Report says warming is changing US daily life (Update)

Jan 11, 2013 by Seth Borenstein

Global warming is already changing America from sea to rising sea and is affecting how Americans live, a massive new federally commissioned report says.

A special panel of scientists convened by the government issued Friday a 1,146-page draft report that details in dozens of ways how climate change is already disrupting the health, homes and other facets of daily American life. It warns that those disruptions will increase in the future.

"Climate change affects everything that you do," said report co-author Susan Cutter, director of the Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute at the University of South Carolina. "It affects where you live, where you work and where you play and the infrastructure that you need to do all these things. It's more than just the polar bears."

The blunt report takes a global environmental issue and explains what it means for different U.S. regions, for various sectors of the economy and for future generations.

The National Climate Assessment doesn't say what should be done about global warming. White House science adviser John Holdren writes that it will help leaders, regulators, city planners and even farmers figure out what to do to cope with coming changes.

And climate change is more than hotter temperatures, the report said.

"Human-induced climate change means much more than just hotter weather," the report says, listing rising-seas, downpours, melting glaciers and permafrost, and worsening storms. "These changes and other climatic changes have affected and will continue to affect human health, water supply, agriculture, transportation, energy, and many other aspects of society."

The report uses the word "threat" or variations of it 198 times and versions of the word "disrupt" another 120 times.

If someone were to list every aspect of life changed or likely to be altered from global warming, it would easily be more than 100, said two of the report's authors.

The report, written by team of 240 scientists, is required every four years by law. The first report was written in 2000. No report was issued while George W. Bush was president. The next one came out in 2009. This report, paid for by the federal government, is still a draft and not officially a government report yet. Officials are seeking public comments for the next three months.

"There is so much that is already happening today," said study co-author Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. "This is no longer a future issue. It's an issue that is staring us in the face today"

This version of the report is far more blunt and confident in its assessments than previous ones, Hayhoe said: "The bluntness reflects the increasing confidence we have" in the science and day-to-day realities of climate change.

The report emphasizes that man-made global warming is doing more than just altering the environment we live in, it's a threat to our bodies, homes, offices, roads, airports, power plants, water systems and farms.

"Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including impacts from increased extreme weather events, wildfire, decreased air quality, diseases transmitted by insects, food and water, and threats to mental health," the report said.

"Climate change and its impacts threaten the well-being of urban residents in all 13 regions of the U.S.," the report said. "Essential local and regional infrastructure systems such as water, energy supply, and transportation will increasingly be compromised by interrelated climate change impacts."

For example, the report details 13 airports that have runways that could be inundated by rising sea level. It mentions that thawing Alaskan ground means 50 percent less time to drill for oil. And overall it says up to $6.1 billion in repairs need to be made to Alaskan roads, pipelines, sewer systems, buildings and airports to keep up with global warming.

Sewer systems across America may overflow more, causing damages and fouling lakes and waterways because of climate change, the report said. The sewer overflows into Lake Michigan alone will more than double by the year 2100, the report said.

While warmer weather may help some crops, others will be hurt because of "weeds, diseases, insect pests and other climate change-induced stresses," the report said. It said weeds like kudzu do better with warmer weather and are far more likely to spread north.

"Several populations - including children, the elderly, the sick, the poor, tribes and other indigenous people - are especially vulnerable to one or more aspects of climate change," the report said.

Explore further: Cuba looks to mangroves to fend off rising seas

More information: The National Climate Assessment: ncadac.globalchange.gov

4.2 /5 (19 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

New Zealand court rejects global warming challenge

Sep 07, 2012

New Zealand's High Court on Friday dismissed a challenge launched by climate change sceptics against a government research agency's finding that the temperature had risen in the past century.

Recommended for you

EU sets new energy savings target at 30%

12 hours ago

After months of tough negotiations, the European Commission recommended Wednesday a new energy savings target of 30 percent so as to combat climate change and ensure self-sufficiency.

User comments : 57

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ScooterG
1.6 / 5 (31) Jan 11, 2013
Hogwash.

