087%
Ozone -- O3 -- 0.000007%
Nitrogen Dioxide -- NO2 -- 0.000002%
Iodine -- I2 -- 0.000001%
Carbon Monoxide -- CO -- trace
Ammonia -- NH3 -- trace
Reference: CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, edited by David R. Lide, 1997.

3. 1.8mw compared to 1000mw is only 0.18%. Not the 1.8% you stated.
quote:
however even this 1.8% figure is incorrect as most cooks will ackowledge. if you dont cook the meal hot enough and long enough you wont heat center

WTF are you talking about cooking? Do you realize what you're talking about? It's 0.18% and I already said it's not significant enough for a short term change.

Please don't try to make yourself sound smart by using words like empirical. The scientists here with PhDs don't even say that because it sounds pretentious. Empirical = historical

Entropy? are you kidding me? we're not talking about astrophysics and the fate of the universe. Maybe the time and space continuum in your head is a bit whacked.

I will not respond to you anymore for the following reasons
1. You are an idiot
2. You cannot do basic math
3. You read a few things and think you're an expert
4. You barely have any knowledge, experience, or even basic grammar/spelling skills
5. You repeat things I said like I never said it and try to say I'm wrong.
6. You spew things you don't even understand.
7. You are saying the same thing I am saying but you're saying I'm wrong. I'll repeat it in simple terms

Their results are inconclusive and did not account for so many other variables.
Their data is flawed and unreliable. There is no real definite evidence that the current global warming is man made or that it is happening.
The only thing they proved is that CO2 is a biggest contributor amongst other gases in the air.
That contribution compared to the overall picture is insignificant in the short term"

You called yourself Einstein yet it came out quite the opposite. I think it's good that you can fix trucks because you can't even be a keyboard scientist. All you have to do is google, read, copy, paste and you can't even do that right


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 3:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
I am going to sleep

But I am an amateur math scientist since I created a new method to compress data different than all existing methods (I think the last one prior was made in the early 80's). additionally I am working on 3 different complex large scale data compression methods to see if they will work but since two require chunks of 50+ megabytes and since they have such unique structures the going is slow, additionally the third is so mathematically complex as to be believed.

I am also devising a Tea Party technological plan, rolling out a request for funding on a major project I created in a high level Tea Party strategy group, and I read white papers and study the actual data as much as possible (I am going to invest in a tech related issue but I wont be caught with a battery that catches fire, an imperfect means to create carbon nanotubes, nor a quantum dots idea that will never turn a profit).

You simply have no clue of what I am capable of doing.

Anyways I am going to bed. I will reply to you tomorrow.


RE: Uh Huh
By SPOOFE on 5/16/2013 5:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's called isolation to prove CO2 does trap more heat.

I don't think anyone contends that one aspect of the system behaves as described. I think the contention is that the whole system doesn't behave as described, and focusing on that one aspect makes your view of the whole system look skewed.

CO2 traps more heat, yes. More heat causes more cloud formation. More cloud formation mitigates the greater heat.

How do you propose we form clouds in an upside-down glass?


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/17/2013 9:05:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think anyone contends that one aspect of the system behaves as described. I think the contention is that the whole system doesn't behave as described, and focusing on that one aspect makes your view of the whole system look skewed. CO2 traps more heat, yes. More heat causes more cloud formation. More cloud formation mitigates the greater heat. How do you propose we form clouds in an upside-down glass?


Yes I've said all that

Cloud formation does not mitigate the greater heat. Cloud formation actually traps more heat from escaping the atmosphere. On a cloudy night, you will see very little change in temperature vs a clear night.


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/17/2013 9:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
And a cloudy day is cooler than it would have been without the clouds.

You also broadly paint all clouds... some clouds are far more effective than others due to shape, density, coverage, etc.

So what do you do at the USGS again?


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/17/2013 10:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And a cloudy day is cooler than it would have been without the clouds. You also broadly paint all clouds... some clouds are far more effective than others due to shape, density, coverage, etc.


Clouds during the day reflect a large amount of sunlight back into space. At night , they stop a large amount of heat from escaping into space. Nice try on twisting my comment but I clearly stated night in my previous comment.

Nitpicking to prove a point? pathetic.
you can't even nitpick right


RE: Uh Huh
By SPOOFE on 5/18/2013 7:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cloud formation does not mitigate the greater heat.

Sure it does; phase changes require energy. More energy means more phase changes. Sure, some of the energy used in the phase change is released, but hey, thermodynamics.

quote:
Cloud formation actually traps more heat from escaping the atmosphere. On a cloudy night, you will see very little change in temperature vs a clear night.

Those sentences are not compatible: If cloud formation traps more heat, then you WOULD see change in temperature on a cloudy night versus a clear night.


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 9:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
You have now entered Solinsky territory. I understand. I said typos and .4% is a typo, it was supposed to be .04% and I was friggin tired

1. Isolation is a bad example, as shown by Reclaimer. Metal can retain heat, this is proven. However a pot on an oven with a constant supply of water will NOT reach maximum heat.

The atmosphere is way more complex than just a simple box test.

2. Typo due to fatigue as mentioned.

3. Error based on typo and fatigue, go figure.

Now the report also mysteriously avoids another atmospheric component... It is missing h20 . Any scientific analysis of the atmosphere MUST include H20 and specifically must attempt to determine clouds and particles as separate issues.

Now your inability to continue replying to me means YOU LOST THE GAME! You surrendered because you realized I was going to win. You chose the time, you chose it while I was tired. Nice try to make you look superior. You are NOT. I suspect you are a janitor at the USGS.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/17/2013 8:48:00 AM , Rating: 2
"Although this CRC table does not list water vapor, air can contain as much as 5% water vapor, more commonly ranging from 1-3%. The 1-5% range places water vapor as the third most common gas (which alters the other percentages accordingly)."

In other words, water vapor is varies so much that it is usually left out. It is something that is understood without saying. If you actually took a science class, you would know this. You should've known this in high school.

quote:
Isolation is a bad example, as shown by Reclaimer. Metal can retain heat, this is proven. However a pot on an oven with a constant supply of water will NOT reach maximum heat.

Ok einstein. The point of isolation is to see which of the atmospheric gases retains more of the heat. You can fart in it if you want to prove fart retains more heat than regular air.

quote:
It is missing h20 . Any scientific analysis of the atmosphere MUST include H20 and specifically must attempt to determine clouds and particles as separate issues.

I've stated several times that H20 is much more potent. Clouds stops a lot of heat from escaping. The ocean absorb 95% of GW. Do you have a problem agree with others like Reclaimer?
The point of proving CO2 is a greenhouse gas is that it is only .04% of the atmosphere yet it traps .18% of heat. CO2 can stay in the air much much longer than water vapor. A positive accumulation of CO2 over a long period of time can lead to a run away effect of global warming.

quote:
Now your inability to continue replying to me means YOU LOST THE GAME!

