Global Warming Already Affecting the U.S.: Report - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 06-17-2009, 05:36 AM

Global warming/climate change. Remember that? Is it real? If so, it's not going away. If not, well...then, disregard.

The following details the first report on global warming under the Obama administration.

Quote:

U.S. Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans' Lives

By LAUREN MORELLO, ClimateWire
Published: June 17, 2009

Climate change is already reshaping the United States, according to a new federal report that predicts global warming could have serious consequences for how Americans live and work.

Hotter temperatures, an increase in heavy downpours, and rising sea levels are among the effects of "unequivocal" warming, concludes the report (pdf) by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Winters are now shorter and warmer than they were 30 years ago, with the largest temperature rise -- more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit -- observed in the Midwest and northern Great Plains.

The changes are already affecting human health, agriculture, coastal areas, transportation and water supplies. And climate change will intensify over the next century even with significant action to limit greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.

"The projected rapid rate and large amount of climate change over this century will challenge the ability of society and natural systems to adapt," warns the report, released yesterday in Washington by White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren and other top Obama administration officials.

The 196-page document -- the first major climate report from the Obama administration -- was also submitted to Congress, under a 1990 law that requires the White House to produce regular status updates on climate change in the United States. The Bush administration released a first draft of the report last year, after environmental groups successfully sued the government in federal district court.

The new report is based on published research, including a series of 21 reports on climate change produced by the Bush administration.

Forests shift, crops suffer, diseases move north

Released as House Democrats plan their floor strategy for major climate legislation, the analysis says that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will lessen warming during this century and beyond.

Earlier cuts will be more effective than comparable later cuts, the document adds. Without efforts to limit emissions, the United States could warm 7 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Cutting emissions could hold that increase to just 4 to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit.

The report also breaks down likely effects of climate change by region and economic sector. Among its conclusions:

Forest growth is likely to increase in much of the East but decrease in much of the West as water becomes scarcer.
Heat-related deaths are likely to increase as the number of days when the mercury reaches 100 degrees Fahrenheit or higher grows. Without a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the report says, heat-related deaths in Chicago will rise tenfold by the end of the century.
Sea level rise will continue, increasing the likelihood of temporary and permanent flooding of airports, roads, rail lines and tunnels. About 2,400 miles of roadways and 250 miles of freight rail lines could be inundated along the Gulf Coast over the next 50 to 100 years. The region is home to seven of the country's 10 largest ports.
Crop production will suffer as carbon dioxide emissions rise, after an initial increase in growth. Warmer winter temperatures will help insects and plant diseases spread.
A continuing trend of warmer night temperatures in the Northeast could shift maple syrup production from the United States to Canada.

'It affects the things people care about' -- Lubchenco

"What we've shown in this assessment is that we do need to act sooner rather than later," said Donald Wuebbles, an author of the report and an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois. "We want to avoid the worst of the kind of changes that we looked at."

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco called the new report "a game-changer."

"I think much of the foot-dragging in addressing climate change is reflective of the perception that climate change is way down the road in the future, and it only affects remote parts of the planet," she said. "This report demonstrates that climate change is happening now, in our own backyards, and it affects the things that people care about. The dialogue is changing."

But she and other Obama administration officials who briefed reporters shied away from weighing in on climate proposals now before Congress. That includes the climate bill (pdf) (pdf) from House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

"This is telling us with persuasiveness why we need to act sooner rather than later, and why action needs to include measures to reduce heat-trapping emissions and measures to adapt to unavoidable changes," said Holdren. "One has to hope it will influence how people think about particular legislative proposals."

Environmental groups hailed the new report, and a leader of one group said the analysis could help efforts to pass the Waxman-Markey bill.

"The timing is important," said World Wildlife Fund CEO Carter Roberts. "Right now, Congress is considering climate legislation and energy legislation. This report makes it pretty clear to constituents of every congressman and senator that we will see changes in the natural world and parts of the United States, and they will have consequences for our economy, our lifestyles and the places that we live."

Copyright 2009 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.climatewire.net.

