Darryl Fears reports in the Washington Post that according to the government's newest national assessment of climate change, Americans are already feeling the effects of global warming. "For a long time we have perceived climate change as an issue that's distant, affecting just polar bears or something that matters to our kids," says Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University professor and lead co-author of the changing climate chapter of the assessment. "This shows it's not just in the future; it matters today. Many people are feeling the effects." The assessment carves the nation into sections and examines the impacts: More sea-level rise, flooding, storm surge, precipitation and heat waves in the Northeast; frequent water shortages and hurricanes in the Southeast and Caribbean; more drought and wildfires in the Southwest. "Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. Insurance rates are rising in some vulnerable locations, and insurance is no longer available in others. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snow melt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage. In Arctic Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded, and autumn storms now cause more erosion, threatening many communities with relocation."
The report concludes that over recent decades, climate science has advanced significantly and that increased scrutiny has led to increased certainty that we are now seeing impacts associated with human-induced climate change. "What is new over the last decade is that we know with increasing certainty that climate change is happening now. While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest clearing and some agricultural practices."
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:33PM
Unless, you know, it's not. I think the big problem here is why should I get worked up over a problem that might not ever become significant in anyone's lifetime? There needs to be sound evidence, not just a good sounding story that anthropogenic global warming is that serious a problem.
I wouldn't consider human incompetence at flood control climate-related. Way too much human mismanagement is misattributed to climate change.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:17PM
Leave this troll alone, he can't even be bothered to click the link to the article and read it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lazarus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:20PM
How do you know he's a troll? A ton of ignorant conservatives actually believe the things he says, because that's what the Republican alternate-reality propaganda machine tells them to believe.
A lot of money has gone into Fox News, hate-radio, and the wingnut blogs, all to keep foolish far-right-wing people confused and angry.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday May 08 2014, @08:09AM
In my comments and article submissions, anything I write I can't already defend either gets researched and referenced to the point I can defend it or revise it prior to posting or I make it obvious it's my own conjecture. As such, the only time people accuse me of trolling is when I crack a joke and it doesn't quite come off right which is entirely my fault and I take it on the chin.
It is an unfortunate fact that political victimization is rife in the world and much discussion of important matters in mainstream media is coloured by the agenda of whoever is doing the talking. However, when an article includes a link to a weighty piece of evidence and a commenter subsequently complains about the lack of evidence, it's quite obvious that their ignorance in this case is their own fault. Having the motivation to post and follow-up multiple times but being intellectually bone-idle enough to ignore the link to the evidence in the very same article they're commenting on shows that commenter is most certainly a troll and is not worthy of any further attention.
Oddly enough, I made this perfectly clear in rather shorter sentences when I called troll on this guy in the first place. Excuse me while I avoid the rest of this thread, it seems to have taken a detour under a bridge.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday May 08 2014, @01:15AM
Look, I get tired of people just lazily asserting stuff with perhaps a "look at this 841 page report and fuck off" as their sole justification. I think I'll rant epically about it in my journal.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday May 08 2014, @08:20AM
I wouldn't normally continue a discussion like this, but that kind of referencing is the academic standard for responding to a rebuttal built on ignorance of previously established evidence. Well-written papers (and Wikipedia articles) contain a list of references to supporting evidence and anyone wishing to make a rebuttal is required to put the effort into researching and supporting their argument themselves without wasting the time of the original author.
If you didn't understand that already, you may be out of your depth commenting here.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 09 2014, @10:26PM
It's proof by obfuscation. It's so complex that I can't point to anything as being right or wrong, so it must be true. Instead, I want a damn, smoking gun type of evidence. Something so incontrovertible, the only people keeping up the fight are the ones who defend the flat Earth theory in their spare time. A more solid argument not a more pages argument.