Again, you are a whack job. I've directly answered your questions. If you want to believe you won anything in your mind then nobody can stop you.

quote:
I suspect you are a janitor at the USGS.

I'm an accountant.

Everything else you wrote are just excuses and insults.


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/17/2013 9:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
So you're weaker than me at math and science and you tried to act an authority figure.

Your so messed up.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/17/2013 10:22:11 AM , Rating: 2
lol how do you come up with this?

The only thing everyone can see here is you failed at basic math and grammar.


RE: Uh Huh
By TSS on 5/16/2013 2:24:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well. I'm no scientist. But i do like to think there's some value in experience. For instance i can tell it's gotten warmer in my country because my dad remembers the winters of 50 years ago being much colder then now. Thus, some warming must have taken place.

So explain to me this. If CO2 can cause global warming, and we're at highs for a long time now, compounding effect and all..... Why, in my experience, has the temperature here become definitively colder the past 3 years?

I mean november 3 years ago now, we had the same snow on the ground for a entire month. That's pretty noteworthy since in the entire 23 years prior i'd been alive it had always thawed after 4 days, at the most. When i was a kid it snowed more often rather then rain now, but it never stayed that long.

The year after that wasn't that bad so i was willing to write it off as a fluke, but spring was absolutely horrible. As in, wasn't there. Now this year it's horrid cold all year so far. I can still see my own breath in mid may. Usually we have a warm week at the end of march, that just didn't come. Warm weather at the end of april, nowhere to be found either. We've had 2-3 days of sunny spring weather where we'd usually have a month, atleast. The winter was even colder then the one 3 years ago.

My dad's noticed that the wind has changed. It used to come from the south in the spring but for decades now it's been coming from the north, the artic. I've noticed it too, cold wind even when it is sunny. Dunno why, it just has. He's convinced we're heading into another ice age but i'm willing to throw it at heading back to the cold winters of the 40's. Cycles and all that.

Now, even though i'm not a scientist i do belive in science. But the reason why i will deny global warming and belive my dad and my own feelings instead, even though they're based on experience more then data, is because atleast they can be explained perfectly.

To this date, no scientist has ever given an adequate explanation for why the number of temprature measuring stations has dropped incredibly in the 80's and 90's and the effects of that. I've always heard either nothing or the data's just as good. And i'm sorry but i won't trust science on the basis of data that cannot be explained, faulty data. I'd rather take a more limited set of accurate data then expansive flawed statistics.

If you would claim my limited experience is too limited for an accurate reading, Please explain why it's considered more accurate to average the data from the 53 weather stations in my country (the range of my experience), 135th largest in the world by area with the 53 weather stations in the eastern half of siberia, or about 40% of the largest country in the world.

Or with the ones in bolivia, the 28th largest country in the world which are... oh wait, there are none in bolivia. So that's 53 stations for 45,543 square kilometers, 0 for 1,098,581 square kilometers. In flat vs mountainous country.

I'll trust your math scientist. I won't trust the numbers you do your math on since common sense alone is enough to tell me they're flawed, erronous, manipulated, massaged, propagandasised. Numbers might not lie, people do. And in my life, i've seen too many of em lie to the point where i'll only trust good old experimentational science. Not computer models or averages or any of that crap.

You say it's gonna warm the planet slightly, i'll talk to ya in 50 years see if it's slightly warmer. I say it'll be colder. Just cause'


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 2:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
because the earth is 4 billion years old. Ice ages are every tens of thousands of years. We do not have thermometers all over the globe. We are still not able to calculate all variables affecting temperature. We don't have enough records. All historical(empirical) data are a good lead but it is inaccurate and unreliable. We made calculations assuming those records are accurate.

Right now, our prediction on global warming is a guess assuming that another guess is true that assume another guess is true that assume another guess is true.

Hell we've just started recording solar seasons. The sun is the biggest factor in determining temperature. Look at the temperature difference when we're angled just a few degrees off. A whole different season!

There's no scientist that can say they have conclusive evidence that Global Warming is happening right now and it's by man made CO2. That is a 10,000 year long project that covers over a million different variables.

The only way they can prove our CO2 production caused global warming is when we pump 10x more CO2 into the air and it caused the average temperature to rise 15+ degrees within months. We can't even do that unless we set everything in the world on fire.


RE: Uh Huh
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 2:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
No one is. There's too many variables for one expert. I don't think even 1,000 people can tackle a research project this size. It would require many life times to complete.

Let's just stick with what we know. CO2 is a contributor even though insignificant. It's better we keep it low than increasing it.


RE: Uh Huh
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2013 2:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No one is.


So why are you bashing this gentleman for not "being an expert" constantly, if nobody else is either??

It's one thing to pull the appeal to authority tactic, fine whatever, but that doesn't work too well when you admit there's NO authority whatsoever.

quote:
It's better we keep it low than increasing it.


Which is an impossibility at our current technological level WITHOUT destroying our living standards in the process or dooming billions more to poverty.

quote:
I don't think even 1,000 people can tackle a research project this size. It would require many life times to complete.


I accept that and agree.

What I cannot accept is a half-baked theory being used to justify massive intrusions into our daily lives, as well as job-killing regulatory efforts resulting in higher costs of living. All to supposedly stave off something that was NEVER going to happen in the first place anyway.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 3:18:14 PM , Rating: 2
Because of this

quote:
Remember I am advertising myself an expert in this topic. I come armed with information sources to back my claims. Your answers dictate my response.


quote:
I will take you man to man(woman/tv) on Global Warming or Climate Change where you support man is contributing and where I get to challenge that assertion The rules are simple... up to 10 of you may take me on. we each make an argument the other must refute successfully and we start mortal combat. oh and it must be related to man made *insert current term here*. I will note that my replies will be with time issues (especially if replying to 10 people!) but I have no issues with making this a bookmarked thread if need be.


And to answer your question regarding
quote:
What I cannot accept is a half-baked theory being used to justify massive intrusions into our daily lives, as well as job-killing regulatory efforts resulting in higher costs of living. All to supposedly stave off something that was NEVER going to happen in the first place anyway.


I've pretty stated that there's massive amount of other problems we need to worry before we need to worry about global warming.

Why are you so defensive that we agree? You didn't take it too well we when disagree either. I really don't know what makes you happy.


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 9:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
He does not WANT to agree, and that is his problem. He wants us to bend knee to the AGW theorists, destroy approximately 95% of human life, and for us not to complain. Life would be so much easier for him and his ilk if others would shut up, stop complaining, and stop using facts!


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/17/2013 8:56:37 AM , Rating: 2
lol what part of "I agree with you that GW is insignificant and insignificant" don't you understand.