What do you think? Is this just some kind of offbeat cycle, or is it global warming?

Should the Obama administration put together a task force to fight climate change based on this report?

BadNick · 06-17-2009, 05:48 AM

I figure why take a chance if it's natural or man-made when (IMO) limiting the potential causes is a good thing no matter what...though of course the cost issue comes up. I think it's just the cost of living on earth and we have to deal with it. The less we pollute the earth the better. Even a little bit of "trash" is unacceptable, whether it be air, water, soil.

Yesterday I heard a related editorial report about a NASA scientist's proposal from a few years ago saying that we can limit global warming by seeding the atmosphere with certain aerosols...sort of like when a volcano erupts and that causes major global cooling. The scientific consensus seems to be that it is not only possible, but easy and relatively cheap to accomplish. An interesting point was that we might want to experiment with those methods on a small scale in the event we have to resort to such drastic measures to minimize global starvation or sudden rise of ultraviolet radiation from ozone depletion, or other such catastrophic situations. Of course I think that man meddling in complex natural cycles is dangerous and unpredictable so I'm not in favor of doing this on a large scale unless we have no other alternative.

Nisses · 06-17-2009, 07:33 AM

BadNick: it's an interesting idea.

However, I wonder when/if the output of CO2 starts to dwindle, won't we have set ourselves up for an Ice Age?
I don't see how you can "collect" all the gases once their usefulness ends.

So far, I'm less concerned about this, and more about the usage/supply of oil...

Crack · 06-17-2009, 08:54 AM

On the bright side, it is a great time to start investing in "green" technologies!

ASU2003 · 06-17-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crack

On the bright side, it is a great time to start investing in "green" technologies!

Solar panels won't work as well if we seed the atmosphere with Sulfur Dioxide or Sulfuric Acid (what makes Venus reflect 65% of the sunlight, but is a large part of acid rain). It will block a lot of the sun's energy (solar dimming), and the increase in CO2 has caused a 25% decline already in large parts of the world.

I have a feeling that anything that we do to the atmosphere would have to be so big, that it would cause other big problems. It would be better to look at how people live in the Outback in Coober Pedy. It is hot there, but they have moved underground. But, food production for billions of people is tough underground.

noodle · 06-17-2009, 04:22 PM

I can only comment at this moment on whether I think it's real.
I don't remember a single day last year in which the predicted temperature in our paper was 100 before late August. The next three days are coming in at 100. The beaches are disappearing and tides are rising. Houses are falling into the ocean when storms are rolling in. I don't remember rain like this coming in for a week at a time since the 5 hurricanes that hit in 2004. There were only a few days in this area with "ozone warnings" over the past few years... until most of last week was identified as having concerning levels of stuff in the air. It looked like images of LA in our downtown area. You couldn't see the top of 20 story buildings. It's weird weather around here. Sometimes you'll walk outside and it's so hot that there is no sound. The weight of the air constricts your lungs and the asphalt smell is sickening.
I'll go with "yes, global warming is real."

genuinegirly · 06-17-2009, 05:32 PM

Glad to see an official report.
Real or not, when I look at the exponential population growth we're experiencing worldwide it makes me wonder about the impact.

I keep thinking of the cattle at Harris Ranch (If you've ever driven on the 5 freeway in California, you'll remember the smell). Their tight, cramped quarters, having trampled any sign of grass years ago... reminds me to enjoy those open spaces while we can.

thespian86 · 06-17-2009, 05:55 PM

I wonder. What is it about North Americans that make them feel they MUST oppose ideas that, if followed through, would have no actual negative ramifications EXCEPT that they would "be wrong". It's perplexing. What could possibly be bad about taking care of the environment?

And it's funny that a Canadian posted this. Not that I'm implying anything; just thought it's funny.

Halanna · 06-18-2009, 01:26 PM

Ok.

You have an essentially living planet that will continue with or without humans on the surface.

Then you have billions of humans on the surface.

That clash can't be scientifically quantified at this time.

The Earth's orbit changes from elliptical to a more round path, it goes through cycles of ice ages, heat waves and drought etc. Those are the phases of the earth. Just because they are not condusive to the human element on the surface the planet will continue to go through these phases.

I think the history of data does not extend far enough back for us to claim humans are making this huge impact. I think the Earth is bigger than we are, more complex and more scientifically advanced than humans will ever be.

On the other hand, is this complex, living planet ready to deal with the unbelievably massive amount of humans on it's surface?

Nature will find a way. Only time will tell. Solar panels are not the answer. The Earth will do, we will adapt or the Earth will phase us out.

Aladdin Sane · 06-19-2009, 11:14 AM

Surprise surprise surprise. The Obama administration has misrepresented the data:

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Obama's Phil Cooney and the New CCSP Report

June 18, 2009, 3:45 pm
U.S. Climate Report Assailed
By John Tierney

The new federal report on climate change gets a withering critique from Roger Pielke Jr., who says that it misrepresents his own research and that it wrongly concludes that climate change is already responsible for an increase in damages from natural disasters. Dr. Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, asks:

[Why] is a report characterized by [White House] Science Advisor John Holdren as being the “most up-to-date, authoritative, and comprehensive” analysis relying on a secondary, non-peer source citing another non-peer reviewed source from 2000 to support a claim that a large amount of uncited and more recent peer-reviewed literature says the opposite about?

You can check out Dr. Pielke’s blog for a detailed rebuttal of how the report presents science in his area of expertise, the study of trends in natural disasters and their relation to climate change. While the new federal report (prepared by 13 agencies and the White House) paints a dire picture of climate change’s impacts, Dr. Pielke says that the authors of this new report, like those of previous reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Stern Review, cherrypick weak evidence that fits their own policy preferences. He faults all these reports for all relying on “non-peer reviewed, unsupportable studies rather than the relevant peer-reviewed literature” and for “featuring non-peer-reviewed work conducted by the authors.”

Dr. Pielke contrasts these reports’ conclusions about trends in natural disasters with the some quite different findings last year by the federal Climate Change Science Program. Dr. Pielke summarizes some of its less sensational conclusions:

1. Over the long-term, U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.
2. Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought.
3. Despite increases in some measures of precipitation . . . there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows (high flows above 90th percentile).
4. There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms
5. There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters.
6. There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record.

Do those benign trends seem surprising to you? What do you think of Dr. Pielke’s arguments? Here’s his overall conclusion about the dangers of hyping the link between natural disasters and climate change: “Until the climate science community cleans up its act on this subject it will continue to give legitimate opportunities for opponents to action to criticize the climate science community.”

U.S. Climate Report Assailed - TierneyLab Blog - NYTimes.com

Lasereth · 06-19-2009, 12:51 PM

I'm gonna go ahead and make a completely unscientific statement bound by only my suspicions: global warming is bullshit. No I'm not a republican.

Stone · 06-30-2009, 04:14 AM

Hmmm, global warming.

As a meteorologist I definately have ideas on this subject. But, I'll keep it short. :-)

First, I tend to agree with what Halanna just said.

Now I'll take it one small step further. While global warming 'might' be occurring (I say might because in geologic time 50 or 100 years is merely a spit in
the ole' bucket) I do not see it as a problem that humans can, in all reality, either control or significantly influence. Mother Earth certainly retains that
province. And, within her sphere of influence, there are patterns that have been observed over long periods of time. (I'm going to cut a lot of meteorolocal
details here in the interest of not globally warming this particular thread. :-) :-) ) The bottom line is... and *this* has been clearly observed in the
past... that as the earth, or more specifically the Northern Hemisphere, warms to the point of losing substantial polar(Arctic) ice, a mechanism (if you want
the details I will gladly provide them) that has, again, in the past, been at the root of glacier formation and extreme winters in general kicks in. This
rapidly(geologically speaking) cools the Northern Hemisphere. IOW, it precipitates an Ice Age. One extreme leads to another. We 'may' be influencing the
earth's warming rate. But we are certainly *not* the master of it's climate.

Baraka_Guru · 09-01-2009, 06:49 AM

I was reading an interview of GE CEO Jeff Immelt today in Canadian Business magazine. One of the topics discussed was global warming. This particular topic was covered briefly:

Quote:

Are you optimistic about the energy future and the carbon equation?

I am, really. But here’s what I don’t know. We’ve studied the science. Both myself and my team have convinced ourselves that global warming is a technical fact, and it’s created by man. The science about whether an 80% reduction by 2050 or targets like that, how big a difference it makes — that’s very hard. It’s very complex linear programming models. Really hard. If you ask, is that amount of reduction possible? I think it could be. And it will stimulate a ton of innovation. And therefore it’s worth going for.

Six months from now, if you really said, Holy shit, I’ve gotta hit this goal, then we would start having a meaningful discussion about nuclear power. I mean, right now we’re having these crazy, stupid — like, I talk about nuclear power, and I say it’s like going to the Super Bowl and the teams never leave the locker room. All the fans are in the stadium, all the referees are out on the field, the teams are dressed, they’re in the locker room — and they never leave.

I think what [tackling global warming] will force in energy is the renaissance of technology. The only thing I can really compare it to in my lifetime is sulphur dioxide, which was reduced by 90%–95% in the span of 10 years. Now this is bigger, broader, it’s got a lot ofother issues. But electric vehicles, nuclear power, renewable energy — these activities will never really take place without a price for carbon and a target for reduction. Ever.

I thought it interesting that the CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world (and a Republican to boot) would be on board with carbon reduction so matter-of-factly. Now I understand that GE has an interest in energy and might be in a position to make lots of money with the changing times...but still. Interesting.

What's also interesting is that he is admitting to the reality of increasing government regulation as a fallout condition of the economy. He wasn't railing against it. Instead, he was expressing how he is prepared to take business to that level: one that needs to work with government on more than one level—despite not being entirely happy about it. This coming from a Republican.

Maybe this man should run for president. He could at least help rebuild the party, no?

MSD · 09-11-2009, 12:26 PM

Sorry to the people who disagree on this one, but I'm siding with the scientists. They know a little more about the earth's climate than people going "well, it makes sense to me that ..."

There is no real debate about AGC in the scientific community, there are a few on the fringe who disagree with the consensus, but that consensus is overwhelming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth

I'm gonna go ahead and make a completely unscientific statement bound by only my suspicions: global warming is bullshit. No I'm not a republican.

The last time someone's unscientific opinion trumped science and went mainstream, we ended up with string theory.

Jinn · 09-11-2009, 01:29 PM

Well MSD, I happen to be "with the scientists" too, in the sense that I don't think many reputable environmental scientists deny the existence of global warming. I personally believe it to be anthropogenic but I'm not sure the consensus there is so strong. Ever seen Petition Project?

Global Warming Petition Project

"The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy. "

They have a really good PDF: http://www.petitionproject.com/gw_ar...ew_OISM600.pdf

It looks to be very credible, and I must say that even I am out of my league reading it as a computer engineer. Take a look. It's definitely science, I'm just not qualified to judge its accuracy.

I'm also not sure we should judge the validity of scientific theory on consensus. Plenty of people have been in consensus about very wrong things.

dippin · 09-11-2009, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

Well MSD, I happen to be "with the scientists" too, in the sense that I don't think many reputable environmental scientists deny the existence of global warming. I personally believe it to be anthropogenic but I'm not sure the consensus there is so strong. Ever seen Petition Project?

Global Warming Petition Project

"The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy. "

They have a really good PDF: http://www.petitionproject.com/gw_ar...ew_OISM600.pdf

It looks to be very credible, and I must say that even I am out of my league reading it as a computer engineer. Take a look. It's definitely science, I'm just not qualified to judge its accuracy.

I'm also not sure we should judge the validity of scientific theory on consensus. Plenty of people have been in consensus about very wrong things.

