Climate change is already having an impact across the US

Jun 16, 2009

Extreme weather, drought, heavy rainfall and increasing temperatures are a fact of life in many parts of the U.S. as a result of human-induced climate change, researchers report today in a new assessment. These and other changes will continue and likely increase in intensity into the future, the scientists found.

Researchers representing 13 U.S. government science agencies, major universities and research institutes produced the study, "Global Impacts in the United States." Commissioned in 2007, it is the most comprehensive report to date on national climate change, offering the latest information on rising temperatures, heavy downpours, , sea level changes and other results of climate change in the U.S.

The 190-page report is a product of the interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program, led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It is written in accessible language, intended to better inform members of the public and policymakers about the social, environmental and economic costs of climate change. It focuses on effects by region and details how the nation's transportation, agriculture, health, water and energy sectors will be affected in the future.

In a press conference today, University of Illinois Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Don Wuebbles, a contributor to the assessment, outlined the current and predicted effects of climate change in the Midwest U.S.

"We well recognize that the earth's climate varies naturally and has been warmer and cooler in the past," Wuebbles said. "But we also know that the climate changes we are experiencing today are largely the result of human activities."

Average temperatures have risen in the Midwest in recent decades, Wuebbles said, especially in winter. The growing season has been extended by one week. Heavy downpours are now twice as frequent as they were a century ago, he said, and the Midwest has experienced two, record-breaking floods in the past 15 years.

These trends are expected to continue into the future, Wuebbles said. Average annual temperatures are expected to increase by about two degrees Fahrenheit over the next few decades, and by as much as seven to 10 degrees by the end of the century, he said, with more warming projected for summer than winter.

Precipitation is expected to increase in the winter and spring, while summer precipitation will likely decline.

"More of the precipitation is likely to occur during heavier events," Wuebbles said.

As temperatures and humidity increases, heat waves, reduced air quality and insect-borne diseases are more likely to occur. Pollen production and the growth of fungi will also be stimulated, he said.

Heavy downpours can overload drainage systems and water treatment facilities, increasing the risk of waterborne diseases, he said.

The Great Lakes, which contain 20 percent of the planet's fresh surface water, will also be affected by the changing climate, Wuebbles said. Depending on the extent of climate change, average water levels in the Great Lakes could drop by as much as two feet in this century, he said. This would affect beaches, coastal ecosystems, fish populations, dredging requirements and shipping.

Some of the effects of the changing climate are inevitable and will require human and animal populations to adapt, Wuebbles said. Other effects can be mitigated by limiting future emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, he said.

Source: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (news : web)

Explore further: Rising anger as Nicaragua canal to break ground

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Climate change: When it rains it (really) pours

Aug 07, 2008

Climate models have long predicted that global warming will increase the intensity of extreme precipitation events. A new study conducted at the University of Miami and the University of Reading (U.K.) provides ...

Waterborne disease risk upped in Great Lakes

Oct 08, 2008

An anticipated increased incidence of climate-related extreme rainfall events in the Great Lakes region may raise the public health risk for the 40 million people who depend on the lakes for their drinking water, according ...

Global Warming Will Alter Character of the Northeast

Oct 04, 2006

Global warming is poised to substantially change the climate in the Northeast if heat-trapping emissions are not curtailed. The extent and impacts of the change depend on the choices that governments, businesses and citizens ...

Arctic heats up more than other places

Jan 16, 2009

Temperature change in the Arctic is happening at a greater rate than other places in the Northern Hemisphere, and this is expected to continue in the future.

Recommended for you

Rising anger as Nicaragua canal to break ground

Dec 21, 2014

As a conscripted soldier during the Contra War of the 1980s, Esteban Ruiz used to flee from battles because he didn't want to have to kill anyone. But now, as the 47-year-old farmer prepares to fight for ...