Let me summarize this

Reclaimer + fakeeinstein: GW is not real
Me: Yea it's overexaggerated. It's pretty insignificant
Reclaimer + fakeeinstein: You're a liberal hack! GW is not causing any problems!
Me: I just said I agree with you.
Reclaimer + fakeeinstein: You're a liar and I disagree with you!


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/17/2013 2:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
Your contention is based with so many biases that it shows an effort to protect the CRIMINALS who are fleecing our country and the world.

Yes I said criminals.

Not only that but you are such a troll you resort to personal attacks in damn near every post. You're like a child rapist... caught, released, you want to offend again. You are like a junky, you have to insult for your high. You are like a monkey, you love throwing crap at others.

Maybe you can show otherwise with a month of no personal attacks?


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 10:32:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Remember a Liberal thinks he is NEVER wrong.


What is with people here turning everything into political drama of Dem vs Rep?

Since when did science support any party?
Science is about indiscriminate results from experiments done with a standard procedure. It test every possible relevant factors with the same procedure to make sure results are honest and consistent. There's even a control sample.

If you are dumb enough to be fooled by propaganda instead of real science and then relating to political drama, then you are a tool that had been manipulated.

Al Gore is a a classic example of what happens when you mix politics with science. Any scientist that examined his statistics would tell you it's full of flaws and nitpicked data. He basically manipulated statistics to get the results he wanted.


RE: Uh Huh
By theapparition on 5/16/2013 11:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
Your correct at the core, but reality is a bit different. Most scientists aren't pure.

In the end, many scientists have an agenda. And they support the political party that supports that agenda, since that's where the money comes from.

No money, no research.

Right now there are "scientists" who are trying to prove the Earth was created 4000 years ago, despite carbon dating indicating the opposite.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 12:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
I work at a research center. There's over over 1000 scientists here and none of them have an agenda. Having an agenda means you are going to be biased. The only person with an agenda is the Director and his only agenda is to improve science.

You won't hear about any of these scientists because they're not biased. They do their work and they disappear to move onto the next project.

People like Al Gore puts a bad image in the science community.


RE: Uh Huh
By SPOOFE on 5/17/2013 4:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's over over 1000 scientists here and none of them have an agenda.

I doubt that; all humans have an agenda. Whether they have an agenda that could skew their perceptions of results is the pertinent detail.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/17/2013 9:26:58 AM , Rating: 2
You're confusing agenda with goals.

Having an agenda means you want a particular result.

There's a difference between someone saying "I want to prove global warming is real/fake" vs someone saying "I want to research what could cause global warming"


RE: Uh Huh
By SPOOFE on 5/17/2013 6:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Having an agenda means you want a particular result.

And I stand by my earlier statement. Desiring accurate information is, in and of itself, an agenda. Your insistence that they "have no agenda" makes me very skeptical of your claims in general.


RE: Uh Huh
By HrilL on 5/16/2013 1:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
who said anything about dem vs rep? I honestly hate both parties because they're basically the same. Saying liberal doesn't mean Democrat. It just means what he said. Liberal. Conservative doesn't mean Republican. Most true conservatives agree that most Republicans are far from conservatives and a lot of true liberals believe the same can be said of Democrats. As for a stereotypes go "Remember a Liberal thinks he is NEVER wrong." is pretty much true. They'll stand up for what they believe in until it doesn't go their way. Look at what the IRS did to conservatives. You don't see the liberals up in arms about it because it didn't happen to them even though the fact that is is something they would be against on principle. Even the republican leadership doesn't have any balls. Where is the special comity?

It all comes down to Progressives (Most Democrats and Republicans) Go figure they're really on the same team. When it comes to taking away freedom and expanding government they typically agree. And true Conservatives as well and true liberals. What we have in our country is a farce of choices while the ruling party (Progressives) play the media and key issues like abortion and religion (gay marriage) to seem like they're so different when in fact they're the same when it comes to most of the horrible things they are doing to destroy our country while they become rich.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 1:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
In present day US, Democrats are Liberal and Republicans are Conservative - but that is not the case with the rest of the world's political stage.

I guess you have an ounce of validity

until you said this
quote:
As for a stereotypes go "Remember a Liberal thinks he is NEVER wrong." is pretty much true.


I guess you will probably say the following statements are true:
1. Blacks are criminal
2. Mexicans are illegal
3. Jews are selfish stingy people
4. Asians have small penises
5. Women belong in the kitchen
6. Muslims are terrorists

Way to ruin your whole argument and take go off topic.


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 1:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
Attempted frame job is a joke.

Fact is most racism is liber in nature, as in liberal and libertarian.

For the record when I swore my oath against enemies foriegn and domestic I prayed I could kill racists.

You do not know me yet try Solinsky tactics that WONT work on me.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 2:29:07 PM , Rating: 3
lol you are a whack job


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 9:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
No sir, you are the one with the issue.

I can see racism with my own eyes. I can see a "United Negro College Fund" being racist. I can see efforts to force 'diversity' are racist (in fact statistically speaking is bad methodology, as I am not going to be entering the NBA, but a black lad would be interested more so, statistically speaking, than a white lad. Same with other culturally different views, no racism, just math. In fact a great example is Islamic females in certain nations, where if rights were expanded a large number would not use the new rights, for a series of cultural, religious, and community related issues).

Acknowledging facts and statistics is an important step to determining things. You ignore the entirety of it, and you support a frame up job which attempts to title me as racist.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/17/2013 8:49:54 AM , Rating: 2
You are just proving that you are a whack job and cannot focus on a single topic without going on 5 different tangent.


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/17/2013 9:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
My ability to discern multiple aspects, identify then, speak coherently [tho with typos, big thumbs and small keyboard), to defend and to continue bringing in more is a strength, not a weakness.

I can easily cover all aspects of this conversation where you resort to... name calling.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/17/2013 10:26:04 AM , Rating: 2
Your typos are not typos. It's clear that it had nothing to do with your big thumbs and small keyboard.

Discern multiple aspects? you went on a rant about racism lol

LMAO you are so delusional. Open the window and get some sun buddy.


RE: Uh Huh
By Dorkyman on 5/16/2013 2:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
You're talking stereotypes (except #5, that's an opinion, and never heard about #4 before).

Stereotypes generally exist because there is some truth to them. Take #6. Look at terrorist acts over the past 20 years. Now try to make some assumptions. Were acts done by blue-haired ladies in their 80s? No. Done by young Muslim males? Yes. Ah. Maybe that teaches us something. Not that ALL Muslims are terrorists; of course not.

And in the same vein I think it's true that liberals in general think they are smarter than the average citizen and "know" what's best. So by extension they believe they are not wrong. And in my view it's a belief system, just as strong as any organized religion. And on matters of faith you just can't argue logic.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 3:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And in the same vein I think it's true that liberals in general think they are smarter than the average citizen and "know" what's best. So by extension they believe they are not wrong. And in my view it's a belief system, just as strong as any organized religion. And on matters of faith you just can't argue logic.


Yes and "Im a pimp in my own mind"
Then I can say the same thing about conservatives, or libertarians, or tea party or whatever... they all do it. They believe in something so hard they try to impose it on other people.
We are all free to believe in whatever we want. Let our votes speak our minds when it's political views. We can agree to disagree because we're all different. Why argue about it?


RE: Uh Huh
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2013 2:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Al Gore is a a classic example of what happens when you mix politics with science.


Yes and Al Gore is a...come on, say it. A liiibbeeraa-

quote:
What is with people here turning everything into political drama of Dem vs Rep?


Global Warming as a concept is inherently Liberal. You're joking right?

The belief that benign human activity is going to cause a global catastrophe unless big Governments step in and tax and regulate the hell out of everyone to save them from themselves....come on, you cannot get more leftist than that.

And exactly what side of the political spectrum does the Green party and every environmental activist group align with?

quote:
Since when did science support any party?


Well this is such a broad question and so naive, it's hard to believe you're serious. But I would say the answer is; since science cost money to do and scientists expect to be paid.

How much money do you think something like "climatology" would be worth if it wasn't for the Global Warming and Climate Change theories and debate? Hell 10 years ago nobody even knew what a "Climatologist" was. You never heard about them! Today they're household names!

quote:
If you are dumb enough to be fooled by propaganda instead of real science


Well lots of people are. They're called Liberals and environmentalists.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 3:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer, you are very ignorant about people. Myself and many of my friends don't care for parties or want to be liberals/conservative/dem/rep. We all have our own minds and opinions. We differ on many things and we think objectively. We all agree to disagree and we don't fight over trivial things like who's a liberal and who's not.

How could you say science support certain parties. I am here at a research center and I am telling you we're not supporting any particular party or interest. There are scientists who go for the fame and money like Al Gore that gives you that image. The vast majority of scientists are very humble people who do it for passion. You may hear about new discoveries every week but these people spend their entire life gathering data and performing experiments to discover one thing hoping it would help our lives. Trust me, they lock themselves in the lab and office most of the time.


RE: Uh Huh
By SPOOFE on 5/17/2013 4:50:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How could you say science support certain parties.

He described a "belief", and belief is the problem. There is a strong BELIEF in global warming/climate change being caused directly and primarily by man. The rhetoric to further goals based on this belief routinely cite the beliefs of many scientists. But their beliefs don't matter. If someone believes that E=MC^2 but then suggests I drink hemlock for good health, I would be dubious of their suggestion no matter how fervently they believe in matter-energy equivalence.

Skill, experience, achievement, education, credentials, none of these things matter in the event of a belief.

The BELIEF in man's culpability behind global warming/climate change most certainly DOES support a certain party, or rather, a certain party is supported by the belief, due to that certain's party embracing that belief and pandering to its believers heavily.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/17/2013 9:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
I think it was just convenient for them at the time to support their political agenda at that time. We've certainly seen the two parties switch their platform in the past.

Like I said, I don't care about the political BS. I care about the real science and not propaganda.


RE: Uh Huh
By SPOOFE on 5/17/2013 6:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it was just convenient for them at the time to support their political agenda at that time.

Sure, but that still means that the belief supports that particular aspect of the political spectrum.

quote:
Like I said, I don't care about the political BS.

If you say so. I think you do care about at least some of the political BS, especially if you don't recognize it as political BS.


RE: Uh Huh
By Paj on 5/17/2013 6:20:31 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, most of those were from 40 years ago - before widespread and cheap computation, the agricultural revolution. And they're opinions, not peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Furthermore, some of what you post is already happening. Air pollution in Beijing is already that bad.


RE: Uh Huh
By Tony Swash on 5/15/2013 8:25:03 PM , Rating: 5
Rather disconcertingly I find myself in agreement with you :)

We should savour the moment.

Thirty years ago I was an environmental activist and I swallowed endless apocalyptic scares about the doom that would soon befall us and how things could not go on as they were. But there was no doomsday and things did go on as they were and actually the environment has, in general, got better. And a couple of billion people have been lifted out of abject poverty by economic growth.

When the climate change scare started I had an open mind about it, it sounded plausible. But I wanted to find out for myself and so I started to read the literature, the science and the theories and I looked at the data and I as did I became astonished at how flimsy the whole 'Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous climate change' theory was. It's so flimsy that it's proponents cannot even face engaging in the sort of normal straightforward debates that happen in every other area of science and instead have to resort to absurd smear tactics, calling anyone who asks awkward questions 'deniers' and constantly impugning the motives of sceptics by insisting they are all paid stooges.

I got so fed up arguing with people about it that I started a web site (which hasn't been updated for a while) which gathered together the sort of evidence I had found that encouraged me to take a sceptical attitude to alarmist and apocalyptic theories about humane caused climate change. It's here if anyone is interested.

http://a-sceptical-mind.com

Given the profound changes that are happening in solar activity I think it is highly likely that we we are entering a period of global cooling. Sadly even if the global temperature declines over the next decade or two, even if (as is already happening) winters become more severe and snow falls increase, quite a lot of people will not accept any questioning of the theory. For many people it has become a matter of faith and not of science or of rational inquiry.


RE: Uh Huh
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/16/2013 9:50:21 AM , Rating: 3
If your goal was to discredit Reclaimer by agreeing with him, well played.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 11:38:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not worried about global warming. Pollution and bad drivers seems to be a much higher risk than GW right now. The cancer rate is insane these days. Fresh clean water seems to be getting scarce also. We've got a lot more things that will kill us before GW.

I'm all for solving pollution as it will knock 2 birds with one stone. Both air/water contamination and reduce green house gases. Pushing EV will help all these problems. It will also help solve water contamination from people dumping motor oil everywhere.


RE: Uh Huh
By Dorkyman on 5/16/2013 1:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
Pollution? Are you serious?

As a card-carrying member of the older generation, I can very clearly recall what things were like in the 1960s and '70s. The "environment" in the USA is an order of magnitude cleaner than it was back then.

As for cancer, every case is a tragedy for someone, but I don't think the rate is "insane" when compared to the past. Well, okay, we are living longer these days so certain cancers are showing up more, but only because the human would have already died in previous generations.

How clean do you want the environment to be? We all know that getting rid of half the contaminant is relatively easy, getting rid of half of the remainder is tougher, getting rid of half of the half of the half is far more expensive, and so on. How much do you want to spend? At what point do you think things are "good enough?"

EVs cause all sorts of contamination, it's just that the consumer never sees it at his end.


RE: Uh Huh
By BRB29 on 5/17/2013 8:20:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, pollution is a global problem. Clean water is a global problem. A lot of common things you take for granted is a global problem.

You are lucky you live in a country where you can get clean water, hygiene products, and good medical care. However, most of the world don't have that. Even in the US, there are so many places where public water system fail regulations consistently.

If you are that pampered in your nice neighborhood and forgot about the rest of the world, then please do some basic search and find out. Pollution is a real problem today.


RE: Uh Huh
By maugrimtr on 5/16/13, Rating: -1
RE: Uh Huh
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/16/2013 9:47:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Climate Change has been disproved, soundly.

In your mind, perhaps. However, no reputable scientist or puplication agrees with you. In fact, your viewpoint on the subject has itself become a subject of scientific study.

"Strong opinions on climate change are self-reinforcing"
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/strong-opin...

In related news...

"Political Extremism Is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/24/09...

"Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer"
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/climat...

"When it comes to the environment, many conservatives don’t like conserving"
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/when-it-com...

"what if..."
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/5/6/3/What-I...


RE: Uh Huh
RE: Uh Huh
RE: Uh Huh
By Paj on 5/17/2013 5:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
Its disappointing to see how far science has fallen in America. Climate change denial, anti-vaxxers, banning evolution in schools. It's madness. No other western country is so anti-science.

I dont know where youre getting the no warming pattern from, either. Its the complete opposite.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carri...

A recent study of over 12,000 climate papers over the last 10-15 years has found a 97% consensus rate - that is, that the evidence for climate change is fact.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/survey-of-1...

Let me state this, unequivocally - there is no disagreement amongst scientists (you know, people that actually do science), in the US or anywhere else, about climate change.

The only disagreement comes from the public, politicians, lobbyists and think tanks. All groups whose scientific opinions dont count for much. Becuase that's what this is about - science.

quote:
Yup. No lie, when I was in elementary school they were teaching us that there was a giant hole in the ozone layer and that "in a few years" we would be unable to breath the air outside and we would have to wear oxygen masks or something and full insulated suits to survive outdoors.


The ozone layer was about UV rays, not oxygen. Ozone filters out UV rays, and CFCs were eliminating the ozone molecules. Since the Montreal protocol (elminating CFCs), the rate of ozone depletion has slowed dramatically.


RE: Uh Huh
By Spookster on 5/15/2013 6:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still waiting for California to fall into the pacific.


RE: Uh Huh
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2013 7:36:11 AM , Rating: 2
I'm good with just the first few miles falling in. Is where most of the morons are.


RE: Uh Huh
By Skywalker123 on 5/16/2013 9:49:25 AM , Rating: 1
My Grandpa always told me that most of the morons were located in S.C. Now I understand why.


RE: Uh Huh
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2013 10:21:18 AM , Rating: 1
If he was speaking of the first few miles along the coast around Charleston he'd be correct. Is where most of the liberal morons are.


RE: Uh Huh
By nick2000 on 5/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: Uh Huh
By Vonrikken on 5/16/2013 4:52:20 AM , Rating: 2
So because the glaciers that used to cover northern America are gone, that is proof of man made global warming? Those glaciers have been melting for thousands of years, long before man had a significant effect. Our world is much warmer now then the climate that produced and supported those glaciers, they would be melting whether humans were here or not. They are merely CONTINUING to melt. Whether man has sped this up is not my point, but either way they are going to melt. Saying that them melting is proof is.. Short sighted.


RE: Uh Huh
By Tony Swash on 5/16/2013 5:21:07 AM , Rating: 5
Interestingly it was a hike up Athabasca Glacier in Canada in 2006 that really made me start to be sceptical about some of the claims of the climate alarmists. As you walk up the long gently rising valley in which the Athabasca Glacier sits along the path towards the leading edge of the glacier it is marked by signposts every few hundred metres marking it's retreat over time, each of the markers has the year that the tip of the glacier was last at that point. The markers actually start near the car park in the visitors centre. What I was most struck by was how the first marker was from the last quarter of the 19th century and that the retreat of the glacier was well under way by the last 19th century and seemed to have continued throughout the 20th century.

This made me think. There was almost no human caused CO2 in the atmosphere in the 19th century and no climatologist today claims that CO2 was causing warming as long ago as 1890 and yet here was a glacier that had already started to retreat by then. I asked myself if it is indisputable that the retreat of the Athabasca Glacier in the late 19th century was caused by natural climate change why does it's retreat in the 20th century have to be ascribed to human activity?

As result of this encounter with the glacier I began to look at climate history and immediately saw that the long warming period from the middle of the 19th and into the 20th century was the recovery phase from the Little Ice Age which itself was the coldest period since the end of the last ice age 12,500 years ago and that much of the last 10,000 years had been warmer than today. Glaciers started to retreat at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850. I also saw that the global temperature has fluctuated several times between warm and cold periods in the last 10,000 years and that there was nothing unusual or different about the recent 20th century warming phase, which appears to possibly be coming to an end, and that ascribing it to human activity was not necessary in order to explain it.

Personally I now think climate change is mostly driven by the big yellow thing in the sky, as it always has been, and that CO2 is a very minor factor. If you look at this chart you can clearly see the cycle of change in solar activity going back to 1600, and that the rise and fall of solar activity (measured here by the sunspot proxy) is a very good fit with climate changes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28...

Rather alarmingly if this chart included data from the most recent solar cycle 24 it would show a very large drop in solar activity compared to the average level in the 20th century.


RE: Uh Huh
By domboy on 5/16/2013 8:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
I find it interesting that nobody seems to be shooting your post down, unlike previous posters skeptical about global warming. Your tale of Athabasca Glacier is most eye-opening.


RE: Uh Huh
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/16/2013 9:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody is bothering to shoot him down because nobody has bothered to read anything he wrote. His reputation is such that everyone knows better than to waste their time. Instead they just downvote him and move on.


RE: Uh Huh
By drycrust3 on 5/16/2013 5:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody is bothering to shoot him down because nobody has bothered to read anything he wrote.

Rubbish! I read the post and then saw it was Tony! Great post Tony!
LRH, you should apologise for your post. Science needs debate based on facts, not on the likes or dislikes a person displays.

If anyone is interested, green happens to be one of the strongest colours emitted by the sun, and it also happens to be the same colour as the light absorption frequency of the gas nitrogen, which is 78% of air. It may well be that the sun's green light is warming the air before it hits the earth. If one takes a basic "cosine rule" approach, where 90 degrees equals 0 and 0 degrees equals 1, then we can see that the higher the sun is in the sky the less the green light that is absorbed by the air, thus it warms the air less, while the lower it is in the sky the more it is absorbed and the more it warms the air. Thus even in polar areas, where the sun is always low in the sky, as soon as the sun is visible over the horizon the air will start to warm up even though most of it could be just passing through the atmosphere and not landing on the earth. Depending on how strong the green light is, how much is absorbed by nitrogen, and therefore how much it contributes to the warming of the air, it could well be that climate at the poles could be a lot warmer than it actually is without any degradation to the climate around the rest of the planet.