In science consensus is not determined by raw numbers (most of which have nothing at all to do with climate change) but the opinion of those who specifically research global warming. Of the 30000, only 39 in that petition have degrees in climatology.

Science is specialized enough that having a degree in a related field, and often in the same field, doesnt qualify you as an expert unless you actually do the research there.

06-17-2009, 07:33 AM	#3 (permalink)
Nisses Shade Location: Belgium	BadNick: it's an interesting idea. However, I wonder when/if the output of CO2 starts to dwindle, won't we have set ourselves up for an Ice Age? I don't see how you can "collect" all the gases once their usefulness ends. So far, I'm less concerned about this, and more about the usage/supply of oil... __________________ Moderation should be moderately moderated.

06-17-2009, 08:54 AM	#4 (permalink)
Crack Misanthropic Location: Ohio! yay!	On the bright side, it is a great time to start investing in "green" technologies! __________________ Crack, you and I are long overdue for a vicious bout of mansex. ~Halx

06-17-2009, 05:32 PM	#7 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	Glad to see an official report. Real or not, when I look at the exponential population growth we're experiencing worldwide it makes me wonder about the impact. I keep thinking of the cattle at Harris Ranch (If you've ever driven on the 5 freeway in California, you'll remember the smell). Their tight, cramped quarters, having trampled any sign of grass years ago... reminds me to enjoy those open spaces while we can. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

06-17-2009, 05:55 PM	#8 (permalink)
thespian86 change is hard. Location: the green room.	I wonder. What is it about North Americans that make them feel they MUST oppose ideas that, if followed through, would have no actual negative ramifications EXCEPT that they would "be wrong". It's perplexing. What could possibly be bad about taking care of the environment? And it's funny that a Canadian posted this. Not that I'm implying anything; just thought it's funny. __________________ EX: Whats new? ME: I officially love coffee more then you now. EX: uh... ME: So, not much.

06-19-2009, 11:14 AM	#10 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	Surprise surprise surprise. The Obama administration has misrepresented the data: Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Obama's Phil Cooney and the New CCSP Report June 18, 2009, 3:45 pm U.S. Climate Report Assailed By John Tierney The new federal report on climate change gets a withering critique from Roger Pielke Jr., who says that it misrepresents his own research and that it wrongly concludes that climate change is already responsible for an increase in damages from natural disasters. Dr. Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, asks: [Why] is a report characterized by [White House] Science Advisor John Holdren as being the “most up-to-date, authoritative, and comprehensive” analysis relying on a secondary, non-peer source citing another non-peer reviewed source from 2000 to support a claim that a large amount of uncited and more recent peer-reviewed literature says the opposite about? You can check out Dr. Pielke’s blog for a detailed rebuttal of how the report presents science in his area of expertise, the study of trends in natural disasters and their relation to climate change. While the new federal report (prepared by 13 agencies and the White House) paints a dire picture of climate change’s impacts, Dr. Pielke says that the authors of this new report, like those of previous reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Stern Review, cherrypick weak evidence that fits their own policy preferences. He faults all these reports for all relying on “non-peer reviewed, unsupportable studies rather than the relevant peer-reviewed literature” and for “featuring non-peer-reviewed work conducted by the authors.” Dr. Pielke contrasts these reports’ conclusions about trends in natural disasters with the some quite different findings last year by the federal Climate Change Science Program. Dr. Pielke summarizes some of its less sensational conclusions: 1. Over the long-term, U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining. 2. Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought. 3. Despite increases in some measures of precipitation . . . there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows (high flows above 90th percentile). 4. There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms 5. There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms (ECWS), called Nor’easters. 6. There are no long-term trends in either heat waves or cold spells, though there are trends within shorter time periods in the overall record. Do those benign trends seem surprising to you? What do you think of Dr. Pielke’s arguments? Here’s his overall conclusion about the dangers of hyping the link between natural disasters and climate change: “Until the climate science community cleans up its act on this subject it will continue to give legitimate opportunities for opponents to action to criticize the climate science community.” U.S. Climate Report Assailed - TierneyLab Blog - NYTimes.com __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

06-17-2009, 05:48 AM	#2 (permalink)
BadNick Riding the Ocean Spray Location: S.E. PA in U Sofa	I figure why take a chance if it's natural or man-made when (IMO) limiting the potential causes is a good thing no matter what...though of course the cost issue comes up. I think it's just the cost of living on earth and we have to deal with it. The less we pollute the earth the better. Even a little bit of "trash" is unacceptable, whether it be air, water, soil. Yesterday I heard a related editorial report about a NASA scientist's proposal from a few years ago saying that we can limit global warming by seeding the atmosphere with certain aerosols...sort of like when a volcano erupts and that causes major global cooling. The scientific consensus seems to be that it is not only possible, but easy and relatively cheap to accomplish. An interesting point was that we might want to experiment with those methods on a small scale in the event we have to resort to such drastic measures to minimize global starvation or sudden rise of ultraviolet radiation from ozone depletion, or other such catastrophic situations. Of course I think that man meddling in complex natural cycles is dangerous and unpredictable so I'm not in favor of doing this on a large scale unless we have no other alternative.

06-18-2009, 01:26 PM	#9 (permalink)
Halanna Insane Location: Over the rainbow . .	Ok. You have an essentially living planet that will continue with or without humans on the surface. Then you have billions of humans on the surface. That clash can't be scientifically quantified at this time. The Earth's orbit changes from elliptical to a more round path, it goes through cycles of ice ages, heat waves and drought etc. Those are the phases of the earth. Just because they are not condusive to the human element on the surface the planet will continue to go through these phases. I think the history of data does not extend far enough back for us to claim humans are making this huge impact. I think the Earth is bigger than we are, more complex and more scientifically advanced than humans will ever be. On the other hand, is this complex, living planet ready to deal with the unbelievably massive amount of humans on it's surface? Nature will find a way. Only time will tell. Solar panels are not the answer. The Earth will do, we will adapt or the Earth will phase us out.

06-19-2009, 12:51 PM	#11 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	I'm gonna go ahead and make a completely unscientific statement bound by only my suspicions: global warming is bullshit. No I'm not a republican. __________________ "A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

06-30-2009, 04:14 AM	#12 (permalink)
Stone Upright	Hmmm, global warming. As a meteorologist I definately have ideas on this subject. But, I'll keep it short. :-) First, I tend to agree with what Halanna just said. Now I'll take it one small step further. While global warming 'might' be occurring (I say might because in geologic time 50 or 100 years is merely a spit in the ole' bucket) I do not see it as a problem that humans can, in all reality, either control or significantly influence. Mother Earth certainly retains that province. And, within her sphere of influence, there are patterns that have been observed over long periods of time. (I'm going to cut a lot of meteorolocal details here in the interest of not globally warming this particular thread. :-) :-) ) The bottom line is... and this has been clearly observed in the past... that as the earth, or more specifically the Northern Hemisphere, warms to the point of losing substantial polar(Arctic) ice, a mechanism (if you want the details I will gladly provide them) that has, again, in the past, been at the root of glacier formation and extreme winters in general kicks in. This rapidly(geologically speaking) cools the Northern Hemisphere. IOW, it precipitates an Ice Age. One extreme leads to another. We 'may' be influencing the earth's warming rate. But we are certainly not the master of it's climate. __________________ Stone7

09-11-2009, 01:29 PM	#15 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Well MSD, I happen to be "with the scientists" too, in the sense that I don't think many reputable environmental scientists deny the existence of global warming. I personally believe it to be anthropogenic but I'm not sure the consensus there is so strong. Ever seen Petition Project? Global Warming Petition Project "The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science. All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy. " They have a really good PDF: http://www.petitionproject.com/gw_ar...ew_OISM600.pdf It looks to be very credible, and I must say that even I am out of my league reading it as a computer engineer. Take a look. It's definitely science, I'm just not qualified to judge its accuracy. I'm also not sure we should judge the validity of scientific theory on consensus. Plenty of people have been in consensus about very wrong things. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel