text:
Climate change in the United States
This article needs to be updated.October 2018)(
Because of global warming, there has been concern in the United States and internationally, that the country should reduce total greenhouse gas which is relatively high per capita and is the second largest in the world after China, as of 2014.[1] As of April 2019, 69% of Americans think that climate change is happening and 55% think that it is mostly human caused.[2]
In 2012, the United States experienced its warmest year on record. As of 2012[update], the thirteen warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998, transcending those from 1880.[3][4]
From 1950 to 2009, the American government's surface temperature record shows an increase by 1 °F (0.56 °C), approximately. Global warming has caused many changes in the U.S. According to a 2009 statement by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), trends include lake and river ice melting earlier in the spring, plants blooming earlier, multiple animal species shifting their habitat ranges northward, and reductions in the size of glaciers.[citation needed]
Some research has warned against possible problems due to American climate changes such as the spread of invasive species and possibilities of floods as well as droughts.[5] Changes in climate in the regions of the United States appear significant. Drought conditions appear to be worsening in the southwest while improving in the northeast for example.[6]
President Barack Obama committed in the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Summit to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the range of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% below 2005 levels by 2030, and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.[7] In an address towards the U.S. Congress in June 2013, Obama detailed a specific action plan to achieve the 17% carbon emissions cut from 2005 by 2020. He included such measures as shifting from coal-based power generation to solar and natural gas production.[8]
Climate change is seen as a national security threat to the United States.[9]
In 2015, according to The New York Times and others, oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause global warming since the 1970s but, nonetheless, funded deniers for years.[10][11] 2016 was a historic year for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in U.S.[12]
In 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico are the areas of the U.S. most vulnerable to climate change.[13]
- 1 Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States
- 2 Current and potential effects of climate change in the United States
- 3 Policy
- 4 Cost and consequences
- 5 Public response
- 6 Our Changing Planet report
- 7 Climate change by state or territory
- 7.1 Alaska
- 7.2 American Samoa
- 7.3 California
- 7.4 Colorado
- 7.5 Florida
- 7.6 Guam
- 7.7 Idaho
- 7.8 Massachusetts
- 7.9 Michigan
- 7.10 Nevada
- 7.11 New York
- 7.12 Northern Mariana Islands
- 7.13 Puerto Rico
- 7.14 South Dakota
- 7.15 Texas
- 7.16 U.S. Virgin Islands
- 7.17 Washington
- 7.18 West Virginia
- 7.19 Wyoming
- 7.20 Multiple states
- 8 See also
- 9 References
- 10 External links
Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States[edit]
The United States was the second top emitter in terms of CO
2 from fossil fuels in 2009. It produced 5,420 million metric tons (abbreviated as mt) of the substance, constituting 17.8% of the world's total at the time. The nation was also the second highest emitter in terms of all greenhouse gas emissions, including construction and deforestation-related changes, in 2005. Specifically, the U.S. produced 6,930 mt (15.7% of the world's total). In the cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007, the U.S. was at the top in terms of all world nations, involved with 28.8% of the world's total.[14]
China's emissions have outpaced the U.S. in CO2 from 2006 onward. The U.S. produced 5.8 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2006, compared to the 6.23 billion coming from China. Per capita emission figures of China are about one quarter of those of the U.S. population.[15]
The single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. is power generation. For example, data from 2012 put that share as 32% of the total compared to the 28% of emissions related to transportation, 20% from industry, and 20% from other sources.[16]
According to data from the US Energy Information Administration the top emitters by fossil fuels CO2 in 2009 were: China: 7,710 million tonnes (mt) (25.4%), US: 5,420 mt (17.8%), India: 5.3%, Russia: 5.2% and Japan: 3.6%.[14]
In the cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007 the top emitters were: 1. US 28.8%, 2. China: 9.0%, 3. Russia: 8.0%, 4. Germany 6.9%, 5. UK 5.8%, 6. Japan: 3.9%, 7. France: 2.8%, 8. India 2.4%, 9. Canada: 2.2% and 10. Ukraine 2.2%.[17]
In terms of trends, carbon dioxide emissions were around 5,000 mt in 1990 and gradually increased to around 6,000 mt, with a peak occurring in 2008. The subsequent decline went on such that 2012 saw about 5,400 mt emitted.[16]
According to a 2016 study U.S. methane emissions were underestimated by the EPA since at least a decade, on the order of 30 to 50 percent.[18]
Voluntary emissions trading[edit]
Also in 2003, U.S. corporations were able to trade CO2 emission allowances on the Chicago Climate Exchange under a voluntary scheme. In August 2007, the Exchange announced a mechanism to create emission offsets for projects within the United States that cleanly destroy ozone-depleting substances.[19] The cap-and-trade system closed in 2010, though the market remained open.[20]
Current and potential effects of climate change in the United States[edit]
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) website provides information on climate change: EPA Climate Change. Climate change is a problem that is affecting people and the environment. Human-induced climate change has, e.g., the potential to alter the prevalence and severity of extreme weathers such as heat waves, cold waves, storms, floods and droughts.[21] A report released in March 2012 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed that a strong body of evidence links global warming to an increase in heat waves, a rise in episodes of heavy rainfall and other precipitation, and more frequent coastal flooding.[22][23] The U.S. had its warmest March–May on record in 2012.[24] (See March 2012 North American heat wave)
According to the American government's Climate Change Science Program, "With continued global warming, heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to further increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity. Hurricane wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge levels are likely to increase. The strongest cold season storms are likely to become more frequent, with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights."[25]
National temperature, sea level, and precipitation[edit]
The general effect of climate changes has been found in the journal Nature Climate Change to have caused increased likelihood of heat waves and extensive downpours.[26] Concerns exist that, as stated by a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study in 2003, increasing "heat and humidity, at least partially related to anthropogenic climate change, suggest that a long-term increase in heat-related mortality could occur." However, the report found that, in general, "over the past 35 years, the U.S. populace has become systematically less affected by hot and humid weather conditions" while "mortality during heat stress events has declined despite increasingly stressful weather conditions in many urban and suburban areas." Thus, as stated in the study, "there is no simple association between increased heat wave duration or intensity and higher mortality rates" with current death rates being largely preventable, the NIH deeply urging American public health officials and physicians to inform patients about mitigating heat-related weather and climate effects on their bodies.[27]
In terms of U.S. droughts, a study published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2006 about the U.S. reported, "Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century." It also stated that the "main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West" where "drought duration and severity... have increased."[6]
Sea level rise has taken place in the U.S. for decades, going back to the 19th century. As stated in research published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, west coast sea levels have increased by an average of 2.1 millimeters annually. In English notation, that equates to 0.083 inches per year and 0.83 inches per decade.[28]
As shown in the adjacent image, wet and rainy conditions versus moments of drought in the U.S. have varied significantly over the past several decades. Average conditions for the 48 contiguous states flashed into extreme drought in the mid-1930s 'dust bowl' era as well as during the turn of the 20th century. In comparison, the mid-2000s decade and mid-1890s experienced only slight drought and had mitigating rainy periods.[29] The National Drought Mitigation Center has reported that financial assistance from the government alone in the 1930s dry period may have been as high as $1 billion (in 1930s dollars) by the end of the drought.[30]
Climate scientists have hypothesized that the stratospheric polar vortex jet stream will gradually weaken as a result of global warming and thus influence U.S. conditions.[31][32][33] This trend could possibly cause changes in the future such as increasing frost in certain areas. The magazine Scientific American noted in December 2014 that ice cover on the Great Lakes had recently "reached its second-greatest extent on record", showing climate variability.[32]
In July 2012, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that the 12-month period July 2011 to June 2012 was the warmest 12-month period on record in the continental United States, with average temperature 3.23 °F above the average for the 20th century.[34] Earlier it was reported that exceptionally warm months between January and May 2012 had made the 12 month previous to June 2012 the warmest 12-month block since record keeping began,[35] but this record was exceeded by the July 2011 to June 2012 period. NOAA stated that the odds of the July 2011 to June 2012 high temperatures occurring randomly was 1 in 1,594,323.[34]
Other effects of both general climatic change and man-made climate change combine with the temperature precipitation effects of climate change to exacerbate conditions.
Extreme weather events[edit]
The number and severity of high-cost extreme weather events has increased in the 21st century in the United States. By August 2011 alone, the NOAA had registered nine distinct extreme weather disasters for that year, each totalling $1 billion or more in economic losses. Total losses for 2011 were evaluated as more than $35 billion before Hurricane Irene.[36]
Though the costs and frequency of cyclones have increased on the east coast, it remains unclear whether these effects have been driven primarily by climate change.[26][37] When correcting for this, a comprehensive 2006 article in Geophysical Research Letters found "no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity" during past decades, a period when considerable warming of ocean water temperatures occurred. However, the study found major regional shifts, including a general rise of activity in the North Atlantic area, including on the U.S. eastern coast.[38]
From 1898 through 1913, there have been 27 cold waves which totalled 58 days. Between 1970 and 1989, there were about 12 such events. From 1989 until January 6, 2014, there were none. The one on the latter date caused consternation because of decreased frequency of such experiences.[39]
Human effects: health, economy and agriculture[edit]
In November 2018, the US Global Change Research Program published a report which shows that in the 21st century, climate change could kill thousands of people in the USA annually and the USA economy could lose more than 10% of its GDP if preventive measures (like reduction of GHG emissions) were not taken.[40]
Looking at the lack of certainty as to the causes of the 1995 to present increase in Atlantic extreme storm activity, a 2007 article in Nature used proxy records of vertical wind shear and sea surface temperature to create a long-term model. The authors found that "the average frequency of major hurricanes decreased gradually from the 1760s until the early 1990s, reaching anomalously low values during the 1970s and 1980s." As well, they also found that "hurricane activity since 1995 is not unusual compared to other periods of high hurricane activity in the record and thus appears to represent a recovery to normal hurricane activity, rather than a direct response to increasing sea surface temperature." The researches stated that future evaluations of climate change effects should focus on the magnitude of vertical wind shear for answers.[41]
The frequency of tornadoes in the U.S. have increased, and some of this trend takes place due to climatological changes though other factors such as better detection technologies also play large roles. According to a 2003 study in Climate Research, the total tornado hazards resulting in injury, death, or economic loss "shows a steady decline since the 1980s". As well, the authors reported that tornado "deaths and injuries decreased over the past fifty years". They state that addition research must look into regional and temporal variability in the future.[42]
Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged. Threats to human health will increase.[43]
A 2012 report in Nature Climate Change stated that there is reason to be concerned that American climate changes could increase food insecurity by reducing grain yields, with the authors noting as well that substantial other facts exist influencing food prices as such as government mandates turning food into fuel and fluctuating transport costs. The researchers concluded that U.S. corn price volatility would moderately increase with American warming with relatively modest rises in food prices assuming that market competition and integration partly mitigated climate affects. They warned that biofuels mandates would, if present, widely increase corn price sensitivity to U.S. warming.[44]
Federal, state, and local governments have all debated climate change policies, but the resulting laws vary considerably. The U.S. Congress has not adopted a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions reduction scheme, but long-standing environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act have been used by the executive branch and litigants in lawsuits to implement regulations and voluntary agreements.