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

Dec 20, 2014

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

User comments : 38

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kerry
1.8 / 5 (19) Jun 16, 2009
OMG SOMETHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE I'M GOING TO CLOSE MY EYES AND COVER MY EARS AND BABBLE ON ABOUT HOW THOSE HARDWORKING TENURED PROFESSORS AND RESEARCHERS ARE SOOOO DUMB AND GOT IT ALL WRONG AND THAT IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY LED BY SCIENTISTS IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONTROL THE WORLDDDDD!!!!!
defunctdiety
3 / 5 (16) Jun 16, 2009
The facts are:
1.The climate is changing (anthropogenic, cyclic, doesn't matter).
2.Human activity affects it (however large or small is debatable, obviously, but that it does is indisputable).
3.It can do nothing but good to regulate and minimize pollutant emissions.

And hopefully in so doing we will find the best ways to ween our society from fossil fuels, which is the greatest benefit we can achieve of all, the sooner the better. I don't understand why this discussion is still at the stage it is at. Oh wait, I do. Corporate Capitalism.
Chey
2.9 / 5 (15) Jun 16, 2009
It's a good thing we're not seeing anything like the Dust Bowl days of the 1930's and the headlines of the late 30's of hundreds of people all across the U.S. dying from the scorching heat. Their panic and rage at non-believer's would be of biblical proportion.

Don't know about you guy's, but this has been the coolest June I can remember in quite a while. These AGW folks are about as bright as a box of rocks.


omatumr
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 16, 2009
AL GORE'S GLOBAL WARMING BECAME CLIMATE CHANGE?

Why? What happened to global warming?

Nobel Laureates Al and zillions of consensus scientists who endorsed the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Control) had clear, unambiguous evidence of GLOBAL WARMING.

What happened?

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/
defunctdiety
2.6 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2009
What happened is that they realized the climate change occurring manifests as more than just, while not globally consistent, warming, i.e. extreme weather and a greater polarization of temps and types of weather. A similar amount of cold air is being forced into a considerably smaller area at the poles, as the equatorial warming air displaces it to those areas. Warmer air means more moisture in the air. All this means changing regional weather patterns and the areas where this hotter (wetter) and cooler air mix (fronts), create more extreme weather phenomenon. Overly simplified, but what happened is they realized they can attach more to it without diminishing their thrust.
defunctdiety
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2009
I should say... without diminishing their thrust, and at the same time further disarm the people who think that we shouldn't do anything about our non-sustainable ways of life.
Suntzu61
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 16, 2009
For all the real science and info on the supposed global warming visit iceagenow.com.
It is interesting to me that all these global warming nutjobs have still not factored in the Sun activity in the temp of the earth. With little or no sunspots for most of this solar cycle the sun is cooling down. Temperatures around the globe have been cooler this year and getting colder for the past 6 yrs.
daqman
3.1 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2009
For all the real science and info on the supposed global warming visit iceagenow.com.

It is interesting to me that all these global warming nutjobs have still not factored in the Sun activity in the temp of the earth. With little or no sunspots for most of this solar cycle the sun is cooling down. Temperatures around the globe have been cooler this year and getting colder for the past 6 yrs.


Little indication of any form of intelligence in this comment. Open your eyes and look at what we are doing to the world.
Fazer
3 / 5 (14) Jun 16, 2009
3.It can do nothing but good to regulate...


Unless you consider ruining the worlds economies as a bad thing. Or causing other unintended consequences.

We can encourage the development of other energy sources without suddenly clamping down on all existing industries.

As for why we are still having this discussion, there are many people who are not convinced that the Earth is warming, or that it will continue to warm, or that the amount of greenhouse gases we produce has any significant effect on the outcome, or that increased greenhouse gases in general are such a bad thing (especially for plant growth), or that it will get any warmer than it did during the last interglacial (which was warmer than it is now), or that warming is even such a big deal (some benefits, some detriments.)

So, until these infallible scientists can come up with better arguments that don't sound rediculous to the average meat bag like me, they are simply wasting their time (and generating a lot of heat to boot.)
neuromancerz
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2009
I don't understand why this discussion is still at the stage it is at. Oh wait, I do. Corporate Capitalism.


It seems you have a political agenda to push using science as a medium. I saw your previous comment against corporations and capitalism. This is not science.

This is a red herring. You want to link climate change, a constant truth to this planets atmosphere, to an economic system.

Achievements of the capitalistic system aside, this is no way to do science. Dissent to the established convention is how science works.

