The most recent http://SkepticalScience.com post concerns “Climate Change Impacts on California Water Resources.”

I’m bringing it up because I’m wonder: How is our society going to prepare for these changes that are already, verifiably, underway - When most of our politicians and industrial masters-of-the-universe refuse to remove themselves from their self interest long enough to seriously, honestly learn about what is happening within our climate including its foreseeable impacts.

The problems are complex and no one knows exactly how it is going to play out, but using 5% uncertainty to justify Willful Ignorance sucks.

California’s water resources face significant strain on two fronts - a state population which is expected to grow from 35 to 55 million over the next 40 years, and a declining Sierra snowpack as a result of rising temperatures.

There is uncertainty regarding how total precipitation in California will change as the average planet and state temperatures continue to warm. Different climate models project anywhere from a modest decrease to a modest increase in net precipitation. Where the models agree is that less precipitation will fall as snow, and more as rain. . .

Temperature Projections

Rainfall Replacing Snow

Sea Level Rise

Agriculture

Overall Water Sustainability

Conclusions

Overall, while there may not be a significant change in overall precipitation falling in California as the average temperature continues to rise due to anthropogenic global warming, the challenge is in coping with the transition as the precipitation falls more as rain than snow.  Finding a way to store the rainfall as we lose nature’s storage medium (the Sierra snowpack) will be difficult. . .
http://SkepticalScience.com

citizenschallenge.pm - 16 October 2010 12:28 PM

The most recent http://SkepticalScience.com post concerns “Climate Change Impacts on California Water Resources.”

I’m bringing it up because I’m wonder: How is our society going to prepare for these changes that are already, verifiably, underway - When most of our politicians and industrial masters-of-the-universe refuse to remove themselves from their self interest long enough to seriously, honestly learn about what is happening within our climate including its foreseeable impacts.

The problems are complex and no one knows exactly how it is going to play out, but using 5% uncertainty to justify Willful Ignorance sucks.

California’s water resources face significant strain on two fronts - a state population which is expected to grow from 35 to 55 million over the next 40 years, and a declining Sierra snowpack as a result of rising temperatures.

There is uncertainty regarding how total precipitation in California will change as the average planet and state temperatures continue to warm. Different climate models project anywhere from a modest decrease to a modest increase in net precipitation. Where the models agree is that less precipitation will fall as snow, and more as rain. . .

Temperature Projections

Rainfall Replacing Snow

Sea Level Rise

Agriculture

Overall Water Sustainability

Conclusions

Overall, while there may not be a significant change in overall precipitation falling in California as the average temperature continues to rise due to anthropogenic global warming, the challenge is in coping with the transition as the precipitation falls more as rain than snow.  Finding a way to store the rainfall as we lose nature’s storage medium (the Sierra snowpack) will be difficult. . .
http://SkepticalScience.com

Isn’t it interesting that so many Theists present the arguments that even if there is no provable god, it is better to convert, just in case there is one. I wonder why these same people do not adopt this philosophy to the current AGW.  Something like, we can’t prove for sure that AGW is happening, but just to be on the safe side, why don’t we prepare for the eventuality that it is true.
But, I am forgetting, god will save us all, we are his children and can claim a special exemption from man made disasters.

Guess I’d like to mention that there is no consistent scientific consensus as to the cause of climate change.

To be sure, it is happening, but why it is happening no one knows.

-RC

Ruat Caelum - 16 October 2010 04:51 PM

Guess I’d like to mention that there is no consistent scientific consensus as to the cause of climate change.

To be sure, it is happening, but why it is happening no one knows.

-RC

True, but even then the argument “better be safe than sorry” still holds true.

Ruat Caelum - 16 October 2010 04:51 PM

Guess I’d like to mention that there is no consistent scientific consensus as to the cause of climate change.

To be sure, it is happening, but why it is happening no one knows.

Yeah that Keeling Curve is just a random anomaly.  It is simply coincidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  And it if sheer accident that burning fossil fuels produces it.

Reminds me of a quote:

Some fellows you have to hit with a brick to get their attention. Some you have to hit with a big brick.

I assume too many people won’t see the obvious until far too late.  It might already be too late.

psik

Write4U - 16 October 2010 05:44 PM

Ruat Caelum - 16 October 2010 04:51 PM

Guess I’d like to mention that there is no consistent scientific consensus as to the cause of climate change.

To be sure, it is happening, but why it is happening no one knows.

-RC

True, but even then the argument “better be safe than sorry” still holds true.

You are wrong. See this article at Skeptical Science and this article at Logical Science. There are many, many others that you can find with a simple Google search. The scientific consensus is overwhelming.

psikeyhackr - 16 October 2010 05:55 PM

Yeah that Keeling Curve is just a random anomaly.  It is simply coincidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 

CO2 is a green house gas, but the vast majority is produced by decaying plant matter. And more CO2 is produced every year by active volcanoes than by all the cars on earth but, what are those?

Just statics that have been around prior to the climate change frenzy.

DarronS - 16 October 2010 07:26 PM

You are wrong. See this article at Skeptical Science and this article at Logical Science. There are many, many others that you can find with a simple Google search. The scientific consensus is overwhelming.

Two articles does not an overwhelming consensus make.

Sorry, but I don’t swallow my environmental science in tablet form. I’m not going to get into a “links to articles” battle with you because it wouldn’t prove the point. It’d just be boring.

Is climate change real?

Yes, very much so.

Can we directly link it to humans?

No, not as of this date. Doesn’t mean we should stop studying it.

Do humans have a negative environmental impact wherever they go?

Most certainly so. 

Does that automatically mean I have to jump on the Al Gore wagon?

Absolutely not.

If you’ll notice the EU has been withdrawing from the man-made climate change issue due to the lack of evidence and the fact that many scientists have involved themselves too deeply with politics to produce quality research.

In my opinion, the worst part about this whole issue is its political co-opting. Voicing skepticism must automatically mean I’m going to Dick Cheney’s “let’s torture an A-Rab BBQ.”

If anything will hurt our environment it will be linking earth science to any political party.

-RC

Well RC I see you have swallowed the Climate Denialist Kool-Aid®. As I said a simple Google search will turn up many articles about the scientific consensus on AGW. We’ve been through this discussion many times around here and I have no intention of rehashing tired denialist arguments. Don’t be lazy. Do some research and educate yourself.

The volcano argument is one of the worst the denialist movement has concocted. Does the word equilibrium mean anything to you? When humans dump excessive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere it throws the system out of balance.

There is also this: 97% of climate scientists believe mankind is responsible for global warming. Do you think climate scientists are incompetent? If so, what are your credentials for judging their research?

DarronS - 16 October 2010 07:26 PM

Write4U - 16 October 2010 05:44 PM

Ruat Caelum - 16 October 2010 04:51 PM

Guess I’d like to mention that there is no consistent scientific consensus as to the cause of climate change.

To be sure, it is happening, but why it is happening no one knows.

-RC

True, but even then the argument “better be safe than sorry” still holds true.

You are wrong. See this article at Skeptical Science and this article at Logical Science. There are many, many others that you can find with a simple Google search. The scientific consensus is overwhelming.

sorry Darron, I should have omitted the word “True”.  I should have said “regardless of cause” in context of my post.