The federal government has the exclusive power to regulate emissions from motor vehicles, but has granted the state of California a waiver to adopt more stringent regulations. Other states may choose to adopt either the federal or California rules. Individual states retain the power to regulate emissions from electrical generation and industrial sources, and some have done so. Building codes are controlled by state and local governments, and in some cases have been altered to require increased energy efficiency. Governments at all levels have the option of reducing emissions from their own operations such as through improvements to buildings, purchasing alternative fuel vehicles, and reducing waste; and some have done so.
Political opponents to emissions regulations argue that such measures reduce economic activity in the fossil fuel industry (which is a substantial extractive industry in the United States), and impose unwanted costs on drivers, electricity users, and building owners. Some also argue that stringent environmental regulations infringe on individual liberty, and that the environmental impact of economic activity should be driven by the informed choices of consumers. Regulatory proponents argue that the economy is not a zero-sum game, and that individual choices have proven insufficient to prevent damaging and costly levels of global warming. Some states have financed programs to boost employment in green energy industries, such as production of wind turbines. Areas heavily dependent on coal production have not taken such steps and are suffering economic recession due to both competition from now lower-priced natural gas and environmental rules that make generation of electricity from coal disadvantageous due to high emissions of CO2 and other pollutants compared to other fuels.
History of federal policy and international agreements[edit]
The United States, although a signatory to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, under President Clinton, neither ratified nor withdrew from the protocol. In 1997, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously under the Byrd–Hagel Resolution that it was not the sense of the senate that the United States should be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, and in March 2001, the Bush Administration announced that it would not implement the treaty, saying it would create economic setbacks in the U.S. and does not put enough pressure to limit emissions from developing nations.[45] In February 2002, Bush announced his alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, by bringing forth a plan to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gasses by 18 percent over 10 years. The intensity of greenhouse gasses specifically is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions and economic output, meaning that under this plan, emissions would still continue to grow, but at a slower pace. Bush stated that this plan would prevent the release of 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, which is about the equivalent of 70 million cars from the road. This target would achieve this goal by providing tax credits to businesses that use renewable energy sources.[46]
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that EPA regulation of carbon dioxide is required under the Clean Air Act.
President Barack Obama proposed a cap-and-trade program as part of the 2010 United States federal budget, but this was never adopted by Congress.[47]
President Obama committed in the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Summit to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the range of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% below 2005 levels by 2030, and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.[7] Data from an April 2013 report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), showed a 12% reduction in the 2005 to 2012 period. Just over half of this decrease has been attributed to the recession, and the rest to a variety of factors such as replacing coal-based power generation with natural gas and increasing energy efficiency of American vehicles (according to a Council of Economic Advisors analysis).[48] Executive Order 13514 set various requirements for energy efficiency in federal buildings and operations, including goals for 2015. That year, Executive Order 13693 set requirements for federal operations generally.[clarification needed]
In an address to the U.S. Congress in June 2013, the President detailed a specific action plan to achieve the 17% carbon emissions cut from 2005 by 2020, including measures such as shifting from coal-based power generation to solar and natural gas production.[8] Some Republican and Democratic lawmakers expressed concern at the idea of imposing new fines and regulations on the coal industry while the U.S. still tries to recover from the world economic recession, with Speaker of the House John Boehner saying that the proposed rules "will put thousands and thousands of Americans out of work".[49] Christiana Figueres, executive director of the UN's climate secretariat, praised the plan as providing a vital benchmark that people concerned with climate change can use as a paragon both at home and abroad.[50]
After not participating in previous climate international treaties, the United States signed the Paris Agreement on April 22, 2016 during the Obama administration. Though this agreement does not mandate a specific reduction for any given country, it sets global goals, asks countries to set their own goals, and mandates reporting.
The U.S. submitted its action plan in March, 2015, ahead of the treaty signing.[51] Reaffirming the November 2014 announcement it made with China,[52] the United States declared it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. This is to be accomplished by several executive actions:[53]
- Clean Power Plan - regulating sources of electricity (put on hold by the Supreme Court in February, 2016, pending the outcome of a lawsuit)
- New emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles, finalized by EPA in March, 2016[54]
- Department of Energy efficiency standards for commercial buildings, appliances, and equipment[citation needed]
- Various actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, including regulation and voluntary efforts related to methane from landfills, agriculture, coal mines; and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) reduction through domestic regulation and amendment of the Montreal Protocol
In June 2017, President Donald Trump announced United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, although the exit process specified by the treaty (which Trump said the U.S. would follow) will last until at least November 4, 2020.[55] Trump states that dropping out the agreement will create more job opportunities in the United States, but it may actually have the opposite effect by stifling the renewable energy industries.[56] At the same time, Trump administration shut down the United States Environmental Protection Agency's climate change web pages and removed mentions of the topic elsewhere on the site.[57] In April 2018, the Trump administration cancelled NASA's Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) program, which helped with the monitoring of CO2 emissions and deforestation in the United States and in other countries.[58] The Trump administration has also moved to increase fossil fuel consumption and roll back environmental policies that are considered to be burdensome to businesses.[59]
Role of the US military[edit]
The US military is an unequivocal validator of climate science, and its current efforts to value true costs and benefits of energy conservation and increased use of renewables can serve as drivers of change, according to a 2014 study from the University of Pennsylvania Legal Studies Department.[60]
A 2014 report described the projected climate change as a "catalyst for conflict".[61] The DOD had issued a Fiscal Year 2012 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, in which it outlined its vulnerabilities, yet the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found, that installation officials rarely proposed projects with climate change adaptation, because the processes for approving and funding military construction do not include climate change adaptation in the ranking criteria for projects.[62]
State and regional policy[edit]
Across the country, regional organizations, states, and cities are achieving real emissions reductions and gaining valuable policy experience as they take action on climate change. These actions include increasing renewable energy generation, selling agricultural carbon sequestration credits, and encouraging efficient energy use.[63] The U.S. Climate Change Science Program is a joint program of over twenty U.S. cabinet departments and federal agencies, all working together to investigate climate change. In June 2008, a report issued by the program stated that weather would become more extreme, due to climate change.[64][65] States and municipalities often function as "policy laboratories", developing initiatives that serve as models for federal action. This has been especially true with environmental regulation—most federal environmental laws have been based on state models. In addition, state actions can significantly affect emissions, because many individual states emit high levels of greenhouse gases. Texas, for example, emits more than France, while California's emissions exceed those of Brazil.[66] State actions are also important because states have primary jurisdiction over many areas—such as electric generation, agriculture, and land use—that are critical to addressing climate change.
Many states are participating in Regional climate change initiatives, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the northeastern United States, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative, and the Southwest Climate Change Initiative.
Inside the ten northeastern states implementing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, carbon dioxide emissions per capita decreased by about 25% from 2000 and 2010, as the state economies continued to grow while enacting various energy efficiency programs.[67]
Cost and consequences[edit]
In 2013 there were 11 weather and climate disaster events with losses over $1 billion each in the United States. In total these 11 events losses were over $110 billion. 2013 was the warmest year ever in the contiguous United States and about one-third of all Americans experienced 10 days or more of 100-degree heat.
