Global Climate Change: Now we can add the accelerated sinking of Venice to our accomplishments

Moron running for Senate in Alaska tries to prove he is a moron:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140517/miller-pushes-senate-opponents-climate-change

A ten foot rise in mean sea level won't be much trouble to deal with. Most of Manhattan's infrastructure is already well below sea level. The Dutch manage to keep Schiphol operating so I expect Newark will manage just fine.

Of course, there are projections of much more than ten feet floating around. There is a point beyond which New York might do better to move upriver. The Verrazano Bridge will be demolished and the container port will move to the Tappan Zee. Who knows?

There are plenty of reasons for concern about global warming. There will be vast costs involved in coping with it. But we don't have to worry about New York being flooded out of existence.

That may be true, but the cost of mitigation is extraordinary. If the sea level were to rise by 10 feet, then the following systems are completely nonfunctional:
(a) NYC subway system. Sandy flooded every tunnel connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan. That happened because the storm lasted a long time (slow moving) during a full moon. With a permanent rise in sea level, even moderate storms will flood the system.
(b) PATH. It was likewise flooded out during Sandy.
(c) Holland Tunnel. It was likewise flooded out during Sandy.
(d) Midtown tunnel. It was likewise flooded out during Sandy.
(e) Lincoln tunnel did not flood, but with a 10 foot rise in sea level, it will flood during storms.
(f) NJT connection to Manhattan.
(g) Amtrak tunnels.
(h) LIRR tunnels into Manhattan.

With a 10-foot rise the water will flow deeper into the system rather than just the tunnels below the rivers. That wipes out more signals and electric power systems.

In many parts of Manhattan and elsewhere, severe flooding can wipe out power systems; that may make many areas in real trouble for prolonged periods.

We then run a real risk of sewer systems/storm systems carrying so much water that we get backups into homes and businesses. Water treatment plants may get get flooded out as happened to NJ American water during Irene -- power went down.

Staten Island Ferry would have to be rebuilt as the docks may not be at appropriate heights for the ferries which are now 10 feet higher in the water. High tide adds 5 more feet, approximately.

The Verrazano bridge should be high enough above sea level, but other bridges like the Brooklyn may not. For seaport traffic. the ships have to be able to pass underneath at high tide comfortably.

One projection posted above suggested that huge storms could hit the Northeast on average every four years. That would be bad. The cost of mitigation is likely to soar into the many tens of billions. It is not just a surge. It is protecting against a water level that would be 10 feet higher. Not so easily done.

An update on the Antarctic ice melt. Not comforting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2632917/Antarctic-ice-losses-DOUBLED-2010-researchers-reveal-study-shows-159-BILLION-tonnes-ice-melting-year.html

A tidbit from NBC News on all those American Landmarks:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/climate-change-threatens-historic-u-s-landmarks-report-claims-n109996

This is why the capital of Panem is Denver.

Here's a nice little article about an environmentalist billionaire putting up $100 million to go against the science deniers in the Republican Party.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/

Here's the opening paragraphs:

"An environmental advocacy group backed by hedge fund tycoon Tom Steyer is set to unleash a seven-state, $100 million offensive against Republican 'science deniers' this year, a no-holds-barred campaign-style push from the green billionaire that could help decide which party controls the Senate and key statehouses come November.

"The Steyer-backed outside group, NextGen Climate, has billed itself as a progressive, pro-environment counterbalance to the wealthy oil and gas industry -- as well as the primary foil to the pro-business Koch brothers and their well-funded conservative donor network.

"The outfit, launched last year by the San Francisco billionaire, has already pledged to spend heavily this midterm year in Iowa to assist the Democratic Senate nominee Bruce Braley, and in Florida, where Gov. Rick Scott is facing a difficult re-election fight against Democrat Charlie Crist."

Now you have to admit when a billionaire hedge fund guy comes out swinging against the wing nuts in the Republican Party and when generals and admirals come out saying climate change is a big time security risk. and scientists have just figured out the Antarctic ice shelf is now heading into the point of no return, and April was the 350th straight month of global temps above the 1951-80 average -- well you something is wrong.

Wonder where the local wing nuts he targeted have fled to.

From all places, a nice article from MarketWatch (Wall Street Journal operation) on the wing nuts in the Republican Party on climate change:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/climate-science-is-a-hoax-big-oil-gop-god-say-so-2014-05-22?reflink=MW_GoogleNews&google_editors_picks=true

Here is a nice quote about the moron who is, of all things, one of 100 US Senators:
"...Yes, their party position is clear, mapped out by Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe in 'The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.' But in an effort to question Inhofe’s motivation, his ClimateProgress.org reviewer noted that over the years Inhofe has received “$1,352,523 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, including $90,950 from Koch Industries.”