RE: Uh Huh
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/17/2013 11:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
LRH, you should apologise for your post.

I'll do no such thing. Tony has proven time and again that he's incapable of having a rational thought or justifiable opinion. Obviously you're free to read his posts, but I know better than to waste my time. I'll stick to reputable sources for my information and credible individuals for my discussions. Tony is neither of those things.


RE: Uh Huh
By SPOOFE on 5/17/2013 6:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tony has proven time and again that he's incapable of having a rational thought or justifiable opinion.

And, yet, here he is, having rational thoughts and expressing justifiable opinions. I think your bias is clouding your judgment.


RE: Uh Huh
By FITCamaro on 5/17/2013 7:05:54 AM , Rating: 2
His reputation is as a liberal.


RE: Uh Huh
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/17/2013 11:40:01 AM , Rating: 2
His reputation is as an imbecile. His political leanings are irrelevant, and actually I don't even know what they are because I stopped reading his posts long ago.


RE: Uh Huh
By SPOOFE on 5/17/2013 6:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
because I stopped reading his posts long ago.

So you don't READ his posts, yet you feel justified in both responding to and criticizing them?

Are you sure YOU'RE not the imbecile?


RE: Uh Huh
By Tony Swash on 5/16/2013 11:02:37 AM , Rating: 3
If you interested there is a set of photos on Flickr that someone posted of the date markers at the Athabasca Glacier which I described in my previous post, the first marker is dated 1843 and the glacier has been in retreat ever since.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/redbeardmathpirate/se...

As I mentioned previously the middle of the 19th century marked the end of the period known as the Little Ice Age, a period of much cooler climate that started around 1550. Global temperatures are only now reaching the same level as those seen in the period of warming that preceded the Little Ice Age and which was known as the Medieval Warm Period. Before that there was a Dark Ages Cold Period and before that a Roman Warm Period. The climate seems to oscillate between protracted periods of warming and cooling and the warming since 1850 fits this oscillating pattern very well.

Interestingly when the last Ice Age ended and the current warm period, known as the Holocene, started about 13.5 thousand years ago (which is like five minutes ago in geological time) the earth's climate was, for around 4000 years, quite a bit warmer than now. This period is known as the Holocene Optimum and was named when it was widely acknowledged that humanity flourishes in times of warming and suffers during cooling periods. It was during this early Holocene warm period, when temperatures were higher, that human agriculture started and the first permanent settlements and towns were established.

It is worth noting, given the alarm caused by the ice melt in the Arctic, that the arctic region was several degrees warmer than now during the Holocene Optimum. And the polar bears survived.

There is an informative article about the Holocene Optimum on Wikipedia which is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_opt...

and this Wikipedia chart of temperatures during the Holocene up to the present puts the current warming in perfect context.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca...


RE: Uh Huh
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 11:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
Tony Swash great posts.

Also of interest is British Naval records whwre they were convinced of a chance for a North West passage due to an immense melting. additionally their mapping efforts include monitoring the decline of glaciers along the coast of Greenland.


RE: Uh Huh
By superflex on 5/16/2013 3:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
Kudos Tony.
As a geology student in 1988 I also visited the Athabasca Glacier.
While global warming wasn't a hot topic back then as it became in the early 2000's, the retreat of the glaciers is no proof of man made global warming.
It is proof of the earth's procession around the Sun, eccentricity of it's orbit and several other astronomical factors which cause variations in the radiation we receive from the Sun.
Tax the Sun ManBearPig.


RE: Uh Huh
By zBernie on 5/16/2013 12:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
Without getting into specifics, much of global warming science is based on junk science, and espoused by scientific zealots who have been proven to exaggerate the facts. Without the threat of global warming, they would not have a job! So we can spend $trillions that we do not have fighting a non-issue, or come to our senses! Since the left also views global warming as a tool for redistributing wealth, global warming is seldom disputed by left-wing news outlets like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, the N.Y. Times, etc. So if you only get your news from the aforementioned news outlets, then you are most likely brainwashed to be a global warming alarmist automaton.


A challenge to supporters
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 11:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
I will take you man to man(woman/tv) on Global Warming or Climate Change where you support man is contributing and where I get to challenge that assertion

The rules are simple... up to 10 of you may take me on. we each make an argument the other must refute successfully and we start mortal combat. oh and it must be related to man made *insert current term here*.

I will note that my replies will be with time issues (especially if replying to 10 people!) but I have no issues with making this a bookmarked thread if need be.

We can even carry it on into new Environmental threads.

Any takers?




RE: A challenge to supporters
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/16/2013 1:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
97% of climate scientists "accept the evidence for the consensus position that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible for the warming observed over the last century."
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/survey-of-1...

There is nothing to discuss on the subject that hasn't already been exhaustively documented by people far more qualified than yourself.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 1:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/inde...

I am to tired to search for a specific section, find conscensus for me, read the links, then come back and make a reply...


RE: A challenge to supporters
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 1:54:11 PM , Rating: 1
Also by what rights do you judge me?

You know nothing about me. in fact you might be terrified to know some of the stuff I have cooking in my political actions... I will make Rove, Axelrod, et al seem weak and pathetic and my strategy will change politics hard to the right in the USA. no pale pastels here.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/17/2013 11:27:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't have to judge you. You already categorized yourself as a loon by disagreeing with scientific consensus. The fact that you see yourself as "hard to the right" solidifies that categorization.

That said, by what right do I judge you? By my natural right which is acknowledged by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By TheEinstein on 5/17/2013 2:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
The conscensus is debunked. only morons think there is a conscensus.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By SPOOFE on 5/17/2013 6:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You already categorized yourself as a loon by disagreeing with scientific consensus.

Consensus = Belief. Belief = Faith. Faith =/= Science.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By Dorkyman on 5/16/2013 1:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, well, if 97% of climate scientists agree, then it has to be true.

Reminds me of an article in a very old issue of Scientific American I read while an engineering student at that big school on the Charles River in Boston. The article stated that at current rates of growth, the entire island of Manhattan would be under four feet of horse manure by 1950. I'm paraphrasing here, but that's the gist.

Some very smart people believed the sun revolved around the earth. Some very smart people believed that the use of blood-sucking leeches was a valuable medical technique. Funny how certainty ain't so certain as time goes by.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 2:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
31,487 scientists disagree, if that is 3%....