These increasingly common and severe weather events have put pressure on existing disaster-relief efforts. For instance, the increasing rate of wildfires, the increasing length of the fire season, and increasing severity have put pressure on national and international resources. In the US, federal firefighting efforts surpassed $2 billion dollars a year for the first time in 2017, and this expense was repeated in 2018. At the same time, internationally-shared capital, such as firefighting planes, has experienced increasing demand, requiring new investment. [68]
Impact on agriculture[edit]
Increasing floods (such as the 2019 Midwestern U.S. floods), heat waves, and droughts have brought economic problems to farmers business and increased product prices.[69]
USDA research indicates that "climate change is likely to drive down yields for some crops, harm milk production, and lead to a drop in nutrient density for key crops like rice and wheat."[70][71]
Public response[edit]
Campus-level action[edit]
Many colleges and universities have taken steps in recent years to offset or curb their greenhouse gas emissions in relation to campus activities. On October 5, 2006, New York University announced that it plans to purchase 118 million kilowatt hours of wind power, more wind power than any college or university in the country.[72] Later in the same month, the small campus of College of the Atlantic in Maine became the first to vow to offset all of its greenhouse gas emissions by cutting GHG emissions and investing in emissions-cutting projects elsewhere.[73] In May 2007, the trustees of Middlebury College voted in support of a student-written proposal[74] to reduce campus emissions as much as possible, and then offset the rest such that the campus is carbon neutral by 2016.[75] As of November 2007, 434 campuses have institutionalized their commitment to climate neutrality by signing the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment.[76] On November 2-5th, 2007, thousands of young adults converged in Washington D.C. for Power Shift 2007, the first national youth summit to address the climate crisis.[77] The Power Shift 2007 conference was a project of the Energy Action Coalition.[78]
At least three US high schools have objected to mention of climate change in 2019 graduation speeches by students.[79]
Political ideologies[edit]
Historical support for environmental protection has been relatively non-partisan. Republican Theodore Roosevelt established national parks whereas Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Soil Conservation Service. This non-partisanship began to change during the 1980s when the Reagan administration stated that environmental protection was an economic burden. Views over global warming began to seriously diverge among Democrats and Republicans when ratifying the Kyoto Protocol was being debated in 1998. Gaps in opinions among the general public are often amplified among the political elites, such as members of Congress, who tend to be more polarized.[80] A 2017 study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund of climate change denial in the United States Congress found 180 members who deny the science behind climate change; all were Republicans.[81][82]
Beyond politicians, there is a variety of views by each political party.[83] In March 2014, Gallup found that among Democrats, 45% say they worry a great deal about the quality of the environment while the number drops to 16% for Republicans.[84][85][86]
Political disagreement is also strongly rooted in our potential solutions to addressing climate change. Strategies such as a Cap and Trade system are still a heated argument.[87]
On January 20, 2017, within moments of Donald Trump's inauguration, all references to climate change were removed from the White House website. The U.S. has been considered the most authoritative researcher of this information, and there is concern amongst the scientific community as to how the Trump administration will prioritize the issue.[88]
In early indications to news media of the first federal budget process under Donald Trump's administration, there are signs that most efforts under the Obama administration to curb U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would effectively be rolled back.[89]
In July 2018 the Trump Administration released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement from the NHTSA. In it was the prediction that on our current course the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees Fahrenheit (or about 3.9 degrees Celsius) by the end of this century.[90]
Business community[edit]
In 2015, according to The New York Times and others, oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause global warming since the 1970s but, nonetheless, funded deniers for years.[10][11]
There is a growing body of academic literature that explores the potential for greenhouse emissions related liability,[91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100] including a 2003 treatment in Nature.[101] A review of this work published in 2016 calculated that climate change related liability could reach trillions of dollars based on lost revenue from nations that would forced to evacuate because of sea level rise.[102] This high risk has led to changes in the insurance industry.[citation needed]
The "JetBlue" company is the first airline in USA that planning to become carbon neutral in 2020 partly by supporting reforestation projects as carbon offsets[103]
Our Changing Planet report[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. (May 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Since 1989, the U.S. Global Change Research Program has issued Our Changing Planet, an annual report summarizing "recent achievements, near term plans, and progress in implementing long term goals."[104] The report for fiscal year 2010 was issued on October 28, 2009.
Measurement and modeling of climate systems have both improved dramatically in the last three decades, with measurements providing the hard data to calibrate the simulations, which in turn lead to improved understanding of the various systems and feedbacks and indicate areas where more and more detailed observations are needed. Recent developments in ensemble methods have improved understanding of and reduced uncertainty in hydrologic forcing by incoming radiation, particularly in areas with a complex topology. Multiple complementary model-validated proxy reconstructions indicate that recent warmth in the northern hemisphere is anomalous over at least the last 1300 years; using tree ring data, this conclusion can be extended somewhat less certainly to at least 1700 years. Improved measurement and analysis techniques have reconciled certain discrepancies between observed and projected trends in tropical surface and tropospheric temperatures: corrected buoy and satellite surface temperatures are slightly cooler and corrected satellite and radiosonde measurements of the tropical troposphere are slightly warmer.
Various forcing factors, including greenhouse gases, land cover change, volcanoes, air pollution and aerosols, and solar variability, have far ranging effects throughout the coupled ocean-atmosphere-land climate system. In the short term, effects from ozone, black carbon, organic carbon, and sulfate on radiative forcing are predicted to nearly cancel, but long-term projections of changing emissions patterns indicate that the warming effect of black carbon will outweigh the cooling effect of sulphates. By 2100, the projected global average increase to radiative forcing is approximately 1 W/m2.
Human activities influence climate and related systems through, among other mechanisms, land usage, water management, and earlier and more significant melting of snow cover due to greenhouse-effect warming. In the southwestern United States, 60% of climate-related trends in river flow, winter air temperature, and snowpack between 1950 and 1999 were induced by humans. In this region, conversion of abandoned farmland to pine forests is projected to have a slight surface cooling effect, with evapotranspiration outweighing decreased albedo.
Climate change by state or territory[edit]
The impacts of climate change are different from state to state. Generally, states that emit more carbon dioxide per person and block climate action, are suffering more.[105]
Alaska has seen effects of global warming, including erosion, topographical upheaval, and melting permafrost and sea ice.[106][107][108] The United States Coast Guard officials expect to expand activities as global warming melts these once ice-locked waters.[109][110]
American Samoa[edit]
The American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency said the following:
"American Samoa has a fragile ecosystem. It is therefore important for us to act in a manner prudent to our survival and encourage others to act with prudence as well. As an island Territory, we are directly and immediately impacted by global climate change. The implications of increased global temperatures put our very survival at risk."[111]
The American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency further notes that climate change may impact coral reefs in American Samoa.[111] It also says rising sea levels will impact people who live near the shoreline.[111]
California has taken legislative steps towards reducing the possible effects climate change by incentives and plans for clean cars, renewable energy and stringent caps on big polluting industries. In September 2006, the California State Legislature passed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006[112] with the goal of reducing man-made California greenhouse gas emissions (1.4% of global emissions in 2004[113]) back to 1990 emission levels by 2020. The legislation grants the Air Resource Board extraordinary powers to set policies, draw up regulations, lead the enforcement effort, levy fines and fees to finance it and punish violators. The technical and regulatory requirements are far reaching. Some of this sweeping regulation is being challenged in the courts.[citation needed] The law is intended to make low-carbon technology more attractive, and promote its adoption in production in California.
While California's claims[114] of successful energy efficiency policy have been widely accepted,[115][116] a 2013 study argued external factors explained ~95% of the appearance of California's relative efficiency gains.[117] The report cited three key factors: relatively large household size; relatively low household income growth; and US population shift to the Southwest (which increased the average per-capita energy use for the other 49 states).
In California, authorities have predicted that the shortage of rain will increase the duration of the fire season, and result in larger fires. Half of the most destructive fires in recorded California history have occurred since 2002. Climate change and intensifying droughts are drying out landscapes. Pests, such as the mountain pine beetle, have killed off stands of trees.[118]
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (April 2012)
Colorado may be facing a shrinking ski season and an impaired agriculture industry.[119]
Miami has been making attempts to mitigate the effects of global warming and associated sea level rise.[120]
In 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the following about climate change in Guam:
"In the coming decades, changes in the earth's atmosphere are likely to alter several aspects of life in Guam. The air and ocean are warming, sea level is rising, and the ocean is becoming more acidic. These changes are likely to damage or destroy much of Guam's coral reef ecosystems, increase damages from flooding and typhoons, reduce the availability of fresh water during the dry season, and make air temperatures uncomfortably hot more often than they are today."[121]
Idaho emits the least carbon dioxide per person of the United States, less than 23,000 pounds a year. Idaho forbids coal-power plants. It relies mostly on nonpolluting hydroelectric power from its rivers.[122] [123] Over the last century, the average temperature near Boise, Idaho, has increased nearly 1 °F, and precipitation has increased by nearly 20% in many parts of the state, and has declined in other parts of the state by more than 10%. Over the next century, climate in Idaho could experience additional changes. For example, based on projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and results from the United Kingdom Hadley Centre's climate model (HadCM2), a model that accounts for both greenhouse gases and aerosols, by 2100 temperatures in Idaho could increase by 5 °F (2.8 °C) (with a range of 2-9 °F) in winter and summer and 4 °F (2.2 °C) (with a range of 2-7 °F) in spring and fall.[citation needed]
This section does not cite any sources. (February 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has recently signed into law three global warming and energy-related bills that will promote advanced biofuels, support the growth of the clean energy technology industry, and cut the emissions of greenhouse gases within the state. The Clean Energy Biofuels Act, signed in late July, exempts cellulosic ethanol from the state's gasoline tax, but only if the ethanol achieves a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions relative to gasoline. The act also requires all diesel motor fuels and all No. 2 fuel oil sold for heating to include at least 2% "substitute fuel" by July 2010, where substitute fuel is defined as a fuel derived from renewable non-food biomass that achieves at least a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In early 2008 August, Governor Patrick signed two additional bills: the Green Jobs Act and the Global Warming Solutions Act. The Green Jobs Act will support the growth of a clean energy technology industry within the state, backed by $68 million in funding over 5 years. The Global Warming Solutions Act requires a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the state to 10%-25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Global warming projects to have a greater influence on average annual temperatures in the central and eastern Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula, with lesser effect in the summer than in the winter. Thirty more days per year should have temperatures in excess of 90°F in such places as Kalamazoo, Lansing, and Greater Detroit. lengthening the cooling season for air conditioning but with the most severe increase in heating degree days in Greater Detroit. Rainfall events will be larger with greater chance of flooding, but consecutive dry days will also become longer series. The growing season will lengthen.[124]
Michigan will have more intense algae blooms in its waters that will pose a threat to drinking water. Lengthening growing seasons could be offset with more exposure to crop pests, more intense storms will result in soil erosion, and increased heat and more severe rainstorms could endanger such infrastructure as highways. Ozone pollution will become more severe and pose greater risks to vulnerable people in hotter summers. Although rainfall will be more intense, droughts will be longer. Milder winters imply lesser snowpacks that protect tree roots from frost and losses of soil moisture.[125]
Many bird species will disappear, and cold-to-cool-water species of fish such as trout and salmon will give way to more subtropical fish such as catfish. [126]
This section does not cite any sources. (February 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Climate change in Nevada has been measured over the last century, with the average temperature in Elko, Nevada, increasing 0.6 °F (0.3 °C), and precipitation has increased by up to 20% in many parts of the state. Based on projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and results from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research climate model (HadCM2), a model that accounts for both greenhouse gases and aerosols, by 2100, temperatures in Nevada could increase by 3-4 °F (1.7-2.2 °C) in spring and fall (with a range of 1-6 °F [0.5-3.3 °C]), and by 5-6 °F (2.8-3.3 °C) in winter and summer (with a range of 2-10 °F [1.1-5.6 °C]). Earlier and more rapid snowmelts could contribute to winter and spring flooding, and more intense summer storms could increase the likelihood of flash floods. Climate change could affect crop production, reducing potato yields by about 12%, with hay and pasture yields increasing by about 7%. Farmed acres could rise by 9% or fall by 9%, depending on how climate changes. The region's inherently variable and unpredictable hydrological and climatic systems could become even more variable with changes in climate, putting stress on wetland ecosystems. A warmer climate would increase evaporation and shorten the snow season in the mountains, resulting in earlier spring runoff and reduced summer streamflow. This would exacerbate fire risk in the late summer. Many desert-adapted plants and animals already live near their tolerance limits, and could disappear under the hotter conditions predicted under global warming.
