iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Climate Change Brings Water Worries To U.S. Cities, NRDC Report

Water Woes

First Posted: 07/27/11 04:44 PM ET Updated: 09/26/11 06:12 AM ET

You might say that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) had good timing with their Tuesday release of a new report on water-related impacts of climate change in U.S. cities. Extreme heat had just scorched much of the country, and the South remained under extreme drought. Perhaps Americans were ready to listen?

"The truth is, we're faced with more and more extreme events, and they probably could have picked a random date," Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, a nonpartisan think tank based in Oakland, said in an email to HuffPost. While much of the NRDC's assessment is based on water research from the institute, Gleick was not involved in the new report.

"Remember the extreme rains and snow in the West, then tornadoes, then the Mississippi flooding, then the Missouri flooding, then more tornadoes," he added. "Welcome to the future, today!"

In their report, "Thirsty for Answers," the national environmental organization looked at what water-related ways 12 cities are vulnerable to climate change and what, if anything, they are planning to do about it.

From the concrete jungle of New York City to the small seaside town of Homer, Alaska, "no region or city is immune to the water-related effects of climate change," Michelle Mehta, an attorney for NRDC's Water Program and a lead author on the report, said during a press conference on Tuesday.

Daniel Lashof, director of the NRDC's Climate Center, provided some explanations: Increased temperatures intensify the atmospheric water cycle, he said, which can trigger "more intense evaporation when it's dry" and "more intense downpours when it rains," and sea-level rise as warmed waters naturally expand and ice sheets melt.

On top of more droughts, floods and rising seas, the NRDC uncovered a range of other water issues -- from the disappearance of storm-buffering wetlands in New Orleans to widespread degradation of water quality. In Chicago, for example, beaches continue to close due to health risks of bacteria-laden runoff. More sewage overflows are expected due to treatment facilities being overwhelmed.

Higher dissolved carbon dioxide concentrations, along with warmer water and increased runoff, are also causing more frequent and hazardous algal blooms in regions such as the Chesapeake Bay, reports the NRDC.

In the West, many of the greatest challenges appear to be related to water supplies. Availability of the vital resource in Seattle and San Francisco is highly dependent on snow-melt, the timing and quantity of which is projected to change drastically.

Fortunately, most cities the NRDC assessed are currently identifying and implementing strategies that aim to both minimize future climatic changes and adapt to the changes already underway.

In addition to setting a 2050 goal to reduce citywide greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent, relative to 1990 levels, Seattle is developing some innovative new plans to combat its vulnerabilities. A decision-support tool will allow users to input variables about a proposed building project to see how projected temperature, precipitation and sea levels might impact their effort. A separate RainWatch tool will allow local utilities to better anticipate needs with more refined weather forecasts.

Miami, where sea levels are projected to rise as much as 5 feet by 2100, is well keyed in to the potential implications of sea level rise, including detailed modeling effects on local surface water, groundwater and saltwater intrusion.

New York City is also making plans to elevate and relocate structures that are vulnerable to sea-level rise and to reduce the amount of stormwater that runs into the sewer system, as exemplified by the elevated High Line, a re-purposed piece of industrial infrastructure, and a growing fleet of green roofs across the city.

The NRDC emphasized the importance of using water wisely through conservation and reuse, as well as protecting wetlands. "Why do we let rainwater run quickly off city streets when we could collect and use it?" asked Steve Fleischli, a senior attorney with NRDC, during a press conference. "We should be allowing the urban landscape to mimic Mother Nature."

They also highlighted some cities, including St. Louis, that lag behind others in assessing their potential city-specific threats.

"While ideological deniers of climate change might debate the facts, cities don’t have that luxury," said Lashof. "They need to plan to deal with very real effects that we're already beginning to see and that will only get more intense as we go into future."

California is one state that is already well-aware of that reality. Given his experience addressing the state's challenges, the Pacific Institute's Gleick also emphasized the need for better long-term planning, with the help of "deep community engagement."

"No city is doing enough to integrate the known and growing information on climate and water risks into long-term planning," he said. "And few cities ... [are] working directly with community groups to identify risks, local concerns and priorities, and adaptation approaches that might work on the local level."

Australia, too, has long-faced serious water woes. Jamie Pittock offered a few additional considerations based on his perspective as Program Leader for Australia and United States Climate, Energy and Water project of the U.S. Studies Center and with the Australia National University Water Initiative.

"Most of the water adaptation measures -- to conserve or expand supplies -- adopted by Australian governments and utilities are very energy intensive such as desalination plants, contributing to increased greenhouse gas emissions," Pittock noted.

He also highlighted some often-overlooked social implications, such as the loss of playing fields that are "abandoned through lack of watering" as well as a "perceived loss of amenity" as gardens and street trees are left to wither away.

The new report, which Pittock calls "most nifty," also misses how certain mitigation measures might disadvantage the poor. He pointed to a "dramatic rise in rates for water supplies" in Australia as utilities build more expensive supply and reuse systems.

"This is a national call to action, but not a call to alarm," said Fleischli. "We can be resilient, but we must plan, prepare and act. And the sooner, the better."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

You might say that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) had good timing with their Tuesday release of a new report on water-related impacts of climate change in U.S. cities. Extreme heat had j...
You might say that the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) had good timing with their Tuesday release of a new report on water-related impacts of climate change in U.S. cities. Extreme heat had j...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,766
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
09:33 PM on 08/08/2011
What is needed most is a way for ordinary folks to make create big change without having to rely on Washington or corporations to wake up and take the lead. We've started a project to create a venue for ordinary folks to come together to buy homes in large, carbon neutral, walkable and bikeable communities (Omega Project - omegaproject.us). It is a simple way to make a difference, and the potential impact is HUGE! If the even half or a third of new homes were built in communities like this, we could see hundreds of billions of dollars going into "green", carbon neutral communities.

http://omegaproject.us/
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:56 PM on 08/08/2011
Papers "S­keptical" of Global Warming Not Verified As Peer-Revie­wed

Popular Technology list 900+ Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm contains papers that the list's author, PopTech, has repeatedly FAILED TO VERIFY as peer-revie­wed.

Dear PopTech,

I have demonstrat­ed what I intended to demonstrat­e:

You have repeatedly FAILED TO VERIFY your claim that all 900+ papers on your list "supportin­" "skepticis­m" of AGW "alarm" are in fact peer-revie­wed, and that you are evidently unable to do so your claim that all papers on you list are peer-revie­wed notwithsta­nding.

As for you repeatedly throwing up a disingenuous straw man that have not demonstrat­ed that papers on your list *aren't* peer-revie­wed, again I have never tried to do so.

That the articles on your "Skeptical­" AGW "Alarm" Popular Technology list are all peer-revie­wed is YOUR claim, PopTech. Again, it is thus up to YOU to prove that they all have in fact been been peer-revie­wed, including the viewpoint articles that you have repeatedly FAILED TO PROVE ARE PEER REVIEWED - not for others to prove that they have not been.

HTH.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:00 PM on 08/08/2011
PopTech said "pape­rs" on his infamous list of purported peer-reviewed papers are peer-revi­ewed because they "can be" peer-reviewed:

----------­----------­----------­--------

Poptech: "[My list] is overwhelmi­ng evidence of a peer-revie­wed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW or AGW Alarm"

Publicola: "Your joke of a list counts multiple 'viewpoint ' - aka OpEd - articles authored by non-natura­l scientist Sonja Boehmer-Ch­ristiansen­n. How do you know that said articles have been peer reviewed?"

Poptech: "Because these can be and you have not demonstrat­ed otherwise.­"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-scientists-conference-2011_n_857588_87410332.html
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:02 PM on 08/08/2011
Moreover hundreds of the purported "peer reviewed" articles on PopTech's infamous list are:

- Political and economic articles written by non-scient­ists and "peer reviewed" by for example by a Cato Institute publicatio­n;

- Articles whose authors have characteri­zed their inclusion his list as misreprese­ntation;

- Articles from a "journal" discredite­d in the science community (including by an author cited multiple times on his list) that publishes articles that claim for example that the Sun is made of iron (!);

and

- Articles by multiple authors who claim that per an infallible Bible a just and Christian God regulates the Earth's temperatur­e and that He will protect us from global warming.

Amen.
07:06 PM on 08/08/2011
We get it Publicola you have failed at showing that a single paper on the list was not peer-reviewed so you go around spamming the same lies, misinformation and strawman arguments. So sad.

Let me know when you can provide evidence that any of the paper were no peer-reviewed.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:42 PM on 08/08/2011
PopTech: "Publicola you have failed at showing that a single paper on the list was not peer-revie­wed so you go around spamming the same lies, misinforma­tion and strawman arguments.
'

PopTech flagged again for incessant repetition of disingenuous straw man and slander.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:17 PM on 08/08/2011
Gotta love PopTech-ty­pe 'logic'...

----------­----------­----------­----
PopTech: X is true.

RationalPe­rson: How do you know X is true?

PopTech: Because it can be and you have not demonstrat­ed otherwise.

RationalPe­rson: PopTech said X is true because X "can be" true.

PopTech: You have taken my words out of context - that is clearly not what I meant. You are a liar with no intellectu­al honesty or personal integrity.

RationalPe­rson: I did not take your quote out of context - I asked you how you knew X was true and you directly replied "because" X "can be" true.

PopTech: We get it RationalPe­rson you have failed at showing that X is not true so you go around spamming the same lies, misinforma­tion and strawman arguments. So sad.

Let me know when you can provide evidence that X is not true.
----------­----------­----------­------.

...or not.

PopTech 'logic' is stupefying­.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Milks
Ecologist
08:09 PM on 08/08/2011
The Electricity Journal isn't a peer-reviewed journal. If it were, the instructions for authors would mention that process. Instead, that page only mentions that "The Editors will endeavor to quickly review all submissions, and reserve the right to edit papers as deemed appropriate." No mention of peer-review anywhere.

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600875/authorinstructions
08:17 PM on 08/08/2011
Yes it is mentioned,

"The system automatically converts source files to a single PDF file of the article, which is used in the peer-review process."

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600875/authorinstructions

EBSCO lists The Electricity Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/a9h-journals.pdf

ProQuest lists The Electricity Journal as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
http://www.proquest.com/tls/jsp/list/ListHTML.jsp?start=3000&productID=770&productName=ProQuest+5000+International&IDString=343+422+182+180+181+8+224+347+567+348+445+223+602+604+350&format=formatHTML&all=all
08:22 PM on 08/08/2011
This is all old and refuted nonsense. Read the notes on the list before you post this nonsense.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:10 PM on 08/08/2011
We get it, PopTech:

You are wounded that your list has (again) been shown to be deceptive and fraudulent. 

As your infamous* list is your precious baby I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.

You have repeatedly falsely stated that I took a response of yours out of context - here again is the correct context of what I asked you:

1. I asked you how you knew that some articles that are on your list of purportedly "peer-reviewed" papers were in fact peer reviewed.**

2. You directly responded with "because" said articles "can be" peer reviewed.***

You PopTech/Andrew have been banned in other forums**** for exhibiting the same sort of abusive behavior you are exhibiting here, again as part of "defending" your deceptive and fraudulent list from those who would dare to point out that your infamous list is indeed deceptitive and fraudulent. Of course, if you are banned for your deeply unethical behavior here at HuffPo too then you will once again claim to be the victim, censored yet again in your fight for climate science "truth".

