Vote as if your climate depends upon it, people....because it DOES.

Updated as of 9:00pm EST on Thursday, November 1 (Happy All Souls Day!):

Real Clear Politics (RCP) consistently has been the go-to source for accurate averaged daily polling data for both FOXNEWS and NBCNEWS. With only 99 hours left to go in the 2012 presidential campaign, RCP continues to report Obama leading in eight of their 11 toss-up states with Romney leading in three.

In descending order of 'percentage of lead' in favor of Obama, followed in ascending order of 'percentage of lead' in favor of Romney, here are the published averaged numbers from RCP as of 9:00pm EST together with the most recent FiveThirtyEight election night probabilities of victory for either candidate:

In WISCONSIN, with 10 electoral votes, Obama's lead has jumped to 5.0%, up from 3.7% this morning. FiveThirtyEight currently gives Obama an 88.0% chance of victory here, up 2.3% from Tuesday.

In PENNSYLVANIA, with 20 electoral votes, Obama's lead is holding at 4.6%. FiveThirtyEight currently gives Obama a 95.5% chance of victory here, up 1.3% from Tuesday.

In MICHIGAN, with 16 electoral votes, Obama's lead is holding at 3.0%. FiveThirtyEight currently gives Obama a 98.4% chance of victory here, up 0.3% from Tuesday.

In NEVADA, with 6 electoral votes, Obama's lead has risen to 2.7%, up from 2.4% yesterday. FiveThirtyEight currently gives Obama an 85.2% chance of victory here, up a substantial 5.5% from Tuesday.

In OHIO, with 18 electoral votes, Obama's lead today settled at 2.3%. FiveThirtyEight currently gives Obama a 79.9% chance of victory here, up a substantial 6.6% from Tuesday.

In IOWA, with 6 electoral votes, Obama's lead has settled at 2.0%, up from 1.3% yesterday. FiveThirtyEight currently gives Obama a 78.4% chance of victory winning here, up a significant 4.5% from Tuesday.

In NEW HAMPSHIRE, with 4 electoral votes, Obama's lead has risen to 1.3%, up from 1.0% yesterday. FiveThirtyEight currently gives Obama a 75.2% chance of victory here, up a substantial 4.9% from Tuesday.

In COLORADO, with 9 electoral votes, Obama's lead has risen to 0.9%, up from 0.5% yesterday. FiveThirtyEight currently gives Obama a 62.6% chance of victory here, up a substantial 7.2% from Tuesday.

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

In VIRGINIA, with 13 electoral votes, Romney's lead has risen to 0.5%, up from Tuesday's tie. Interestingly, FiveThirtyEight increased Obama's chance of victory here to 61.3%, up a significant 3.1% from Tuesday.

In FLORIDA, with 29 electoral votes, Romney's lead has fallen to 1.2%, down slightly from Tuesday's 1.3%. FiveThirtyEight currently gives Romney a 58.8% chance of victory here, down a substantial 5.9% from Tuesday.

In NORTH CAROLINA, with 15 electoral votes, Romney's lead has risen to 3.8%, up from Tuesday's 3.0%. FiveThirtyEight continues to give Romney an 80.8% chance of victory here.

So...

In order for Obama to win re-election the least complex route would be through maintaining his current lead in the five toss-up states where his existing margins are widest (Wisconsin at 5.0%, Pennsylvania at 4.6%, Michigan at 3.0%, Nevada at 2.7%, and Ohio at 2.3%). Doing so would bring his electoral vote total on Election Day to 271. In this scenario, Obama could still surpass 270 while failing to hold Iowa, New Hampshire, and Colorado.

However, should Obama fail to hold Ohio, the loss could effectively be neutralized by any of the following combination of wins from states where FiveThirtyEight is currently forecasting Obama victories:

Path #1: Obama loses Ohio but wins the remaining three states where he currently leads, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Colorado resulting in 272 electoral votes.

Path #2: Obama loses Ohio but steals Virginia while also taking New Hampshire, Iowa, OR Colorado resulting in 270, 272, or 275 electoral votes, respectively.

Interestingly, with Romney's lead having diminished significantly in Florida over the past two weeks and with Hurricane Sandy forcefully highlighting the stark contrast between the candidates regarding the value and necessity if not the mere existence of FEMA in a state which has perhaps the greatest dependence on federal storm relief efforts in the nation, a 3rd path has now emerged which could provide for some interesting election night television:

Path #3: Obama comes from behind to win Florida. This scenario would require only that Obama win the three states in which his present leads are widest (Wisconsin at 5.0%, Pennsylvania at 4.6%, and Michigan at 3.0%), resulting in 276 electoral votes.

For Romney to unseat Obama, he not only would have to hold the three states in which he presently leads, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia bringing his electoral vote total to 248, but also steal victories in both Colorado where Obama's lead rose today to 0.9% and in Ohio where Obama's lead settled today at 2.3%. By so doing, Romney's electoral vote total would reach 275.

Should Romney fail to steal Ohio he could overcome this shortfall by capturing the four other states in which Obama's current leads are smallest (Colorado at 0.9%, New Hampshire at 1.3%, Iowa at 2.2%, and Nevada at 2.7%) resulting in an electoral vote total of 273.

FiveThirtyEight this morning estimates the chance of Election Day victory for each candidate as follows: Obama 79.0% (up from yesterday's 77.4%) and Romney 21.0% (down from yesterday's 22.6%).

FiveThirtyEight now also projects that on Election Day the final electoral tally will be as follows: Obama 300 (up from yesterday's 299) and Romney 238 (down from yesterday's 239).

Lastly, although it makes no difference in terms of the final result which can only be determined by the Electoral College, FiveThirtyEight currently predicts a national popular vote distribution on Election Day as follows: Obama 50.5% (up from yesterday's 50.4%) and Romney 48.6% (also up from yesterday's 48.5%).

With only 99 hours of campaigning left, the fog finally appears to be lifting on this one.

MASS is not voting for Romney . Telling is it not ?