New York[edit]
Climate change in New York City could affect buildings/structures, wetlands, water supply, health, and energy demand, due to the high population and extensive infrastructure in the region.[127] New York is especially at risk if the sea level rises, due to many of the bridges connecting to boroughs, and entrances to roads and rail tunnels. High-traffic locations such as the airports, the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, and the Passenger Ship Terminal are located in areas vulnerable to flooding.[128] Flooding would be expensive to reverse.[129][130] New York has launched a task force to advise on preparing city infrastructure for flooding, water shortages, and higher temperatures.[131]
Northern Mariana Islands[edit]
In 2014, a climate change assessment was made for the island of Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands.[132] The assessment stated that the western areas of the island (such as the village of Garapan) are the most vulnerable to climate change.[132] It also stated that sea level changes threaten Saipan.[132]
Puerto Rico[edit]
Puerto Rico is vulnerable to climate change.[13] The Wall Street Journal said the following about Puerto Rico in 2015:
"Look no further than Puerto Rico, where parts of the coastline are being eroded at a rate of 3.3 feet a year. More than half of the 3½ million Puerto Ricans live along the coast, and the implications of rising sea levels could be devastating. The island is also heavily dependent on manufacturing, with more than 45% of its domestic economy coming from the industrial sector. Rising heat translates to rising energy costs, which combined with disruptions from storms and flooding could have a devastating effect on these industries."[13]
South Dakota[edit]
Due to South Dakota's location in the Northern Great Plains, the effects of climate change will vary from eastern South Dakota to western South Dakota. Eastern South Dakota can experience more flooding and western South Dakota can experience more droughts due to climate change. Climate change in South Dakota will directly impact agriculture, city planning and development as well as the tourism industry. [133][134] In the spring of 2019, the Big Sioux River and James River (Dakotas) experienced severe flooding. Some of the effects of the flood episode included: delayed crop plantings, spread of noxious weeds, litter and debris scattered along river banks, damage to roads and bridges and a decline in canoeing and kayaking due to strong current. Some areas of the state have received 27 inches of rain in 2019 almost breaking the record of 28.71 inches in 1993.[135] Some of the greatest increases in average temperatures in the U.S. are expected in the region over the coming decades. "A projected increase of 4.05 degrees Fahrenheit in average temperature is expected by 2065, and a projected increase of 9.37 degrees Fahrenheit in average temperature can be expected by the turn of the century if nothing is done to curb emissions. The average annual temperature in South Dakota has increased by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the beginning of the 20th century, and most of that warming has occurred in winter and spring. All but two of South Dakota's top 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1980, and four of the top 10 warmest years have been registered since 2005."[136] One invasive species that will dominate South Dakotas eastern woodlands due to climate change is buckthorn. This tree species is not native to the area and spreads drastically into open areas. Removing buckthorn is very costly and time consuming. The only way to remove the tree is to either pull it out of the ground or cut and spray it with a herbicide.[137] In 2018, 324-foot wind turbines wind were installed in South Dakota, with a capacity of 2,300 kilowatts. "As of December 2018, South Dakota had 1,018 megawatts of wind power capacity online and running. Another 200 megawatts of wind energy was under construction, and 673 more megawatts spread across dozens of sites are permitted for production." [138]
This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Over the next century, climate in Texas could experience additional changes.[139] For example, based on projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and results from the United Kingdom Hadley Centre's climate model (HadCM2), a model that accounts for both greenhouse gases and aerosols, by 2100 temperatures in Texas could increase by about 3 °F (~1.7 °C) in spring (with a range of 1-6 °F) and about 4 °F (~2.2 °C) in other seasons (with a range of 1-9 °F). Texas emits more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other state. And if Texas were a country, it would be the seventh-largest carbon dioxide polluter in the world. Texas's high carbon dioxide output and large energy consumption is primarily a result of large coal-burning power plants and gas-guzzling vehicles (low miles per gallon).[140] Unless increased temperatures are coupled with a strong increase in rainfall, water could become more scarce. A warmer and drier climate would lead to greater evaporation, as much as a 35% decrease in streamflow, and less water for recharging groundwater aquifers. Climate change could reduce cotton and sorghum yields by 2-15% and wheat yields by 43-68%, leading to changes in acres farmed and production. With changes in climate, the extent and density of forested areas in east Texas could change little or decline by 50-70%. Hotter, drier weather could increase wildfires and the susceptibility of pine forests to pine bark beetles and other pests, which would reduce forests and expand grasslands and arid shrublands.
U.S. Virgin Islands[edit]
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) said, "The U.S. Virgin Islands -- one of the places vulnerable to the impacts of climate change -- are already seeing excessively high temperatures, more severe droughts and rising sea levels. While the local government and partners are planning for these changes, we need to act fast to adapt to the drastic effects that are taking place in the colorful coral reefs surrounding the islands."[141] The DOI further states that in 2005, coral bleaching occurred due to unusually high seawater temperatures, and that between 2005 and 2007, more than half of living coral in the U.S. Virgin Islands was lost.[141]
Visible physical effects on the environment within Washington State include glacier reduction, declining snow-pack, earlier spring runoff, an increase in large wildfires, and rising sea levels which affect the Puget Sound area. Less snow pack will also result in a time change of water flow volumes into fresh water systems, resulting in greater winter river volume, and less volume during summer's driest months, generally from July through October. These changes will result in both economic and ecological repercussions, most notably found in hydrological power output, municipal water supply and migration of fish. Collectively, these changes are negatively affecting agriculture, forest resources, dairy farming, the WA wine industry, electricity, water supply, and other areas of the state.[142] Beyond affecting wildfires, climate change could affect the economic contribution of Washington's forests both directly (e.g., by affecting rates of tree growth and relative importance of different tree species) and indirectly (e.g., through effects on the magnitude of pest or fire damage). Beyond growth rates, climate change could affect Washington forests by changing the range and life cycle of pests.
Washington State currently relies on hydro power for 72% of its power and sales of hydro power to both households and businesses topped 4.3 billion dollars in 2003. Washington State currently has the 9th lowest cost for electricity in the US. Climate change will have a negative effect on both the supply and demand of electricity in Washington.[143] The available electricity supply could also be affected by climate change. Currently, peak stream flows are in the summer. Snowpack is likely to melt earlier in the future due to increased temperatures, thus shifting the peak stream flow to late winter and early spring, with decreased summer stream flow. This would result in an increased availability of electricity in the early spring, when demand is dampened, and a decreased availability in the summer, when the demand may be highest.
West Virginia[edit]
This section does not cite any sources. (February 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Warming and other climate changes could expand the habitat and infectiousness of disease-carrying insects, thus increasing the potential for transmission of diseases such as malaria and dengue ("break bone") fever. Warmer temperatures could increase the incidence of Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases in West Virginia, because populations of ticks, and their rodent hosts, could increase under warmer temperatures and increased vegetation. Lower streamflows and lake levels in the summer and fall could affect the dependability of surface water supplies, particularly since many of the streams in West Virginia have low flows in the summer. Hay yields could increase by about 30% as a result of climate change, leading to changes in acres farmed and production. Farmed acres could remain constant or could decrease by as much as 30% in response to changes in prices, for example, possible decreases in hay prices. In areas where richer soils are prevalent, southern pines could increase their range and density, and in areas with poorer soils, which are more common in West Virginia's forests, scrub oaks of little commercial value (e.g., post oak and blackjack oak) could increase their range. As a result, the character of forests in West Virginia could change. The state of West Virginia is 97% forested, and much of this cover is in high-elevation areas. These areas contain some of the last remaining stands of red spruce, which are seriously threatened by acid rain and could be further stressed by changing climate. Given a sufficient change in climate, these spruce forests could be substantially reduced, or could disappear. Higher-than-normal winter temperatures could boost temperatures inside cave bat roosting sites, which has been shown to cause higher mortality due to increased winter body weight loss in endangered Indiana bats (e.g., an increase of 9 °F (−13 °C) during winter hibernation has been associated with a 42% increase in the rate of body mass loss).
This article needs additional citations for verification. (October 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
On a per-person basis, Wyoming emits more carbon dioxide than any other state or any other country: 276,000 pounds (125,000 kg) of it per capita a year, because of burning coal, which provides nearly all of the state's electrical power.[122] Warmer temperatures could increase the incidence of Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases in Wyoming, because populations of ticks, and their rodent hosts, could increase under warmer temperatures and increased vegetation. Increased runoff from heavy rainfall could increase water-borne diseases such as giardia, cryptosporidia, and viral and bacterial gastroenteritis. The headwaters of several rivers originate in Wyoming and flow in all directions into the Missouri, Snake, and Colorado River basins. A warmer climate could result in less winter snowfall, more winter rain, and faster, earlier spring snowmelt. In the summer, without increases in rainfall of at least 15-20%, higher temperatures and increased evaporation could lower streamflows and lake levels. Less water would be available to support irrigation, hydropower generation, public water supplies, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and mining. Hotter, drier weather could increase the frequency and intensity of wildfires, threatening both property and forests. Drier conditions would reduce the range and health of ponderosa and lodgepole forests, and increase their susceptibility to fire. Climate change also poses a threat to the high alpine systems, and this zone could disappear in many areas. Local extinctions of alpine species such as arctic gentian, alpine chaenactis, rosy finch, and water pipit could be expected as a result of habitat loss and fragmentation. In cooperation with the Wyoming Business Council, the Converse Area New Development Organization drafted an initiative to advance geothermal energy development in Wyoming. The Wyoming Business Council offers grants for homeowners who want to install photovoltaic (PV) systems.
Multiple states[edit]
Sea level rise affects multiple states.[144] States have undertaken a variety of initiatives to plan for the effects of sea level rise.[145] Because the effects of sea level rise vary significantly from region to region, many planning initiatives take place at the local level.[145]
Climate change contributes to wildfires.[146]
See also[edit]
- Climate change in the European Union
- Coal in the United States
- Energy conservation in the United States
- Environmental issues in the United States
- Hurricane Katrina and global warming
- List of U.S. states and territories by carbon dioxide emissions
- List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita
- Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate
- National Climate Assessment
- Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM, an emission trading scheme in California)
- Renewable energy in the United States
- U.S. Climate Change Science Program
- United States Climate Alliance
- ^ EPA, OA, US (2016-01-12). "Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data | US EPA". US EPA. Retrieved 2018-06-13.
- ^ Leiserowitz, Anthony; Maibach, Edward; Rosenthal, Seth; Kotcher, John; Bergquist, Parrish; Ballew, Matthew; Goldberg, Matthew; Gustafson, Abel. "Climate Change in the American Mind: April 2019". Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Retrieved 2 October 2019.
- ^ There's Still Hope for the Planet July 21, 2012 The New York Times by David Leonhardt
- ^ By The Numbers: The U.S.'s Warmest Year Yet January 31, 2013 Popular Science
- ^ "Heat Waves, Storms, Flooding: Climate Change to Profoundly Affect U.S. Midwest in Coming Decades". Science Daily. January 18, 2013. Retrieved August 26, 2013.
- ^ a b Andreadis, K. M.; Lettenmaier, D. P. (2006). "Trends in 20th century drought over the continental United States". Geophysical Research Letters. 33 (10): n/a. Bibcode:2006GeoRL..3310403A. doi:10.1029/2006GL025711.
- ^ a b NRDC: From Copenhagen Accord to Climate Action: Tracking National Commitments to Curb Global Warming
- ^ a b Barack Obama pledges to bypass Congress to tackle climate change 25 June 2013
- ^ "Climate Change and US National Security: Past, Present, Future". atlanticcouncil.org. Atlantic Council. March 29, 2016. Retrieved September 21, 2016.
- ^ a b Egan, Timothy (November 5, 2015). "Exxon Mobil and the G.O.P.: Fossil Fools". The New York Times. Retrieved November 9, 2015.
- ^ a b Goldenberg, Suzanne (July 8, 2015). "Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years". The Guardian. Retrieved November 9, 2015.
- ^ Adam B. Smith (January 9, 2017). "2016: A historic year for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in U.S." Climate.gov. Retrieved March 20, 2017.
- ^ a b c Wells, Charlie (2015-03-31). "Why U.S. Territories Are Most Vulnerable to Climate Change". WSJ. Archived from the original on 2015-10-04. Retrieved 2019-10-06.
- ^ a b "World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest". The Guardian. 31 January 2011.
- ^ Audra Ang (June 20, 2007). "Group: China tops world in CO2 emissions". USA Today. Retrieved August 26, 2013.
- ^ a b Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2012 (April 2014) Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Which nations are most responsible for climate change? Guardian 21 April 2011
- ^ "US methane emissions are drastically underestimated, a new study shows". PRI. 2016.
- ^ Beyond the Kyoto six Archived July 27, 2011, at the Wayback Machine Carbon Finance 7 March 2008
- ^ GRONEWOLD, NATHANIAL (3 January 2011). "Chicago Climate Exchange Closes Nation's First Cap-And-Trade System but Keeps Eye to the Future". New York Times. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
- ^ EPA Climate Change and "Help finding information | US EPA". Archived from the original on 2011-09-15. Retrieved 2011-09-14. about Extreme weather
- ^ Gillis, Justin; Foster, Joanna M. (28 March 2012). "Arctic Sea Ice Eyed for Clues to Weather Extremes". The New York Times. The New York Times. Retrieved 25 December 2019.
- ^ Gillis, Justin (2012-03-13). "Rising Sea Levels a Growing Risk to Coastal U.S., Study Says". The New York Times.
- ^ USA had warmest March-May on record, June 6, 2012
- ^ Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate Archived September 15, 2011, at the Wayback Machine US Climate Change Science Programme June 2008 Summary Archived October 17, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b Eilperin, Juliet; Vastag, Eiperin (2 April 2012). "Scientists cite global warming for more heat waves, heavier rainfall". The Seattle Times. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 6 April 2012. Retrieved 3 April 2012.
- ^ Davis et al, Changing Heat-Related Mortality in the United States, National Institutes of Health
- ^ Raloff, Janet (16 July 2011). "Modern-day sea level rise skyrocketing: Increase began with the Industrial Revolution" (180). Science News. p. 13. Archived from the original on 27 April 2012. Retrieved 25 December 2019.
- ^ "Help finding information | US EPA".
- ^ "Drought in the Dust Bowl Years". National Drought Mitigation Center. Archived from the original on 24 January 2016. Retrieved 24 December 2019.
- ^ Baek-Min Kim, et al., Weakening of the stratospheric polar vortex by Arctic sea-ice loss, Nature Communications 5, Article number: 4646 doi:10.1038/ncomms5646
- ^ a b A Wacky Jet Stream Is Making Our Weather Severe; Extreme summers and winters of the past four years could become the norm Jeff Masters Scientific American December 2014 issue Volume 311, Issue 6
- ^ Persistent Warming Drives Big Arctic Changes; The latest Arctic Report Card details the changes due to long-term climate change December 17, 2014 Scientific American
- ^ a b "June 2012 National Overview Supplemental Material". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center.
- ^ High U.S. Temperatures Shatter Records This Year by Tennile Tracy, The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2012
- ^ Boykoff, Jules (9 September 2011). "Opinion: Hurricanes, floods and wildfires – but Washington won't talk global warming | Jules Boykoff". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 December 2019.
- ^ Knutson, Thomas; Vecchi, Gabriel. "Historical Atlantic Hurricane and Tropical Storm Records: How well do we know the historical cyclone record?". Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 25 December 2019.
- ^ Klotzbach, P.J. (2006). "Trends in global tropical cyclone activity over the past twenty years (1986-2005)". Geophysical Research Letters. 33 (10): L010805. Bibcode:2006GeoRL..3310805K. doi:10.1029/2006GL025881.
- ^ Borenstein, Seth (January 10, 2014). "Winters aren't colder; we're just softer". Florida Today. Melbourne, Florida. pp. 8A. Archived from the original on January 13, 2014. Retrieved January 12, 2014.
- ^ Christensen, Jen; Nedelman, Michael (November 26, 2018). "Climate change will shrink US economy and kill thousands, government report warns". CNN. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
- ^ Nyberg, Johan; Malmgren, Björn A.; Winter, Amos; Jury, Mark R.; Kilbourne, K. Halimeda; Quinn, Terrence M. (2007). "Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the past 270 years". Nature. 447 (7145): 698–702. Bibcode:2007Natur.447..698N. doi:10.1038/nature05895. PMID 17554304.
- ^ Boruff, B. J.; Easoz, J. A.; Jones, S. D.; Landry, H. R.; Mitchem, J. D.; Cutter, S. L. (2003). "Tornado hazards in the United States" (PDF). Climate Research. 24: 103–117. Bibcode:2003ClRes..24..103B. doi:10.3354/cr024103.
- ^ Global climate change impacts in the United States : a state of knowledge report (PDF). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 2009. ISBN 9780521144070. Retrieved 24 December 2019.
- ^ Diffenbaugh, Noah S.; Hertel, Thomas W.; Scherer, Martin; Verma, Monika (2012). "Response of corn markets to climate volatility under alternative energy futures". Nature Climate Change. 2 (7): 514–518. doi:10.1038/nclimate1491. PMC 3519383.
- ^ Alex Kirby, US blow to Kyoto hopes, 2001-03-28, BBC News (online).
- ^ Bush unveils voluntary plan to reduce global warming Archived 2008-12-12 at the Wayback Machine, CNN.com, 2002-02-14.
- ^ "President's Budget Draws Clean Energy Funds from Climate Measure". Renewable Energy World. Retrieved 2009-04-03.
- ^ Lashof, Dan (April 8, 2013). "Carbon-Dioxide Emissions Falling, But Is That Enough?". LiveScience. Retrieved May 14, 2013.
- ^ Obama's 'war on coal' carries risks in battleground states - FT.com
- ^ Obama's climate speech: 'It is time for Congress to share his ambition' Was it enough? Experts give their verdict on the US president's long-awaited speech addressing climate change 25 The Guardian June 2013
- ^ "UNFCCC". Archived from the original on 2016-07-01. Retrieved 2016-07-06.
- ^ "U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change". 2014-11-12.
- ^ "FACT SHEET: U.S. Reports its 2025 Emissions Target to the UNFCCC". 2015-03-31.
- ^ "Transportation, Air Pollution, and Climate Change". 2015-08-19.
- ^ DiChristopher, Tom (19 September 2017). "Trump is still pulling out of Paris Agreement, despite chatter of a reversal, experts say". CNBC.
- ^ Taneja, Hemant (2 January 2017). "Why pulling out of Paris Accord damages America's economic future". TC News.