"Also challenged, Inhofe’s reliance on divine guidance. Inhofe said “God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.” But before you dismiss Inhofe, or any other science deniers for their strong religious convictions, remember the great Christian King Canute of Denmark who sat on his throne at water’s edge, to prove the futility of commanding the tide to stop."

There you have it. One of 100 US Senators is an absolute idiot. How many more are there like that in the US Senate?

Of course Senator Inhofe would disagree with the new Catholic Pope on climate change:
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/pope-francis-fix-climate-change

One of the things the retired military officers worried about in their report is that climate change can provoke or exacerbate problems relating to water supplies and food.

Here's one report on how Pakistan is facing problems. If the melt in the Himalayas and other ranges in that region continue on their current trends, food production and flooding become a twin set of problems...for a very unstable part of the planet.

http://www.trust.org/item/20140523110407-xj352/?source=fiHeadlineStory

The Emperor penguins will be driven to the edge of extinction because of the Antarctic ice melt.

I know I am boring the hell out of everyone, but here is an excerpt from a long article on the widlfires out west, focusing on the one that killed 19 firefighters last year:

"We’re paying for that blindness now. Across the West, enormous swaths of forest and shrubland are loaded with decades’ worth of built-up fuel. Climate change is compounding the problem: years of drought are turning much of that fuel into tinder; fire season is starting earlier and ending later; bugs are surviving warmer winters and killing vast numbers of trees, increasing the risk that fires will start and spread; and some forests destroyed by fire aren’t growing back, because faster-growing shrub and grass species are taking over before new trees can establish themselves. What it all means is that when fires start, they burn hotter and more destructively than ever before, often killing trees that would have survived less-intense heat. Fires larger than 100,000 acres used to be an anomaly, but not anymore: eight burned in the 2013 fire season alone. Had such conditions existed a thousand years ago, we’d probably have no great forests in the western United States today."

The link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/fire-on-the-mountain/361613/

Another article on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, this time from Mother Jones, written by Chris Mooney:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/inquiring-minds-richard-alley-antarctica-greenland-sandy?google_editors_picks=true

The article has a link to a soundcloud podcast by Richard Alley, a Penn State glaciologist and, at least according to the Mother Jones article, a self-described Republican. Our Republican friends might want to listen to the podcast. Perhaps we can send a set of them to the politicians in Alabama and North Carolina who forbid state scientists from using the words climate change or global warming.

I guess many politicians think if they simply tell a big enough lie and threaten scientists and call the whole thing liberal ruse so big government (the dreaded "statists", right ZZ?) can take over, climate change will just go away.

Here's a link to the podcast:
https://soundcloud.com/inquiringminds/35-richard-alley-west-antarctica-is-melting-and-we-cant-stop-it

By the way, the podcast is for an entire hour long show and the West Antarctic discussion is part way through the podcast.

A recent book that is very useful for discussion of tons of issues related to climate change is:

"Global Weirdness -- Severe Storms, Deadly Heat Waves, Relentless Drought, Rising Seas, and the Weather of the Future", written by scientists affiliated with Climate Central.

Here's a link to the Climate Central web page:

http://www.climatecentral.org/

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/science/My_1975_Cooling_World_story_doesnt_make_todays_climate_scientists_wrong.html

You have a statement from a new convert, peter Gwynne.

Below is Gwynne's article in Newsweek in 1975.
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Yes but what does Pat Sajak think about global warming?

A-Hole

A few links on articles of possible interest:
First one, from Reuters based on a report from the World Meteorological Organization, states that CO2 levels reached 400PPM in Northern Hemisphere:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/26/climatechange-idUKL6N0OC24Z20140526

Second one, from a Canadian site, discusses a vanishing glacier:
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/4539573-athabasca-glacier-melting-at-astonishing-rate-of-more-than-five-metres-a-year/

Here's a few paragraphs from that article:
"Bob Sandford, chair of the Canadian Partnership Initiative of the UN Water for Life Decade, said it's 'mind boggling' because not only is the glacier receding — it's also becoming shallower.

" 'I first wrote a tourist book on the Columbia Icefields in 1994 and it was generally held that it was somewhere around 325 square kilometres. That icefield now is calculated to be about 220 square kilometres,' he said.