This is the same government we ridicule on a minute-by-mminute basis. We're supposed to trust them on climate issues???
frajo
4 / 5 (21) Jan 11, 2013
Nobody asks you to trust your government.
But climate change is here to stay, no matter what you believe.
DruidDrudge
1.5 / 5 (25) Jan 11, 2013
"climate change is already disrupting the health, homes and other facets of daily American life."
Really! its not economics, or gov´t, or guns or ... ( such a long list ) ... sigh..
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (26) Jan 11, 2013
Nobody asks you to trust your government.
But climate change is here to stay, no matter what you believe.


Yes indeed, the climate changes.

Just wish the nanny/busy body/Mooching class would stop frightening the plebeian/low information class into reacting to something, that left alone, they would react to more rationally than the mooching class would anyway (free markets are always more efficient than their (always) ill-managed cousins).
djr
3.7 / 5 (14) Jan 11, 2013
Shootist: "Just wish the nanny/busy body/Mooching class would stop frightening the plebeian/low information class into reacting to something, that left alone, they would react to more rationally than the mooching class would anyway"

Which class are you in Shootist?? I think I am a fairly high information person - have masters degree - read a lot - pay attention a lot to climate issues - don't watch Fox news etc. It seems to me that the high information people - you know like scientists and stuff - are pretty concerned about this climate issue - so maybe we should let them do their job - and let the issue take it's course. I wish the low information people would stop spamming the internet with their ignorance - but probably too much to ask.
Sean_W
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 12, 2013
How many people have had their property taxes lowered because of the rising sea level shrinking their land and it's value?
Bob_Kob
2.1 / 5 (17) Jan 12, 2013
How is 0.4 of a degree rise in 50 years affecting us now?
The Alchemist
1.7 / 5 (18) Jan 12, 2013
Bob Kob-Gedenkin experiment: You have a bowl filled with water, ice in the center. Left to its own it will not change. What happens if we raise the temperature 0.4 degrees?
alfie_null
4 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2013
Bob Kob-Gedenkin experiment: You have a bowl filled with water, ice in the center. Left to its own it will not change. What happens if we raise the temperature 0.4 degrees?

Left on its own, the H₂O will reach thermal equilibrium. Did you mean from below freezing to above freezing?

Is it floating? Archimedes figured that one out a while back. Although if you want to be pedantic, the depth will likely increase slightly once everything's liquid - depends on what temperature water you are specifying.

Did you mean for this to be a model or an analogy of Earth's climate. A better one would be if the bowl had only a pool of water in the center and the ice or snow was heaped up on the rim.
Wolf358
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2013
Bob Kob-Gedenkin experiment: You have a bowl filled with water, ice in the center. Left to its own it will not change. What happens if we raise the temperature 0.4 degrees?


I use the analogy of defrosting the freezer with a hair-drier; the air coming out will stay colder than the heat you put in, until the last bit of ice melts... then the temperature spikes.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Jan 12, 2013
@Wolf-Ding ding ding! You win the prize! Though alfie's analogy is where I was going. The Earth takes longer and has land/geography, but if you extrapolate, it doesn't take more than that to inuitively predict what is happening. If you arrive at wrong conclusions, it means you started off in the wrong camp...
GlobalHurling
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 12, 2013
I think we should ask one thing. If there were no humans on the planet, would we not still have global warming, would we not still have global cooling? How much impact does the human carbon footprint REALLY have on the planet? Everything is "may" or "might" in the article above. Without the human carbon footprint would the global warming really be less than .04 degrees over 100 years? I guess that's more than one question. I think some scientists are making numbers work for themselves to justify their jobs and I guarantee the politicians are doing it.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (17) Jan 12, 2013
I think we should ask one thing. If there were no humans on the planet, would we not still have global warming, would we not still have global cooling? How much impact does the human carbon footprint REALLY have on the planet? Everything is "may" or "might" in the article above. Without the human carbon footprint would the global warming really be less than .04 degrees over 100 years? I guess that's more than one question. I think some scientists are making numbers work for themselves to justify their jobs and I guarantee the politicians are doing it.


Bravo, well said.

djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2013
GlobalHurling "I think we should ask one thing. If there were no humans on the planet, would we not still have global warming, would we not still have global cooling?"

How would you propose to find an answer to this question? It is easy to ask questions - and to think you are profound - it is much harder to answer said questions - that would require science - unless you prefer to read the tea leaves. Of course you can distrust science. It is confusing to me to see people who distrust science - then spending their time spewing their personal opinions about the evils of science - on web sites that are here for the purpose of informing us about science. It would be like me going to young earth creationist web sites and arguing in circles about the age of the earth - seems odd to me - but to each their own.
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2013
globalhurling and Claudius - if you are at all interested in data - take a look at the graphs presented below regarding global temperatures.

http://en.wikiped...ison.png

Now - do you have an explanation for the very obvious spike shown in the last 100 years. Scientists believe it is primarily driven by greenhouse gases. The science is apparently pretty complicated - to do with wave lengths of radiation - stuff that is over my head. If you believe it is not driven by greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere - please share your research that presents an alternative explanation.
ScooterG
1.2 / 5 (20) Jan 12, 2013
djr says: "It is confusing to me to see people who distrust science - then spending their time spewing their personal opinions about the evils of science - on web sites that are here for the purpose of informing us about science."

Hah!

Running-down the agw deniers is not going to restore your (the agw purveyors) credibility. If you want your cause to be taken seriously, conduct yourselves as professionals, distance yourselves from environmental radicals, and distance yourselves from known hucksters.

Do all this faithfully for the next forty years and you might see a little improvement.
HeloMenelo
2.1 / 5 (19) Jan 13, 2013
If a monkey rates down an agw denier, he's opinion would be more valued.
More specifically, monkeys are more intelligent than AGW deniers.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2013
monkeys are more intelligent than AGW deniers.

Depends. Bonobos indeed make love, not war. Hence they are more intelligent than most humans. Chimpanzees, however, certainly would join gun lovers.
djr
3.7 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2013
Scooter: "Running-down the agw deniers is not going to restore your (the agw purveyors) credibility."

I am really not interested in my credibility. I am interested in the credibility of science. Of course the AGW deniers are not interested in facts, or science. They seem to be almost practicing a religion. I am interested in the forward movement of the human species. I post here to participate in the dialogue - and to provide a voice (hopefully one of many) calling out the antiscience crowd for what they are (ignorant, and science deniers). It is science that has brought us the computer, modern medicine, solar panels etc. etc. I want to see the scales tip - and the human race recognize the potential of science, vs. the ignorance of superstition. Overall I am optimistic. On the issue of association with radicals - you know very little about me and who I associate with - so your point is dumb. If you want an opinion on say - Gore - I think he is an idiot - satisfied?????
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2013
It is hogwash if you keep pigs close to the coast, as the worsened effects of Sandy showed.

Nice to see that the increased signal-to-noise ratio and improved methods are allowed to push through ("increasing confidence") despite the renowned US politics ("required every four years by law ... No report was issued while George W. Bush was president").
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2013
I think we should ask one thing. If there were no humans on the planet, would we not still have global warming, would we not still have global cooling?


I am glad you raised that irrelevant point, irrelevant because AGW is the observation of what happens now, because the answer was published just before New Year's Eve and it has bearing on what will happen.

The scientists (I can't find the press release right now) managed to use temperature proxies for the last 50 million years, with about 70 % certainty, for the first time. (That is with the current configuration of plate tectonics.)

The climate models guarantees we will see at least 2 degC eventually. Historically, the current ~ 400 ppm CO2 gives ~ 4 degC and ~ 30 m ocean rise as the Greenland and West Antarctic ice will go. Rise at ~ 10 mm/year, 3 times the current 3 mm/y.

It will _not_ make the East Antarctic go, that will happen at ~ 650 ppm. Then another 30 m ocean rise, total 60 m.

So bad, good, more bad news.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2013
This brings an interesting question. Will US start to abandon New York and New Orleans et cetera in a few decades, or will they try a Netherland wall&pump solution?

"I've got GoogleEarth running ...

Central Park Reservoir 36 meters

Columbus Circle 21-22 meters

8th Ave & 53rd St. 18 meters ...

East Houston Street and Avenue D 1 meter

East Houston Street and Avenue C 3 meters ..." [ elevation above sea level, according to http://www.bikefo...521.html ]
ScooterG
1 / 5 (15) Jan 14, 2013
djr says "I am interested in the credibility of science."

That's the problem, there is no credibility in the "science", or anywhere else in the AGW industry. All AGW research is likely biased, the industry is lead by hucksters, the hucksters' minions are radical and hell-bent on economic destruction.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2013
It mentions that thawing Alaskan ground means 50 percent less time to drill for oil.

Oh, the irony.

That's the problem, there is no credibility in the "science", or anywhere else in the AGW industry. All AGW research is likely biased

Erm...is a statememnt that something is 'likely biased' not the very epitome of a not credible statement?
AGW does have data - from research centers all over the world. Indepenendtly of each other.

Unless you are in the tinfoil-hat industry and are proposing a global conspiracy of people (who BTW have nothing to gain from what they are reporting...)
ScooterG
1.2 / 5 (18) Jan 14, 2013
" (who BTW have nothing to gain from what they are reporting...)"

Nothing to gain???

How `bout a paycheck...or better yet, how `bout a career?

Follow the money follow the money follow the money! - AGW is all about money and nothing about science.

And your "tin-hat" comment reaffirms my original statement - that running-down deniers does not enhance your credibility.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2013
That's the problem, there is no credibility in the "science", or anywhere else in the AGW industry.

It is so interesting that you guys will make such outrageous and generalized statements. Do you dismiss every scientist who is working on climate research across the globe? When we try to counter your shit with reason - you ignore it and have no interest in a reasoned dialogue. For example - I can show you this graph http://en.wikiped...ison.png as I have done several times recently - and I can ask what is your explanation for the extreme spike in temperatures over the past 100 years - of course no response. But if I then default to calling you out for the idiots that your are - we get righteous indignation - and admonitions against ad hominem attacks. In my view it is you who have no credibility - or ability to put forth a cogent argument - just politicized bullshit.
djr
5 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2013
And your "tin-hat" comment reaffirms my original statement - that running-down deniers does not enhance your credibility.

If deniers are not interested in presenting cogent arguments - one is only left to call them out for the idiots they are. Otherwise we cede the floor to their idiocy. If the tin hat fits -wear it.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2013
Follow the money follow the money follow the money!

Take this line that you are pushing as an example. First - you make an accusation - and provide no support for your accusation. Second - are you aware that pretty much all research has to be funded? So what do you suggest the climate researchers do - turn down the funding sources for their work? Receiving funding in no way implies dishonesty. I have a friend who is a research biologist. Most of his funding is grants from sources like N.I.H. Does this imply he is dishonest? That he is cooking his research in order to protect his funding? No - of course not - he lets the research go where it goes - and if it is valuable research - it will hopefully continue. To suggest that Mike is dishonest because his research is funded is stupid. Mike is like the general population of scientists - religiously ethical - and protective of the reputation of science. cont.

djr
5 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2013
cont. To claim that because Mike receives funding for his work implies that he is bought off is offensive to someone like Mike. I would no sooner argue the complexities of the mutation of gut bacteria with Mike - than I would claim that I know more than the scientists who conducted this research - http://www.antarc...sula.php That is exactly what you do - and then you get all offended when someone suggests you wear a tin foil hat....
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Jan 14, 2013
Guys, there is bad science on both sides. There is good science mixed with bad science on both sides. I'm sorry, you need to dig in and formulate your own consitant pictures.
I am afraid another element that has crept into this issue is belief. I am afraid belief doen't make things right this side of voodoo, placebo, policy and definitions.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2013
How `bout a paycheck...or better yet, how `bout a career?

Newsflash:
1) Paychecks in science are independent of what results your research shows. It's government pay.
2) Career is defined by number of papers/articles/book - not particular research results. If you find out that there is no AGW with good data and methods then that is as valuable to your career as finding the opposite is.

Career in science is defined by how good the science is that you do.
Follow the money

There is no money in research. That's why I left it. There was no way I could make it to retirement on that kind of a paycheck. Every researcher knows this. You do it for the love of it (I guess that is something some people - who can not think beyond money - will never understand. In that respect science is very much like art)
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2013
Guys, there is bad science on both sides. There is good science mixed with bad science on both sides.

No. Ask the scientists. There's junk science on the denier side and science on the other side. The way scientists see it is unanimous.

And when it comes down to it science is done by intelligent people (no, you don't get to have a degree with some serious brains on you). If YOU think you can evaluate science and haven't got a degree then you're fooling yourself.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2013
I'm sorry, you need to dig in and formulate your own consitant pictures.

Alchemist - what if my position is to simply defer to the experts who know a hell of a lot more than I do. O crisis - the old defer to authority issue again. So when you get cancer - will you go to the doctor? will you take the treatment the doctor proposes? I will. That is deferral to authority. It makes sense to me. My scientist friend Mike has spent his life training in the field of chemistry and biology. Of course he knows more than I do about the genetic mutation of gut bacterior - would you argue with him on that issue?
ScooterG
1 / 5 (17) Jan 15, 2013
For example - I can show you this graph http://en.wikiped...ison.png


Data data data. Don't you get it?? The data is rigged, the data was likely gathered by agw career employees, the data is based on other rigged data - in short, the accuracy of the data cannot be trusted.

That's why I don't look at your precious data - I know where it comes from and why. Follow the money.

Nice try, but a swing-anna-miss.

lengould100
5 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2013
I'd just suggest that deniers should study NOAA's maps of global sea surface temperature anomaly, and try to explain away the dark red patch of ocean between Canada and Greenland. Very worrying, because it's consistent over years, and just upwind of Greenland's ice cap. So go ahead, tell me the sattelites are "lying for the money" LOL.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (15) Jan 15, 2013
@dir-it depends. Doctors killed my grandmother and have mis-diagnosed me on a few occasions. For cancer I'd go to another country. For example, prostrate cancer they treat with chemo. How idiodic, remove the thing!
But if you want to defer to someone, you can defer to me, I meet all your criteria, and I am only an enthusiast, no grants from either side. In addition, I've been arguing down chemists, environmentalists, physcists, etc.. The only folks I have not been able to reach are those who believe. Termites have an effect on the environment, but somehow mankind doesn't.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2013
But if you want to defer to someone, you can defer to me, I meet all your criteria,

Please share - what are your qualifications - research you have published - papers you have published? Seriously - I will read them.

I've been arguing down chemists, environmentalists, physcists, etc.

What have you been arguing with them about? What are your qualifications for arguing with folks from three different disciplines?
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2013
Data data data. Don't you get it?? The data is rigged

By whom? A worldwide cabal of scientist? People have nothing to gain by it (who have rather all to loose by it - because if nations start investingin preventive measures then funding for science is always the first thing to go)?

That makes absolutely no sense.
djr
5 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2013
ScooterG :Data data data. Don't you get it?? The data is rigged, the data was likely gathered by agw career employees, the data is based on other rigged data - in short, the accuracy of the data cannot be trusted."

Every now and then a particularly gifted individual figures it all out. We are of course living in a giant simulation - a 'Matrix' if you will. There is no escaping the simulation (despite the optimistic dreams of supporters of the movies). The data is of course all manipulated by the 'authors' of the simulation. In fact there is an infinite number of these simulations being run simultaneously (an infiniverse if you will). Occasionally the experiment has to be terminated - when too many of the AI's figure it all out - realize they have no escape - and voluntarily terminate. Shhhhh Scooter - you will mess it up for the rest of us........
ScooterG
1 / 5 (15) Jan 15, 2013

Every now and then a ... Shhhhh Scooter - you will mess it up for the rest of us........


Your highly-charged emotional feelings towards climate change trump your understanding of human nature and the role money plays therein.

I would venture to say nearly 100% of the people of the world fudge their time cards, fudge their tax returns, fudge their invoicing, etc all in an effort to better line their pockets. To think climate change researchers are immune or somehow above this phenomenon is the epitome of naivety.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2013
Your highly-charged emotional feelings towards climate change

My highly charged feelings are actually towards science - and the progress of the ****ed up species I am a member of. I have no misconception about our ability to rationalize away behaviors we would not want others to know about. If you are awake (most of the people I encounter are not) you pay attention to information - and try your best to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Science is one of the better fields in terms of inherent mechanisms to sort out fraud (peer review, meticulous documentation, ethics panels etc.) Try working for State Government if you want to see an information nightmare. There is no global conspiracy of scientists. To believe that puts you squarely in the tin foil hat brigade - the ones who have stopped taking their meds.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (15) Jan 15, 2013
Please share - what are your qualifications - ...published? Seriously - I will read them.
What have you been arguing ...about? What are your qualifications for arguing with folks from three different disciplines?

Ah, so predictable, if I do share them you'll just up the antie. I've been arguing about GW vs global melting and excess heat energy NOT becoming temperature, and I've been arguing it since before Al Gore or it was acknowledged by any journal. Where have I been arguing? Universities, work, where ever I am.
As for my qualifications with arguing with these folks, they are the people I work with, mostly. :)
As for my pubs, several, but the only one I have in GW is unfunded and unsponsored, like it has been for 30 years. Vanity press, a work of love, a desire to get people to wake up...
facebook.com/#!/groups/454689344557455/
If you do really read it, you'll note it doesn't take multiple disciplines to understand, it's predictive, and designed so anyone can use it...
djr
5 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2013
As for my qualifications with arguing with these folks, they are the people I work with, mostly. :)

Smile - thanks alchemist - I read your face book page - No it does not take multiple disciplines to understand that if you have a bowl of water - and some ice cubes floating in the bowl - it will absorb heat until the ice cubes are all melted (smile). You should write a computer program to simulate the earth's climate. Do we need variables for ocean currents, wind patterns, radiation in and out of the system, land mass temperatures? Nah - just a bowl of water will explain the whole picture (smile). - Hey keep arguing - maybe see if you can find your meds some time...
DruidDrudge
1 / 5 (18) Jan 15, 2013
That's the problem, there is no credibility in the "science", or anywhere else in the AGW industry.

It is so interesting that you guys will make such outrageous and generalized statements. Do you dismiss every scientist who is working on climate research across the globe? When we try to counter your shit with reason - you ignore it and have no interest in a reasoned dialogue. For example - I can show you this graph http://en.wikiped...ison.png

Since when is Wiki a credible source?? How exactly do you decide whom you prefer to believe?
Why do you all, both sides, pretend to know the answer? It is abundantly clear almost no one commenting here has any idea what the truth is.There seems to be some good science for both views.
Since when does a scientist claim " I know ". This is entirely opposed to all scientific enquiry!
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2013
Why do you all, both sides, pretend to know the answer?

Because one side slaves and works away at the problem for decades for next to no pay.

Any scientist could get triple his pay in the industry, easy. I switched over two years ago and I didn't even haggle or ask for more pay because of the PhD - and they pay me going/average rates for being a software architect which is about 3.5 times of what I got at my science job. And I'm not even pretending to be an Einstein. Anyone who thinks scientists are in it for the career/money is terminally insane.

While the other side does...what exactly? Shout "It ain't so"? That isn't science. (Much less good science).

Only one side is doing science in this.
Since when does a scientist claim " I know ".

That's why they say: "beyond reasonable doubt". 99% certainty is better than "I don't know"

There are more possibilities than "I know" and "I don't know"
VendicarD
3 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2013
"The data is rigged," - ScooTard

And Aliens are among us. Bigfoot is real, and free energy is just a YooBoobTube video away.

How sad for ScooTard that he can't find a single peer reviewed scientific study to support his claim.

"Because they are all in on the con job. - ScooTard will respond.

Of course Sox is right, just as Ayn Rand was right when she claimed that medical doctors were part of an evil global conspiracy to destroy freedom and liberty with their nonsense socialist claim that smoking causes cancer.

VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2013
"How exactly do you decide whom you prefer to believe?" - Drudge

It turns out to be pretty simple.

We start by giving everyone equal credibility and then upgrade those who are found to be telling the factual truth or downgrade those who are found to be wrong or telling lies.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

Does that explain the method clearly enough to you?
VendicarD
3 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2013
Perhaps you should specify the question before asking such a thing.

"Why do you all, both sides, pretend to know the answer?" - Druid

Why do you believe that the answer is 14?
djr
5 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2013
How exactly do you decide whom you prefer to believe?

Let me splain it to you Druid. When I get sick - I go to the doctor. When my car gets sick - I take it to the mechanic. When my heater breaks down - I call John (he is a heat and air technician). See how it works? So if I want to know about radios - I go talk to my Uncle John (he is an engineer - and builds and refurbishes radios for a hobby). See how it works? And if I want to know what is going on with the climate - I could ask Alchemist (he has a model of a bowl of water with ice cubes in it), or I could ask a climate scientist - who has spent his/her life being educated in science, and now does research in the field of climate science. See how it works?
perrycomo
1 / 5 (14) Jan 16, 2013
It is obvious that these scientists are biased . The reason for this is that they only mention all sorts of negative aspects of supposed global warming . But there are all so positive aspects . People will burn less fuel to heat their houses because the average temperature has risen . We can transport goods above Siberia and that all so leads to less burning of fuel . There will be more evaporation , so the amount of rainfall will increase in some regions and so the available amount of fresh water will increase . The harvesting of photons from the sun via pv cells can be more efficient because there is more heat . et. etc. etc. . The climate is changing for billions of years on our planet, so there is nothing new or to be scared for . May be it will have such an impact that a new ice age is smoothened out , that is positive too . Other wise i would have gotten 1 km of ice on my roof .
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2013
People will burn less fuel to heat their houses

I think you don't quite understand what the climate change means. It means ALSO more extreme winters.
Which means that people in countries where they didn't need to heat their homes (and consequently have very badly insulatd ones - like the entire mediterranean or the south of the US) will now start heating their homes in the inter...and that very inefficiently.

We can transport goods above Siberia and that all so leads to less burning of fuel

Please. Look at a globe. Then look up how transportation is done and what kind of stuff WOULD even be transported that way.

The harvesting of photons from the sun via pv cells can be more efficient because there is more heat

What kind of idiocy is this? There aren't more photons avilable at ground level due to global warming.

Please. For the love of sanity. Do some looking up before posting brainfarts.

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Jan 16, 2013
Smile - thanks alchemist - I read your face book page - No it does not take multiple disciplines to understand that if you have a bowl of water - and some ice cubes floating in the bowl - it will absorb heat until the ice cubes are all melted (smile).

Thanks, "a mind once expanded never returns to its original dimensions." Not now, maybe, but someday you'll be an acolyte.
Anyway, that's just the first step (if you read on). Let's take the next, which is what you mentioned. Pick a region, any region, pick a time, past present or future, we'll show the world what it was/is/will be! It isn't complicated.
Even so, I am going to make a supplemental that spells out day/night cycles, equator-pole major and minor cycles... nobody seems to understand partial equilibrium. Hey, I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious.
It needs updating after 30 years anyway. Clearly other effects are coming into play... overland distance between glacier and ocean, diminishing surface area... so little time
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 16, 2013
Since when is Wiki a credible source?? How exactly do you decide whom you prefer to believe?
Since when does the validity of facts depend on where you find them? This only holds true for religious books and hollywood gossip.
djr
5 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2013
But there are all so positive aspects . People will burn less fuel to heat their houses because the average temperature has risen

In Oklahoma - my cooling bill in the summer is about twice my heating bill in the winter. I know I know - it is possible to live without cooling! Did you see how many senior citizens died in the heat wave in France a few years ago? It is more complex than you want to suggest.
RitchieGuy01
1 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2013
Otto darling. . . . I hate to say it, sweetheart. . . .but djr is right. Global warming has some advantages. When I was in the Marines in VietNam it was hotter than hell in the jungle and I was glad to come home when the war ended. I wish I had met U then, lover man. . . .but we have each other now as long as U still want me.

kiss kiss suck suck from Ritchie to Otto
perrycomo
1 / 5 (13) Jan 17, 2013
@antialias
fact 1 :The north -east passage to china or japan is much shorter then the traditional. So you will burn less fuel for transportation of goods . (the route above Siberia!!! , try to find a map .lol )
fact 2 : heat is a source of radiation , maybe you have heard about iIR . It radiates photons .the more heat the more photons you can harvest they have special pv's for it to .
fact 3 : In one place it cools and another it heats up . In one place you get drought and in another more rainwater . May be you good emigrate to Greenland in due time that would be positive too .lol.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2013
@djr, did you really cherry-pick my article? That's... flattering. :)
The ice melts and the temperature remains (nearly) the same, is the point. That's the concept, the reality is there will be hot spots, where the glaciers melt to; cold extremes, the hydrological balance will be thrown off, etc., and beating a dead horse, you're right about needing ocean currents, wind patterns, etc., but the model is iterative: Add these effects and constraints and you're predicting the effects of AGW, which is really AG Heating, which really translates to primarily and initially-to AG Melting. I developed it as a simple model that can be taken to any level of complexity, but I've always found it to answer questions at the intuition level.
Our glaciers act as a huge, and the most important buffer to our global temperature, esp. since we keep adding more heat to it.
OK, traditionalists, we keep adding more CO2 to it.