Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Faces 'Extreme' Temperature Changes: Study
AFP | 10-17-2005 | not given

Posted on 10/18/2005 6:08:43 AM PDT by boris

US Faces 'Extreme' Temperature Changes: Study

Washington (AFP) Oct 17, 2005

The continental United States will face more extreme temperatures during the next century and worse rainfall along its Gulf Coast which has been ravaged by hurricanes this year, according to a climate study released Monday.

The study, published on the online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, warned that greenhouse gases will likely swell to twice their current levels by the century's end.

"Imagine the weather during the hottest two weeks of the year," lead researcher Noah Diffenbaugh said, referring to northeast United States.

"The area could experience temperatures in that range lasting for periods of up to two months by century's end," he said.

Researchers claimed the study, run on supercomputers at Purdue University in Indiana state, is the most comprehensive climate model to date.

It predicts the southwest United States could endure as much as a 500 percent increase in hot events, leaving less water for the growing population, that the Gulf Coast region would receive more rainfall in shorter time spans and that summers in the northeast would be shorter and hotter.

Overall, the United States would experience a warming trend, the study predicts.

"The changes our model predicts are large enough to substantially disrupt our economy and infrastructure," said Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Purdue University.

In addition to greenhouse gasses, the model considered factors such as ocean currents, cloud formations and vegetation.

The model considered circumstances not fully included in previous models, such as snow which reflects energy from the sun back into space, and mountain peaks, which can stand in the way of travelling weather fronts.

Scientists also checked the model's efficacy by analyzing the period 1961 to 1985. "The model performed admirably," Diffenbaugh said, adding it's "the most detailed projection of climate change that we have for the US."


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fud; globalwarming; globalwarmingping; scaretactics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: boris
The model considered circumstances not fully included in previous models, such as snow which reflects energy from the sun back into space, and mountain peaks, which can stand in the way of travelling weather fronts.

But they still haven't modelled the effects of increased cloud cover that they expect. Oh yeah, I forgot, that little factor would cause cooling so we don't want to model that....

21 posted on 10/18/2005 6:24:44 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan
Even thought I don't buy this greenhouse gas crap I have to ask, what does this have to do with the US?? China is the worlds number one polluter as most of our manufacturing has moved to their shores. They are switching from bicycles to cars and have no "EPA" department to worry about.

And the Chinese are exempt from meeting any requirements of the Kyoto agreement. One of the main reasons the treaty was bogus.

22 posted on 10/18/2005 6:27:11 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

A climatic warming in the next 100 years would reduce the amount of heating oil and natural gas used during the winter and, hence, reduce the amount of CO2 which is produced, thus lowering the temps ultimately. How is that for a forecast?


23 posted on 10/18/2005 6:27:13 AM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: boris

The Northeast, Southwest and Gulf Coast. Looks like the mid-Atlantic (Virginia) will be a good place to live.


24 posted on 10/18/2005 6:28:49 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Why is it always a "climate model."

You never see the global warming guys say "based on the actual climate of the last 50 years ..." They point to a rise of 1 deg F in the average temperature of the earth (like that can actually be measured) but that still depends on where you start from.

Start the record in 1893, just after Krakatoa blew up and there is a large increase. Start in 1934 at the height of the depression and drought and you get a different result.


25 posted on 10/18/2005 6:29:25 AM PDT by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: boris

So, we'll have fifty warmer winters and then presto, ice sheets five miles thick return to all of Canada and most of North America.

Presto: illegal alien problem solved since they are now frantic to get into the Sudan.


26 posted on 10/18/2005 6:32:48 AM PDT by BIRDS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
I can make a model that would predict every election from 1961 to 1985 and have it perform 'admirably', but it still could predict 2006 worth a squat.

Of course it would --- it would demonstrate that Republicans will control the White House for the majority of the future.

27 posted on 10/18/2005 6:33:36 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (9-11 is your Peace Dividend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle
model's efficacy by analyzing the period 1961 to 1985

Don't you know history began in the 1960's?

Everything before that is irrelevant.

28 posted on 10/18/2005 6:35:02 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (9-11 is your Peace Dividend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Netheron

lol

certainly - and they think they evolved from the same mamals as chimps.


29 posted on 10/18/2005 6:41:26 AM PDT by globalheater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: globalheater

Well, I do too.

I also believe that it was part of God's design.


30 posted on 10/18/2005 6:44:48 AM PDT by Netheron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: globalheater

Well, I do too.

I also believe that it was part of God's design.


31 posted on 10/18/2005 6:45:05 AM PDT by Netheron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: globalheater

Sorry about the double post. When I refreshed the thread and didn't see the post added, I forgot about the forum lag.


32 posted on 10/18/2005 6:46:08 AM PDT by Netheron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Francis Joseph
Yeah -- except that it's effin' freezing there.

Everytime I start to feel opressed by the harsh New Engalnd winters, I look at the weather map for the upper Midwest and thank God I don't live there.

33 posted on 10/18/2005 6:46:33 AM PDT by Maceman (Fake But Accurate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Francis Joseph
Well, the globalists have done a super job of emptying out the upper Midwest over the past 50 years. We have a surplus of underused infrastructure, no hurricanes, and no earthquakes.

In addition, we have lots of fresh water.

I contend that national security dictates that this country should move more of its critical economic activity to its interior.

Insurance company exposure management should also encourage folks to move away from the coast.

Well, actually it's liberal politics that's done that. The South is growing like crazy because of their lower taxes, right-to-work laws and fewer regulations. The mid-west has consistently been generating a hostile business climate. For example, all the new auto plants are in the South. When was the last time significant nukmbers of plants opened in Michigan or Ohio?

34 posted on 10/18/2005 6:51:47 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
A climatic warming in the next 100 years would reduce the amount of heating oil and natural gas used during the winter and, hence, reduce the amount of CO2 which is produced, thus lowering the temps ultimately. How is that for a forecast?

On a canadian website, some environmental nut said global warming would cause more energy use because people would have to run air conditioners more often. THis twit doesn't understand that it takes more energy to heat a home in the winter (with a 50'F temperature difference) than to cool it in the summer (15'F difference) but then again, Canadians like to keep the thermostat at 68'F and haven't adapted to 80'F settings people here in FL use.

35 posted on 10/18/2005 6:55:07 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mikey_1962

So have we (NY). We haven't had a frost yet and the trees are way behind on color. We haven't even hit peak yet.


36 posted on 10/18/2005 6:58:50 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Netheron
it's good to believe...

but it's best to prove !

well I think scientific findings are politicized too much nowadays.

1. by scientists beefing up their budgets
2. by freepers in case the findings don't match the equation freedom equals elbow space in your SUV

I think it's getting hot. Maybe we save money reacting now.
37 posted on 10/18/2005 7:02:08 AM PDT by globalheater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

I did some storm spotting for the NWS and talked to those guys regularly. Boy, if you wanted to get them going, just mention global warming. That set them off like nothing else. THEY don't believe it.


38 posted on 10/18/2005 7:02:18 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: boris

"The study, published on the online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, warned that greenhouse gases will likely swell to twice their current levels by the century's end."

Since sources of greenhouse gas attributable to mankind are a small fraction of the greenhouse gasses produced I guess that means that reducing man's contribution of greenhouse gasses is pointless.

If greenhouse hasses are going to double their current level, it's obviously not going to be the result of emissions made by man.

I'm happy that they are actually trying to test their models with known data, but it just leads me to question their model on how greenhouse gas levels will increase, because their claims make no sense.


39 posted on 10/18/2005 7:04:40 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways

If everyday this winter were one degree warmer than average, we'd still be freezing our butts off. And it would still snow. You can't tell a one degree difference with your skin.


40 posted on 10/18/2005 7:05:09 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson