U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/science/earth/climate-change-report.html?_r=3

A very extensive report, known as the National Climate Assessment, was released earlier this week. Nothing in the report is particularly surprising, but its presentation for the general public, here, is incredibly impressive. (Not all government website releases are a disaster!)

If hardcore technical reports aren't your thing, the highlights portion of the site breaks each section down as plainly as possible, is extensively cited, and makes no secret the level of uncertainty inherent in current findings. The site is really quite fantastic, and I would encourage anyone with genuine interest, skepticism, and/or curiosity in U.S. climate change to *** around in it for a while. (Of course, if well-substantiated, easily digestible scientific communications aren't your thing, there's always this.)

Perhaps, the most poignant message arising from the report is summarized in this quote from the article:
I don't really consider myself a policy person so... what do?

Edit: Also of note is the high diversity of those involved. Largely scientists, of course, but representative of a wide swath of interests, including some oil companies.

Wait for science to fix it.

As I've stated in the past, I have no qualms with climate change. However, is there anything in that report that actually has hard data to suggest that the shown climate change is man-made?

You are science. So in a way you are directly responsible for fixing it.

The basic explanation is found here and a more extensive summary can be found within the report itself under Supplemental Messages 1 and 4.

Funny cause I was watching this, and I was like; you know AH needs more climate change discussions.

Also Bill Nye mentally backhanded Cupp and Heritage Foundation guy.

Its called Climate Disruption now. Global warming and climate change failed to sway the weather from acting like it has for thousands of years. With the coldest winter in 30ish yrs people are questioning the whole notion. "AGAIN" Its like the climate/weather has cycles and man can do nothing about it.


http://weatheradvance.com/home/weather/weatheradvance.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2013-2014-Winter-Temperatures.png

Thanks. I don't need the pretty charts and explanations and would just prefer data, but that's a start.

The U.S. is not the globe.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

Climate disruption is a more accurate term now that more and more abnormal climate events can be tied to the overall warming trends.

And yet it's still cold in Antarctica. Explain THAT, science.

Why is the heart of Africa warm gray like the poles? Legend has no reference.

Gray is missing data.

Edit: added a source

Not only is your link Not the globe it takes data from 1991-2012 average temperature compared with 1901-1960 average And can only say +2 degree's different!

You people call me dumb ffs..

Edit: also the globe pic you have jan-nov... bet if dec was in there it would look A LOT differnet.

Edit again:But hey don't let those little things stop you from believing something that still cannot be proven and let the regulations fly!

http://m.natgeotv.com/ca/six_degrees

But all it takes is +5 to end civilization as we currently know it...or so they say.

Totes different.

2 degree difference on average across the country is a substantial change.

Two degrees is quite a difference. But on that note...


This did bother me a tad. It left out a 30-year span for comparison, and statistically speaking it's not fair to compare samples with such a large difference in sample size, hence my desire to see the hard data. I can't look at a lot of this stuff and say for sure that it's statistically significant against reasonable alpha and beta values.

Let's let Climate Change/Global Warming/Climate Disruption/Koch Brothers Bane go on just long enough for my Family's Holdings in Florida to mature into beachfront property.

Global warming debates always remind me of this

But they called it science and they are scientist so its perfectly okay. /sarcasm

Didn't we just have a discussion on how to use the sarcasm tags...

I'll point out that every scientist who has ever spoken out against Global Warming, a group representing 8% of the community, has been traced directly back to Koch Industries.

This Waltz sounds a lot like the tune danced to during the Leaded Gasoline fight back in 50's-60's.

But then again, history only repeats itself if you ignore it right?

So is global warming real or not?

Depends on how you define the issue.

Is the planet getting hotter? Undeniably.

Is it a Significant Threat? To Some, not to others.

Is it Accelerated by Mankind to a significant degree? Data Insufficient.

So your totally okay with the massive data discrepancy just because some article blames the koch brothers?

Mark Twain — History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

This the one we need to get definitive data on then.

How do you get that from what he wrote?

Of course I'm not okay with the data discrepancy, I believe that the data is insufficient. Unfortunately, by the time we have an effective sample size it may be too late.

I'm also not blind to the fact that some "Green Energy" Companies are making a killing off of the "Global Warming" panic machine.

But here's some food for thought; What's more likely, that 92% of the scientific community is in on the world's largest conspiracy ever devised, or that a small group of massively wealthy billionaires are attempting to protect their industry?

How do you not?

Because he is sane.