It's the PopTech way.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:04 PM on 08/08/2011
All of which has been completely refuted ad nauseum, Publicola you are a failure,

Rebuttal to "Meet the Denominator"
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html

Rebuttal to "450 more lies from the climate change Deniers"
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=3595

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/i_doubt_that_douthat.php#comment-2875098

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html

Rebuttal to "Better Recheck That List"
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4019
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:51 PM on 08/08/2011
PopTech: "All of which has been completely refuted"

You are lying again, PopTech.

You have not for example refuted the following, your incessant assertions to the contrary notwithstanding:

You have repeatedly falsely stated that I took a response of yours out of context - here again is the correct context of what I asked you:

1. I asked you how you knew that some articles that are on your list of purportedl­y "peer-revi­ewed" papers were in fact peer reviewed.*­*

2. You directly responded with "because" said articles "can be" peer reviewed.*­**

------------------------

** Me: "Your joke of a list counts multiple "viewpoint " - aka OpEd - articles authored by non-natura l scientist Sonja Boehmer-Ch­ristiansen­. How do you know that said articles have been peer reviewed?"

*** Poptech: "Because these can be and you have not demonstrat­ed otherwise.­"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-scientists-conference-2011_n_857588_87410332.html
07:05 PM on 08/08/2011
Which paper was not peer-reviewed?The Epic Failure continues.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
07:47 PM on 08/08/2011
PopTech flagged yet again for personal harassment via incessant repetition of disingenuo­us straw man.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
12:16 PM on 08/08/2011
If this is a peer reviewed scientific paper, then what hypothesis does it consider and by what method was that hypothesis tested?

http://solberg.snr.missouri.edu/gcc/LupoMOMed.pdf

More obviously, what does "PRO/CON" likely signify?
12:32 PM on 08/08/2011
Strawman as the list makes no claim that all the papers were scientific research papers as review papers are peer-reviewed.

Still no evidence that the paper was not peer-reviewed?

Your failures are adding up.
12:56 PM on 08/08/2011
"Strawman," really? My understanding of the straw man fallacy is that it involves distorting one's opponent's argument, disproving the distortion, and then claiming victory over the opponent, when only the distortion has been disproved. Agreed?
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
08:18 AM on 08/07/2011
Still waiting for Publicola to prove that a single paper on the list is not peer-reviewed,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

His failure is getting embarrassing.
12:25 PM on 08/07/2011
Hold on PT! You are now into blatant lying! As I told YOU down thread I called two of your "peer-reviewed" journals and they said that off-topic (i.e., subject matter unrelated to their journal purview) ARE NOT sent out for peer-review. Why? Because they do NOT have a database of reviewers with such expertise. The decision to publish is purely and editorial one based, not on subject knowledge, but on an assessment of what might be of interest to their general readership.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
12:53 PM on 08/07/2011
Thank you once again!
09:04 AM on 08/08/2011
Lies, I contacted the same journals and they said they follow standard peer-review for all their published papers and have no problem locating suitable reviewers for papers not directly related to the journal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
12:52 PM on 08/07/2011
Flagged. Read Tex's reply underneath and weep.
09:05 AM on 08/08/2011
It is all lies, I contacted the journals myself.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:54 AM on 08/06/2011
Fraud by International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) Chief Science Adviser Bob Carter

ICSC's Bob Carter deceptively tried to Hide the Incline of the global warming temperature trend over recent decades, as statistician Tamino demonstrates.* 

Tom Harris,  Executive Director of the ICSC, repeatedly refused to address the ICSC's Bob Carter's global warming fraud here on HuffPo.**

 Several other so-called global warming "skeptics" including Orkneygal have repeately refused to address Bob Carter's fraud here on HuffPo as well, despite the fact that the ICSC's Dr. Robert "Bob" Carter is a leader of and/or major contributor to other prominent organizations that are "skeptical" of man-made global warming / climate change too including the Heartland Institute, the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

The ICSC's Bob Carter also is a founding leader of the "skeptical" New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC), which is an ICSC sister organization. You Orkneygal have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with the NZCSC, if any?

Please finally answer the question Orkneygal, instead of continuing to run away from it.

----------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97738177.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
03:48 PM on 08/06/2011
Bob also publishes papers in which he blatantly mis-interprets his own graphs. I'm no scientist, but I am pretty sure that when the slope of the mean of a graph showing temperature fluctuations is positive over a given time, that means temperature is increasing, not decreasing.
04:19 PM on 08/06/2011
I have stopped paying any attention to Huffington Post and, at this point, am not prepared to spend any time reading, let alone answering anything.

For those of you who are genuinely interested in rational dialog, then you need to jump on the abusers immediately when they post their snarling, angry posts, often engaging in logical fallacies and attacking the poster who may disagree with them. In other words, if the moderator is not going to enforce netiquette, then those who care about whether the blog involves people who seriously disagree with you on an intellectual level or not, have to stomp on the abusers. After many abusive posts against me, my organization and our points, I simply decided that I had better things to do than tune in each day for a dose of poison.

It up to you, people who are interested in polite, rational discussion, to at least try to stop the bad posters or you will simply lose people who are not reading and discussing with the purpose of fighting.

I imagine this post too will prompt its share of sarcastic, unconstructive comments. I imagine also that no one will hold these types to account, which is why I have tuned out rather than encourage the flamers, absorb any more abuse or stoop to their level.

Sincerely,

Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
Canada

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
04:48 PM on 08/06/2011
Oh poor Tom.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
06:47 PM on 08/06/2011
To International Climate Science Coalition Executive Director Tom Harris:

I repeatedly asked you on David Suzuki's "Investigation Hits at Climate Change Denier's 'Science'" thread to address your Chief Science Advisor Bob Carter's statistically and scientifically invalid presentation of the global warming temperature trend over recent decades, as demonstrated by statistician Tamino.* **

Despite your prior claim in that thread that you had "no problem answering respectful, rational questions" you repeatedly refused to address my questions regarding Dr. Carter's misleadingly unscientific analysis, saying instead merely that you would pass along Tamino's critique to Dr. Carter.

I also asked you repeatedly in that thread to pass along to Dr. Carter my request for him to defend his statistically-invalid analysis directly in that HuffPo thread; I don't know if you honored my request or but as with you Dr. Carter did not address his demonstrated misleadingly unscientific conduct.

I will ask you again now what I asked you in that thread - I hope that you will now answer my questions to you that you refused to answer previously:

continued...

--------------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

** http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/Publicola/climate-change-denial_b_896543_97738177.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:57 AM on 08/06/2011
I know where to find thousands of non-peer reviewed sources. IPCC AR4.

Some of the mendacious claims about peer review.

"People can have confidence in the IPCC's conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008

"The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2007

"This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008

The Truth

UN's Climate Bible Gets 21 'F's on Report Card
All 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
5,587 are not peer-reviewed
IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
Each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F
43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project

5,587 out of 18,531 references in IPCC AR4 were not peer reviewed sources.

>30% of IPCC AR4 is based upon propaganda pieces, unpublished thesis and the like.

http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
06:47 AM on 08/06/2011
Hah!

Tell us the best example.

Was it a high school term paper?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:58 AM on 08/06/2011
IPCC cited multiple Master’s Students in AR4, some unpublished

http://sppiblog.org/news/ipcc-cited-multiple-master’s-students-in-ar4-some-unpublished
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:10 AM on 08/06/2011
Only if one disingenuously counts grey literature references including prior official IPCC reports, science textbooks, and the Columbia Book of Quotations as not peer-reviewed references, as the so-called "report card" Orkneygal keeps citing disingenuously does.

Dear Orkneygal,

You have repeatedly failed to answer the following question  -  please finally answer, thanks:

Do you agree that the IPCC's AR4 WG1 -- which addresses the physical science basis of global warming / climate change science as authored by climate scientists -- gets an 'A' even when using the so-called report card's disingenuously stringent criteria and their own numbers?

And if 'no': why not?

[ Que: still more evasion and disinformation from Orkneygal ]
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:48 PM on 08/07/2011
Orkneygal: {{{ ... Crickets ... }}}
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:54 PM on 08/05/2011
Global Warming "Skeptical" Papers Not Verified As Peer-Reviewed

Popular Technology list 900+ Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm contains papers that the author of the list, PopTech/Andrew, has repeatedly FAILED to verify as peer-reviewed.

Dear PopTech,

I have demonstrated what I intended to demonstrate: that you have repeatedly FAILED TO VERIFY your claim that all 900+ papers on your list "supportin" "skepticism" of AGW "alarm" are in fact peer-reviewed, and that you are evidently unable to do so your claim that all papers on you list are peer-reviewed notwithstanding.

As for you repeatedly throwing up a deceptive straw man that I and others have not demonstrated that papers on your list *aren't* peer-reviewed, again:

That the articles on your "Skeptical" AGW "Alarm" Popular Technology list are all peer-reviewed is YOUR claim, PopTech. Again, it is thus up to YOU to prove that they all have in fact been been peer-reviewed, including the viewpoint articles that you have repeatedly FAILED to prove are peer-reviewed - not for others to prove that they have not been.

HTH.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:57 PM on 08/05/2011
Dear PopTech,

Here's an analogy that may help you understand this very basic concept that has repeatedly seemed to elude you:

Let's say you repeatedly claimed that 900+ black helicopters are circling your house.  Let's also say that someone eventually pointed out that you have not proven your claim.

Would your responding with:

"Prove that 900+ black helicopters are not circling my house."

somehow demonstrate that 900+ black helicopters *have* been circling your house?

Of course not - no more so than if you were to have responded that 900+ black helicopters "can be" circling your house. In that scenario the 900+ black helicopters purportedly circling your house would be your claim, and if you were to expect the rest of us to take that claim seriously then you would need to prove it.

So it is with your 900+ "peer reviewed" "papers" claim - that is your claim, and if you expect the rest of us to take your claim seriously then you need to prove it first, which again you PopTech have repeatedly FAILED to do.

Again HTH.
09:05 PM on 08/05/2011
Despite your obsessive spamming you have failed to show a single paper on the list is not peer-reviewed.

Epic Fail.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:28 AM on 08/06/2011
Poptech: "you have failed to show a single paper on the list is not peer-reviewed."

Disingenuous straw man.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
08:40 PM on 08/05/2011
The Popular Technology web site claims there are 900+ papers that suggest we do not need to worry about global warming. But the first paper on the list actually provides strong evidence of AGW (keep reading).

The paper reconstructs global average temperatures for the last 2000 years, and its main conclusion is:

“While instrumental data are not strictly comparable, the rise in 29 year-smoothed global data from NASA GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp) from 1935 to 1992 (with data from 1978 to 2006) is 0.34 Deg C. Even adding this rise to the 1935 reconstructed value, the MWP peak remains 0.07 Deg C above the end of the 20th Century values, though the difference is not significant.”

But there is another conclusion within easy reach (using latest data).

During the last 100 years, there has been a rise in global temperature of .62 degC (using 29 year averages of GISS data centered around the years 1897 and 1996).

During the 2000 years of the Loehle reconstruction, the largest rise during any 100 year period was only .49 degC (for example, the 100 years starting in 1194 or the 100 years starting in 1670).

So the rate of warming during the last 100 years is 25% larger than any other 100 years during the last 2000 years. Using the same data sets the authors used.

Please, feel free to check my math.
09:05 PM on 08/05/2011
The list makes no such claim.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
03:52 PM on 08/06/2011
He's not talking about the list. He's demonstrating that the first paper in it doesn't support your overall claims and objectives. Are you daft?
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]