- ^ Heikkinen, Niina (25 January 2017). "Trump Administration Orders EPA to Remove Its Climate Change Web Page". E&E News.
- ^ "Trump White House axes Nasa research into greenhouse gas cuts". BBC News. 2018-05-10. Retrieved May 13, 2018.
- ^ Popovich, Nadja; Albeck-Ripka, Livia (2017-10-05). "52 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump". New York Times. Retrieved December 8, 2017.
- ^ Light, Sarah E. (2014-06-27). "Valuing National Security: Climate Change, the Military, and Society". 61 UCLA Law Review 1772 (2014). Rochester, NY.
- ^ Military Advisory Board. "National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change". CNA Corporation. Retrieved 19 August 2014.
- ^ "Climate Change Adaptation: DOD Can Improve Infrastructure Planning and Processes to Better Account for Potential Impacts" (GAO-14-446). U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 30 June 2014. Retrieved 8 July 2014.
- ^ Engel, Kirsten and Barak Orbach (2008). "Micro-Motives for State and Local Climate Change Initiatives". Harvard Law & Policy Review, Vol. 2, pp. 119-137. SSRN 1014749. Cite journal requires
- ^ Schmid, Randolph E. (June 19, 2008). "Extreme weather to increase with climate change". Associated Press.
- ^ "U.S. experts: Forecast is more extreme weather". NBC News. June 19, 2008.
- ^ "Pew Center Climate change reports". Archived from the original on 2005-10-31. Retrieved 2010-01-11.
- ^ Report Urges NJ to Rejoin Regional Greenhouse-Gas Initiative - NJ Spotlight
- ^ Cave, Damien (21 November 2019). "The World Burns All Year. Are There Enough Planes to Douse the Flames?". New York Times. Retrieved 12 December 2019.
- ^ Obama to unveil historic climate change plan to cut US carbon pollution
- ^ Evich, Helena Bottemiller (2019-09-19). "Senate Democrats release list of climate studies buried by Trump administration". POLITICO. Retrieved 2019-10-25.
- ^ US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. "Peer-Reviewed Research on Climate Change by USDA Authors, January 2017-August 2019". Retrieved 2019-10-25.
- ^ http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/news.cms?id=14925[dead link]
- ^ Eilperin, Juliet (2006-10-10). "Maine College Makes Green Pledge". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-01-30.
- ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2007-07-11. Retrieved 2010-01-11.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ http://www.middlebury.edu/about/pubaff/news_releases/2007/pubaff_633141333185905594.htm Archived March 13, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "American College & University Presidents;Climate Commitment".
- ^ "About Us". Archived from the original on June 22, 2009. Retrieved January 11, 2010.
- ^ Kamenetz, Anya (2007). "Climate Change Power Shift". The Nation.
- ^ Milman, Oliver (2019-06-07). "US schools accused of censoring climate crisis message in graduation speeches". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-06-07.
- ^ Dunlap, Riley E. (29 May 2009). "Climate-Change Views: Republican-Democratic Gaps Expand". Gallup. Retrieved 22 Dec 2009.
- ^ "RELEASE: CAP Action Releases 2017 Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus". Center for American Progress Action Fund. April 28, 2017. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
- ^ Moser, Claire; Koronowski, Ryan (April 28, 2017). "The Climate Denier Caucus in Trump's Washington". ThinkProgress. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
- ^ A Republican Meteorologist Tries to Remove Liberal Label from Climate Concern, March 30, 2012
- ^ Riffkin, Rebecca (12 March 2014). "Climate Change Not a Top Worry in U.S." Gallup Politics. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
- ^ Warren, Michael (12 March 2014). "Gallup: Americans Not Very Concerned With Climate Change". The Weekly Standard. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
- ^ Klimas, Jacqueline (12 March 2014). "Climate change not a top concern of Americans, poll shows". Retrieved 12 March 2014.
- ^ Trade and climate change : a report by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Trade Organization. Tamiotti, Ludivine, 1973-, World Trade Organization., United Nations Environment Programme. Geneva: World Trade Organization. 2009. ISBN 9789287035226. OCLC 425120487.CS1 maint: others (link)
- ^ Davenport, Coral (2017-01-20). "With Trump in Charge, Climate Change References Purged From Website". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-10-06.
- ^ Kahn, Brian (February 27, 2017). "Here's the Early Context for Trump's Budget". Climate Central. Retrieved 2019-10-06.
- ^ Eilperin, Juliet; Dennis, Brady; Mooney, Chris (September 28, 2018). "Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100". Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-10-06.
- ^ Preston BJ. The influence of climate change litigation on governments and private sectors. Archived 2015-04-06 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Farber D. Basic Compensation for the Victims of Climate Change. University of California, Berkeley Public Law Research. Paper No. 954357. 2006.
- ^ Farber D. The case for climate compensation justice for climate change victims in a complex world. Utah Law Review. 2008.
- ^ Hancock E. Red Dawn, Blue Thunder, Purple Rain: Corporate Risk of Liability for Global Climate Change and the SEC Disclosure Dilemma. Georgetown Environmental Law Review; Winter 2005; vol. 17. 2005; 233-251.
- ^ Healy K, Tapick J. Climate Change: It's Not Just a Policy Issue for Corporate Counsel - It's a Legal Problem. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Entvl. L. 89. 2004;1-23.
- ^ Grossman D. WARMING UP TO A NOT-SO-RADICAL IDEA: TORT-BASED CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law. J. Envtl. L. 1. 2003.
- ^ Kilinsky J. International climate change liability: A myth or a reality. J. Transnat'l L. & Pol'y, vol. 18. 2008;377.
- ^ Farber DA. Tort Law in the Era of Climate Change, Katrina, and 9/11: Exploring Liability for Extraordinary Risks. Val. UL Rev., vol. 43. 2008;1075.
- ^ Farber DA. Apportioning Climate Change Costs. UCLA J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y, vol. 26. 2008;21.
- ^ Reimund S. Liability for Climate Change: The Benefits, the Costs, and the Transaction Costs. Responses to Global Warming: The Law, Economics, and Science of Climate Change, vol. 155, no. 6. 2007;1947-1952.
- ^ Allen, M (2003). "Liability for climate change". Nature. 421 (6926): 891–892. Bibcode:2003Natur.421..891A. doi:10.1038/421891a.
- ^ Heidari, Negin; Pearce, Joshua M. (2016). "A Review of Greenhouse Gas Emission Liabilities as the Value of Renewable Energy for Mitigating Lawsuits for Climate Change Related Damages". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 55C: 899–908. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.025.
- ^ Davidson, Jordan (10 January 2020). "JetBlue to Be First Carbon Neutral Airline in U.S." Ecowatch. Retrieved 12 January 2020.
- ^ globalchange.gov, Annual Report to Congress Archived May 9, 2013, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "States Blocking Climate Action Hold Residents Who Suffer the Most From Climate Impacts". Climate Nexus, Ecowatch. October 29, 2019. Retrieved 31 October 2019.
- ^ Dean, Cornelia (17 May 2009). "As Alaska Glaciers Melt, It's Land That's Rising". New York Times. Retrieved 12 December 2019.
- ^ Collapsing Coastlines July 16th, 2011; Vol.180 #2 Science News
- ^ "States at Risk". statesatrisk.org. Retrieved 2019-10-05.
- ^ Johnson, Kirk (21 July 2012). "For Coast Guard Patrol North of Alaska, Much to Learn in a Remote New Place". New York Times. The New York Times Company. Archived from the original on 3 February 2018. Retrieved 12 December 2019.
- ^ As the Arctic Opens for Oil, the Coast Guard Scrambles by Carol Wolf and Kasia Klimasinska on July 26, 2012 BusinessWeek
- ^ a b c "Climate Change. American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency". www.epa.as.gov. Retrieved 2019-10-05.
- ^ Text of AB 32
- ^ Brown, Susan J. "California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends and Selected Policy Options" (Slide presentation). California Energy Commission. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-05-29. Retrieved 2011-05-05.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ The Rosenfeld Effect in California; The Art of Energy Efficiency
- ^ Success Stories in Energy Efficiency
- ^ California Efficiency Success Story
- ^ California Energy Efficiency: Lessons for the Rest of the World, or Not?
- ^ California officials prepare for worst as historic drought deepens wildfire risk The Guardian 2014
- ^ Report: Colorado not prepared for climate change; More than 15,000 U.S. heat records set in March 9 April 2012
- ^ Miami's Real Estate Market is Benefitting from Rising Sea Levels on YouTube VICE News Published on Mar 14, 2017
- ^ United States Environmental Protection Agency (August 2016) What Climate Change Means For Guam. Retrieved August 31, 2019.
- ^ a b Borenstein, Seth (2007-06-03). "Carbon-emissions culprit? Coal". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2011-04-24.
- ^ "Idaho National Laboratory - Hydropower Program". 2010-11-03. Archived from the original on 2010-11-03. Retrieved 2019-10-06.
- ^ "Great Lakes Regional Climate Change Maps". Great Lakes Integrated Sciences + Assessments (GLISA), a NOAA RISA Team. Retrieved 2019-10-06.
- ^ Malewitz, Jim (2019-07-16). "Michigan Environment Watch - Climate change could bring woe to Michigan's lakes, farms, forests". Bridge Michigan. Retrieved 2019-10-05.
- ^ Baron, Jeanne (January 30, 2019). "Climate change—Michigan's state in year 2100". WMU News - Western Michigan University. Retrieved 2019-10-05.
- ^ What major climate change impacts are projected for the coming decades?. CIESIN. Earth Institute at Columbia University, n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2009.
- ^ How will climate change affect the region's transportation system? CIESIN. Earth Institute at Columbia University, n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2009.
- ^ What are the projected costs of climate change in the region's coastal communities and coastal environments? CIESIN. Earth Institute at Columbia University, n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2009.