Just as it is your prerogative to lobby for what you believe is right, the opposing party has the same right.
magpies
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 16, 2009
Climate change is the most meaningless statement ever... Of course the climate is going to change thats part of what makes it the climate...
brentrobot
3.8 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2009
I would like to see a study on the link between belief in co2 caused global warming and support of socialism.

Also the link between skepticism of co2 caused global warming and free markets.

This seems to go to the heart of peoples belief systems. We may as well be arguing about which is the one true religion. This argument won't end until Manhattan is under a half kilometer of ice, or 6 meters of water.
Ronan
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2009
That's an interesting point to make, BrentRobot, and a somewhat worrisome one, from my perspective. I consider anthropogenic global warming to be something that is happening, and happening at an alarmingly rapid pace, with the possibility of truly cataclysmic repercussions in the near and not-so-near future. I'm also a registered democrat, and I voted for Obama. How closely are those two positions related, I wonder, and how much has my political affiliation affected my perception of the strength of the evidence for CO2-driven warming? Hopefully, little if at all, but...

Then again, the reason that I voted for Obama was because I thought that he would be liable to be bolder when it came to dealing with global warming, so go figure. Maybe I'm a democrat because I consider global warming to be a threat...
croghan27
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2009
I don't understand why this discussion is still at the stage it is at. Oh wait, I do. Corporate Capitalism.





It seems you have a political agenda to push using science as a medium. I saw your previous comment against corporations and capitalism. This is not science.



This is a red herring. You want to link climate change, a constant truth to this planets atmosphere, to an economic system.

No, that is not science - but that corporation fund people to generate reports that 'climate change' is not happeneing, or at least is the result of human endvours (in the same way 'big tobacco' paid for studies that 'proved' how benign smoking was) is not science either. (Unless you consider it 'political science'.)

Red Herring?
More likely a warning.
A learning from what has happened before.
John_balls
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 17, 2009
Where are you velannaris??
GrayMouser
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 18, 2009
The facts are:

1.The climate is changing (anthropogenic, cyclic, doesn't matter).

It's been doing that for billions of years.


2.Human activity affects it (however large or small is debatable, obviously, but that it does is indisputable).

3.It can do nothing but good to regulate and minimize pollutant emissions.

This is the precautionary principal. It ignores the costs of doing something that may not have any effect.


And hopefully in so doing we will find the best ways to ween our society from fossil fuels, which is the greatest benefit we can achieve of all, the sooner the better. I don't understand why this discussion is still at the stage it is at. Oh wait, I do. Corporate Capitalism.

Yeah, go blame it on the Evil Corporations... You've been watching too much TV.
GrayMouser
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 18, 2009
What happened is that they realized the climate change occurring manifests as more than just, while not globally consistent, warming, i.e. extreme weather and a greater polarization of temps and types of weather. A similar amount of cold air is being forced into a considerably smaller area at the poles, as the equatorial warming air displaces it to those areas. Warmer air means more moisture in the air. All this means changing regional weather patterns and the areas where this hotter (wetter) and cooler air mix (fronts), create more extreme weather phenomenon. Overly simplified, but what happened is they realized they can attach more to it without diminishing their thrust.

They also had to change it because the satelite data says the AGW is foo-foo.

"Climate Change" lets them off the hook since they can blame EVERYTHING on it without having to worry about proof. It's also brighter, shinier, newer, and sexier than worn drab old AGW.
Noein
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 18, 2009
They also had to change it because the satelite data says the AGW is foo-foo.

"Climate Change" lets them off the hook since they can blame EVERYTHING on it without having to worry about proof. It's also brighter, shinier, newer, and sexier than worn drab old AGW.


Thank you, GrayMouser, for restoring my religious faith in global warming denialism. My faith was shaken just a tiny bit by this article, but I know that our lord and savior, big oil, will save me and will lead me to salvation! Big oil bless you, GrayMouser, and Velannaris, and all other devoted brethren who work tirelessly to spread big oil's wonderful gospel! Big oil bless America!
defunctdiety
2.8 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2009
Unless you consider ruining the worlds economies as a bad thing.


Thanks for your use of unsupported hyperbole (demonstrates your fear nicely). At least you follow it up with a direct contradiction to yourself, and an affirmation of what I stated.