" 'Even though this year we will have had a fairly substantial snow year, what we're finding is that, even with substantial snow years, the summers are warm enough and the fall is prolonged enough that all of that snow goes and we're still losing five metres,' Sandford said.

" 'That gives you an indication of how rapidly things are changing.'

"A recent American state-of-the-union report has singled out the rapid melt of glaciers in British Columbia and Alaska as a major climate change issue saying they are 'shrinking substantially.' "

Third, here's one from Delaware about what rising sea levels mean for them -- specifically Lewes DE:
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2014/05/26/rising-seas-threaten-delaware-coastal-areas/9586687/

Here's a few paragraphs from that enchanting story:
"And with sea level rise, the impact from storms stand only to get worse, said Susan Love, a Delaware Coastal Programs manager.

" 'Sea level rise closes our margin of safety when we have these events,' she said. 'The risk is increasing.'

"Sea level at Lewes Breakwater Harbor has risen a foot over the last century and is expected to continue to increase at an accelerating rate as global warming expands oceans and melts polar ice, glaciers and frozen land masses.

"Although Love said that coastal residents could once breath a sigh of relief if the worst of a storm hit at low tide, 'the window is closing on that opportunity,' she said."

Of course this hasn't stalled too much the development of properties right along the water. We were just down there this weekend and I picked up a real estate advertisement section, and lots of new waterfront properties up for sale, plus a lot of older ones. Of course, good old federal flood insurance is a help.

And last for today, an article from the Pittsburgh Gazette about potential health problems as we work our way to a warmer future:
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/environment/2014/05/26/Climate-change-to-boost-health-problems/stories/201405260078

That story was based on a conference sponsored by Allegheny County Health Department and the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health

Just as an aside, sort of.

From time to time the impending crisis in Social Security funding, if that should really occur, is blamed on the Boomers -- we are all entitled. Right wingers opine that generations coming up behind the Boomers will have to pay for their largesse. Fair enough as far as that goes.

Then the Governor, following the pattern of several previous Governors in the Garden State, blames the public employees for the pension mess, absolving all of the governors, Democrat and Republican alike, for not funding the pension system. Again, future generations will have to pay for this scandalous largesse for cops and teachers.

But now, with Climate Change clearly heading our way with monumentally disastrous consequences for future generations, the right wingers do not attack the entrenched interests, whether they be oil, auto, real estate, agriculture, for putting a huge cost and danger to future generations.They tend to dislike big government but just keep that national flood insurance to bail them out.

I have placed articles for all to read from left and center and even a few right wing publications that generally agree that Climate Change is a disaster in progress. The military, the insurance industry, the Wall Street Journal, mainstream newspapers, scientists of all stripes, foreign and domestic sources, government agencies -- all agree that we have a growing problem that could last not weeks and years but decades and centuries.

Where is the outrage from the right wing about this debt we are leaving future generations? Is the lack of bile about this emerging disaster an indication that building more condos and hotels in flood zones is better than taking steps to help future generations? I suppose it is.

Every time I hear a right winger decry the financial impact on future generations due to the Boomers and Social Security, I do want to puke. No outcry from those freaks on Climate Change except to say it is a fraud.

Or, they actually sense the impending disastrous costs from climate ignorance, and want to squeeze Boomers, teachers and cops because we warned them about it. It's the old "kill the messenger" bit from the good ol' days of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. You can fiddle to your heart's content if you have a scapegoat from whom to take your pound of flesh!

From the publication, TheHill.com, a note about EPA's list of indicators of climate change:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/207489-epa-adds-lyme-disease-wildfires-to-climate-change-indicators

The report itself is found here:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/

This is the EPA list of Climate Change Indicators:

Greenhouse Gases
•U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
•Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions
•Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases
•Climate Forcing
Weather and Climate
•U.S. and Global Temperature
•High and Low Temperatures
•U.S. and Global Precipitation
•Heavy Precipitation
•Drought
•Tropical Cyclone Activity
Oceans
•Ocean Heat
•Sea Surface Temperature
•Sea Level
•Ocean Acidity
Snow and Ice
•Arctic Sea Ice
•Glaciers
•Lake Ice
•Snowfall
•Snow Cover
•Snowpack
Health and Society
•Heating and Cooling Degree Days*
•Heat-Related Deaths
•Lyme Disease*
•Length of Growing Season
•Ragweed Pollen Season
Ecosystems
•Wildfires*
•Streamflow
•Great Lakes Water Levels and Temperatures*
•Bird Wintering Ranges
•Leaf and Bloom Dates
Items with an asterisk were added this year.

The Wall Street Journal ran an article on the seven worst drought-stricken states. Let's hope El Nino grants some relief. This drought has been going on for more than 3 years.

Property values will soon become a problem for residents out there if the drought doesn't abate, as will agriculture.

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/05/23/seven-states-running-out-of-water/
Here are the worst states:

#7: Texas
> Pct. severe drought: 56.1%
> Pct. extreme drought: 39.9% (4th highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 20.7% (3rd highest)
#6 Oklahoma
> Pct. severe drought: 64.5%
> Pct. extreme drought: 50.1% (2nd highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 30.4% (the highest)
#5 Arizona
> Pct. severe drought: 76.3%
> Pct. extreme drought: 7.7% (9th highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 0.0%
#4 Kansas
> Pct. severe drought: 80.8%
> Pct. extreme drought: 48.1% (3rd highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 2.8% (6th highest)
#3 New Mexico
> Pct. severe drought: 86.2%
> Pct. extreme drought: 33.3% (6th highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 4.5% (5th highest)
#2 Nevada
> Pct. severe drought: 87.0%
> Pct. extreme drought: 38.7% (5th highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 8.2% (4th highest)
#1 California
> Pct. severe drought: 100.0%
> Pct. extreme drought: 76.7% (the highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 24.8% (2nd highest)

Yup and Jersey shore real estate is just hunky dory!

Jude said:

The Wall Street Journal ran an article on the seven worst drought-stricken states. Let's hope El Nino grants some relief. This drought has been going on for more than 3 years.

Property values will soon become a problem for residents out there if the drought doesn't abate, as will agriculture.

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/05/23/seven-states-running-out-of-water/
Here are the worst states:

#7: Texas
> Pct. severe drought: 56.1%
> Pct. extreme drought: 39.9% (4th highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 20.7% (3rd highest)
#6 Oklahoma
> Pct. severe drought: 64.5%
> Pct. extreme drought: 50.1% (2nd highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 30.4% (the highest)
#5 Arizona
> Pct. severe drought: 76.3%
> Pct. extreme drought: 7.7% (9th highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 0.0%
#4 Kansas
> Pct. severe drought: 80.8%
> Pct. extreme drought: 48.1% (3rd highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 2.8% (6th highest)
#3 New Mexico
> Pct. severe drought: 86.2%
> Pct. extreme drought: 33.3% (6th highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 4.5% (5th highest)
#2 Nevada
> Pct. severe drought: 87.0%
> Pct. extreme drought: 38.7% (5th highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 8.2% (4th highest)
#1 California
> Pct. severe drought: 100.0%
> Pct. extreme drought: 76.7% (the highest)
> Pct. exceptional drought: 24.8% (2nd highest)

It was to this list I was adding the Jersey shore as an example of climate- related lowering real estate values!

A nice stinger from New York Magazine:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/05/why-republicans-always-say-im-not-a-scientist.html?mid=google&google_editors_picks=true

"Asked by reporters yesterday if he accepts the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming, John Boehner demurred on the curious but increasingly familiar grounds that he is not a scientist. 'Listen, I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change,' the House Speaker said. Boehner immediately turned the question to the killing of jobs that would result from any proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which he asserts with unwavering certainty. (On this question, Boehner is not held back by the fact that he is also not an economist.)

"This particular demurral seems to be in vogue for the Grand Old Party. Florida governor Rick Scott ('I’m not a scientist') and Senator Marco Rubio ('I’m not a scientist. I’m not qualified to make that decision.) have both held up their lack of scientific training as a reason to withhold judgment on anthropogenic global warming.

"It’s a strange form of reasoning. Very few of us are scientists, which is exactly why we tend to defer to scientific judgment. It might make sense to question expert consensus in a field where you are an expert, but if you know very little about it, you probably want to just go along with what the experts think. Scientists do, in fact, have a nearly unanimous view of anthropogenic global warming. Scientists likewise believe that chugging Liquid Drano is bad for your health, which is why, precisely because of my lack of scientific training, I hold off on the Drano Cocktails."

Right-wing jerks. They might think stupidity plays well in their districts, which I suppose is their way of insulting their own constituents.

As the author stated, most of these guys are not economists yet they opine on economic matters all the time. We can add to the list: the ones quoted are not women yet they have no problem making statements about women. None appear to be soldiers, yet they never state "I am no soldier" before going off on how we ought to stand up to dictator X, Y and Z. I don't think any of them are in construction yet they pass budgets on public works, highways, dams, dredging of harbors and so forth. Did any of them state "I am not teacher" before they go off on education?

when hedgefund guys are telling you, you have to spend all your money on something you better make sure it is true. It is sad that anytime anyone wants to validate the planets climate history they are shouted down. Most climate data is now using satellite data which only started being collected 35 years ago then guessed at backwards. Not one person on the planet knows the weather for the arctic prior to 100 year ago. We can guess, but weather is regional. chew on this admission Antarctic began melting 5,000 years earlier than first thought(Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2641871/Antarctic-began-melting-5-000-years-earlier-thought-Ice-sheets-volatile-past-reveals-unstable-future-claims-study.html#ixzz33EVrc2a0 yet every sources tells us the antarctic ice sheet started melthing with the industrial revolution...Amazing how big swathes of our understanding change, but yet many people don't think we should be improving our understand and should just act with today's poor renewable technology and throw money a that problem. According the current group think on climate they keep telling us it start 100-200 years ago! Current "solutions" such as thousands of 500ft tall industrial wind turbines destroying land, killing birds and bats(up to 80 per tower per year...multiple millions a year in total) and operating 25% of the time...are horrible! Biomass...the chopping down of forests to burn the highest CO2 output source of power...also emits high portions of H20 an even worse greenhouse gas. Let not forget burning food stuff as ethanol. Solar panel are replete with numerous problems...like most power is needed when the sun goes down...and currently there is no workable grid sized solution to store that power....the trials have failed on all grid sized solutions! Yet there are many cronies of the powers that be that have made millions off this environmental charade. One of Obama largest campaign donor kicked back the money he made from government and ratepayer kickbacks so he could get an Ambassadorship...kickbacks are great. The most obvious and workable solutions of conservation, efficiency and geothermal pumps....aren't really pushed as the insiders can't make the money. This is all about money! History has numerous times when the temperatures have dropped or risen that we don't understand...yet virtually everyone here will parrot the latest NYT or Huffington lobbyists piece on why some campaign backer of a politician should get billions! Let's not forget ethanol has made billions for GOP votes...and done exactly ZERO for the environment! This is about money not doing well for the planet....as no hedgefund manager has done anything for the good of anyone but themselves!

venturen said:

when hedgefund guys are telling you, you have to spend all your money on something you better make sure it is true. It is sad that anytime anyone wants to validate the planets climate history they are shouted down. Most climate data is now using satellite data which only started being collected 35 years ago then guessed at backwards. Not one person on the planet knows the weather for the arctic prior to 100 year ago. We can guess, but weather is regional. chew on this admission Antarctic began melting 5,000 years earlier than first thought(Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2641871/Antarctic-began-melting-5-000-years-earlier-thought-Ice-sheets-volatile-past-reveals-unstable-future-claims-study.html#ixzz33EVrc2a0 yet every sources tells us the antarctic ice sheet started melthing with the industrial revolution...Amazing how big swathes of our understanding change, but yet many people don't think we should be improving our understand and should just act with today's poor renewable technology and throw money a that problem. According the current group think on climate they keep telling us it start 100-200 years ago! Current "solutions" such as thousands of 500ft tall industrial wind turbines destroying land, killing birds and bats(up to 80 per tower per year...multiple millions a year in total) and operating 25% of the time...are horrible! Biomass...the chopping down of forests to burn the highest CO2 output source of power...also emits high portions of H20 an even worse greenhouse gas. Let not forget burning food stuff as ethanol. Solar panel are replete with numerous problems...like most power is needed when the sun goes down...and currently there is no workable grid sized solution to store that power....the trials have failed on all grid sized solutions! Yet there are many cronies of the powers that be that have made millions off this environmental charade. One of Obama largest campaign donor kicked back the money he made from government and ratepayer kickbacks so he could get an Ambassadorship...kickbacks are great. The most obvious and workable solutions of conservation, efficiency and geothermal pumps....aren't really pushed as the insiders can't make the money. This is all about money! History has numerous times when the temperatures have dropped or risen that we don't understand...yet virtually everyone here will parrot the latest NYT or Huffington lobbyists piece on why some campaign backer of a politician should get billions! Let's not forget ethanol has made billions for GOP votes...and done exactly ZERO for the environment! This is about money not doing well for the planet....as no hedgefund manager has done anything for the good of anyone but themselves!

That is certainly a wall of text. I would agree that the climate change/renewable energy sector is a special interest just as the oil companies are.

Not sure what your point is?
Is there a climate change afoot or not?
Is there a likelihood that people are the primary driver of climate change?
If there is climate change and people are the primary cause, what should we do about it?
Does other stuff happen in nature that can contribute or not to climate change -- I should think so.
Is the pace of change picking up?
Previous events we learn from science -- looking through ice cores in Antarctica and the Arctic, in Greenland and Siberia, in ocean depths and land masses everywhere. Tons of data has been collected and the verdict seems to say that whatever caused previous climate change (hot or colder climates), the pace is rapid, change in less than century that took many many hundreds of years to effect in the past.
Yes, people make a profit. Unless you want to abolish capitalism, no matter what solution is proposed, it will be sold. Just as hedge fund guys sell crap, as banks gave mortgages on 0 dollars down, as car manufacturers sell cars where the ignition key falls out, as food manufacturers add zillions of chemicals and preservatives to highly processed food, and so on.

If someone doesn't believe what scientists say, just how do you conduct your life? Let's see:

* alarm clock (manufactured with electronics based on solid state physics) powered by the:
* power grid (nuclear or fossil fuel plants with immense science and technology behind that) which gets you out of:
* bed (manufactured probably overseas brought here on mammoth cargo carriers and manufactured in factories using processed materials the fruits of chemistry). Then you:
* hit the head (using a vast water supply and sewerage system, connecting to reservoirs and water treatment plants and sewage treatment plants). Then you get:
* dressed (with much of what you wear either the fruits of agriculture or chemistry, most likely made overseas and shipped on those same cargo carriers). Then you:
* eat breakfast (using a microwave oven or coffee pot with all that solid state electronics; the food is shipped from all over the world, etc.) Then you:
* go to work in a car (brand new cars have 100 million lines of software code and over 65 computers/sensors, vast new materials, etc etc etc).
* You get on a road (designed by civil engineers) and you may go over/under a bridge (civil again) and pay EZ pass (fiber optic network, E&M radiation to verify membership.) Your route:
* may be dictated by GPS (satellites, General Relativity, rocketry to get them up there to begin with, communications systems to detect and receive signals). You then get to the:
* office (architects understanding structures) and use the Internet (fiber optics, computers, software, etc etc etc).

Maybe one gets the picture -- you -- all of us -- use the fruits of science and engineering almost every second of our lives. Almost all the time it works. It works because the science has been worked out and the engineering has been worked out. When it doesn't, that is a problem to solve. And that is what engineers do and that is what scientists do.

The data is overwhelming. We have a major problem. The people who do this for a living are convinced we have a problem. If you or anyone you know says we don't have a problem, please have them produce real data instead of a hand wave or something about how it got warm and cold in the past. Yes it did. And many species went extinct as climate changed. You might remember that as well.

This one is for all the boinky-types who think global warming is a religion:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/06/when-global-warming-kills-your-god/372015/?google_editors_picks=true

Here's one for those who think climate change is a passing fancy like hip hop or rock and roll or the waltz:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/us-summer-temperatures-climate-change-17510

And here's one about those military guys, part of the left leaning liberal cabal:
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-competition-for-arctic-resources-2014-6

The article is about militaries realizing the world is different. Here's part of it:

"The New Wild West

"The Arctic, long considered an almost worthless backwater, is primed to become one of the most important regions in the world as its ice melts over the next few decades.

"Unlike every other maritime area in the world, there is no overarching legal treaty governing the Arctic. Instead, the Arctic Council, made up of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the U.S., oversees and coordinates policy.

"But the Arctic Council has no regulatory power. The countries only use the Council to communicate on policy and research and each member state is free to pursue its own policies within their declared Arctic boundaries.

"According to a presentation by the Council of Foreign Relations, the Arctic is of primary strategic significance to the five bordering Arctic Ocean states — the U.S. (red), Canada (orange), Russia (grey), Norway (blue), and Denmark (green).

"Opening Up

"The 1.1 million square miles of open water north of accepted national boundaries — dubbed the Arctic Ocean 'doughnut hole' — is considered the high sea and is therefore beyond the Arctic states’ jurisdictions.

"As the Arctic ice melts, the area is predicted to become a center of strategic competition and economic activity. Last year, China signed a free trade agreement with Iceland and sent an icebreaker to the region despite having no viable claims in the Arctic."
http://static.businessinsider.com/image/53750a6e69beddd43c91670f-1200/image.jpg

and

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/538dc60669bedd500b859eeb-1200/image.jpg

Just to round out the day, for our Republican friends:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180086/gop-freaking-out-over-epas-carbon-rules-why-arent-power-companies