What is the National Climate Assessment?

• The Global Change Research Act of 1990 is a US law requiring research into global warming and related issues. It requires a report to Congress every four years on the environmental, economic, health and safety consequences of climate change.
• This required research was tasked to the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Every 4 years the USGCRP releases their big report called the National Climate Assessment. On November 23, 2018 (Black Friday) the White House released the over 1500 page 2nd volume of the National Climate Assessment report.
• The teams involved in the NCA report include NOAA, the DOA, DOC, DOD, DOE, HHS, DOI, DOS, DOT, EPA, NASA, NSF, Smithsonian Institution, and the USAID—with the assistance of "1,000 people, including 300 leading scientists, roughly half from outside the government."

Now that we know what NCA is, what does it say?
Generally speaking:

1. It’s already happening.
2. It’s going to get worse.
3. It’s going to cost us dearly.
4. We can still do something about it.

More Specifically:

• Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century.
• According to NOAA, one of the lead agencies helping with the NCA, human health and safety and American quality of life" is increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
• Annual economic losses in the USA due to climate change in 2090 (in 2015 $)
  • Moderate warming (RCP 4.5): $280 billion per year
  • Extreme warming (RCP 8.5): $500 billion per year
• We can expect the US economy in the year 2090 to be 10% smaller.
  • Current GDP is ~$20 trillion.
  • Annual GDP growth of 2%
  • Projected US GDP in year 2090 ~$85 trillion
  • We can expect a 10% GDP loss of $8.5 trillion dollars in the year 2090
  • The Great Recession of 2008 caused a 4.9% GPD loss
  • It makes financial sense to fight climate change
• Changing temperatures will cause insects that usually die off in colder seasons to thrive all year round. Climates that those insects can't survive in at all can now have them seasonally. Those climates won't have any natural predators for those insects. This includes West Nile and Zika carrying mosquitoes, tree killing beetles, and lyme disease carrying ticks. Food shortages are expected as those insects wreck crops.
• "Dust bowl-ification" of farmlands in the west and mid-west plus droughts causing food shortages.
• Heat waves will be warmer and last longer affecting mostly elderly and the poor.
• The city of Phoenix, which experienced about 80 days per year over 100 degrees around the turn of the century, could see between 120 and 150 such days per year by the end of the century, depending on the pace of emissions.
• Huge parts of the US get their water from snow that accumulates on mountain ranges in the winter that melt in the summer and fill basins and rivers. Western mountain ranges are retaining much less snow throughout the year, threatening water supplies below them.
• Extreme Weather Events
  • "People who survive extreme weather events and see their communities destroyed often suffer from depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts and post-traumatic stress disorder. And those problems linger long after the destruction passes."
  • "The report notes that droughts have led to a documented increase in alcohol and tobacco use, while higher temperatures bring out more aggressive behaviors, including an increase in homicides."
  • Stronger storms will destroy expensive infrastructure that will need to be replaced, infrastructure needs more maintenance, and costs for new infrastructure will increase because stronger storms lead to stricter building standards.
  • Over 50% of the global population lives only a few miles off the coasts. Extreme storms, tides, and sea level rise will trigger a mass migration inland. Expect States like Florida to deal with the biggest population shift as a majority of it's boarders are coastline and people from Caribbean islands immigrating.

This isn't even an exhaustive list. These were the easy issues that don't require a ton of nuance to explain/understand.
So we are aware of the changes that already occurred in our lifetimes, and it hasn't been getting better.
It will most likely get worse for future generations and so I will leave you with a quote from the NCA:

“It is very likely that some physical and ecological impacts will be irreversible for thousands of years, while others will be permanent.”

The 4th NCA volume II

• https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

Other outlets covering it:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/clim ... sment.html
• https://www.vox.com/2018/11/24/18109883 ... assessment
• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/its-h ... ate-change
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-e ... s-country/
• https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-a ... 2c1557333/
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-c ... -warnings/

Bonus material:

• Government scientists don't suggest policy, they just state the facts
• How atmospheric gasses trap heat

BS.
Avalanches may increase
Avalanches may decrease – wet snow more though

Bird migrations longer
Bird migrations shorter
Bird migrations out of fashion

Chinese locusts swarm when warmer
Chinese locusts swarm when cooler

UK may get more droughts
UK may get more rain


"Other outlets covering it." Translation: A bunch of left leaning "news" outlets with an agenda to push.
EXAMPLE: Vox looks at the issues from a progressive liberal perspective and there is also an anti-Trump tone in their reporting. Therefore, the majority of stories are pro-left and anti-right. Further, Vox publishes stories with emotionally loaded headlines such as “Are Democrats brave enough to run a woman against Donald Trump?” and “The most depressing energy chart of the year- Coal has got to go.”

"Government scientists don't suggest policy, they just state the facts." Also BS.
Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

Rogue One wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:58 am

BS.

Whoa brother you seem to be triggered by the original post.
You usually don't come out swinging that hard.

Do you not believe that the globe is getting warmer?
Do you not believe that the changes are caused by man?
Do you only disagree with projections?

What exactly do you claim is BS?

Also what evidence would be sufficient to change your stance on man-made global climate change?

This will do for starters.

Scientists rip new federal climate report as ‘tripe’ – ’embarrassing’ – ‘systematically flawed’ – Key claim based on study funded by Steyer & Bloomberg
Climate expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: The claim of economic damage from climate change is based on a 15 degree F temp increase that is double the "most extreme value reported elsewhere in the report." The "sole editor" of this claim in the report was an alumni of the Center for American Progress, which is also funded by Tom Styer."

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "The science must be addressed head-on. If POTUS has his reasons for letting this Obama-era committee continue to peddle tripe I wish he would tell us what they are."

Global Warming: Fake Science Again Serves Far-Left Political Agenda
The entire global warming "reporting" process is so heavily politicized, it doesn't qualify as science. The group responsible for the report, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, is largely a creation of the Obama administration. Global warming true believers are its backbone. Indeed, parts of the report just released were written during the Obama years. And the worst, least believable part of the White House report is based on research by organizations funded in part by global warming extremists and billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg.

'No Hard Evidence'
"The Fourth National Climate Assessment offers no hard evidence, just vague assertions and claims that past climate change is no evidence about future climate change," wrote Dr. Ken Haapala, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. "It earns the distinction that it does not meet the standards of the Information Quality Act, and each page should be stamped: 'Based on speculation, not hard evidence.' "

Rogue One wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:28 am

This will do for starters.

I asked you two specific questions:

• What exactly do you claim is BS?
• What evidence would be sufficient to change your stance on man-made global climate change? (I assumed because you never answered question 1)

I asked you these questions so we can avoid a logical fallacy called "moving the goal posts".
The articles you posted aren't why you came to whatever conclusion you have come to.
I can write a 100 page dissertation debunking every link you have posted and you will just post more links.

I want to know what you claim and why you claim it so that if I can provide information that refutes or pokes hole in your logic you will either have to change your mind OR at the very least reduce your confidence about your stance on the topic.

BTW the bold section works both ways. If your claim and proof are compelling I will shift my stance as well.

If I'm understanding you correctly, Man Made Climate Change is an indisputable fact, and any deviation from this Gospel is heresy. Your wording seems to says as much, leaving no room for a dissenting opinion.

Q). What exactly do you claim is BS?
A). ALL. OF. IT.

Q). What evidence would be sufficient to change your stance on man-made global climate change?
A). What evidence would be sufficient to change your stance and make you realize that the alleged man-made global climate change movement is a HOAX/FRAUD/SHAM/SCAM?

Prior to the 1980's all of the so-called climate change experts made dire predictions about the impending ice age. Now the "experts" are saying snow will be a thing of the past. Which one is right? If the current global warming experts are correct, then the ice age proponents have to be wrong. But if those experts were once considered to be right, then how do you know for certain that the current crop of experts won't be proven wrong as well?

Failed Global Cooling/Warming Predictions
“The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years,” ecologist Kenneth Watt said in 1970. “If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

In 1975, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said that “(t)he cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” Scientist Nigel Calder wrote that “(t)he threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”

At the first Earth Day, its political sponsor, Senator Gaylord Nelson, warned: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”. Yet it didn’t happen back when they first said it would, but it’s going to happen soon, any day now.

In 1989 a senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.