100 places that will be gone because of global warming

[xomputer]

100 Places to Remember Before They Disappear - Newsweek Our Endangered Planet - Newsweek.com

It is so unfortunate to learn that these places will be gone because of the global warming
I've never been to most of those places.
We must save those places so the next generation can visit there. Let's figure out how to stop global warming

 

[RetiredGySgt]

100 Places to Remember Before They Disappear - Newsweek Our Endangered Planet - Newsweek.com

It is so unfortunate to learn that these places will be gone because of the global warming
I've never been to most of those places.
We must save those places so the next generation can visit there. Let's figure out how to stop global warming

You want to stop Mother Nature? There is no real evidence man has caused any warming at all. How do you propose we stop it?

The supposed culprit according to our great and wise Scientists is CO2 increases in the atmosphere. The ONLY real problem with that theory is that through out History CO2 follows rise in Temperature NOT the other way around.

Further once again, the temperature was raised just a little over 1 degree in a Century. The amount that it was predicted it would rise. The only concern was that a third of that rise occurred in a 15 year time frame. Since 1998 there has been no raise in world wide Temperatures.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I was told that Florida was going to be under water 20 years ago and it's still there. Imagine that the sky isn't actually falling.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I was told that Florida was going to be under water 20 years ago and it's still there. Imagine that the sky isn't actually falling.

Well that brings up an interesting question. According to our local warmers and the scientists the poles are melting and we are losing all our Glaciers. YET the rate of sea rise on our shores is steady and constant and has not changed. Where EXACTLY did all that water go?

 

[blastoff]

As long as Malibu's on the list I'm all for it.

 

[Alpha1]

Its amazing the scare tactics the left will use in their pet issues, and in the wink of an eye accuse the right of using scare tactics about some other issue....

 

[tommywho70x]

I was told that Florida was going to be under water 20 years ago and it's still there. Imagine that the sky isn't actually falling.

fact is, on a geologic time scale, florida has been under water more than it has been out of the water. give it time, the ocean will rise enough to cover it eventually. and further on down the road, it will recede enough that it sticks out as land.

so things have been getting warmer than they were when people figured out how to watch stuff like that? so what. it will eventually start looking like it's getting cooler and people will get off arguing about whether we were the cause of global cooling.

the human influence on anything of a global scale is insignificant. probably even the destruction of all the species we know people have destroyed is insignificant too.

according to our best understanding, the climate has always gone through marked changes and up until comparatively recently, people weren't even present at all.

i'm afraid this global warming controversy is one of those that i really can't back the position of either side. it's something that happens. adapt or die. simple, really.

 

[westwall]

You do realize that 10,000 years ago the seas were much lower..right? You do realize that the Earth has been in an interglacial warming trend since then... right? You do realize that even now the area around the Great Lakes is still rising back from the weight of the ice that was upon it...right? You do realize that on the scale of time for our planet we have been around for quite literally the blink of an eye...right? So let me ask you this...why do we feel we can say what is normal for the world? What is the "correct" temperature? What is the "correct" ocean level? What is the "correct" amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? We havn't even been measuring these things for more than a 100 years in most cases and we know (contrary to what Mann was trying to hide with his hockey stick fraud) that the temperature was much warmer in the Roman times and during the Medieval Warming Period, just as we know that there were periods that were much cooler like the 6th century climate catastrophe and the Little Ice Age of the 16th and 17th centuries. Oh and by the way...when it was warmer... the world was actually a nicer place to live! Interesting how the AGW folks allways seem to leave out how prosperous the world was when it was warmer. Imagine growing grapes in Norway or Greenland being...well...green! Gee I wonder how big the glaciers were when Greenland was green. And fancy that...there was no manmade CO2 to blame for the temperature increase...now you know why Mann was trying to hide that little fact.

 

[Old Rocks]

100 Places to Remember Before They Disappear - Newsweek Our Endangered Planet - Newsweek.com

It is so unfortunate to learn that these places will be gone because of the global warming
I've never been to most of those places.
We must save those places so the next generation can visit there. Let's figure out how to stop global warming

You want to stop Mother Nature? There is no real evidence man has caused any warming at all. How do you propose we stop it?

Hmmmmmm....... According to a retired sargent. According to the vast majority of scientists that deal with earth sciences, man is primarily responsible for the warming that we are experiancing.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



The supposed culprit according to our great and wise Scientists is CO2 increases in the atmosphere. The ONLY real problem with that theory is that through out History CO2 follows rise in Temperature NOT the other way around.

No, Sarge, that is not how it works at all.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Further once again, the temperature was raised just a little over 1 degree in a Century. The amount that it was predicted it would rise. The only concern was that a third of that rise occurred in a 15 year time frame. Since 1998 there has been no raise in world wide Temperatures.

1998 was an exceptionally warm year, as 1985 was a cold year. Look at the 25 year graph on this site, and you can see that the period from 1998 to the present has been far warmer than any other period since we have been keeping instument records.

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

You do realize that 10,000 years ago the seas were much lower..right? You do realize that the Earth has been in an interglacial warming trend since then... right? You do realize that even now the area around the Great Lakes is still rising back from the weight of the ice that was upon it...right? You do realize that on the scale of time for our planet we have been around for quite literally the blink of an eye...right? So let me ask you this...why do we feel we can say what is normal for the world? What is the "correct" temperature? What is the "correct" ocean level? What is the "correct" amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? We havn't even been measuring these things for more than a 100 years in most cases and we know (contrary to what Mann was trying to hide with his hockey stick fraud) that the temperature was much warmer in the Roman times and during the Medieval Warming Period, just as we know that there were periods that were much cooler like the 6th century climate catastrophe and the Little Ice Age of the 16th and 17th centuries. Oh and by the way...when it was warmer... the world was actually a nicer place to live! Interesting how the AGW folks allways seem to leave out how prosperous the world was when it was warmer. Imagine growing grapes in Norway or Greenland being...well...green! Gee I wonder how big the glaciers were when Greenland was green. And fancy that...there was no manmade CO2 to blame for the temperature increase...now you know why Mann was trying to hide that little fact.

Imagine an ignoramous pulling shit out of his ass. No grapes in Greenland. At the best of times, that colony was marginal.

The hockey stick graph has been confirmed by at least 14 indepentent studies. Even the National Academy of Sciences study, which faulted his statistical methods, found when revised using the methods they preferred, the result was the same.

Newsvine - Academy Affirms 'Hockey-Stick' Graph

The academy essentially upholds Mann's findings, although the panel concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed, he says, adding that he would not be embarrassed to have been involved in the work.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You do realize that 10,000 years ago the seas were much lower..right? You do realize that the Earth has been in an interglacial warming trend since then... right? You do realize that even now the area around the Great Lakes is still rising back from the weight of the ice that was upon it...right? You do realize that on the scale of time for our planet we have been around for quite literally the blink of an eye...right? So let me ask you this...why do we feel we can say what is normal for the world? What is the "correct" temperature? What is the "correct" ocean level? What is the "correct" amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? We havn't even been measuring these things for more than a 100 years in most cases and we know (contrary to what Mann was trying to hide with his hockey stick fraud) that the temperature was much warmer in the Roman times and during the Medieval Warming Period, just as we know that there were periods that were much cooler like the 6th century climate catastrophe and the Little Ice Age of the 16th and 17th centuries. Oh and by the way...when it was warmer... the world was actually a nicer place to live! Interesting how the AGW folks allways seem to leave out how prosperous the world was when it was warmer. Imagine growing grapes in Norway or Greenland being...well...green! Gee I wonder how big the glaciers were when Greenland was green. And fancy that...there was no manmade CO2 to blame for the temperature increase...now you know why Mann was trying to hide that little fact.

Imagine an ignoramous pulling shit out of his ass. No grapes in Greenland. At the best of times, that colony was marginal.

The hockey stick graph has been confirmed by at least 14 indepentent studies. Even the National Academy of Sciences study, which faulted his statistical methods, found when revised using the methods they preferred, the result was the same.

Newsvine - Academy Affirms 'Hockey-Stick' Graph

The academy essentially upholds Mann's findings, although the panel concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed, he says, adding that he would not be embarrassed to have been involved in the work.

Ohh look a Liberal trying desperately to convert a fact into a lie. To make a lie fact. The hockey stick was a fabrication of the worst sort. And here you are trying to claim it was not. GO FIGURE.

Once again no significant warming has occurred since 1998. You know and I know it and most sane people know it as well. Further the temperature only raised a little over 1 degree in the 1900's AS WAS PREDICTED it would.

CO2 FOLLOWS warming, it has since science has been science. You trying to change that does not make it not true. Go peddle your lies to some more gullible audience.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Sarge, you are long on yap-yap, and very short on referances. So when are you going to back up your statements?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More fear mongering from the Enviro-Marxists.

Thankfully real scientists are starting to take a stand against the Warmers.

 

[Big Fitz]

You do realize that 10,000 years ago the seas were much lower..right? You do realize that the Earth has been in an interglacial warming trend since then... right? You do realize that even now the area around the Great Lakes is still rising back from the weight of the ice that was upon it...right? You do realize that on the scale of time for our planet we have been around for quite literally the blink of an eye...right? So let me ask you this...why do we feel we can say what is normal for the world? What is the "correct" temperature? What is the "correct" ocean level? What is the "correct" amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? We havn't even been measuring these things for more than a 100 years in most cases and we know (contrary to what Mann was trying to hide with his hockey stick fraud) that the temperature was much warmer in the Roman times and during the Medieval Warming Period, just as we know that there were periods that were much cooler like the 6th century climate catastrophe and the Little Ice Age of the 16th and 17th centuries. Oh and by the way...when it was warmer... the world was actually a nicer place to live! Interesting how the AGW folks allways seem to leave out how prosperous the world was when it was warmer. Imagine growing grapes in Norway or Greenland being...well...green! Gee I wonder how big the glaciers were when Greenland was green. And fancy that...there was no manmade CO2 to blame for the temperature increase...now you know why Mann was trying to hide that little fact.

Imagine an ignoramous pulling shit out of his ass. No grapes in Greenland. At the best of times, that colony was marginal.

The hockey stick graph has been confirmed by at least 14 indepentent studies. Even the National Academy of Sciences study, which faulted his statistical methods, found when revised using the methods they preferred, the result was the same.

Newsvine - Academy Affirms 'Hockey-Stick' Graph

The academy essentially upholds Mann's findings, although the panel concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been. The NAS also confirmed some problems with the statistics. But the mistakes had a relatively minor impact on the overall finding, says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. This study was the first of its kind, and they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed, he says, adding that he would not be embarrassed to have been involved in the work.

And back to incestuous 'proof' of the lie. What a viscious circle.

And what galls me is that Crocks is right that there was no wine growing in Greenland. During the Medieval warm period this is more or less the state of the colonies there (from a non AGW tainted source):

The Greenland Vikings lived mostly on dairy produce and meat, primarily from cows. The vegetable diet of Greenlanders included berries, edible grasses, and seaweed, but these were inadequate even during the best harvests. During the MWP, Greenland's climate was so cold that cattle breeding and dairy farming could only be carried on in the sheltered fiords. The growing season in Greenland even then was very short. Frost typically occurred in August and the fiords froze in October. Before the year 1300, ships regularly sailed from Norway and other European countries to Greenland bringing with them timber, iron, corn, salt, and other needed items. Trade was by barter. Greenlanders offered butter, cheese, wool, and their frieze cloths, which were greatly sough after in Europe, as well as white and blue fox furs, polar bear skins, walrus and narwhal tusks, and walrus skins. In fact, two Greenland items in particular were prized by Europeans: white bears and the white falcon. These items were given as royal gifts. For instance, the King of Norway-Denmark sent a number of Greenland falcons as a gift to the King of Portugal, and received in return the gift of a cargo of wine (Stefansson, 1966.) Because of the shortage of adequate vegetables and cereal grains, and a shortage of timber to make ships, the trade link to Iceland and Europe was vital (Hermann, 1954.)

But the hockey stick is STILL bullshit. You were right only about one fact.

 

[Toro]

I was told that Florida was going to be under water 20 years ago and it's still there. Imagine that the sky isn't actually falling.

I'm buying a bunch of swampland in the Everglades because one day, its all going to be beachfront property.

So I'm rooting for Global Warming! Go Warming Go!

Now excuse me, I've got to go drive my SUV up and down the Interstate for the next six hours.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You do realize that 10,000 years ago the seas were much lower..right? You do realize that the Earth has been in an interglacial warming trend since then... right? You do realize that even now the area around the Great Lakes is still rising back from the weight of the ice that was upon it...right? You do realize that on the scale of time for our planet we have been around for quite literally the blink of an eye...right? So let me ask you this...why do we feel we can say what is normal for the world? What is the "correct" temperature? What is the "correct" ocean level? What is the "correct" amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? We havn't even been measuring these things for more than a 100 years in most cases and we know (contrary to what Mann was trying to hide with his hockey stick fraud) that the temperature was much warmer in the Roman times and during the Medieval Warming Period, just as we know that there were periods that were much cooler like the 6th century climate catastrophe and the Little Ice Age of the 16th and 17th centuries. Oh and by the way...when it was warmer... the world was actually a nicer place to live! Interesting how the AGW folks allways seem to leave out how prosperous the world was when it was warmer. Imagine growing grapes in Norway or Greenland being...well...green! Gee I wonder how big the glaciers were when Greenland was green. And fancy that...there was no manmade CO2 to blame for the temperature increase...now you know why Mann was trying to hide that little fact.

When you talk to OldRocks you have to imagine that you're talking to the scientific equivalent of an 85 year old Japanese solider whose been hiding the jungles of Guam and believes that WWII is still on.

 

[Big Fitz]

100 Places to Remember Before They Disappear - Newsweek Our Endangered Planet - Newsweek.com

It is so unfortunate to learn that these places will be gone because of the global warming
I've never been to most of those places.
We must save those places so the next generation can visit there. Let's figure out how to stop global warming

BTW, inbetween boxes of tissues crying for the loss of land in a dynamic environment...
you may want to remember... your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great... GASP.... great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great GREAT Grand children will be able to see these places.

it's not changing for another 10,000 years, it's still moving in geologic time and speed. AGW is still bullshit.

 

[westwall]

I never said there were grapes in Greenland (those were in England you silly person!) No, I just said Greenaland was Green and yes the colony was not able to sustain itself but not because of the weather but because it was not supported enough in the initial colonisation phase (kind of how most restaurants fail because they are undercapatalised in the opening years of business) but you probably havn't read enough history to know that. And as far as the confirmation of the "Hockey Stick Graph" I suggest you read the NAS report on it. Mann of course spun the report to make his crap smell better but here is a short excerpt that I lifted from The Hockey Schtick Blog. You may be surprised what real scientists had to say about this graph.



Spinmeister Michael Mann is quoted in this article from the Telegraph yesterday as follows:

Prof Hand (Head of the UK Royal Statistical Society) praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results. "The Mann 1998 hockey stick paper used a particular technique that exaggerated the hockey stick effect," he said.
Prof Mann, who is Professor of Earth System Science at the Pennsylvania State University, said the statistics used in his graph were correct. "I would note that our '98 article was reviewed by the US National Academy of Sciences, the highest scientific authority in the United States, and given a clean bill of health," he said. "In fact, the statistician on the panel, Peter Bloomfield, a member of the Royal Statistical Society, came to the opposite conclusion of Prof Hand."
Mann has been repeating this arrogant duplicitous spin continuously since Climategate and refuses to acknowledge any problems whatsoever with his infamous doomsday hockey stick graph. Mann always refers to the subtly worded US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report as his ally because he knows McIntyre & McKitrick, the Wegman Report, Hans von Storch, et al, and now the Head of the Royal Statistical Society have minced no words debunking his hockey stick. But what did the NAS report and the authors actually say about the Mann hockey stick? In fact, the NAS report validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M):



1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score, thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties. The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

3. M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or “strip-bark” records). If they are removed, the conclusion that the 20th century is unusually warm compared to the pre-1450 interval is reversed. Hence the conclusion of unique late 20th century warmth is not robust—in other word it does not hold up under minor variations in data or methods. The NAS panel agreed, saying Mann’s results are “strongly dependent” on the strip-bark data (pp. 106-107), and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research (p. 50).