Witch, there is absolutely no way to prove that any individual smoker who is dying of lung cancer is doing so because of smoking. The tobacco industry will bring out a 90 year old man who smokes and does not have lung cancer and offer it as proof that smoking does not cause lung cancer.The climate change deniars make similar arguments, pointing out that it has not been proven that greenhouse gasses are responsible for the warming trend over the past 50 years. Or that since it was cold last winter in Alaska, climate change is not happening. People can delude themselves into believing anything. That's why we have cults.

There are many objective facts that are derived from real measurements over a long period of time in many different scientific disciplines that support conclusion that earth is getting warmer and that CO2 emissions are pushing the rate of change forward. And there are scary things out there like methane hydrates in the ocean and greenhouse gasses curretnly locked in permafroat which, if released, could reduce the habitable portion of our planet by a very large percentage.

It deserves better than supid arguments cooked up by talk radio hosts and oil industry supporters.

An excellent Frontline program exploring the politics behind the global climate change denier movement.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

Of course the right dogmatically dismisses anything on PBS. The strategy appears to be if you don't agree with the message, shoot the messenger. Or at least cut off his funding.

Al Gore was first, way before Bloomberg. He deserves the credit for the first politician to really address this issue. Scientists have been sounding the warning for 20 or more years of course. Bloomberg is, to his credit, addressing this issue now, but the alarm bells have been ringing loud and clear especially in the last few years.

I'm not saying that climate change isn't a major issue; I think it is.

However, I don't believe in misrepresenting facts and the mayor has several elements of his argument flat wrong.

a) 100 yr floods and storms do happen somewhere every few years. The difference is that they don't happen every few years at the same place.

b) New York has seen worse hurricanes than this well over 100 years ago.

Winds from the storm exceeded 50 mph (80 km/h) at Atlantic City and New York, initially blowing from the northeast before shifting southwesterly. The hurricane wrought severe destruction, described by The New York Times on August 25 as "a m

ighty war of winds and a great tumbling of chimneys". A 30 ft (9.1 m) storm surge impacted the shore, demolishing structures. The storm has been cited as an example of a noteworthy New York City tropical cyclone. The cyclone is known for largely destroying Hog Island, a developed island that existed south of the modern-day Long Island coast. The island peaked in size during the 1870s at about 1 mi (1.6 km) long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_New_York_hurricane

Now the politicans are making climate change a line of BS for getting elected. They must bothe be in a hurt and worried. I think that they should strart over with different people running ones who think of the american people and not the money they can put in the pockets

Stand on any mountain top where hydrocarbons (coal, oil and gas) are being used and you can't see the mountain in front of you 10 miles away. Take away the hydrocarbons and it is all blue sky. Just use your eyes, no science necessary. The Republican plan to kill the EPA is dangerous for all living creatures, including humans.

Also, the pundit said that all metrics point toward climate change...

... I'd like to see the one about deaths. I'm pretty sure that deaths related to storms like this are way down from what they were 100 years ago by virtue of the fact that forecasting is so much better. We monitor the whole ocean now.

Can't go by property damage either. So many more people and property is located in harms way right next to the ocean all along the Eastern Seaboard. There is a population density effect.

Again, not to say that Climate change ins't a major issue that needs addressing... but nothing makes people lose interest in an environmental issue faster than misrepresenting it (i.e. acid rain - which has serious environmental effects now, but not they types of issues reported 25 years ago).

Yet another example that ignoring science gets people killed.

Not like we never heard the old "Chicken Little" taunt before when we tried to warn them.

And that's exactly what we heard.

Why does this article not make any mention of the generally accepted theory that this hurricane season was due to a lack of El Nino? Another example of hyped-up, suggestive media story.

Doesn't global warming predict significantly LESS but much stronger hurricanes each season? People stating the increased quantity of hurricanes as "proof" of global warming are completely contradicting what the research suggests.

"Global Warming" theories are not taken seriously when people try to link every weather-related event to it without a burden of proof.

This is just bad speculative science.

@John Doe

You can't point at any individual event and say global warming caused this. That's not scientific. It could be an outlier for all we know. But what we can see is an increasing trend of storms of this nature. That warmer seas have a tendency to create more energetic storms. That global temperatures are rising over the long term and not cherry picking short terms trends that show cooling while ignoring the rest of the trendline. You can't single out any data point and say "Hey look it's proof!" science doesn't work like that.

Before people and politicians (which get a separate category) start going overboard in demonstrating their innumeracy regarding the statistics of meteorological events, I offer the following two graphs.

The problem is that as people embedded within the system at this particular point in time, it is difficult for most people to remove their intuition or feelings on the matter and just look at that numbers. During your memory of the short life that people have on this planet, the event is significant to you, especially if you lived there. But in terms of mathematics and geological time, the event is a normal event where in this case, a set of perfect conditions came together...Hurricane Sandy, the cold jet stream (which is normal to be where it is at) and the fact that the hurricane made landfall during the full moon during which are some of the highest tides that you get during the month.

Since the highest tidal RANGE (difference between highest high tides and lowest low tides tide) is around both new and full moons, had the Hurricane made landfall around 6 hours later, you would have had some of the lowest tides for which the full moon is also responsible for and the damage from flooding would not have been as bad. The moon, although a major influence on meteorological and climate conditions here on Earth, is outside the system. It is really difficult to read when some people seem to think that people have had some effect on the moon as well so as to influence the moon to somehow work together with a hurricane to make the storm worse. There is no science behind any climate change causing the full moon, that was just statistics in terms of the probability that a hurricane makes landfall exactly at the time of high tide and the full moon.

A plot of all hurricane tracks in the last 165 years (1851-2006) that formed in September reveals an eastern coast and gulf of the United States that is fully covered from Rhode Island to Texas. If you plot a probability distribution for landfall, you find that most likely some areas are more likely to be hit than others, but all areas are within the realms of normal statistics without being an outlier or something that has 'never happened".

Plot of all hurricane tracks in the last 165 years (1851-2006) that formed in September

http://www.anahuactexasindependence.com/IKE_DrJeffMasters_Sept08_files/september16.gif

Now, I know the storm happened late October but in a quick search of Google, this is what came up. I would have to get the data for October and plot it myself unless anyone knows of a graph online that has all tracks (with distributions).

A related graph (with unfortunately no distinct labeling is here):

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0304387810001331-gr2.jpg

You can see that for people that experienced the storm, Hurricane Sandy is significant. But, for math and science, the storm was entirely expected at some point in the geological history of this planet. In fact, there was an article on this site just a few days ago that talked about how scientists in 2006 were warning about a 12 ft. storm surge in New York but nobody listened (Sandy was over 13 ft.). And that is just how it is...because scientists are sometimes only recognized after the fact.

@witchruner;

My problem is that they want to control what I do as a result of their beliefs. In that regard, they are not dissimilar to the Muslim fanatics

? You men preserve the environment sir? What or how will they try to control you ? Who are they?

@jrs;

a set of perfect conditions came together...

Yes and I see you mention the point of the 6hr difference, and the difference of the impacts. To blame this soley on climate change, or even partly would not be a fair assumption, and hard to prove. This(climate change) will be an argument for the ages,(already is really) the problem will be proof of whether it is natural or man made, maybe both.

They were going to tax cow farmers a methane tax.lol

Farmers so far are turning their noses up at the notion, which they contend is a possible consequence of an Environmental Protection Agency report after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases amount to air pollution. Livestock emit methane, a key greenhouse gas tied to global warming.

"This is one of the most ridiculous things the federal government has tried to do," said Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, an outspoken opponent of the fees.

I guess I am giving witchrunner an example, but this is funny, article from 2008.

Lived on the Gulf coast my entire life. These hurricanes have been coming through and devastating the landscape for decades.

Here, read about this one that happened in 1900. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane

Was that due to global warming?

Do you know the what this thing is capable of doing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer ?

According to the computer scientist on an NPR program, it can run weather models much more accurately. Accurate enough to show the emergence of a hurricane in a model where none would have appeared before. That is a statement about the current models being used.

I really get a laugh at the weathermen turning this everyday category 1 hurricane into a "super storm" just because of it's geographical extent. As far as the most intense storms every, Sandy doesn't come close to making the list.

@hs

Considering the other "argument" that climate change will lead to fewer but more violent storms, the fact that Sandy was indeed only a Category 1 hurricane is overlooked. The damage came from storm surge at the highest high tide during a full moon.

Had Sandy been a Category 4 or 5 hurricane (which a warming atmosphere would be expected to generate because latent heat is what drives hurricanes), the damage would have been much much worse.

When you look at all the hurricane tracks over the last 165 years (my post above), you find that it was only a matter of time and Sandy just happened to pick New York and New Jersey's number during a coincidental full moon.

Amazing all the misinformation from both sides.

This hurricane cannot directly be blamed on Climate Change, although there still maybe a correlation it's indirect at best.

BUT, Climate Change is real and all evidence points to humans causing most of it. And if the REAL EXPERTS are correct this is just the beginning.

Think of it this way. This is the second massive storm to hit the East Coast two years running. And by all accounts in 5 days we'll have a Noreaster next.

Something is out of whack...

Deny all you want, it won't change reality.

@Jeff;

Climate Change is real and all evidence points to humans causing most of it.

No doubt we emmitt things that are not beneficial to the atmosphere, but to say with definity that we are the cause of "most" of it is ignorant. The earth naturally puts out methane from the deepest oceans to the farthest inlnands of continents, volcanoes.

Yes climate change is real it changes everyday sir, I believe mother nature more than man controls this.

http://www.internationalprofs.org/iesc/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117&Itemid=86

I'm not going to argue with deniers. I am sick of it and they are too dumb or blind to even convince.

You want to argue yell into a mirror.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/9

I think all short sighted people should be put on an island and left to fend for themselves.

The climate needs to remain warm unless you want mile thick ice sheets crushing NY instead of ten feet of water getting it wet. Human interference has kept the global temperatures warmer. It's keeping things from getting colder. When the next glaciation cycle hits, and it will, if the planet isn't warmer billions will starve because there will be a 10,000+ year drought.

But that's ok. Let's all worry about some idiots who want the climate to revert to what it was. Then we can all freeze our butts off.

kraussk

You are listening to outdated conspiracy theories. There has been independent examination of those climate change e-mails (at least two different groups) and they have come to the conclusion that there was no fudging of the data, just the normal conversations scientists would have as they grappled with whether climate change was real or not.

I suppose you aren't vaccinating your kids because of that one paper that was written linking vaccinations with autism that has been refuted (and the original paper withdrawn) many times.

Science is self correcting, bad ideas and bad conclusions don't stay bad forever, but it seems for some people once it is written it must be an extension of God's word and can never change.

Please try to educate yourself and quote the current information, not something that was said once. The Earth is a sphere you know, it's no longer flat.

witch - During the 60's and 70's high sulfur coal was used across the globe. The downside was that it produced high amounts sulfur dioxide which mixed with water vapor to create sulfuric acid, better known as acid rain. Sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid reflect sunlight, which reduces the amount of energy heating the atmosphere. See chart: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.planetseed.com/files/uploadedimages/Science/Earth_Science/Global_Climate_Change_and_Energy/global_temp3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.planetseed.com/global-climate-change-and-energy&h=462&w=600&sz=45&tbnid=IlKLrzQDqWg1lM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=117&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dglobal%2Btemperature%2Bhistory%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=global+temperature+history&usg=__2Rrski2-7aIGFsWkEHDmACpLWZs=&docid=BbAiD8stO7bWJM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tNqTUK_kJ-jD0AGN04CQDg&ved=0CCwQ9QEwAg&dur=672

In the late 70's and early 80's, there are new regulations requiring power plants to install scrubbers to remove most of the sulfur dioxide. Coincidently, the warming trend accelerated from the early 80's to now. I can still remember the paint coming off of cars hoods and tops due to the acid rain from the local power plant and the news showing the all of the dying trees in the northeastern US.

And with CO2, yes, we and every other oxygen breathing animal exhales it and plants covert it back to oxygen. That is good whenever it is in eqilibrium, when it is not, it effects us. I'm sure youo are aware of committing suicide by sitting in a running car in a garage with the doors closed. It is the CO and CO2 that kills the person.

What is truly a shame is that we reduced to SO2 emissions and eliminated acid rain, we reduced flourocarbons and the ozone layer came back. There is no reason why we can't do the same for CO2 emissions. It is simply a lack of will by politicians because big oil and coal don't want to pay yfor the technology.

For those that compare the Global Warming debate and the debate on smoking, note that THESE ARE SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE. Not just "like" them, they ARE THEM.

97% of climate scientists believe that the globe is WARMING and it is caused by human activity.

Of the remaining 3%, 97% are funded by fossil fuel interests.

The remaining 3% of the 3% are just plain NUTS!

Massachusetts is not suffering from Romnesia. They have Obama up by over 30 points! I am still trying to figure out how he could have been such a great governor, yet the only state that ever got impacted by Wrongme is running away from him like that.

Possibly, they have seen Romney; they know him; they want no part of him ever again????

You figure it out.

I'm not going to argue with deniers

Well your no fun.lol

urbnprsn: You can be forgiven for your ignorance as you apparently are not that old. The fact is that in the late 1960s and through the 1970s the mantra was "global cooling" which means man-made global cooling. This was pushed by the "scientists" and the far left.

Yes, because the planet WAS globally cooling. The scientists and the far left did not correctly predict the huge boom in cars and other source of emissions which has now caused and continues to cause global warming.

From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120618152733.htm:-

The globally-averaged temperature for May 2012 marked the second warmest May since record keeping began in 1880. May 2012 also marks the 36th consecutive May and 327th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average.

Most areas of the world experienced much warmer-than-average monthly temperatures, including nearly all of Europe, Asia, northern Africa, most of North America and southern Greenland. Only Australia, Alaska and parts of the western U.S.-Canadian border region were notably cooler than average.

Also, from http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/08/13182298-july-is-hottest-month-on-record-drought-expands-to-63-percent-of-united-states?lite :-

July marked the hottest month on record for the contiguous United States

Beyond that:-

They have yet to be able to make any predictions, as real science can do, to predict what will happen.

They don't have to make any predictions any more. Global warming is a fact, it has already happened. This is not a prediction. This is established fact.

You talk about CO2 as if it is an evil thing. The fact is we exhale CO2, so it isn't bad, it is necessary. CO2 is also necessary to feed plant life. The alarmists say that ever since the industrial revolution began, because of humans being evil and put more CO2 into the air, that the CO2 levels have been constantly rising. Now, I may not be the brightest bulb in the box, but it seems to me that if CO2 is the cause of global warming then when the CO2 levels were rising during the 1940s through 1970s, then the temperatures should have been rising.

They predicted that the planet would warm if we kept on putting out more carbon dioxide into the air. You yourself have pointed out a global cooling trend which was counteracted by this global warming.

There is no science behind any climate change causing the full moon, that was just statistics in terms of the probability that a hurricane makes landfall exactly at the time of high tide and the full moon.

Please note my previous comment pointing out that we are in a global warming trend. Can you tell me what happens to a body of water when you heat it?

Yes, your point is correct that a low tide would have counteracted the rise of the ocean caused by global warning, and the storm would have not been as destructive. Are you seriously going to try to pretend that we should now only expect storms during low tide?

The earth is warming. The oceans are rising because the water in them is hotter. This means that we can now expect more and more flooding in coastal cities. It's as simple as that. No amount of arguing and making fun of climate science and climate scientists is going to change this fact.

@John Doe

Wow, thank you for agreeing with me. So you can't say this one storm is "proof" that Al-Gore is right.

Yes on that particular point I was agreeing with you with the following logic I wasn't. So you do believe in climate change and not "Global Warming." Well that's great you're halfway there.

So do you not believe in the greenhouse effect? Or is it that you don't think greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising? Or something else? Why do you not think humans are not causing global warming?

Well said. Republican leadership are denialists partly because they are in the pocket of the energy business (coal and oil and shale gas). It looks to me like maybe the paradigm is shifting with hurricane Sandy. Finally.... A day late and a dollar short, or more like a decade late and many dollars short.

Connect the dots. The Koch Brothers are one of the primary funders of the Tea Party. The Tea Party is one mass of Global Warming deniers. The Tea Party Candidates are driving out the moderate GOP members that supported taking action against Global Warming.

It is all hidden under the Tea Party's facade of small government and personal freedom, but that is the driver.

GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS. IF YOU CAN'T VOTE FOR THEM, YOU CAN'T GIVE THEM MONEY. THAT MEANS YOU, CORPORATIONS!

The republicans are in a difficult position. They can't be in favor of addressing the (rather obvious!) effects of climate change when they are in the pockets of the ones doing it.

No more tax breaks for oil companies. They have enjoyed record profits for the last ten or fifteen years in a row. Somehow, the blame is on Obama for high gas prices. He is the only one calling for removing tax breaks for big oil. How messed up is that????

Not communists but luddites.

Tammy, where is it shown scientists manipulated data? I'm aware of the one scandal surrounding some emails in Europe in 2009, but that was thoroughly investigated and the effects on the final results shown to be negligible.

Of course climate change has happened before. It's continually changing. Most change has been gradual in nature and many species have adapted. In those cases where the change was rapid due to an asteroid impact or the sudden release of methane deposits, the results were catastrophic.

Since we haven't had a climate-changing event happen in the past few millennia, the obvious conclusion is that we are what's causing the vastly-accelerated changes we've been seeing in recent decades. If the changes were slow and subtle as is normal for our planet, we could adapt as Earth's species always have, but they're not. We stand to lose a very great deal by assuming there's nothing we can do about it.

Louie Bee: I don't know. Did people actively hate Luddites with the same irrational hatred they show towards climate deniers? It's almost pathological.

"Weather models claiming that man is responsible are tainted with manipulated data"

BULL. That's an absoute lie.

"similar changes that are taking place on Mars and Saturn"

Also not true.

Tammy: The scientists were not caught manipulating the data. The famous Climategate emails were discussing how they were tuning their models to better reflect known outcomes from past data, and apply those adjustments to future climate predictions

This is done all the time in creating complex mathematical models. You input climate data from the past, say 60 years ago, and see what outcome the model predicts for the climate 10 years ago. Since the climate of 10 years ago is known from actual experience, they can see how well the predicted results from the model match the actual, and then adjust the model to get the best fit. Once the model is predicting accurately the climate of the 2000's from 1950's data, we can be more confident that its predictions of 50 years in the future based on current data are accurate.

Of course no on can prove that a prediction of the future is accurate until the future occurs, but you can show that predictions carried forward using past data agree with past outcomes.

Between 1979 and 2011 carbon dioxide increased 54.8ppm. For a Century that is 171.25ppm. In 1998 the concentration was 365ppm. At the current growth rate by 2098 that would be 536.25ppm. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change formula, d(P/A)=5.35ln(536.25/365)=2.0581617wpsm Differentiating the Stefan-Boltzmann equation at 287.15 degrees Kelvin, (14 degrees Celsius), yields dT=0.186205*d(P/A). dT=0.186205*(2.0581617)=0.3832399 degrees Celsius per Century. The IPCC predicted increases of 1.4 degrees Celsius and 5.8 degrees Celsius. These are deliberate and gross overestimates of 3.65 and 15.13 times. Al Gore over estimated 13.0 times. These and the scientific organizations Chance 11 listed above (Dan Lashof's Blog at SWiTCHBOARD.nrdc.org) should be disbanded for their participation in perpetrating the lie that there was a scientific basis for these outrageous predictions. The Skeptics and Deniers knew this from the beginning but the use of Scientific Authority by these Organizations to marginalize them and suppress their voices goes to the very heart of the vital role they are supposed to perform by informing the electorate with the information they need to successfully participate in America's Experiment of Self Government by the People. Cheap Abundant Energy Is Indispensable for Living the American Dream. The sole purpose of CAGW was to deceive the American People into demanding Legislation detrimental to their own well-being. Human beings are fragile and living is dangerous and hard. Nature can take care of herself. Natural Disasters are a fact of life. A Nation's ability to deal with these National Disasters is dependent on the Level of Economic Development. The most Indispensable Resource is Cheap Abundant Energy. In 1973 the Cost of Producing a Barrel of Oil was $2.00. In the Middle East the cost was $0.20. In 2012 dollars the Cost is $10.00. My whole adult life Governments have been trying to make Oil, (and all of the other Abundant and Affordable Energy Resources), Scarce and Expensive. I can't imagine any sane American being against $1.50 a gallon price for gasoline or fuel oil. Yet Mayor Bloomberg's message is that humans caused Sandy and we deserved it and he hopes the death and property damage and business loss puts an exclamation point on his message. But he fails to mention that the main inconvenience is the power outages and he should be saying if you support Radical Environmental Public Policies this is what your future is going to look like. In addition he fails to mention that how well we dealt with the emergency and how well we will recover is because we are Economically Developed and the role that our Enormous Use of Energy will play.

In the late 1970's I wrote the Economic Contentions for the Environmental Impact Statement for Atlantic County against a Floating Nuclear Power to be sited 3 miles of off the Coast of Brigantine New Jersey. The Marine Hydrologist told me that a Barrier Island like Brigantine would be washed away by a 100 year storm. He said that is was insane for anybody to build a house there. Yet houses were built and rebuilt after storms because they could buy Federal Flood Insurance for $80 a year. This is an example of how costly perverse government public policies can be. The addition of carbon dioxide in the air because of human activity had nothing to do with Sandy Period! Every day seven thousand people die in America. That only 84 people died in a storm as extensive as Sandy is a testament to the advantages of living in an Advanced Economically Developed Civilization. And make no mistake about it the Sine Qua Non of that Level of Development is Cheap Abundant Energy. How anybody can twist the message of how well the North East Region of America Emerged from the Natural Disaster Sandy to We Need Much Less Energy at Much Higher Prices from Alternative Sources is logically impossible. We have lived with Radical Environmental De-Development Government Policy since Earth Day in 1970. They are terrorizing Americans with predictions of future air temperatures that are exaggerated 13 to 15 times. Between 1994 and 2012 the life expectancy in South Africa has fallen from 62 years old to 50 years old. I hope that Americans do not have to live through a similar tragedy before the Credibility of the Perpetrators of the Scientific Based Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Lie are Exposed. I want you to think about how much Constitutionally Guaranteed Liberty we have lost since 1919. It required a Constitutional Amendment for the Federal Government to outlaw alcohol. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Carbon Dioxide is a toxic substance that the Federal Government can regulate by completely banning the burning of any fossil fuel including coal, oil, gasoline, wood, biomass, alcohol, natural gas, diesel, jet fuel, propane, etc.... And this is based upon a mere regulation not a Federal Statute passed by Congress and signed into Law. In 2012 alone EPA Regulations Forced 14% of Americas Coal Fired Electrical Generating Capacity Off Line with Nothing to Replace It. In order for America to Survive as we know it we have to vote any politician, (Federal, State or Local) out of office who plans to use the present regulatory scheme, (this includes taxes and subsidies to alternatives) to legally limit the production or consumption of fossil fuels. Once we find out that the free market can provide all of the Fossil Fuel Energy we could possibly ever want at the ten dollar a barrel equivalent price, the American Public will see how Economically Unattractive the Alternative Energy Sources really are. During Carter the price of gasoline was $1.50 per gallon. There were shortages and rationing. Under President Reagan in 1986 the price was $0.65 a gallon and $0.30 of that was Federal and State Tax. I am not exaggerating the damage that the heavy hand of government has done to America since 1970. I have been studying Economics for 50 years and there certainly are essential roles for governments. But every shortcoming that has ever been blamed on free-market capitalism was actually a failure of the governments to perform their legitimate roles. Let us start listening to Public Opinion Makers and Voting for Politicians who know what those legitimate roles are. Economics is a Moral Science. Once you start thinking morally and Constitutionally everything starts to fall into place. I will give just one example of how the Federal Government can morally withdraw from the Social Security Ponzi Scheme. Pay back over a few years in inflation adjusted dollars everything somebody has paid in. Just because I paid in one dollar does not give me a 10 dollar moral claim on somebody else's wealth. And if we don't, as Abraham Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural Address, "Woe unto the world because of offenses...." "It may seem strange that any man should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces." A lot of Americans are already experiencing that woe but it is going to get a lot worse unless we become better stewards of the Legacy Our Founding Fathers Left us in The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.

AG99...rapid changes also occur from volcanic eruptions. When Tambora erupted in the early 1800's, it caused the year without summer. It snowed in New York in June and there were world-wide crop failures that summer.

Tambora is a picnic compared to what the super volcano like the one at Yellowstone can do. The last time it erupted, there was volcanic dust an estimated 1 foot deep in the Texas panhandle. It could easily cause decades and perhaps centuries of climate devastation.

john warner...you have a history and background many of the younger generation cannot appreciate, let alone understand.

In the late 1970's I wrote the Economic Contentions for the Environmental Impact Statement for Atlantic County against a Floating Nuclear Power to be sited 3 miles of off the Coast of Brigantine New Jersey. The Marine Hydrologist told me that a Barrier Island like Brigantine would be washed away by a 100 year storm. He said that it was insane for anybody to build a house there. Yet houses were built and rebuilt after storms because they could buy Federal Flood Insurance for $80 a year. This is an example of how costly perverse government public policies can be. The addition of carbon dioxide in the air because of human activity had nothing to do with Sandy Period! Every day seven thousand people die in America. That only 84 people died in a storm as extensive as Sandy is a testament to the advantages of living in an Advanced Economically Developed Civilization. And make no mistake about it the Sine Qua Non of that Level of Development is Cheap Abundant Energy. How anybody can twist the message of how well the North East Region of America Emerged from the Natural Disaster Sandy to We Need Much Less Energy at Much Higher Prices from Alternative Sources is logically impossible. We have lived with Radical Environmental De-Development Government Policy since Earth Day in 1970. They are terrorizing Americans with predictions of future air temperatures that are exaggerated 13 to 15 times. Between 1994 and 2012 the life expectancy in South Africa has fallen from 62 years old to 50 years old. I hope that Americans do not have to live through a similar tragedy before the Credibility of the Perpetrators of the Scientific Based Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Lie are Exposed. I want you to think about how much Constitutionally Guaranteed Liberty we have lost since 1919. It required a Constitutional Amendment for the Federal Government to outlaw alcohol. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Carbon Dioxide is a toxic substance that the Federal Government can regulate by completely banning the burning of any fossil fuel including coal, oil, gasoline, wood, biomass, alcohol, natural gas, diesel, jet fuel, propane, etc.... And this is based upon a mere regulation not a Federal Statute passed by Congress and signed into Law. In 2012 alone EPA Regulations Forced 14% of Americas Coal Fired Electrical Generating Capacity Off Line with Nothing to Replace It. In order for America to Survive as we know it we have to vote any politician, (Federal, State or Local) out of office who plans to use the present regulatory scheme, (this includes taxes and subsidies to alternatives) to legally limit the production or consumption of fossil fuels. Once we find out that the free market can provide all of the Fossil Fuel Energy we could possibly ever want at the ten dollar a barrel equivalent price, the American Public will see how Economically Unattractive the Alternative Energy Sources really are. During Carter the price of gasoline was $1.50 per gallon. There were shortages and rationing. Under President Reagan in 1986 the price was $0.65 a gallon and $0.30 of that was Federal and State Tax. I am not exaggerating the damage that the heavy hand of government has done to America since 1970. I have been studying Economics for 50 years and there certainly are essential roles for governments. But every shortcoming that has ever been blamed on free-market capitalism was actually a failure of the governments to perform their legitimate roles. Let us start listening to Public Opinion Makers and Voting for Politicians who know what those legitimate roles are. Economics is a Moral Science. Once you start thinking morally and Constitutionally everything starts to fall into place. I will give just one example of how the Federal Government can morally withdraw from the Social Security Ponzi Scheme. Pay back over a few years in inflation adjusted dollars everything somebody has paid in. Just because I paid in one dollar does not give me a 10 dollar moral claim on somebody else's wealth. And if we don't, as Abraham Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural Address, "Woe unto the world because of offenses...." "It may seem strange that any man should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces." A lot of Americans are already experiencing that woe but it is going to get a lot worse unless we become better stewards of the Legacy Our Founding Fathers Left us in The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights.

The addition of carbon dioxide in the air because of human activity had nothing to do with Sandy Period!

If you were a scientist, you would realize how it is impossible to make a statement such as this.

Everyone agrees that climate change is happening, what they disagree on is what is causing it. Is it a normal cycle or not? By watching what is happening on other planets in this system, they are learning that perhaps man is not as significant a contributor to the change as some of the politically backed scientists would have many believe.

No, Tammy, they are not learning that. I know the climate denier talking points say so, but we have no clear data on climate trends on other planets, and it wouldn't matter much if we did. They have different atmopsheres and react differently, and besides we can measure the output of the sun directly, so we don;t have to guess by looking at other planets. Repeated studies have shown the the sun is not responsbile for the bulk of the resent climate trends.

Science, is theory. One can predict certain outcomes based on knowns and build scientific models to create a desired outcome but drop a mole of some foreign substance in the mix and the whole outcome changes. That is why global warming and pollution theories are inaccurate. Climate Change was anticipated to occur in this point in time for over 60 years. The big thing about it is, people like AL Gore using it to scam the gullible and the Democratic and Socalist parties using it as scare tactics to further their agenda.

If you are so afraid of Global Warming & Climate Change, Robert and Jock, when you roll over in the morning, don't fart.

STAND DOWN, AMERICA!!

NObama 2012!!!

Obamanos!! Hispanics get back, Islam step in front, our families won't forget!

"The big thing about it is, people like AL Gore using it to scam the gullible and the Democratic and Socalist parties using it as scare tactics to further their agenda."

Don't forget the tens of millions Gore made circling the globe, all the while spewing out tons of CO2, to sell this scam. Ironic, now he's one of those despised, evil rich people.

Tammy, it is difficult enough for Earth climatologists to model what is going on with our own planet. Making comparisons to Mars or Venus is ludicrous. Earth has about 390 ppm CO2. Mars has 953,000 ppm; Venus 965,000 ppm. Mars has only 1% of Earth's atmospheric pressure and receives about half the photons we do. Despite the overwhelming concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere, its climatic temperature is more like Antarctica. Venus' atmospheric pressure is almost 92 times that of Earth and receives significantly more photons. Its surface temperature is 860 degrees F. Let's stick with the planet we know best--Earth.

The big thing about it is, people like AL Gore using it to scam the gullible and the Democratic and Socalist parties using it as scare tactics to further their agenda.

Yea...And there's nothing happening in New York. No one died, and the city did not undergo massive flooding. It's all a hoax caused by Al Gore and the weak-minded who believed his lies. Don't believe what you see on TV!

paul by your logic there is no gravity your computer runs on magic so on and so forth.

Raum & Neko, Sheep keep swallowing that crap Al will be up there in a week or 2 selling you carbon credits, so it won't happen again. LOL Mayor Dumberg had youse people stop drinking Big Gulp's because youse was to fat and causing New York to sink. That theory is as sound as global warming.

There is no gravity? Isn't that why magic carpets fly? My computer doesn't run on "so on & so forth" it is magic, because it was created by the government and I am chating with you on Al Gore's internet. Now isn't that magic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Jersey_hurricanes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_England_hurricanes

And some additional info:

Many coastal cities and towns slammed by Hurricane Sandy have done little to protect themselves from flood damage, ignoring federal incentives even as they have been flooded repeatedly, a USA TODAY analysis of federal records shows.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/31/flood-prevention-hurricane-sandy-communities-unprepared/1672465/

Read the article. Bloomberg was careful to note that this particular storm may or may not be blamed on climate change, but his point was that it doesn't matter. The problem is still real.

2 hurricanes in 2 years strike NYC. Most hurricanes are 2-3 hundred miles in diameter while this latest storm was over 800 miles across. NYC subways have NEVER been flooded like this. Tunnels have never been flooded like this.

Those tunnels were flooded when they were being built !

New York 1893

Winds from the storm exceeded 50 mph (80 km/h) at Atlantic City and New York, initially blowing from the northeast before shifting southwesterly. The hurricane wrought severe destruction, described by The New York Times on August 25 as "a m

ighty war of winds and a great tumbling of chimneys". A 30 ft (9.1 m) storm surge impacted the shore, demolishing structures. The storm has been cited as an example of a noteworthy New York City tropical cyclone. The cyclone is known for largely destroying Hog Island, a developed island that existed south of the modern-day Long Island coast. The island peaked in size during the 1870s at about 1 mi (1.6 km) long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_New_York_hurricane

No single storm or even a whole year of weather events can prove or disprove climate change. However, Sandy demonstrates the increased damage that will occur from even moderate intensity storms if the level of the oceans increases due to climate change.

In the case of Sandy, the sea level rise was due to the storm arriving at the peak monthly high tide, along with the merge into a winter storm coming from the west at the same time. If sea level rises as predicted from the melting of land-based ice, coastal devastation like this would become normal for every storm.

Robert... the other half of the equation is that we've permitted development _everywhere— along the coast. Knowing that storms like this happen.

Bear in mind that it is also a fact that because of ice melt sea levels are predicted to rise at least five feet in the next 15 years! This means that a lot of coastal developed areas.(including New York) have NO future! New York would have to become like New Orleans, Hoboken is already beneath sea level! Washington D.C. is built on swamp land and if this storm had waded ashore in the Delmarva peninsula area it would have been underwater! We definitely need to wise up and realize that things are changing and ignoring the "writing on the wall" is NOT the answer or the solution! Neither is it prudent politics!

guy...do you have any idea how short human weather records are for America? No one has any idea if a larger storm has ever hit the east coast.

Sandy grew so large because it moved slow and there were no other weather systems to mute it's growth geographically. It was only a category 1 hurricane with a small storm surge.

Sandy grew so large because it moved slow and there were no other weather systems to mute it's growth geographically. It was only a category 1 hurricane with a small storm surge.

Yes. Imagine what would have happened if Sandy had been a higher category hurricane.

Unfortunately, though, we don't need to imagine. We only need to wait. It will happen again.

Bear in mind that it is also a fact that because of ice melt sea levels are predicted to rise at least five feet in the next 15 years!

It's not just ice melt. Keep in mind, when water is heated, it expands. Even if there was no ice melt, the oceans would still rise due to global warming. It's physics. As guaranteed as you can get.

You cant pay your way out of this... This has never been about money. Except for certain industries that would be affected if carbon becomes the enemy. Like big oil.

Its going to take dramatic change in lifestyle and how we do things to stop the damage. We need to stop using cars, at least for private vehicles. Gas should be used only when absolutely necessary. Not only would this cut emissions, it would lengthen how long oil reserves last. Its not an infinite resource. Mass transit, horse and buggy, electric. The convenience of the world is going to change, thats why the problem is being avoided at all costs. Industry also must change, and thats going to cost some people serious coin. But damaging the environment is an unacceptable cost of doing business..

Yeeessss ban cars.... that's a solution that will happen.

No solution? What about cap-and-trade? The Progressives sucked it up and ACCEPTED the GOP solution THEN the GOP backed off. Just like health care. We progressives accept the GOP's WATERED DOWN, MISERABLE HALF-BAKED SOLUTION then the GOP backs away and calls it a crazy liberal solution. The REAL SOLUTION is a CARBON TAX. A DOLLAR A POUND sounds good to me. We who have put SOLAR PANELS on our roofs and ride ELECTRIC BIKES to work are sick and tired of the MISERABLE JERKS that INSIST on driving ALONE in HUGE SUV's then WHINING ABOUT GAS PRICES. YOU SUCK! I hope we can get gas up to $10.00 a gallon where it SHOULD BE!

Get real The GOP is just a bunch of SHILLS for their corporate overlords. Anyone that isn't rich and votes for the GOP is like a JEW voting for a NAZI. And the white, low income jerks are eating it up! In ANOTHER move stolen from the NAZI'S, the GOP is now using immigrants and people with a different religions (generally Muslims, not the crazy LDS cult that MITTENS belongs to) as SCAPEGOATS. Blame the victim! We need a CORPORATE DEATH PENALTY and a series of TREASON TRIALS against the KOCH BROTHERS and their ilk that are KILLING US ALL!

That's nice pal, how does one get to work when work is 25 miles away, three counties away, with no viable mass transit and none in the offing during one's working career?

Not everyone lives in a big city,

The Chevy Volt is a good idea, if they drooped the price a bit

Lunky true not all live in big cities but the bulk of the worlds population does live in big cities.

Whoever controls the oil, controls how its used..

Americans use 25% of the world's oil with only 4% of the world's population, and 18 times the number of natural resources per capita as a person in SE Asia. We need to fix our own house before we start pointing fingers across the Pacific.

Excellent comments.....I hope you're correct about conservatives.

A lot of green technology is on the cusp of paying for itself, but part of the problem is the capitol investment required to implement them.

We should invest in green technology if only to become energy independent.

Gabriel: Actually there was considerable doubt about whether the climate was warming, expressed by the conservative types until just a few years ago. When it became obvious beyond a doubt that warming was real, they switched their tune to - It's all part of natural cycles.

Mike, what's wierd is that people don't seem to think that spending $billions rebuilding after these warming-enhanced storms is a bad thing, but spending $billions (via a carbon tax and building a clean energy economy) and avoiding the necessity of rebuilding is a descent into communism and the end of human liberty and all things good about America.

You entirely miss the point about global warming...Do you understand the difference between climate and weather?One bad storm doesn't indicate global warming.But I'm sure you know that????

Popo, you're sort of close about the storm. Sandy was a hurricane. There was a deep low pressure area to the west and a high pressure area (not a high front) to the east. The deep low would have turned into a nor'easter anyway, but with Sandy arriving at just the right time, the two combined into the super storm. There are 2 main connections to global warming. First, the gulf stream is running warmer due to global warming. Second, the sea level is higher due to global warming. The warmth of the gulf stream helped Sandy to keep her strength. The higher sea level made the flooding worse. This is not going to change for the better. The warming will continue, the seas will rise, and the damage from these storms will get worse and happen more frequently. And if we do nothing to curb global warming it will get worse faster. If we, globally, bring our CO2 emissions back to something resembling balance with earth's capacity to absorb, eventually the earth may even cool back down to where it is now.

Regarding spending $1 trillion on high speed rail ... we wasted $2 trillion chasing non existend WMD in Iraq and republicans all jumped on board. Noone dared call it a waste. and the $2 trillion got us nothing but heartache (and a lot of new milliionairs who profted from their connections with Bush/Cheney). Obama wants to spend $1 trillion building a high speed rail system that will transform our transportation system and generate thousands of jobs at home in the process.

Do you think global warming is a "hoax"?Forget about the C&T issue for a moment...

With just a little more effort you could learn what the top scientists are actually saying -- and the vast majority are confident that man-made climate change is real.

The only scientist who speak out against global warming, either work for or paid consultants to the fossil fuel industries..

Bill CT, people like Robert Bruce Allen are too lazy to find out what top scientists are saying. They just repeat the crap they hear on the radio and think that they are smart. Bill probably can't name a single "cap and trade organization", and if he could, he would have no clue how they work because he's too lazy to find out.

So called skeptics will tell you about large lists of scientists who are skeptical of AGW. Every one of those lists is padded and laughable.

Senator Inhofe's list of 413 skeptics included:
20 economists
49 who are retired
44 television weathermen
70 scientists with no expertise in climate study
84 scientists who are either connected with the oil industry or are paid by it.
Scientists who were included against their will, and who agree with the IPCC

TV weathermen are NOT climate scientists. About half of them aren't even meteorologists, and most that are meteorologists only hold bachelor degrees.

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

Then there is the phony Oregon Petition, supposedly signed by 31,000 scientists who disagree with AGW theory. In reality, their only requirement for inclusion on this list was a bachelor degree in any field of science or engineering. Absurd, but here are the results.

Lets see how their numbers compare with the general population of scientists, using their own parameters for inclusion.

Total number of scientists in the United States 12,944,000
Number of scientists who signed the Oregon petition 31,486
or 0.24% of the total

Thats right, the Oregon Petition signers are less than one quarter of one percent of the number of scientists in the U.S., which isn't much to brag about. Being generous, maybe 150 are actually climate scientists. which is 0.3% of the 50,000 members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in Europe and the U.S.

99.9% of the Oregon Petition signitories are not climate scientists.

You will find large numbers of petroleum geologists and petroleum engineers on these lists.

With a little bit of effort one can learn that Robert Bruce Allen's comment is complete bullsh#t

9 out of 10 leading skeptical climate scientists are linked to Exxon

The Carbon Brief (TCB) has a nice analysis on the not-very-startling coincidence that at least nine of the top 10 'skeptical' 'scientists' who are publishing on climate change have direct links to Exxon.

But the experts ARE sharing it with the world. The top science academies repeatedly beg people to pay attention. We know this has nothing to do with ice age warming, and we know most of it is cause by us. They are shouting it from the rooftops. What more do you want?

"has been said to produce more carbon dioxide than all the automobiles on the earth combined have produced since their invention"

It has been said, but it still an easily disproven lie. Human industrial emissions produce over 100 times the greenhouse gasses as volcanoes, on average.

Redwood Ed-

I welcome your opinion of my post #17.

Thank you.

Ed, do you think it's presumptuous that people who study atmospheric physics understand how CO2 traps heat? do you think it's presumptuous that people who study atmospheric chemistry know that the CO2 concentration has increased about 20% since they started measuring it 50 years ago? Do you think it's presumptuous that we have satellites in space that prove beyond a doubt that the arctic ice cap is shrinking dramatically?People who study these things actually do know a thing or 2. It is not presumptuous at all to think that we know the causes of climate change ... it's the result of lifetimes of hard work by generations of scientists.

backyard science doesn't cut it.

Why do complete amateurs insist on giving us their theories on climate change? Read the damn science.

"Major climatic changes on this planet occurred long before any humans existed"

That common and misinformed argument is like saying that since forest fires occurred before humans discovered fire, then humans can't start fires now.

Not very good logic

Read the damn science.

Inquiring minds would like o know why you don't heed your own advice?

And, yes, I am a scientist by profession.

NO YOU ARE NOT.

bedford1400 False. Methane hydrates are a potential problem but your statement is completely false

\