Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States

[Beemer]

I read credible articles that cite their source which is normally peer-review papers. Where do you guys get your knowledge on this subject? Is that what they are putting in Cracker Jack boxes now a days? Stack up the little unfolded pages and lay them beside your secret decoder ring ready to counter the BEEMER data?

Watts is a nice guy but a nutjob when it comes to climate science. Of course he isn't a scientist so what chance does he have against the real climate scientists?

[Atomic Rooster]

So that's all it takes to be an expert in the global warming field?

Makes me wonder why the scientists wasted their time and money going to school when all it takes is to read a few credible articles.

[Disley]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster

It's not apathy my friend. It's that most people are tired of the "doom and gloom" crowd shouting the "sky is falling" at every opportunity. Is Global warming (climate change as "they" like to say now) happening, yes. Are we to blame, no. Have we contributed to it, yes. Can we stop or even reverse it? Not a snowball's chance in hell. I'm all for cleaning up the mess we're in and becoming more efficient, but enough is enough already.

Enough is enough! We haven't even started, wait till we have to buy cars that will get 50mpg, and the price of everything goes up because industry will have to pay a carbon tax, which will be passed on to the consumer, with a few dollars extra for luck.
Then you might be justified to say, enough is enough already, or a least you'll have a genuine gripe when your electricity bill increases by 20%.

[Darius]

You're a little late on those tax claims Disley, many are already in place, and my electricity bill with taxes and surcharges increased thirty percent as of last month. I even used less electricity than last year, yet my bill was more than the previous year.

I already see the differences in costs for "boutique" fuels specially blended for particular county / state epa requirements, as I do travel within a tri-state area. California has some of the highest taxes and surcharges.

I remember the global cooling claims of the 70's, and the current global warming and now "climate change" scare tactics. Do I believe climate change is real. Yes, the evidence is there. Is it caused by man? No, I see the evidence past and present pointing towards being cyclical, particularly when solar changes affect the planets in our solar system.

Are we responsible for cleaning up after ourselves and taking care of what we have? Yes, indeed. I conserve as much as I can, because it is good stewardship.

Yet, no one else in the UN or these other groups touting that "man's pollution is the sole cause of climate change" is forcing China, India, or any other country that is a serious offender in pollution to clean up their own house?

[cyphen]

The president of Poland calls the whole thing a communist scheme... he says he grew up under communism, and knows their song. David Horowitz said something very similar years ago about communists using nature as a platform to push their policies. Oh, you want to call them socialists now? Same ideas, different title.

What's the effect? How about poverty and more intrusive government. That's the only REAL thing that's happening. It's all a political movement to run your lives. Tell you what you can and can't do... and if you upset Gaia, then you are an enemy of the world and will be dealt with. It's dying out. The science ... excuse me... the "science" behind it is falling more and more into question, and true scientists are jumping ship.

[Beemer]

I see you guys like your unread opinion over scientific opinion. Global cooling in the 70's was a media manufactured event. I can dig up the paper on it if you like.

Climate change is the frame work. Global warming is the trend within the frame work. Nothing has changed in this respect. It's only your understanding of the terms and the application that needs to change.

A political movement? I won't even justify that with a responce.

The evidence is well supported scientifically that man is primarily responsible for the global warming being observed today. Natural cycles have had an influence on climate change in the past as well as comet impact, plate techtonics, flood basalt and volcanoe's. None of these biases are sufficient to account for the observed warming of today without adding in man's contribution of GHG's. That is the scientific findings and aggreed upon by the scientific community where science can provide no doubt on the subject. There isn't one climate science paper in the peer-review literature available today that places a doubt about AGW being the primary cause. If you have something I suggest you send it in quick because scientists are already in the middle of this competition to prove another scientist wrong and get their name recognised in the scientific community for doing so.

Cyphen

At least a dozen countries, including Poland, the Czech Republic and France, have expressed opposition to such targets, saying they are unrealistic and could prove too costly. Countries like Spain and Denmark have built wind farms to generate electricity, but EU countries from the former Soviet bloc rely on inexpensive coal and are resisting new and costly investments.

"This plan is unfeasible," said Lech Kaczynski, the president of Poland, where more than 90 percent of the energy used for heating is generated from coal. "If we have a more flexible approach, then we'll be able to reach a compromise." Other ex-communist countries from the east [have] equated binding targets to the five-year plans of Soviet times.


Global warming fight threatens EU summit - International Herald Tribune

Poland is using old tech which would mean that they would have to build Supecritical coal plants to meet the standards the EU are trying to create around emmision control policies. Poland is begging for a handout as I see it.

I'll take care of the rest later. Got a call to go to the job site.

Now back to the report as this is not a thread asking members of their opinion in general on whether AGW or GW is real. In this thread it is settled. Both are real. This report is not about making policy. It is to inform those that do, based on the scientific knowledge and predictions to date. It's about adaption more so then mitigation although parts are dealing with mitigation.

About this report:

Human-induced climate change is a major and growing concern to U.S. policymakers and citizens who need the best available science to inform their decisions. This report responds to that need by synthesizing the large and growing body of science that deals with how climate is changing, and the impacts of these changes on the United States, now and in the future.

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program, in coordination with the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Council on Environmental Quality, called for this report: a Unified Synthesis Product (USP) by a U.S. Department of Commerce Federal Advisory Committee operating under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Committee was composed of an expert team of scientists and supporting professionals.

This report is based on published, peer-reviewed data and reports including the Synthesis and Assessment Products completed by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP, 2006 through 2008), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) assessments, the U.S. National Assessment of the Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (NAST, 2000 through 2001), the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA, 2004 through 2005), the National Research Council’s Transportation Research Board report on the Potential Impacts of Climate Change and U.S. Transportation (NRC, 2008), and other peer-reviewed assessments.

To incorporate the latest findings and fill gaps, this report also draws directly from articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals as well as widely available government data and information compiled on a regular basis for public use, including census figures and statistics on energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. The author team did not conduct original research for this report, but rather drew on existing peer reviewed research. In order to convey the most relevant and up-to-date information possible, the report does contain summaries, tables, and graphics using updated data sets drawn from peer-reviewed literature and official government data.

This report seeks to synthesize this large body of information and draw the kinds of high-level insights that can come from such an activity.

While the primary focus of the report is on the impacts of climate change on the U.S., it also deals with some of the things society can do to respond to the climate challenge. Comparing the impacts of a range of heat-trapping gas emissions scenarios reveals differences related to the consequences of various emissions pathways, highlighting the choices we have with regard to humaninduced emissions.

This report also explores some options for adapting to climate change and its impacts that could help in coping with the amount of additional warming that is inevitable as a result of past and ongoing emissions of heat-trapping gases and other human-induced changes. The report also highlights areas where inadequate scientific understanding hampers our ability to estimate likely future climate change impacts.

With regard to expressing the range of possible outcomes and identifying the likelihood of particular impacts, this report takes a plain language approach to expressing the expert judgment of the author team based on the best available evidence. For example, an outcome termed “likely” has at least a two-thirds chance of occurring; something termed “very likely,” at least a 90 percent chance. In using these terms, the team has taken into consideration a wide range of information including the strength and consistency of the observed evidence, the range and consistency of model projections, the reliability of particular models as tested by various methods, and so on. Statements that are not qualified with such terms are deemed virtually certain. In cases where further qualifications regarding certainty are needed, endnotes are used for those descriptions.

The goal of this report is to make the key results of the enormous body of scientific information about climate change and its impacts on the United States accessible in a single plain-English document that can help inform public and private decision making at all levels.

That was from page 14 and 15. I thought it was applicable considering the last few comments.

[cunokyle]

Originally Posted by Beemer

The evidence is well supported scientifically that man is primarily responsible for the global warming being observed today..

It is not scientifically supported.

[Darius]

Originally posted by Beemer:

I see you guys like your unread opinion over scientific opinion. Global cooling in the 70's was a media manufactured event. I can dig up the paper on it if you like.

I was quite old enough to read the articles during the 70's regarding global cooling Beemer. Many reputable scientists at the time were concerned about another possible ice age on the horizon. The same can be said about climate change today, simply because of the amount of media coverage on the subject.

I can agree to disagree without making it personal, and still respect the other person's viewpoint. Snarkiness never wins a debate, or a discussion in my opinion.
I have stated my viewpoint, and I am content to agree to disagree on the subject matter and conclusions in this report without making it personal or taking it personally.

[Beemer]

Here ya go Darius.
Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY.com

Here's some of the background work by Connolley that supported the survey of peer-review papers.
Science-type stuff

I think you're memory is a little fuzzy on what the media was saying back then and who they may have been quoting. The links above should spell it out for you. Yes there were reputable scientists tossing cooling and warming around but at the time this was going on not much was known about either. The media picked sides calling for global cooling. Not the scientists. They were merely hypothesising at the time. My statatement stands that global cooling [scare/frenzy] was a media manufactured event.

cunokyle
You are very wrong.

Gomer! Do you have that list handy of the institutions around the world that agree with, "man is primarily responsible for the global warming".

[Darius]

Interesting reading, I will have to cross reference his studies with the articles I have here in print from that era...