I'm not a 100% AGW proponent, note even 25% (I believe people have a pretty small effect), if you read what I say, not what you want it to say, you'll see that all I'm saying is that the earth's climate is changing (yes,as it always has) and the sooner our country figures out how to function without fossil fuels, the better. The changing climate will effect the three most basic needs of humanity: water, food and energy. The best way to cope with this climate change is sustainable development (not an initial friend of corporations who want as much as they can get, right now, with little regard for the future, as is demonstrated by the non-sustainable business models that are now failing).
defunctdiety
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2009
It seems you have a political agenda to push using science as a medium.



You want to link climate change, a constant truth to this planets atmosphere, to an economic system.


Hate to break it to you, but our economic future (and past for that matter) is (and was) inextricably linked to our planets ecosystem. And our economic system is inextricably linked to our politics.

I'm not saying corporate capitalism caused global warming, I'm saying corporate capitalism is not a sustainable economic system.
defunctdiety
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2009
For all the real science and info on the supposed global warming visit iceagenow.com.



It is interesting to me that all these global warming nutjobs have still not factored in the Sun activity in the temp of the earth. With little or no sunspots for most of this solar cycle the sun is cooling down. Temperatures around the globe have been cooler this year and getting colder for the past 6 yrs.




Little indication of any form of intelligence in this comment. Open your eyes and look at what we are doing to the world.



There's actually very significant links between sunspot activity and global cloud cover, and between global cloud cover and global temperatures. It's not the whole story but it's most definitely a part of it, just as people are not the whole story but definitely a part of it.

And I should also add to my last statement that corporate capitalism is not a sustainable economic system in the absence of an infinite and widely, readily available energy source.
Fazer
3 / 5 (10) Jun 18, 2009
You made a rediculous statement, that regulation could do no harm, so I countered with my own rediculous statement, that regulation could destroy the economies of the world.

If you desire regulation so much, you must fear something. So explain what you fear. It is upon you, who wants to institute change, to convince others and you do a poor job by berating them.

That goes for AGW believers, too: The burden of proof is upon you, who desire to convince people of their evil ways. You must provide non-contradictory evidence. You must explain it to those who are not as highly trained or informed as you, so that they might understand. And if you truly want their votes and support, you would do well to be nice about it, or your current bonanza of regulations will be short lived.

Call me a capitalist if you like, I will take it as a compliment. Don't call me a right winger, cause I ain't. I'm just a silly little, insignificant libertarian who thinks the gov should stay the heck out of our lives. But I do have one vote, so you better watch out!
neuromancerz
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2009
And I should also add to my last statement that corporate capitalism is not a sustainable economic system in the absence of an infinite and widely, readily available energy source.


Ok I have a few issues with your rhetoric but leave those aside for now. What do you think is the sustainable economic system?? What alternatives do you offer? What is a sustainable economic system anyway? What sort of time frames are we talking about when we say sustainable?

Velanarris
3 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2009
Where are you velannaris??

I'm tired of the whole debate.

There are people on the AGW proponent side who are absolutely off their rocker and completely wrong about climate change and absolutely refuse to read the evidence objectively.

There are people on the AGW proponent side who are avid scientific readers and understand the information in an objective manner

Conversely there are people on the anti-AGW side who are off their rocker and there are some who are objectively looking at the science.

Problem is there are very few objective readers from either side here and I can't justify spending time talking with any of the stalwart believers or denialists attempting to get them to look at things objectively. Especially not in the highly politicized forum of Physorg.

I'd liek to thank those among you who I've been able to speak with when you've brought rational arguments to the discussion regardless of how either side felt before during or after the conversation.

But I'd especially like to thank those of you among the zealotous AGW crowd. Watching you peddle pseudo science as fact while proclaiming that all on the skeptic side were holocaust denialists and corproate sponsored propagandists really made my day for a while. Now I find myself starting to lose my objectivity, and as such it's time to excuse myself from the table. We'll all see the answer in 4 years, when Al Gore's prediction comes true, or it doesn't. I just hope that maintaining the status quo, or committing to a knee-jerk precautionary priciple action leaves us all in a position where we can look back and say, "Ha I was right." or "Shit, I was wrong." and have a laugh.

Thanks for the fun times, I'll be refraining from the Climate debate. Green fatigue is a helluva thing.
defunctdiety
2 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2009
What do you think is the sustainable economic system?? What alternatives do you offer? What is a sustainable economic system anyway? What sort of time frames are we talking about when we say sustainable?


Economics is my weak spot in this issue, but I think institutions like the Federal Reserve and having an economic system allowing for currency that is not actually worth anything has to do with capitalism's failure.

When I say it's not sustainable, I mean it's an economic system that is designed for, assumes and virtually requires a constant and never ending progressive growth. The growth required being in technology and population especially. When the availability of energy required by such growth is outpaced by the consumption required to achieve this growth, the system is designed to consume itself and in-so-doing actually destroying true capitalism which is dependent upon the competition made possible by cheap readily available energy (and food and water). Such as has been the case for the past 100 years with fossil fuels. It's debatable, and probably unknowable by any except those closest to the source, whether our world-society has reached it's peak petrol production, but I can tell you they won't let us know until it's too late for us to do anything except pay.

Combine this need for constant, consistent commodities (energy, food, water) with the volatility and uncertainty caused by the planet's changing climate (which threatens consistent energy, food, water), and you have a dangerous situation when massive populations begin to run short in one or all of those areas (food, water, energy).

Sustainable development, where populations are dependent upon themselves and nature, without destroying nature, is the surest way to prevent such tragedies.
defunctdiety
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2009
If you desire regulation so much, you must fear something. So explain what you fear.


What I fear is bio-accumulation of heavy metals present in coal and raw petrol production emissions and particulate emissions altering the albedo of the earth and sulfur dioxide causing caustic precipitation and nitrogen oxides poisoning my children's breath and yes, unnaturally rapid carbon realease (CO2, CO, volatile organics) that would otherwise be "locked-up" beneath the ground causing unnaturally rapid shifts in our oceans and atmospheric make-up and chemistry.

That is the good that emissions regulations do. And yes it costs industry and thereby consumers more, but it also pushes them to seek clean, sustainable sources of energy. Which if we approach the problem sensibly but aggressively, the end result (a result which we MUST achieve eventually, because fossil fuels do not replace themselves as fast as we use them) is nothing but good for everyone.
GrayMouser
2.4 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2009
Economics is my weak spot in this issue, but I think institutions like the Federal Reserve and having an economic system allowing for currency that is not actually worth anything has to do with capitalism's failure.

History might also be a weak point. The US (show piece of controlled capitalism that it is) was the last major country (possibly the last country) to go off of the gold standard. Communist & socialist countries did that much earlier because it put more power in the hands of the government. They directly control the flow of paper money in and out of the system and, less directly, the rate of inflation. Since all governments issue debts (bonds, notes, etc.) they want there to be inflation in order to make the debit worth less (current dollars pay off more of the old debt simply because there is more of it even if it's worth less.)
Fazer
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2009
def,

I understand your concerns over emissions, and I concede that we may be better off now because of regulations imposed in the past (whether or not emissions could have been reduced without regulation is another discussion.)

What I don't want to see is massive new regulations that might choke off the economy and actually hinder spending on research and developement of the very technologies that many people would like to see flourish, like solar.

The other emissions you mentioned are, indeed, undesirable, but the new controls being discussed in the U.S. and abroad regarding CO2 emissions seem rediculous to me. I am simply not convinced that an increasing level of CO2 is a danger. It might actually be benificial, all things considered (that, too, is another discussion.)

Perhaps you are right that our system cannot be sustained, but I don't see any abrubt end to the supply of fossil fuels looming on the horizon.

The thing is, if we do run out soon, the alternatives will quickly become the more economical choice, speeding their adoption. If fossil fuels last for a long time, our system will go on and eventually the alternatives will become economical enough to naturally replace the fossil fuels, albeit more slowly. Both roads eventually lead to alternatives. We just seem to disagree on the urgency.

I guess to sum it up, I think that mankind comes up with solutions quite readily in response to problems. Left (mostly) to itself, I think that social and market forces will solve most problems. If, instead, politicians react too strongly to a perceived threat, they risk choking off the very forces that do all the work.
defunctdiety
1 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2009
History might also be a weak point. The US (show piece of controlled capitalism that it is) was the last major country (possibly the last country) to go off of the gold standard. Communist & socialist countries did that much earlier because it put more power in the hands of the government. They directly control the flow of paper money in and out of the system and, less directly, the rate of inflation.


It seems reason and logic is your weak point GM. Because as you so deftly pointed out, the US did go off the gold standard just like these other failed government systems, doesn't matter that we were the last. It's like saying, oh everybody else started smoking when they were 16, but I didn't start until I was 18. Let me tell you GM, as a history lesson, the US is very very very young. And truly not proven in it's ability to last. Do you know how many civilizations were around for hundreds and thousands of years longer than ours has been?! Here's a hint, it's a lot. Really, I don't know what point you were trying to make at all. It seems to me you're saying, "look, we're doing what the communists and socialists did".

And let me help you out with a little bit of current events. The government controls what they can of the flow of paper money into and out of the system. But the thing is, when oil producing companies get out of the dollar (and they are trying to do this right now), the rest of the world will get out of the dollar as well because oil is still "IT" right now (they will also likely require us to buy back our debt, to have it in value of the new world currency, the Euro). And when the dollar is no longer the world currency (when we have to buy back all those dollars for Euros), there will be so much paper money put back into our system (completely and utterly out of the FR's control) that we could very well be left with our pants around our ankles, ass in the breeze, and a currency worth a fraction of what it is now.
Skepticus
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2009
oh well judging from these heated debates here I'll just lay back and relax and waiting for millions to die in the name of political upmanship. It will help with the overpopulation.
defunctdiety
2 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2009
What I don't want to see is massive new regulations that might choke off the economy and actually hinder spending on research and developement of the very technologies that many people would like to see flourish, like solar.

Perhaps you are right that our system cannot be sustained, but I don't see any abrubt end to the supply of fossil fuels looming on the horizon.


In the interest of full-disclosure, I would like to say that I work in the environmental industry. Specifically for a 3rd party, private company(not the regulated, not the regulators) that monitors industrial emissions.

And I agree with you, we don't need massive new regulations, indeed some of the current regulations are implemented unreasonably and inefficiently. But I hope you can trust in my objectivity as a human being and scientist when I tell you that regulations implemented in the past 40 years have been a great boon to anything that utilizes the troposphere in any portion of it's biological process. Things used to be DIRTY, like here's some acute benzene poisoning for you-dirty... perhaps largely because we didn't really know. Could a clean up have been achieved without regulation? Probably not, according to capitalism. And almost certainly not as effectively or rapidly. It does require a significant initial investment to control these pollutants, with no direct or long-term return other than the virtually capitalistically-intangible health benefits.

And you are absolutely right that the present energy companies will very likely be best set up, with the infrastructure and capital, to develop the next gen energy systems. But it concerns me that the rate at which energy demand is increasing, with the modernization of china and india and the "Western World" still ever consuming more, is going to very quickly overtake the world's ability to provide energy. Faster than the new systems will be widely and readily available to nations capable of destabilizing the globe.

You see, it doesn't matter when fossil fuels run out. What matters is when the rate of production of fossil fuels has reached it's limit. And there is a very concrete and practicable limit, imposed by infrastructure and supply availability. And when that limit is reached, demand is still going to continue to climb quite rapidly as it is doing now. And when prices accordingly climb, life as we and the world know it will be forced to change in many ways, if we haven't decided to change already.

Remember when gas prices shot up to seemingly unjustifiable levels last year? My creeping suspicion is that was, in combination with a few other coinciding events, OPEC testing the waters for what's to come in the next 10-20 years. I don't know about you, but that's my lifetime, not to mention my children. The world cannot continue to support the progress and growth that people have come to expect over the past 60 years, forever. It's completely illogical to believe that it can. The only question remaining will be, what happens when this modern global society/economy begins to decide whether people live or die by who has the money? It's evolution, baby.
Fazer
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2009
Agreed. We have certainly been living in a prosperous period and there is no guarantee that it will continue.

I'm not sure about the OPEC thing. They aren't as united as they once were, and I have heard much speculation that Saudi Arabia, at least, is more concerned with maintaining the revenue stream, and therefore unlikely to allow demand, and thus prices, to go beyond what they think is our tolerable limit, for fear of pushing us to adopt alternatives sooner, rather than later.

The next few years will certainly be interesting, if not a little frightening. Who knows what will happen even over the next few weeks in Iran. I'll meet your Evolution and raise you one Revolution.

Okay, I'm done for now. Thanks for the debate.
jeffsaunders
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2009
hey man we don't have to worry. Just chop down some more forests along the equator and put in some solar collectors. We sure don't have room to worry about the stupid forests anyway, because we need the space for housing and roads.

We cover all the hillsides with houses and windmills, we cover all the deserts with solar collectors and we regulate the hell out of all the billions living in high rise in what used to be forests or plains.

At least we will be able to breath clean air as long as we have a license that is.
jonnyboy
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2009
The facts are:
1.The climate is changing (anthropogenic, cyclic, doesn't matter).
2.Human activity affects it (however large or small is debatable, obviously, but that it does is indisputable).
3.It can do nothing but good to regulate and minimize pollutant emissions.
And hopefully in so doing we will find the best ways to ween our society from fossil fuels, which is the greatest benefit we can achieve of all, the sooner the better. I don't understand why this discussion is still at the stage it is at. Oh wait, I do. Corporate Capitalism.



The facts are:
1.The climate is ALWAYS changing (anthropogenic, cyclic, doesn't matter).

2.Human activity affects it (JUST LIKE ANIMALS, INSECTS,BIRDS,REPTILES,THE SUN,X-RAYS,GAMMA RAYS AND ALL OTHER NATURAL PHENOMENON).

3.It can do nothing but good to regulate and minimize pollutant emissions, UNLESS OF COURSE YOU THINK IT WOULD BE A BETTER USE OF THAT MONEY TO FEED STARVING CHILDREN OR FIND THE NEXT PLANET KILLER METEOR AND DETERMINE HOW TO DEFLECT IT AND CREATE THE MEANS TO DO SO B4 ONE GETS HERE OR A THOUSAND OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE SO MUCH MORE WORTHY OF OUR TIME, ATTENTION AND RESOURCES SUCH AS DEVELOPING THE MEANS, BE IT SOLAR NUCLEAR OR OTHER, TO ALLOW US TO find the best ways to ween our society from fossil fuels, which is the greatest benefit we can achieve of all, the sooner the better. I don't understand why this discussion is still at the stage it is at. Oh wait, I do. Al and the GORITES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
defunctdiety
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2009
jonnyboy, it's obvious you didn't read anything beyond the first post which enraged you. How about if you want to become a relevant part of the discussion, you read the discussion and comment on the relevant parts?

As has already been stated, yes, the climate has always been changing and yes, many many things play into this change. But the fact is, as populations grow larger and become more and more imported-and fossil-fuel-energy dependent, the more susceptible that population is to shortages in water, food and energy. The best way to adapt to any change that could cause catastrophic shortages in those areas is sustainable development. i.e. Develop a way of life that makes virtually every household or population "unit" self-dependent in the most basic of needs: water, food, and energy. That's what this conversation is about.

Feed the starving? That's the goal of sustainable development. Finding and deflecting the next "Planet-killer"? There's not a whole lot more we can do beyond what is already being done. And what cause is more worthy than ensuring the persistence of our species indefinitely into the future? Please come back when you have something to contribute.
BobSage
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2009
The global warming crowd are people who earnestly envy anyone who has accomplished anything.

The basic belief is that there is just so much pie and anyone who is successful has stolen the slices of others.

This is what is driving the global warming onslaught in the face of a decade of decreasing temperatures.

But the envy crowed shouldn't worry. They'll make even more hay out of global cooling when it becomes so obvious that even they can see it.

powercosmic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2009
Don't worry! The earth is about to fix the problem, its us and the self regulating system of the climate is about to kill 90% of the human population off through starvation, thirst, disease, and war.
SDDuude
1 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2009
I love how they changed global warming to climate change. So how does climate change necessary stack up with rising ocean levels?
Arctic sea ice changes with the seasons. What's interesting is that while the changes from winter to summer and back to winter again are rather dramatic when compared to the yearly average over time, it doesn't cause any flooding of coasts anywhere.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.