- ^ Climate Change in New York." NextGenerationEarth. The Earth Institute Columbia University, n.d. Web. 16 Oct. 2009. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-01-30. Retrieved 2011-05-05.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ New York Launches Survival Strategy For Climate Change. The Earth Institute, Columbia University. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2009.
- ^ a b c Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment For the Island of Saipan, CNMI. January 2014. sablan.house.gov. Retrieved August 31, 2019.
- ^ Dockendorf, Randy (February 26, 2019). "Researcher Looks At Climate Change's Impact On Plains". Yankton Press & Dakotan. Retrieved 2019-09-21.
- ^ "What Climate Change Means for South Dakota" (PDF). Environmental Protection Agency. August 2016. Retrieved 2019-09-21.
- ^ Scott, David. "Increased Precipitation in South Dakota in Line With Climate Change Models". listen.sdpb.org.
- ^ Wright, Pam (December 20, 2017). "Bison: The Latest in Carbon Capture Tech". The Weather Channel.
- ^ McMahon, Jeff. "Climate Change Gives Invasive Trees An Even Greater Advantage". Forbes.
- ^ Reporter, Jager Robinson Tri-State Neighbor. "Wind energy rises to new heights in South Dakota". Rapid City Journal Media Group.
- ^ Climate Change and Texas (United States Environmental Protection Agency).
- ^ "In Texas, Climate Creeping onto Agenda". National Public Radio. November 26, 2007. Archived from the original on 2011-07-25. Retrieved 2011-05-05.
- ^ a b US Department of the Interior. Frontlines of Climate Change: U.S. Virgin Islands. April 1, 2016. Retrieved August 31, 2019.
- ^ "Impacts of Climate Change on Washington's Economy". Washington Department of Ecology. Archived from the original on 2010-07-30. Retrieved 2008-03-03.
- ^ "Impacts of Climate Change on Washington's Economy" (PDF). Washington Economic Steering Committee, November 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-02-06. Retrieved 2008-03-03.
- ^ East Coast faces faster sea level rise; Cities from North Carolina to Massachusetts see waters rising more rapidly July 28th, 2012; Vol.182 #2 (p. 17) Science News
- ^ a b For review of local and state initiatives, see Lausche, Barbara, and Luke Maier. Sea Level Rise Adaptation: Emerging Lessons for Local Policy Development. Mote Marine Laboratory. Technical Report No. 1723.
- ^ "Wildfires, Once Confined to a Season, Burn Earlier and Longer". The New York Times. Retrieved 2016-04-24.
External links[edit]
- Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States edited by Tom Karl National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, North Carolina, Jerry Melillo Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Thomas C. Peterson National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, North Carolina, and Susan Joy Hassol; Climate Communication, Basalt, Colorado. Summarizes the science of climate change and impacts on the United States, for the public and policymakers. ISBN 978-0-521-14407-0
- United States Environmental Protection Agency - climate change page
- Fourth U.S. Climate Action Report to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
- U.S. Climate Report Details Energy, Agriculture Harm
- "Personal Emissions Calculator - Climate Change - What You Can Do". United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 2007-07-07.
- Warming Marches in; March 2012 was the balmiest on record for the continental United States, setting a mountain of new records April 10, 2012
- Now Do You Believe in Global Warming? July 10, 2012 Time
- Endless Summer July 23, 2012 Time
- Storms Threaten Ozone Layer Over U.S., Study Says July 26, 2012 The New York Times, regarding ozone depletion and the effects of global warming
- Climate and Social Stress: Implications for Security Analysis (2012) National Academies Press
- Climate Change Report Outlines Perils for U.S. Military. The New York Times. November 9, 2012.
- NASA: Global Climate Change
- "America's Preparedness Report Card"


text:
Are you a campaign manager who wants to get maximum results from his Google AdWords campaigns? Do you want options that others don't have? Do you not want to spend unnecessary time on running boring and repetitive campaigns?
Optimize your long tail traffic
ADchieve offers a number of unique features that will help your campaigns stand out from the competition. ADchieve supports you with generating unique advertising copy and extra relevant keywords. What features do we offer? Read further to find out more.
Who uses ADchieve?
What Client's Say
"The deciding factor in our choice for ADchieve was the customized bidding algorithm. It saves us a lot of time and decreases our costs. We now perform tasks based on this algorithm, enabling us to optimize consistently and achieve high-level growth."
"We use ADchieve for both our text and shopping ads. The combination of their strong tool and indepth advice regarding our campaigns continuously leads to good results."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Birish Denis
|[Info-gne] Size, Does It Really Matter!?!
|Fri, 15 Dec 2006 03:21:47 +0000
Salute manYou Love Big tits? But Girls love big woody!
If you don't have one - GET ONE! Not only a larger thing will make you feel better, it will make you look better! Get a months supply and see the difference! No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!100% Guaranteed Safe Results Or Your Money Back!
Take a look at how it works: http://www.pargp.com -- eeoitoitfkgdjkgsfjnsfff nmsosusjsrooshsnshunstsjrtohshrrsn stood on end. At the third crow she turned and flew out. Behind her, flying horizontally through the air like an oversized cupid, Varenukha floated slowly across the desk and out of the window. As white as snow, without a black hair left on his head, the old man who a short while before had been Rimsky ran to the door, freed the latch and rushed down the dark corridor. At the top of the staircase, groaning with terror he fumbled for the switch and lit the lights on the staircase. The shattered, trembling old man fell down on the stairs, imagining that Varenukha was gently bearing down on him from above. At the bottom Rimsky saw die night-watchman, who had fallen asleep on a
|[Prev in Thread]
|Current Thread
|[Next in Thread]


text:
Whether you read the piece of writing I shared yesterday or not, you should check out this audio of it. Click on the link below the photo to listen.
The backing music is not mine, that came from a cd by Nancy Goudie. But all the spoken word is me and written by me.


text:
Friday, 26 December 2008
The Christmas Message According to Darwin's Bulldog
T. H. Huxley (1825-1895) was known as Darwin's Bulldog. Image from Wikipedia
Joel Kontinen
Thomas H. Huxley (1825-1895) was an outspoken critic of Christianity. For instance, in the 1890s he wrote a series of letters to The Times, warning of the dangers of the Salvation Army. He thought that its leadership was all too autocratic.
History has shown us that Huxley's views on the Salvation Army had more to do with his own evolutionary worldview than with any real danger.
Known as Darwin's Bulldog, Huxley did more to propagate the "good news" of evolution than his contemporary Charles Darwin.
Huxley was a child of his times. He thought that science had disproved the Bible but found it hard to believe that Christians would try to explain away parts of Genesis and of other Old Testament books as figurative language. In his essay The Lights of the Church and the Light of Science (1890) he stated:
I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the "ten words" were not written by God's hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome — what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated: And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?
Huxley had realised something that the theistic evolutionists of our day have failed to understand. It was the real sin of a real person (Adam) that caused a real Messiah (Jesus) to atone for it by His death on the cross. Hundreds of years before the first Christmas, the Jewish Scriptures had predicted the details of His birth in surprising detail.
Darwin's Bulldog was right about Christmas. If it were built on "legendary quicksands", Christians would be the worst sort of liars. But the real Christmas message tells a different story. There are no legendary quicksands in the Bible. The Good News about the baby born of a virgin in the manger at Bethlehem is real history.
He was born to die that we might live forever. And behold, He, the firstborn from the dead (Revelation 1:5), lives.
Huxley, Thomas H. 1893 (2006). Evolution and Ethics And Other Essays. New York: Barnes & Noble.
Huxley, Thomas H. 1890. The Lights of the Church and the Light of Science. In Collected Essays IV. http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE4/Lights.html
Lähettänyt bwanajoe klo 05:48
Tunnisteet: Charles Darwin, Christmas, Darwin's Bulldog, T. H. Huxley
Thursday, 25 December 2008
Blind Cave Crabs – No Evidence for Evolution
This tiny crab is blind.
Joel Kontinen
Mutations are genetic copying mistakes that according to the Neo-Darwinian great story are the raw materials for evolution. Natural selection is then supposed to be able to pick and choose what to use for producing new body parts.
An example of the ingenuity of mutations can be seen on the Spanish island of Lanzarote. The tiny white crabs living in a cave at Jameos Del Agua are blind.
Is this a case of evolution in action? No, since the crabs have lost something (i.e. eyesight) that their predecessors once had.
Evolution would need more genetic information. Loosing money will not make a mendicant into a millionaire. And neither will a loss of information make a mollusk into a man. As Dr. Carl Wieland put it, The evolution train's a-comin' (Sorry, a-goin'—in the wrong direction).
Wieland, Carl. 2002. The evolution train's a-comin' (Sorry, a-goin'—in the wrong direction). Creation 24(2):16–19. March 2002.
Lähettänyt bwanajoe klo 10:18
Tunnisteet: blind crabs, evolution, mutations, natural selection
Friday, 12 December 2008
How Did Life Begin? Meteorites Did It!
This view might get you expelled. Michelangelo: The Creation of Adam (ca. 1511). Image from Wikipedia.
Joel Kontinen
Since Charles Darwin's day, theories about the birth of life have come and gone. Darwin famously speculated about life having begun in a warm pond. Researchers tested the idea in 2006 and found it wanting. They examined hot puddles in Kamchatka, Russia, and Mount Lassen in California and discovered that "hot acidic waters containing clay do not provide the right conditions for chemicals to assemble themselves into 'pioneer organisms'. "
Stanley Miller and Harold Urey conducted a famous experiment in 1953. While it has been used as a propaganda device for evolution, Dr. Jonathan Wells and other Darwin skeptics have pointed out its flaws. Wells said:
The Miller-Urey experiment used a simulated atmosphere that geochemists now agree was incorrect, it was not the 'first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth.' When conditions are changed to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, the experiment doesn't work.
Others have looked to outer space as a potential source of life. Sir Fred Hoyle, convinced that life could not have originated on earth, suggested that it was brought here from space. While this panspermia view has its advocates, the naturalistic answer to how life began on Earth remains as elusive as ever.
A new study by Yoshihiro Furukawa and others published in Nature Geoscience speculates that life did not come from space but meteor impacts might have caused chemical reactions in the primordian ocean, jump starting life. In their simulation, they made chondrite (a common type of meteorite) strike the ocean, managing to produce some organic or carbon-based compounds, such as fatty acids and amines.
While Furukawa and colleagues made sure the results were not due to contamination, others remain skeptical about the significance of their find. Astrobiologist Jennifer Blank at the SETI Institute in Mountain View in California thinks we might never come up with a viable answer.
Indeed, the jump from amino acids to a functioning cell is nothing short of a miracle. Far from being a black box, the cell is an extremely complicated factory that needs to have all its components in place in order to function.
So where did life come from? Life could only come from life. The cell has an enormous amount of information programmed into it. It looks as if it has been designed.
Unfortunately, mentioning the word design is a sure way to get one expelled from academia.
Matson, John. 2008. Rock And Roil: Meteorites Hitting Early Earth's Oceans May Have Helped Spawn Life. Scientific American.com (9 December.) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rock-and-roil-meteorites&sc=wr_20081209
Morelle, Rebecca. 2006. Darwin's Warm Pond Idea is Tested. BBC News. (13 February) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/4702336.stm.
Wells, Jonathan. 2002. Inherit The Spin: Darwinists Answer "Ten Questions" with Evasions and Falsehoods. http://www.discovery.org/a/1106.
Lähettänyt bwanajoe klo 03:34
Tunnisteet: Charles Darwin, evolution, meteorites, origin of life, panspermia
Thursday, 11 December 2008
Hot Water on Hot Jupiter
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/T. Pyle
Joel Kontinen
For years, astronomers have been searching for water in our Solar System and beyond it. Water is essential for life, and NASA regards the search for life as one of its major activities. Recently astronomers using the Spitzer Space Telescope detected signs of water on planet HD 189733b, a gas giant or hot Jupiter 63 light years from Earth. Its atmosphere also contains carbon dioxide and methane.
Carl Grillmair of the Spitzer Science Center in Pasadena, California, and his colleagues reported their find in a letter published in the journal Nature. They used the 'secondary eclipse' method to distinguish between infrared light coming from the planet and from its sun.
They probably also detected signs of weather on HD 189733b. The planet orbits its sun closer than Jupiter so chances of finding signs of life are rather slim.
In astronomy, "Goldilocks Zone" refers to a region of space where life could potentially be possible. The name comes from the children's story "Goldilocks and the 3 Bears. " Lost in a forest, Goldilocks finds shelter in a hut and discovers three bowls of porridge. She tastes the first and finds that it is too hot. The second bowl is too cold, but the third is just right.
Also known as "habitable zones", these Goldilocks regions seem to be rare in the universe. Carl Sagan was known for describing Earth as a pale blue dot. However, Guillermo Gonzales and Jay Richards wrote a book called The Privileged Planet to refute Sagan's thesis that our planet is not special.
This was too much for many evolutionists. As Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows, Dr. Gonzales lost his job merely for suggesting that the universe speaks of design.
Astronomers have found over 300 exoplanets or planets outside our Solar System. They have yet to find a system that would correspond to ours. In most cases, giant hot Jupiters orbit very close to their sun. Goldilocks would find these places far too hot.
In other words, it seems that Gonzales and Richards were right. Earth is a privileged planet. The evidence we see around us speaks of creation.
Grillmair C. et al. 2008. Strong water absorption in the dayside emission spectrum of the planet HD 189733b Nature 456:7223, 767-769 (11 December 2008).
Koczor, Ron and Tony Phillips. 2003. The Goldilocks Zone. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/02oct_goldilocks.htm. Accessed 11 December 2008.
Yeager, Ashley. 2008. Exoplanet may harbour stormy skies. Nature News (10 December). http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081210/full/news.2008.1289.html.
Lähettänyt bwanajoe klo 05:38
Tunnisteet: exoplanets, habitable zone, hot Jupiter
Sunday, 7 December 2008
Want to Promote Academic Freedom?
Joel Kontinen
As evidenced by Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, questioning Darwinian evolution has become hazardous for scientists, academics, teachers and students. Recently a British scientist was expelled from the Royal Society for his unorthodox approach to dissenters.
Now, with Charles Darwin's 200th birthday just around the corner, science journals are praising the man and his achievements while keeping silent on the weaknesses and consequences of his theory.
However, dissent against Darwin has by no means become extinct. Discovery Institute, for instance, is scheduling its Academic Freedom Day on Darwin's birthday (February 12). The celebrations will include a video and essay contest for high school and college students.
Darwin once stated, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."
His supporters have obviously forgotten the advice he gave. Thus the need for Academic Freedom Day. For more details, go to Academic Freedom Day. com .
Lähettänyt bwanajoe klo 01:13
Tunnisteet: academic freedom, Charles Darwin, Darwin day, Expelled
Saturday, 6 December 2008
Newtonmas Is Just Around the Corner…
Sir Isaac Newton's portrait by Godfrey Kneller (1702). Image from Wikipedia.
Joel Kontinen
Skeptics seem to dislike Christmas. This might be no surprise since the very word is derived from an old English concept Cristes maesse, meaning "mass of Christ". And since the Bible clearly speaks of Christ as the Creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16), evolution-believing skeptics try to downplay the significance of Christ's birthday.
While the Bible does not explicitly say that Christ was born on December 25, we have compelling evidence that He was indeed born, lived, died and rose from the dead.
Skeptics try to cloud the significance of Christmas by introducing a "feast" they call Newtonmas.
They seem to have forgotten that Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), whose birthday is on December 25, was a devout Christian, a believer in biblical creation. He might not have appreciated the skeptics' idea of celebrating his birthday as a mass. He wrote in Principia, Book III:
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" Παντοκράτωρ [Pantokratōr cf. 2 Corinthians 6:18], or "Universal Ruler". … The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect.
In other words, Newton was no skeptic.
E-Skeptic 3 December 2008: Newtonmas is here again (almost).
Thayer, H. S. 1953. Newton's Philosophy of Nature: Selections From His Writings. New York: Library of Classics.
Lähettänyt bwanajoe klo 08:17
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
This tutorial shows you how to see if a clip (video, audio, music, title, .psd, etc.) has been used in your Premiere Pro sequence and if so where to find it in your sequence.
Open up any bin. Change it to icon view. If there's a gray icon in the lower right corner of the clip it has NOT been used. If there's a blue icon it HAS been used. Clip on the blue icon to reveal where it has been used. That's it! Easy peasy.
Music used in this video, "Zipline Zebra" by Mikey Geiger, was purchased and licensed through my friends at Soundstripe (affiliate link). For 10% off a subscription use the code EVF at checkout.
If you enjoyed this tutorial and want to stay in touch whenever I come out with a new post / podcast / video / newsletter / etc. you can go here to signup. No spam. Ever. Just the good stuff 😀
– Josh


text:
I am reminded of two particular incidents which show the durability of Nokia mobile.
Once, when I was running behind an RTC bus to catch it, my mobile literally jumped from my shirt pocket and fell on the ground from a running bus. I got down, collected the pieces fallen on the ground, the battery came off, the case came out. I just assembled it again and switched the mobile on and nothing happened. It was working as before.
I put my clothes in the bucket for washing without removing the mobile in it. I realized it just a minute after I put in the water. I removed it but by that time, some water might have crept in. The center button was not working. I switched it off as presence of water will short circuit the internal circuits, and I put it under (not above ;)) a burning gas stove for few mins, again switched it on and after half an hour everything started working fine again. Except for that half an hour, my experience with Nokia phone was very very positive.
After I lost that mobile, I bought a Sony Ericsson C510 phone. It had all the wanted features like mp3 player, a 3.2 MP camera and bluetooth with 1 GB free memory card. It costed about 11,800 with insurance. I wanted to buy a Nokia mobile only but I saw the photo quality of Nokia mobile and didnt quite match the Sony experience. So for only that I bought a Sony ericsson.
Used to a Nokia, the battery was a let down. I had to charge it daily but I will accept it because of high usage. The photos are very good.
When i was getting used, I observed that the phone would hang sometimes and i have to restart it (In my two months of usage i did it only twice, so we could consider it an exception). But I was disappointed very much when the phone did not start when I tried restarting after changing the sim card.
And dont ask me about the customer service experience. It was very bad. There is no reception. When I went to the person taking the complaints, he asked me to wait and after that he didnt call me. After some time, when he didnt call, I went and asked then he noted it down. He told it was a software problem and it will take one hour to reload it. After one hour, he told it is not working and asked me to come and take on Monday. I had to beg him to repair it that day only. After lot of prodding, he agreed to do it that day only. On the whole, the sony ericsson customer service centre was run very unprofessionally, though it was not unbearable. A lot can be improved in the customer handling and experience. Already in two months, it gave me a scare. Im just hoping I never need to visit the customer service again.
One thing is clear, I can never take the sony phone for granted no where near how I would treat my Nokia phone.


text:
Vision & History
Virtual Tour
About Us
Vision & History
Signing Out Resources
K-6 Resources
K-6 Websites
K-6 Apps
Recommended Books
Educational Games
Kid Friendly Search Engines
7-12 Resources
MLA/Citing Sources
College Planning
Noodle Tools
iPad Apps
iPad Resources
Apps for Creation
Apps for Problem Solving
Apps for K-2
Apps for Science
Apps for Math
Apps for Social Studies
Apps for Language Arts
Featured Book: A Penguin Story
Featured Book
December 3, 2012 at 2:00 am
Kindergarden and 1st grade will be reading "A Penguin Story." The story is about a penguin who only sees three colors and sets out to find more colors. Students will then draw their version of when Edna, the penguin sees all of the colors.
More Posts in Featured Book
Featured Book: Back To School Rules
Featured Book: Sneezy the Snowman
Featured Book: Fall Mixed Up