List of Sources for Team 6 Project 1

List of Sources.
http://www.factcheck.org/tag/global-warming/

http://www.factcheck.org/society/can_you_prevent_global_warming.html

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1706

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4512953/arctic-blast-proof-of-global-warming

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-1-2009/scientists-hide-global-warming-data

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/videos/jon-stewart-tackles-global-warming-deniers

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/palin-vs-gore-climate-showdown/

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/


http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/264085/february-10-2010/we-re-off-to-see-the-blizzard

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250571,00.html

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/264085/february-10-2010/we-re-off-to-see-the-blizzard

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/232654/july-02-2009/the-word---ban-de-soleil

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586122,00.html

https://www.usu.edu/science/unwrapped/htm/jan-21-climate-series-earths-changing-climate

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/al-gores-mansion/

*http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/moist_convection.html


*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqTd0g48ZY4


*http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html


*http://globalwarming.com/

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/255173/november-04-2009/formidable-opponent---global-warming-with-al-gore

*http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/


*http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html


*http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html

*http://www.google.com/images?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&q=greenhouse+effect&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=czFGTZPhE4T0tgPult26Cg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=3&ved=0CEUQsAQwAg&biw=1680&bih=847

*http://www.google.com/images?q=global+warming&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=LjJGTdLDGZCosQOS5Ny4Cg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=3&ved=0CFAQsAQwAg&biw=1680&bih=847

*http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming


Email Questions and Responses from Dr. Davies  


Set of Questions for Professor Davies

1.) Do you believe in Global Warming/Climate Change?
2.) What are you’re thoughts on the climagate scandal?
3.) What are you’re thoughts about the recent large snow storms in the Washington and New York area?
4.) What are the costs of putting solutions into actions to slow global warming?
5.) What are the costs of not solving global warming? 

Response From Dr Davies  
Hello Kristi,

1. Do I "believe" in Global Warming / Climate Change.

There is a vast body of scientifici evidence telling us that human industrialized activities are warming the planet globally, principally through the addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.  This human-induced global warming is causing global climate change.  When you change the temperature, you induce changes in everything else.

Further, every relevant scientific body on the planet has explicitly endorsed the evidence-based conclusion that human activities are changing Earth's climate.

So yes -- based on a vast collection of primary evidence, as well as the opinion of an expert community -- I believe in anthropogenic global warming and climate change.

2. My thoughts on ClimateGate.

The "scandal" is the illegal theft of private emails between bona fide, sincere and dedicated climate scientists, and the utter and deliberate misrepresentation of a few of those emails to the public.

Five separate and independent review panels have cleared all scientists involved of any professional misconduct and issued explicit statements affirming that nothing in the emails suggests any impropriety, nor does it cast any doubt on the quality of their science.

3. Regarding the recent "large snowstorms."

I assume the intent of the question is to question the consistency of these events with the science of global climate change.  The short answer is, such events are not only consistent with the physics of a warming climate, but projected to become more frequent as the warming progresses.  Global warming intensifies the hydrologic cycle.  Warmer air holds more moisture.  Evaporation rates increase.  And when storms form, there is then more water in the atmosphere to come down.  More water going up (evaporation) means more water coming down (precipitation).  If it comes down in winter in New York or Washington, it's going to come down as snow.  Nevertheless, climate is about statistics, not individual events.  The physics of climate change tells us that, though we can't attribute any single event to a warming climate, such extreme events will become more likely as time goes by and the warming continues.

4.  The costs of mitigating climate change.

Mitigating means keepin the temperature rise to a minimum.  The science tells us quite clearly that in order to mitigate the most extreme risks, we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 90% or more by mid-century.  That's forty years from now.  Further, everyone agrees there is no way to do this without moving away from fossil fuels, toward renewable energy sources.

I'm not an expert in specific mitigation pathways.  However, I can tell you that a number of comprehensive analyses have been done looking at just this question (see, for example: The Stern Review; and the McKinsey Report on Climate Change Mitigation).  In short, these reports suggest quite convincingly that we have both the technology and the economy for effective mitigation of the greatest risks posed by climate change.  They further indicate that, if done correctly, this mitigation is done to net economic benefit.  In other words, the policies pay for themselves.  This isn't hard to believe.  The basic mitigation strategy of moving away from fossils and to renewables is something that must be done this century anyway, regardless of climate change.  Fossils will only become more expensive and less available.  That's the nature of a nonrenewable resource.  Meanwhile, renewables will only become less expensive and more available.  Further, just like all technological revolutions that have come before, we always end up more prosperous on the other side.  There is no reason to believe the transition to renewable energy should be any different.

5.  The costs of inaction.

Estimating the costs of refusing to meet this challenge centers on where we think we're headed.  That is, projections of future climate.  Current projections place global average temperature rise at between 5 deg F and 11 deg F by the end of the century.  Even the low projection represents an enormous climatic shift, taking humans into a climate we've never known.  Biologists, ecologists and social planners throw up their hands at the thought of such enormous change.  Every facet of human society will be impacted: food, water, security, health.

Again, I'm not an expert in this question.  But the many people who are, who look at this question diligently, tell us that a global average temperature rise of the scale I mentioned carries  with it high risk of catastrophic impact for humans, human society and the human ecosystem.  This is not six geeks working in their parent's basement.  This is the mainstream analysis of the world's best scientists.  So, what is the cost of inaction: We incur enormous risk of human suffering on an unprecedented scale.  How's that?

Kristi, global climate change is the preeminent issue of your lifetime.  There is no aspect of your life, or your children's lives, that this phenomenon will not touch profoundly.  This is not my assessment, but the assessment of the world's entire scientific community.  Not a single bona fide scientific society has rejected these conclusions.  That's because they are robust scientific conclusions, based on a vast collection of broad, deep, and independent lines of evidence.  Your generation has a choice: to listen to these very serious, very sincere and very well trained communities -- or to be distracted by the buffoonery of talk radio and extreme partisan politicians.

Hope this helps.

Best,
rob davies