4. The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’

Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – and panel member Peter Bloomfield who Mann says above came to the opposite conclusions as Prof Hand, were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)

Thus, despite Mann's incredible spin, Dr. Bloomfield did not "come to the opposite conclusion as Dr. Hand", nor those of Dr. Wegman, Steve McIntyre, and Dr. McKitrick.2]

You do realize that 10,000 years ago the seas were much lower..right? You do realize that the Earth has been in an interglacial warming trend since then... right? You do realize that even now the area around the Great Lakes is still rising back from the weight of the ice that was upon it...right? You do realize that on the scale of time for our planet we have been around for quite literally the blink of an eye...right? So let me ask you this...why do we feel we can say what is normal for the world? What is the "correct" temperature? What is the "correct" ocean level? What is the "correct" amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? We havn't even been measuring these things for more than a 100 years in most cases and we know (contrary to what Mann was trying to hide with his hockey stick fraud) that the temperature was much warmer in the Roman times and during the Medieval Warming Period, just as we know that there were periods that were much cooler like the 6th century climate catastrophe and the Little Ice Age of the 16th and 17th centuries. Oh and by the way...when it was warmer... the world was actually a nicer place to live! Interesting how the AGW folks allways seem to leave out how prosperous the world was when it was warmer. Imagine growing grapes in Norway or Greenland being...well...green! Gee I wonder how big the glaciers were when Greenland was green. And fancy that...there was no manmade CO2 to blame for the temperature increase...now you know why Mann was trying to hide that little fact.

So there you go. Any infantile jackass can call people names but this ignoramous knows how to read a report. How about you?







Imagine an ignoramous pulling shit out of his ass. No grapes in Greenland. At the best of times, that colony was marginal.

 

[westwall]

Oh that's OK, I'm used to dealing with fossils!

You do realize that 10,000 years ago the seas were much lower..right? You do realize that the Earth has been in an interglacial warming trend since then... right? You do realize that even now the area around the Great Lakes is still rising back from the weight of the ice that was upon it...right? You do realize that on the scale of time for our planet we have been around for quite literally the blink of an eye...right? So let me ask you this...why do we feel we can say what is normal for the world? What is the "correct" temperature? What is the "correct" ocean level? What is the "correct" amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? We havn't even been measuring these things for more than a 100 years in most cases and we know (contrary to what Mann was trying to hide with his hockey stick fraud) that the temperature was much warmer in the Roman times and during the Medieval Warming Period, just as we know that there were periods that were much cooler like the 6th century climate catastrophe and the Little Ice Age of the 16th and 17th centuries. Oh and by the way...when it was warmer... the world was actually a nicer place to live! Interesting how the AGW folks allways seem to leave out how prosperous the world was when it was warmer. Imagine growing grapes in Norway or Greenland being...well...green! Gee I wonder how big the glaciers were when Greenland was green. And fancy that...there was no manmade CO2 to blame for the temperature increase...now you know why Mann was trying to hide that little fact.

When you talk to OldRocks you have to imagine that you're talking to the scientific equivalent of an 85 year old Japanese solider whose been hiding the jungles of Guam and believes that WWII is still on.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OK, I figured out how to do the experiment. I was having trouble because the amount of CO2 is so small it's hard to add it without having some real expensive scientific instruments, but this should do.

First take 4 10 gallon fish tanks: fill them about an inch with dirt, plants, a small pool of water and a turtle and a thermometer. Make sure it a turtle you don't care about because this is a climate changes experiment and small changes in CO2 might be enough to spawn Cat 5 hurricanes in the fish tank.

Then, give them each an atmosphere of 80% Nitrogen and 20% Oxygen. (OK, you can fill them with regular air)

Then, take 4 tiny plastic capsules, one with nothing inside, one with 1/4 teaspoon CO2 (as dry ice), one with 1/2 teaspoon, and fuck it, one with a whole teaspoon of CO2 (proportionally in a 10 gallon tank that's 4 times the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere)

Seal the tanks.

As the plastic capsules dissolve, observe what happens.

Take careful notes of any changes in the temperature and conditions of the 4 tanks.