*rolls eyes*


RE: A challenge to supporters
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 2:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
31,487 scientists disagree, if that is 3%....

*rolls eyes*


RE: A challenge to supporters
By FITCamaro on 5/17/2013 7:09:44 AM , Rating: 2
Scientists just eager for tens of millions of dollars in research grants no less.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By superflex on 5/16/2013 4:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
ARSTechnica lol


RE: A challenge to supporters
By Tony Swash on 5/16/2013 7:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
97% of climate scientists "accept the evidence for the consensus position that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are largely responsible for the warming observed over the last century."
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/survey-of-1...

There is nothing to discuss on the subject that hasn't already been exhaustively documented by people far more qualified than yourself


I am responding to your comments in two parts because of the length of my reply.

The claim for a 97% consensus is an urban myth, an example of tabloid climatology

The problem with the often repeated claim that there is a very strong consensus amongst climate scientists supporting the idea that human CO2 is driving climate change is that the claim rests on very weak evidence indeed. Sometimes absurdly the 97% consensus claim is even extended to all the many tens of thousands of scientists in the world.

The basis for the claim that there is a consensus of 97% comes from the poll conducted by Doran and Zimmerman which was published in 2009 which can be found here:

http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-conse...

Much of the background data relating to the conduct of the poll and the actual collected data only became public when Zimmerman’s Master’s thesis, the foundation of the EOS paper, appeared on line in September 2011, two years and eight months after the EOS paper was published. When the full material relating to the poll and it's findings are included the claim for a 97% consensus collapses and what is revealed is just how weak is the claim for a strong 97% consensus.

Doran and Zimmerman only polled 77 scientists and those who were selected had to have published at least 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the last five years on the subject of climate change. This means that a climatologist who has published three papers in the past five years, two of which were on the subject of climate change, would have been included in the final 77. A scientist who published 40 papers in the past five years, 19 of which were in the field of climate change would not have made the cut.

The two principle questions in the poll, the results of which monopolized media coverage, were:

Q1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Q2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” The possible answers were, “Yes”, “No”, and “I’m not sure.”

The 97% consensus claim comes form the 97% of the 77 who answered 'yes' to question 2.

See my next comment for examples of what the climate scientists really thought, it's eye opening.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By Tony Swash on 5/16/2013 7:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
This a continuation my comment above which was split in two because of it's length.

Returning to the issue of the 97% claim.

Later in the poll used to produce the false 97%claim more open ended questions were asked. In particular question 3c:

“What makes you unsure if human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing global mean temperatures?”

In answering this more open question many experts took the opportunity to thoroughly dismantle the obvious problems in the first two 'headline' questions. For example, at least 34 scientists (44%) objected to the use of the word “significant” when applied in this context. Here are some actual samples of the scientists response.

“’Significant’ is undefined, and to achieve the statistical parameters of significance is much of what the debates are about

The bigger question is, ‘How much [warming] does human activity add?’”

“I assume you mean ‘substantial’ rather than statistically ‘significant’… It is possible that we have provided 5-10% of the change, but am not sure if that is what you would define as ‘substantial.’ “I believe human activity is a contributing factor, it’s the term ‘significant’ I’m unsure about.”

“I do not know what you mean by significant. I believe humans are affecting the climate, I am not sure how and to what level.”

“I don’ know how to distinguish the effect of human activity from other controls, and I don’t know how you define ‘significant’.”

“I think human activity is a significant component, but I do not know if it is 10%, 25%, 50% or more.“

“I have no doubt that it is a factor, and part of my answer relates to the vagueness of the word ‘significantly’. Certainly natural variability is significant. I don’t think we are yet able to ease out the fraction of warming that is anthropogenic from the fraction that is natural…”

“It depends on your definition of ‘significant. Is human activity a factor? Yes.”

“Personally I have no doubt that human activity is a contributing factor to increased average MGT, but I cannot evaluate unquantified, qualitative statements like ‘major,’ ‘important,’ or ‘significant’ and disapprove of their use in scientific discussions/conclusions.”

“Significant is a loaded term. Human activity has contributed to the increase in temperature, but how much has this activity impacted the global mean temperature?”

“Significant’ is a relative term. To me, significant means that most of the changing temperature would be attributable to human activity. I’m not sure that can be demonstrated.”

“‘Significant’ is a word that is open to multiple interpretations. Significant is the key word. it has made a difference, but I am not sure if it is a significant difference or just adding to a natural change in temperatures.”

“That the humans are a contributing factor is clear, as to ‘significant’ is debatable.”

“I believe human activity is likely doing something, but I hesitate to say it is ‘significant’.”

“The key word is significant. There have been cyclic warm and cold periods since man has been on earth. The last 10 years the mean temperature has been rather flat, and we have a downward spike this winter. I’m not sure of all the factors going on…”

“The term significant is somewhat ambiguous particularly in comparison to climate changes throughout geologic history.“

“The use of the word significant makes me unsure. I know that climate fluctuations are normal, and I’m not convinced that humans are making current temperature changes significantly different.”

“The way that you phrased the question implies that human activity has to be a significant contributor. I think that the data indicates we are contributors but I’m not sure that we understand the background cycles/changes well enough to know how small or how huge our impacts are.“

“Does ‘significant’ mean perceptible or outside the ‘normal range’ of observations?…”

“what do you mean by significant? Statistically? A player in the total rise? sure we are! How much? I am not sure.“

“What is meant by significant? A major contribution, yes, but what is human activity compared with increased solar
“Your use of the word ‘significant’. It seems clear that human activity has caused an increase in CO2 levels. That, in theory, might have caused an increase in global temperature. However, did it? If so, was it the only cause? If it was a cause, was it a significant cause?”

“without defining what is meant by significant, you may get a wide range of responses that agree… ”

“Q2 then asks if I think that humans are “a significant” contributor to warming temperatures, but I can only answer yes or no. I happen to think that we are one among many contributing factors, so I answered yes, but I couldn’t explain this. … I had to stop the survey at this point because it was forcing me to answer queries about why I think they are… ”

“I have attempted to take your survey, but am dismayed at how it is constructed…”

“I have answered some questions from your survey and some I have not answered because they are vague…”

“Just filled out your survey and I have a suggestion. You need a question that asks to what degree we think human activity has influenced climate…”


Other comments from the participating scientists are even more scathing.

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”

“..Science is based on scepticism and experimental proof. Whereas human GHG emissions certainly have a warming effect, the breakdown between natural and anthropogenic contributions to warming is poorly constrained.

Remember that the warming since 1650 AD (not 1900) is part of a real ‘millennial cycle’ whose amplitude cannot yet be explained by any quantitative theory.

Also, the computer climate models are both too complex to be readily understood and too simple to describe reality.

Believing their results is an act of faith…”


RE: A challenge to supporters
By TheEinstein on 5/16/2013 9:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
yes exactly, the 97% was such a hoax.

So were other efforts to say 'consensus' when there was no such thing! It was as if going to a liberal convention and saying "We all believe in taxing the rich to help the poor right?"

The answer in such a case is going to be SKEWED.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By BRB29 on 5/17/2013 10:07:49 AM , Rating: 2
In summary

the only valid conclusion is that 97% of scientists believe in global warming.

It says nothing about to what degree.

Global warming is rarely studied. These global warming scientists probably never did a study on global warming. They are hydrologists, atmospheric chemists, ecologists, etc... or something in that field. The study just label them with that name. Most projects are about pollution and contamination. Other projects involves how to ID things.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By SPOOFE on 5/17/2013 6:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the only valid conclusion is that 97% of scientists believe in global warming.

Which is itself a worthless metric, since plenty of data suggests that the temperature of the planet fluctuates.

The PERTINENT concern is man's culpability in the process, and the data certainly indicates a LACK of consensus on the causal relationship. THAT is significant.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/17/2013 11:45:37 AM , Rating: 2
Too long; didn't read; wouldn't have read even if it wasn't too long.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By Tony Swash on 5/17/2013 1:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Too long; didn't read; wouldn't have read even if it wasn't too long.


The spirit of scientific curiosity lives on :P


RE: A challenge to supporters
By retrospooty on 5/17/2013 3:37:46 PM , Rating: 1
That's the problem with being 100% full of shit like you. No one cares what you post, even when its on a different issue and making good points.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By SPOOFE on 5/17/2013 6:39:14 PM , Rating: 1
I think Tony's posts in this thread have been very informative contributions, whereas clowns like you have been shitting all over because you don't like his views on some other, completely unrelated, subject.

Go away.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By retrospooty on 5/17/2013 7:29:27 PM , Rating: 1
I didnt shit on Tony's post, as a matter of fact, I mentioned he made good points - I agree with almost everything he said here... My point was that alot of people (see lronhubbs above) dont care what he says because he is so full of shit 100% of the time on other issues, and we all know what I am talking about.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By SPOOFE on 5/18/2013 7:10:31 PM , Rating: 1
You say he's making good points but also that he's full of shit. Sorry, but it looks like you're just holding a petty grudge, held over from a completely different discussion. That says far more about you than it does about him.

quote:
we all know what I am talking about.

I can make guesses, and I've disagreed with him on other issues plenty. But here in this thread he's been making great posts, and I think it does a disservice to the entire discussion to point fingers and announce how much you dislike his opinion on other subjects.


RE: A challenge to supporters
By retrospooty on 5/18/2013 8:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
Get a life


RE: A challenge to supporters
By SPOOFE on 5/19/2013 5:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
My life is great, and doesn't revolve around holding petty Apple vs. PC grudges on the Internet. :)


RE: A challenge to supporters
By retrospooty on 5/19/2013 10:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yet you can login to defend someone that doesn't need defending and to try and force others to adhere to some arbitrary rule you made about forgetting previous conversations in every new thread in some weird sort of 50 first dates short term memory loss scenario... :p

My message to Tony was this...you have good points to make, but it tends to get washed out by your 100 percent bias on the other subject. Sort of an internet fanboy version of the boy who cried wolf. I think that's a very valid point.


In Other News
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2013 5:59:21 PM , Rating: 4
Climate Change responsible for New Orleans being under sea level. Leading climatologist reports the city "will flood again at some point in the next 100 years".




RE: In Other News
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 8:59:50 AM , Rating: 2
lol New Orleans have always been under sea level. In a 100 years, I promise New Orleans will be flooded several more times, plenty of hurricanes and tornadoes, minor earthquakes, etc...

This article is pointless.


RE: In Other News
By SPOOFE on 5/17/2013 6:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
WHOOOOOOOOSH


Why bother preserving it?
By mnsear on 5/16/2013 5:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
The Americans are so proud of celebrating independence from the Brits - a recent example:

1 WTC - 1,776 feet tall.

I'm a Brit living in Toronto, Canada - for the record love the USA.

Did you know the CN Tower is 1,815 ft tall. That's to mark the end of the 1812 war against the USA by the British, Irish, Candians and Natives - which was won by them.

Did you know The Burning of Washington in 1814 was an incident during the War of 1812 between the forces of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and those of the United States of America. On August 24, 1814, after defeating the Americans at the Battle of Bladensburg, a British force led by Major General Robert Ross occupied Washington, D.C. and set fire to many public buildings. The facilities of the U.S. government, including the White House and U.S. Capitol, were largely destroyed.[4] The British commander's orders to burn only public buildings and strict discipline among the British troops are credited with preserving the city's private buildings.

This was the only time since the Revolutionary War that a foreign power captured and occupied the United States capitol.




RE: Why bother preserving it?
By BRB29 on 5/16/2013 7:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
Please enlighten me on what the hell does this have to do with an article about global warming??


Put "Could" in headline and you can say anything
By GatoRat on 5/16/2013 10:02:07 AM , Rating: 1
Whenever you see "could" in a news headline, it probably means the article is bullshit. Lazy reporters use the word all the time to write sensationalistic nonsense. They may as well have written "Aliens could destroy the Jamestown site."

College professors use the word all the time to justify why they are wasting money.




By PaFromFL on 5/17/2013 8:04:38 AM , Rating: 2
Oh no! Aliens are going to destroy the Jamestown site unless I get some grant money to study the problem! I'm an expert in alien countermeasures and can generate convincing charts and research papers to promote this new political cause. Who's with me!


NPR
By hiscross on 5/15/2013 10:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
Now there's a reliable source for straight no BS news. I really find this quite amusing -> http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2013/05/obama...




It might happen...
By ballist1x on 5/16/2013 7:50:30 AM , Rating: 2
Then again it might not.

Whether the cause is man or not is really the question i guess here.

After an ice age, you can presume that temperatures have increased, and therefore ice that was formed in that ice age is likely to reterat, otherwise, you would still be in that ice age... right?




Really?
By Dukeajuke on 5/16/2013 8:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
It's also possible that Jamestown may be wiped destroyed by an earthquake, meteor, nuclear bomb, or attacked by aliens in the next 100 years. So I guess I don't get the point of this article..




facts disagree
By DockScience on 5/16/2013 2:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares if the sea level rise in Virginia is a very constant 4.4 mm/year with NO acceleration at all? In 100 years, that's 440 mm or about 18 inches not 3 feet in 87 years.

http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltr...




John Smith eats Pocahontas
By Lord 666 on 5/15/2013 6:14:03 PM , Rating: 1
Definitely takes on new meaning after reading this.




"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki