New poll shows Americans are feeling the impact of climate change

By: Angela Fritz , 8:16 PM GMT on October 10, 2012

Share this Blog
15
+

A report from the Yale Project on Climate Change and Communication shows that the impacts of extreme weather and climate change are weighing heavily on the minds of Americans, especially after this year of extreme weather, drought, and heatwaves. The project conducted interviews with 1,061 adults. The results show that more Americans now attribute worsening weather to climate change than in the Spring of this year, or in 2011.


Results from the question, "How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? '…Global warming is affecting weather in the United States.'" Responses shown are "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree." Results from the Fall 2012 poll are in red, and results from the Spring 2012 poll are in blue.

The project reports the following results:

• A large and growing majority of Americans (74%, up 5 points since the project's last national survey in March 2012) say “global warming is affecting weather in the United States.”

• Asked about 6 recent extreme weather events in the United States, majorities say global warming made each event “worse.” Americans were most likely to connect global warming to the record high temperatures in the summer of 2012 (73%).

• Americans increasingly say weather in the U.S. has been getting worse over the past several years (61%, up 9% since March).

• A majority of Americans (58%) say that heat waves have become more common in their local area over the past few decades, up 5 points since March, with especially large increases in the Northeast and Midwest (+12 and +15, respectively).

• One in five Americans (20%) says they suffered harm to their health, property, and/or finances from an extreme heat wave in the past year, a 6 point increase since March. In addition, 15% say they suffered harm from a drought in the past year, up 4 points.


Results from the question, "Some people say that global warming made each of the following events worse. How much do you agree or disagree?" Responses range from "strongly agree" in dark red to "strongly disagree" in dark blue.

Asked about these six extreme weather events, the majority of respondents said that global warming made the events "worse." They were least likely to associate the derecho in June 2012 to global warming. While heat waves and drought seem to be easily linked to global warming, it's harder for people to draw a line between a warmer atmosphere and events like a strong derecho. The June 2012 derecho tracked from Chicago to Washington D.C. and also made a strong appearance in the Twitterverse. The storm killed 26 people, left 3.5 million people without power for days, and caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. The amount of energy available to the storm (in the form of heat and moisture) was very high—our Weather Historian Christopher C. Burt pointed out that the number of heat-related records set around the time and location of the derecho were "extraordinary." It's likely that global warming did play a role in the intensity of the derecho. How much of a role is hard to determine. Jason Samenow from the Capital Weather Gang posed this question to Harold Brooks, a scientist at NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory. Brooks's response to the question of whether there was a climate change role in the derecho: "Not to a particularly significant extent. The hot surface temperatures and high lapse rates aloft directly contributed. I’m not sure how much of either of those goes to long-term warming trends. An important aspect was the set up of the vertical wind profile in relationship to storm motion."

Links and News

• PBS NewsHour special: Chicago Fights Extreme Urban Heat With Greener Ideas

• PBS Frontline special coming on October 23rd: Climate of Doubt

• NOAA: Arctic summer wind shift could affect sea ice loss and U.S./European weather

• NCDC State of the Climate: January to September 2012 the warmest such period on record for the U.S.

• From the AP, "Experts: Global warming means more Antarctic ice"

Angela

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 47 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

47. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
12:27 AM GMT on October 28, 2012
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54827
46. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
12:18 AM GMT on October 28, 2012
angelafritz has created a new entry.
45. vis0
8:41 AM GMT on October 27, 2012
Not Global warming more like Global Schizoid. What  and Why?

Why, 1st:
2/3rds of  the present warming is due to the Sun/Galactic cluster (Sun/influencing star's sibling black hole 16 light yrs away) cycles. These outward cycles interacting onto our solar system cause inner cycles of warming & cooling which can be plotted by what i call a universal snake plot some might call a biorhythm graph (plotting the Uni-verse's,Galactic Clusters,Galaxy's,Solar System's & Planet's cycles. example: ) an example of these inner cycles are the different sizes/durations of Ice and Radon ages. That leaves 1/3rd caused by humans. Nothing to sneeze at and i agree humans have to learn how to take care of their planet as to flow with nature not grind against her, sounds sexy but is deadly
When the next cooler side of the Sun cycle shows its influence (beginning in 1-3 yrs lasting a generation or so) we'll notice how so called Global Warming will seem to have lowered by 50-60% and those that fully disagree with Global Warming will say "see it was untrue". But if one understands its Global Schizoid though not as easy off the tongue as the term "Global Warming" yet it explains that what occurs is nature acting erratic as the natural ebb & flows of weather/climate is being influenced to "behave" erratically by man's outputs / pollutants.

In the long run Global Schizoid is worse as its harder to predict thus harder for businesses dependent on long term predictions (sports,vacations,business meetings) to take advantage of correct long term predictions. Also if it were just warming one could figure out a few ways to cool the planet and administer that influence. But if during one generation its warmer the next cooler or northern hemisphere warmer while southern cooler or land warmer and oceans cooler its one enclosed planet and the only way to help nature is to stop putting man made pollutant into its system.

  i created a way to influence weather and am waiting for someone to help me test it in an area away from active earthquakes and preferably dry region as mid/north Africa to see if moisture, eventually precipitation can be attracted by what i call an ml-d. The future use is to install ml-d's onto wind turbines and use The REAL SOLAR POWER, wind (caused by nature balancing  heat-sun / cold-dark side) as the ml-d's would attract constant 10-30knot breezes  onto the turbines thus eventually in 40-60 yrs after its (ml-d - turbine) perfected bring the world 60% of the power source grid  it needs,peace
Member Since: December 15, 2006 Posts: 254 Comments: 514
44. ARiot
8:13 PM GMT on October 22, 2012
It is indeed interesting to look at the polling data and study the terms used.

Either way, if you ask "Climate Change" or "Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming" you get a majority opinion that it is happening or impacting our life.

The problem is, you can also ask their approval of congress and get numbers in the single digits to low teens, yet the incumbents are favored.

So, in AGW and congressional polling, people won't be seen taking individual or collective responsibility in a significant way, but in a sad way, it an admission that there is a problem.
Member Since: June 24, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 366
43. Barefootontherocks
4:00 PM GMT on October 18, 2012
26. Angela Fritz, Atmospheric Scientist (Admin)
5:33 PM GMT on October 13, 2012

Added a couple links at comment 34 that hopefully will answer the questions you asked me.

Hi Rookie,
Angela added the "A" in her definition at 13. The study crossed a broad age range. The "Yale Center..." has an agenda, mentioned and linked comment 20. And, in general, there was a lot of extreme weather around last year for people to notice. Got no more argument energy left for this blog. Have a good one.
:)
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 156 Comments: 18934
42. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:58 PM GMT on October 18, 2012
41 @ TomballTXPride....

That was one of the nicest compliments anyone has ever given me. I very much appreciate your words and I thank you for saying them.

Barefoot and I exchange in intellectual challenges that we put forth to each other. Barefoot is a cool person and I do believe that neither of us suffer from any animosity towards the other.

As with you, Tomball, I come here to learn. There are several members here that have not only taught me much, but, also, have taught me a better way to learn than the techniques for learning that I was using before. Any positive reflection I present here is due entirely to how and what I have learned here. Every post that is made is a lesson of one type or another. I enjoy these lessons. ... Again, I thank you for your kind words.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
40. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:09 PM GMT on October 18, 2012
Barefoot, in regards to the statement you made here:

The only thing this study proves is Americans noticed some extreme weather and the opinion of a large majority of them is this weather happened because of "global warming." It assesses a level of public opinion.

Rookie, if they've spent much of their lives in one place, people know when an extreme weather event happens. You hear the 70-90somethings saying, "I've never seen anything like this in my life." I don't care if it was an ice storm or a EF5 or if the people are black, white, green, purple, illiterate or PhDs, they recognize extreme weather. And they pay more attention to it when it has a financial impact on their lives.

I still maintain the study's true purpose was to assess readiness for public policy making.


I do agree with your claim that the poll only assesses a level of public opinion. This, however, is what polls are all about. "What is your opinion when I ask you this?" These opinions,assuredly and in this case, are based on what those that are polled as to being extreme weather events. Extreme weather, to any observer, is weather that is an extreme in intensity, duration or shortened periods between such events from what they are accustomed to observing. So, the poll only tells us that more people are beginning to observe extreme weather events and that these same people are willing to assign global warming, at least to some degree, as a factor for these extreme weather events.

You are also correct in saying that those that have lived a long life, in the same area, would more easily recognize an extreme weather event as opposed to, say, a teenager. A teenager may experience an extreme weather event and not realize that such events are not a rarity in their area. I am not certain as to where your point is in this, or what point I am trying to make here. Perhaps it is just that we both recognize that when it comes to recognizing an extreme weather event as being a common event, for the area, or a true rarity for the area. Hence, in this sense, age does matter. How much would the poll be skewed if 90% of those polled were under the age of 30? Considerably, in my opinion.

I disagree with your assessment that the poll's intent was to prepare the public for future policy making. The reason that I disagree with you on this is because the poll omitted a key word in the questions being asked. The word is "anthropogenic". Without this word being a part of the questions in the poll, then it would be extremely difficult to build public policy based on this poll alone.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
39. Barefootontherocks
2:48 AM GMT on October 18, 2012
Any questions?
The only question in my mind is why did I take your current alias for Cat5 off my ignore list. Back ya go. :) Good night.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 156 Comments: 18934
38. Barefootontherocks
2:35 AM GMT on October 18, 2012
Not to worry, Cat5hurricane. Neo and I are great friends. We love to argue. AND, we like and respect each other in spite of our differences.
(Quote added.)
Quoting TomballTXPride:

Please refrain from personal attacks on others in Angela's blog. Thanks.

I think what Neapolitan is trying to say has a lot of merit. He speaks in a language that is scientific in nature, not to benefit an agenda or what you are speaking of. And his viewpoint happens to support AGW. It is scientific, and always has been.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 156 Comments: 18934
35. Barefootontherocks
1:53 AM GMT on October 18, 2012
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
This blog makes no sense to me


Insanity:
doing the same thing
over and over again
and expecting
different results

Albert Einstein
Are you applying that comment to my way of thinking? I hope not. I always thought you more a gentleman than that. Not certain how you mean it, but I assure you I am not insane.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 156 Comments: 18934
34. Barefootontherocks
1:25 AM GMT on October 18, 2012
Angela,
The study says, "Solid majorities of Americans agree global warming is affecting weather in the United States."
Your comment 13 defines global warming:
"Global warming is the warming of the earth's atmosphere by manmade greenhouse gas emissions."

There is no proven, widely-accepted scientific evidence that AGW caused the extreme weather in 2011. That's most of what doesn't make sense.

I'll see if I can find the blog of Doc M's that sticks out in my mind and link it here.

Add: October 18, 2012. Here is the blog I'm talking about from JeffMasters. In spite of the headline, one would have to read it with a bias to conclude a causal relationship between U.S. extreme weather and global warming has been established. "May" and "can" are "maybes." Time will show us whether or not the modeled "probabilities" are correct.

The science of quantifying how climate change changes the odds of extreme weather events like droughts and floods took a major step forward Tuesday with the publication of NOAA's annual summary of the past year's weather. The 2011 State of the Climate report contains a separate peer-reviewed article published in the July issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society titled, Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 From a Climate Perspective. In the paper, a group of scientists led by Peter Stott of the Met Office Centre in the United Kingdom looked at how climate change may have changed the odds of occurrence of some of 2011's notable weather extremes. These kinds of attribution studies require huge amounts of computer time and take many months to do, but the scientists plan to start making this a regular part of the annual NOAA State of the Climate report. Some of their findings for 2011:

- Determining the causes of extreme events remains difficult. While scientists cannot trace specific events to climate change with absolute certainty, new and continued research help scientists understand how the probability of extreme events change in response to global warming.

- La Nina-related heat waves, like that experienced in Texas in 2011, are now 20 times more likely to occur during La Nina years today than La Nina years fifty years ago.

- The UK experienced a very warm November 2011 and a very cold December 2010. In analyzing these two very different events, UK scientists uncovered interesting changes in the odds. Cold Decembers are now half as likely to occur now versus fifty years ago, whereas warm Novembers are now 62 times more likely.

- The devastating 2011 floods in Thailand caused an estimated $45 billion in damage, making it the world's most expensive river flooding disaster in history. The study found, however, that the amount of rain that fell in the catchment area was not very unusual, and that other factors such as human-caused changes to the flood plain and the movement of more people into flood-prone areas were more important in causing the disaster. "Climate change cannot be shown to have played any role in this event," the study concluded, but warned that climate models predict an increase in the probability of extreme precipitation events in the future in the region.

- The deadly drought in East Africa, which killed tens of thousands of people in 2011, was made more likely by warming waters in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific. While the scientists did not specifically tie the warming of these waters to human-caused global warming, they noted that climate models predict continued warming of these waters in the coming decades, and this will likely "contribute to more frequent East African droughts during the spring and summer."

JeffMasters' blog entry 2150

Also, here are Doc M's thoughts from the wu Extreme Weather page
in which he links heavy precip with global warming but not tornadoes or hurricane weather. Can't tell from this study you posted what percentage and who experienced what kind of extreme weather.
>>>end of Oct 18 add>>>

I don't argue that the globe is not warming.

At this point I don't believe the recent extreme weather (as in 2011) in the U.S. is connected to global warming, manmade or otherwise. Some bloggers here seem to believe these weather extremes will continue ad infinitum unless mankind cleans up its act.

ADD 10/17 after posting: At risk of repeating myself, but to answer your last question: Public opinion does not necessarily represent what is scientifically correct. This study and this blog are about the American public's perception of a relationship between global warming and extreme weather in the U.S. It is not about scientific proof of any relationship between global warming and recent extreme weather in the U.S. (end add)

Rookie,
Barefoot, I will make an attempt to connect the scientific base of this blog and separate out as to how it could not be just another personal opinion based poll. Without the scientific knowledge being conveyed to the masses, most, if any, would not be able to attribute the weather extremes as being anything other than just weather that is somehow misbehaving. They would not be able to distinguish an extreme weather event from a variation in the climate that allows for these extreme weather events. Weather happens every day. How the weather behaves, in a regional zone, is very much dependent on the global climate. Science gives us the knowledge to form our opinions as to if an extreme weather event could somehow be associated with a changing climate. Without the basic scientific knowledge to form your opinion on weather events, then you may as well form your opinion based on if you like green apples, or not.

The only thing this study proves is Americans noticed some extreme weather and the opinion of a large majority of them is this weather happened because of "global warming." It assesses a level of public opinion.

Rookie, if they've spent much of their lives in one place, people know when an extreme weather event happens. You hear the 70-90somethings saying, "I've never seen anything like this in my life." I don't care if it was an ice storm or a EF5 or if the people are black, white, green, purple, illiterate or PhDs, they recognize extreme weather. And they pay more attention to it when it has a financial impact on their lives.

I still maintain the study's true purpose was to assess readiness for public policy making.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 156 Comments: 18934
33. Barefootontherocks
12:57 AM GMT on October 18, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
No, the blog entry is about how, despite the very best efforts of the pro-pollution industry--with its extremely deep anti-science war chest made possible by hundreds of billions of dollars in annual profits--and despite the help of a pathetically complicit press--more and more Americans are using common sense to connect the dots. Global warming = severe weather events occurring with increasing frequency and severity. Period. That's what's been happening; it's about time that people recognize it. If that growing awareness leads to increased pressure on the nation's policymakers to do something to mitigate the greatest threat mankind has faced in modern times before it's too late, that's just a bonus.
So they are not paying attention to science then, are they? LMAO Neo. Same old, same old. I guess I could have said what I had to say in these words: Public opinion is not scientific. Period. There is not proven connection.

You use science when it benefits your viewpoint. In this case, science does not benefit your viewpoint and you substitute "common sense."

I don't give a flip whether global warming caused the extreme weather events in 2011. What I do care about is fair argument. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. It's okay for people to wrongly, from a scientific point of view, associate AGW with extreme weather but it's not okay for people not to understand or believe in scientific argument that you believe in? LMAO. More and more of late you hurt your cause more than you help it.

Common sense tells me it is useless to argue for the point of arguing - which is why I argue. Why do you argue? Because you can't stand to see anyone make a logical point?
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 156 Comments: 18934
31. pongo2000
6:11 PM GMT on October 14, 2012
?????:
Member Since: October 1, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 65
30. oregonbirdofprey
9:57 PM GMT on October 13, 2012
Angela thank you for another great blog. Rookie, you are ever the gentleman. I've spent far too much time with the deniers here to be so kind. I've reposted a bit here from one of Dr.Masters blogs. There's no way I could come up with this high level of information myself.


This from Dr. Masters blog of January, 2012:

How much of the warming in recent decades is due to natural causes?
The El Niño/La Niña cycle causes cyclical changes in global temperatures that average out to zero over the course of several decades. La Niña events bring a large amount of cold water to the surface in the equatorial Eastern Pacific, which cools global temperatures by up to 0.2°C. El Niño events have the opposite effect. The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. Global temperatures were 0.12°C (0.2°F) cooler than the record warmest year for the planet (2010), and would very likely have been the warmest on record had an El Niño event been present instead.


Figure 2. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1950 - 2011, classified by phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The year 2011 was the warmest year on record when a La Niña event was present. ENSO is a natural episodic fluctuation in sea surface temperature (El Niño/La Niña) and the air pressure of the overlying atmosphere (Southern Oscillation) across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Over a period of months to a few years, ENSO fluctuates between warmer-than-average ocean surface waters (El Niño) and cooler-than-average ocean surface waters (La Niña) in that region. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.

Correcting for natural causes to find the human contribution
We know that natural episodes of global warming or cooling in the distant past have been caused by changes in sunlight and volcanic dust. So, it is good to remove these natural causes of global temperature change over the past 33 years we have satellite data, to see what the human influence might have been during that time span. The three major surface temperature data sets (NCDC, GISS, and HadCRU) all show global temperatures have warmed by 0.16 - 0.17°C (0.28 - 0.30°F) per decade since satellite measurements began in 1979. The two satellite-based data sets of the lower atmosphere (UAH and RSS) give slightly less warming, about 0.14 - 0.15°C (.25 - .27°F) per decade (keep in mind that satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere temperature are affected much more strongly by volcanic eruptions and the El Niño phenomena than are surface-based measurements taken by weather stations.) A 2011 paper published by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979 - 2010, took the five major global temperature data sets and adjusted them to remove the influences of natural variations in sunlight, volcanic dust, and the El Niño/La Niña cycle. The researchers found that adjusting for these natural effects did not change the observed trend in global temperatures, which remained between 0.14 - 0.17°C (0.25 - 0.31°F) per decade in all five data sets. The warmest years since 1979 were 2010 and 2009 in all five adjusted data sets. Since the known natural causes of global warming have little to do with the observed increase in global temperatures over the past 33 years, either human activity or some unknown natural source is responsible for the global warming during that time period.


Figure 3. Departure from average of annual global temperatures between 1979 - 2010, adjusted to remove natural variations due to fluctuations in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, dust from volcanic eruptions, and changes in sunlight. The five most frequently-cited global temperature records are presented: surface temperature estimates by NASA's GISS, HadCRU from the UK, and NOAA's NCDC, and satellite-based lower-atmosphere estimates from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH.) Image credit Global temperature evolution 1979- 2010 by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 2011, 044022 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022.

Commentary: what do climate scientists think?
Some scientists have proposed that previously unknown natural causes could be responsible for global warming, such as a decrease in cloud-producing galactic cosmic rays. Others have proposed that the climate may be responding to the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide by producing more clouds, which reflect away sunlight and offset the added heat-trapping gases. These theories have little support among actively publishing climate scientists. Despite public belief that climate scientists are divided about the human contribution to our changing climate, polling data show high agreement among climate scientists that humans are significantly affecting the climate. A 2008 poll of actively publishing climate scientists found that 97% said yes to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" In my personal experience interacting with climate scientists, I have found near-universal support for this position. For example, I am confident that all 23 climate scientists and meteorologists whom I am personally acquainted with at the University of Michigan's Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Science would agree that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." It is good that we have scientists skeptical of the prevailing consensus challenging it, though, because that is how scientific progress is made. It may be that one of the scientists making these challenges will turn out to be the next Einstein or Galileo, and overthrow the conventional scientific wisdom on climate change. But Einsteins and Galileos don't come along very often. The history of science is littered with tens of thousands of discredited scientific papers that challenged the accepted scientific consensus and lost. If we rely on hopes that the next Einstein or Galileo will successfully overthrow the current scientific consensus on climate change, we are making a high-stakes, low-probability-of-success gamble on the future of civilization. The richest and most powerful corporations in world history, the oil companies, have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to push us to take this gamble, and their efforts have been very successful. Advertising works, particularly when your competition has little money to spend to oppose you.

Member Since: September 26, 2008 Posts: 1 Comments: 955
29. Neapolitan
9:52 PM GMT on October 13, 2012
Quoting spathy:
Why are the simple things so beyond comprehension of scientists and self proclaimed intellectuals?
They wasted so much money trying to get rid of the hydrilla when it was actually helping to clean up the river at a far more rapid pace than all other efforts combined.There were even water experts telling them that at the time. But because it wasnt the "norm" they put blinders on to that possibility,and continued to waste money for years to come.
I'll simplify and rephrase my earlier question to you that went unanswered: who provided the impetus for cleaning up the Potomac, and by what process was that done? Here's a helpful hint: the hydrilla acting alone did not "...clean up the river at a far more rapid pace than all other efforts combined". Again, if those "overzealous environmentalists" hadn't taken to sounding the alarm on the rapidly decaying state of the Potomac, pollution would have continued apace, and the river would now be dead, hydrilla or not. (If the opposite were true, river pollution everywhere could be cured simply by the intentional introduction of invasive aquatic species, and that can't possibly be your contention. Or can it? Is that one of those "simple things so beyond comprehension of scientists and self proclaimed intellectuals"?)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
28. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:57 PM GMT on October 13, 2012
Angela, as has been put forward before, just because the people seem to realize better than before that AGW is starting to hit their pocketbooks does not mean that any real and viable actions will come from this. Even the farmers that suffered losses from the drought this year will be compensated by crop insurance, as they should be. At least for as long as crop insurance is available to them. The costs of such crop losses will increase the amount paid for the food to us all and has not been enough of a consequence to bring forth any serious actions to curtail what will almost undoubtedly become worse crop failures in the future. The only serious actions I have seen, concerning drought/flood caused crop failures, is when the cost of the staple foods lead to civil unrest and the overthrowing of governments. Egypt and Libya has already seen the falling of their governments due to rapidly rising costs in their country's staple foods. Civil unrest is an extreme approach to a problem that cannot be solved by civil unrest, unless it also reverses the root causes for the civil unrest. But, when babies go hungry, civil unrest will quickly follow. People have nothing to lose when there is not enough affordable food to feed themselves.

Spathy, you miss the point entirely. You are trying to compare the introduction of a foreign entity into a local environmental system with that of which already is a natural entity in the global environmental system. A foreign entity, be it chemical, plant or animal, that is introduced into a local environment that is not its natural local domain can have both positive and negative affects on the local environment. As with CO2 being a natural and positive entity in our global atmosphere, too much of anything is a bad thing. Even a rapid and steady rise of oxygen into our atmosphere would have severe and devastating affects on life that lives on our planet. One such example would be the ability of more oxygen to increase the likelihood of more, larger and faster burning fires. How much more basic of a thought do you need to have to realize that we are putting too much CO2 into our atmosphere for it not to have negative consequences to nearly all life forms on our planet? ... You are sitting on a dollar while waiting for a dime. A dime that most likely will never be gained given the current environmental, political and economic situation around the world. ... Liquid water is the only substance we know of that is needed to sustain life as we know it. Should you try to drink 5 gallons of water/day you will soon discover that this practice is very detrimental to your ability to sustain your own life. Too much of a good thing is actually a bad thing for you.

Barefoot, I will make an attempt to connect the scientific base of this blog and separate out as to how it could not be just another personal opinion based poll. Without the scientific knowledge being conveyed to the masses, most, if any, would not be able to attribute the weather extremes as being anything other than just weather that is somehow misbehaving. They would not be able to distinguish an extreme weather event from a variation in the climate that allows for these extreme weather events. Weather happens every day. How the weather behaves, in a regional zone, is very much dependent on the global climate. Science gives us the knowledge to form our opinions as to if an extreme weather event could somehow be associated with a changing climate. Without the basic scientific knowledge to form your opinion on weather events, then you may as well form your opinion based on if you like green apples, or not.

Angela, I hope that you better realize now why it is so important for the people of your generation to start making the determinations of what your future will be like. I have had prior conversations with both Spathy and Barefoot and I have long ago decided, for myself, that they are both good, hard working and intelligent people that want to make their way through life as best they can and with as little undo interference with the lives of others as they can. Both are closer to my age than they are to your age. We three, Spathy, Barefoot and myself, are a part of the generations that are older than is your generation. (None of us, I believe, have any fear of being a part of the oldest generation, for as long as Grothar is still among us. Hang in there, Grothar!) The poll you have shown us, that is based upon the knowledge of the science concerning climate change, shows that more people are becoming aware that that, yes, the climate is globally changing and that this change will have negative impacts for us all. The poll did not ask as to if they the poll participants thought the global change is due to anthropogenic causes, or if it is all just naturally based. The poll also did not ask if strong and reasoned actions should be taken now to ward off the worst effects of an unabated anthropogenic related changing climate. Without these key questions put forth to those that participated in the poll then there is no knowledge to be gained as to how seriously people think we should try to abate the anthropogenic relationship to climate change now. Your generation needs to be asking these vital questions now and act now, if the answers takes away your generation's ability to help determine what the future climate will be. Your generation, quite literally, holds your own future in your own hands when it comes to anthropogenic climate change.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
26. Angela Fritz , Atmospheric Scientist (Admin)
5:33 PM GMT on October 13, 2012
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
This blog makes no sense to me.


Has science actually closed the link between global warming and extreme weather events? Last I heard from Doc M it hadn't. So... "


I'm still not sure what doesn't make sense to you in this blog. Americans are making the connection between global warming and heat waves, wildfires, and drought, and they're being financially impacted by it.

I'm also not sure where Dr. Masters has said that there is no connection between these things, but feel free to quote it here. The link between heat, drought, and wildfire and global warming is pretty clear.

These are Dr. Masters' posts tagged with "climate change."

Quoting Barefootontherocks:
This blog is not talking about what is scientifically correct but about how ready the American public is for government policy change related to AGW.


What is not scientifically correct?

Quoting spathy:


Here's a great summary of a recent study on the economics of climate change. We know that the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of action.

And it sounds like the good people of the Potomac were able to clean up their river and increase river-related revenue! So Im unclear on how that's wasted money.
25. LurkyMcLurkerson
5:19 PM GMT on October 13, 2012
I will genuinely never understand how so many folks seem to think that we can endlessly pump huge amounts of stuff from long buried sources out into the atmosphere, stuff that _we know from physics_ changes the atmosphere's overall relationship to heat and energy, and yet somehow that doesn't, um, change much anything.

Skepticism is good when it's open, but seriously, at this point I think it's on these particular skeptics to show me realistic ways, consistent with physical laws, that the effects here could _not_ be at least significantly related to the measurable addition of carbon compounds etc., directly from burning fossil fuels. How could that not be so? How can you add this much stuff that we know (essentially) stores heat longer, and have no heat be stored longer? I'm open to good, solid arguments based in sound understanding of natural laws. So go for it. How does one put huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and _not_ see significant changes to how the atmosphere deals with heat?

Because so far, all I've seen is some kind of handwaving "nature just does weird stuff, we dunno, and it's happened before!" kind of thing, now that nobody can seriously argue that it's because of sun cycles.

There's plenty of scientific work to be done on all kinds of details of all kinds of things, but it's really simple and requires very little background to just realize, as an upshot, hey, if we change the proportions of the chemical components of the atmosphere, we're probably going to change how it stores heat energy! -->Duh.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
24. Neapolitan
1:38 PM GMT on October 13, 2012
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
This blog is not talking about what is scientifically correct but about how ready the American public is for government policy change related to AGW.
No, the blog entry is about how, despite the very best efforts of the pro-pollution industry--with its extremely deep anti-science war chest made possible by hundreds of billions of dollars in annual profits--and despite the help of a pathetically complicit press--more and more Americans are using common sense to connect the dots. Global warming = severe weather events occurring with increasing frequency and severity. Period. That's what's been happening; it's about time that people recognize it. If that growing awareness leads to increased pressure on the nation's policymakers to do something to mitigate the greatest threat mankind has faced in modern times before it's too late, that's just a bonus.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
23. Neapolitan
1:19 PM GMT on October 13, 2012
Quoting spathy:
Keep and friends.
I was born/raised on the Potomac river. When I was born there were fish and life abounding in the Potomac. By the mid 70s All I remember was the piles of dead fish on a daily basis and the stench.
By the mid 80s,the over zealous environmentalists were screaming at the top of their lungs to get rid of an invasive weed that was killing the Potomac River. And there were almost countless $$$$$$$$$ spent on getting rid of this aquatic weed. By the time I left the area in late 1989 there were no dead fish seen floating. Large waterfowl had made a large comeback in numbers.
Bass tournaments were thriving.
Of course there were many other good/worthwhile clean water efforts being enforced as well.
It was part of a local big picture.

How many hours and $$$$$$ were wasted with a short sighted strategy (weed control)that could have done better in more direct ways?

Dont cut off your lifeline for a utopian end goal.
Use what you have to get you there incrementally,and leave some reserve to cushion the path.

What would happen to Hansel and Gretel if they ate all their crumbs only because they thought they would have no future?
Hansel and Gretel weren't hungry,they were desperate when they ate their future(their only means of getting home).
Dont squelch an economy to get to destitute helpless clean. Use economic prowess to get to clean.

I cant make it more basic than that.

God help us all if the well intentioned environmental zealots cant see that.
I'm a little confused by your comment, spathy, so I'm hoping you can clear things up for me.

First, how does all this relate to climate change?

Second, you seem to be claiming that "overzealous environmentalists" wasted "countless $$$$$$$$$" on trying to clean up the Potomac back in the 70s when it was considered a dying river, while at the same time talking about how relatively clean and wildlife-filled the Potomac now is.

Hmmmm...

That leads me to believe that you are under the impression that the river magically cleaned itself up. That is, that the reversal in its decline happened in a vacuum not because of the efforts of "well intentioned environmental zealots" but rather in spite of them. And if so, that doesn't make any sense. The truth is, were it not for environmentally-concious people--"zealots", in your parlance--fighting for rivers like the Potomac, there's little doubt they'd now be dead, stangant cesspools.

Yes, Hydrilla in cooler climates such as that in the Potomac region has been naturally held in check, and it's in fact been held to such a level that it is, indeed, beneficial to wildlife. However, when the plant began its rapid spread through the American South, no one was quite sure whether it would end up taking over as kudzu has done. Not to mention the fact that in warmer climates--such as Florida--hydrilla control is a huge, ongoing, and expensive process, as the plant is the single most damaging invasive aquatic species there is.

The bottom line: if you're enjoying clean water and air, thank an environmentalist. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
22. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
5:05 AM GMT on October 13, 2012
Quoting Barefootontherocks:
This blog makes no sense to me


Insanity:
doing the same thing
over and over again
and expecting
different results

Albert Einstein
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54827
21. Barefootontherocks
4:58 AM GMT on October 13, 2012
But then, maybe this study and this blog article are not about whether global warming actually causes extreme weather, except in a roundabout, attention-getting, policy-readiness-assessing way. The study and blog are about what the American public perceives. And, in the end, maybe it's not about science at all but all about what the American public perceives. As soon as enough of the public perceives a relationship between global warming and extreme weather, what does it matter if science sees it as so? The "we" can move ahead with policy change.

Ah, it's late. But that explains it for me, this blog that started out not making sense.

This blog is not talking about what is scientifically correct but about how ready the American public is for government policy change related to AGW.
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 156 Comments: 18934
20. Barefootontherocks
4:17 AM GMT on October 13, 2012
This blog makes no sense to me.

Quoting angelafritz:


How would you define the two?

I see climate change as the broader impact of a warming atmosphere. Climate is "normal," so when our "normals" are changing, then that is climate change.

Global warming is the warming of the earth's atmosphere by manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

Many people use the two interchangeably. I do it a lot, too. But in this case, I think the title is very specific -- these people polled are feeling the impact of their changing climate.
Angela, global warming is global warming. Natural and manmade. Add: (one sentence) Perhaps Nodiggity247's comment #8 refers to the survey connecting the views from the population sample to "global warming" and your blog title relating it to "climate change."

Neo @comment 3
"It's a very positive and welcome sign that people are able to recognize some of the more visible and immediate effects of climate change. "

To both Neo and Angela,
Has science actually closed the link between global warming and extreme weather events? Last I heard from Doc M it hadn't. So... "A large and growing majority of Americans (74%, up 5 points since the project's last national survey in March 2012) say "global warming is affecting weather in the United States." Cmon. Here at wu I have heard clearly the message "science" is what is important. The American public is not science. Recognizing weather that is out of the ordinary and establishing that weather's relationship to global warming are not the same. Anyone could tell what the weather has been over their lifetime and recognize an extreme. That's as far as it goes.

Quoting Angela Fritz from the article: "A report from the Yale Project on Climate Change and Communication shows that the impacts of extreme weather and climate change are weighing heavily on the minds of Americans, "especially after this year of extreme weather, drought, and heatwaves."

Well, yeah. Give them a couple years of normal weather and ask them again. If this stuff was weighing on their minds, they'd all be riding bicycles, wouldn't they? Or maybe somehow they don't believe humans have a role in causing this climate change they perceive as a cause of the extreme weather.

Biggest factor I'd wonder about is what is it about experiencing extreme weather that concerns folks? Death? Destruction of their lives? Minor inconvenience? Or is it that they just don't have as much spendable income in a tanked economy, and that is what they are feeling more than anything? Wonder about the age and income breakdown plotted against some of these responses. Money would probably take care of many individuals' concerns over recent extreme weather events. And then they would not be concerned with "climate/global change/warming." How did the researchers address/control these questions? I don't see that they did.

Really, it is an interesting study with some biased questions, but no way does it show that climate change is "weighing heavily on the minds of Americans" or that recent and very noticeable weather events are caused by global warming.

Here's the internet site of the "Yale project on climate change communication" where the study was designed and completed. Their about page:
About

"Despite credible forecasts and warnings from the scientific community about climate change for a quarter of a century, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to grow, signals of human-induced climate change have clearly emerged, and a preponderance of scientists studying the issue project more adverse consequences to come unless stronger actions are taken...But public and policy-maker commitment to action of this seriousness remains elusive...the gap between climate science and climate policy and action remains huge." (Gus Speth, 2006)

Mission

The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication:

1. Conducts original research on public climate change awareness, attitudes, risk perceptions, policy support, and behavior;
2. Designs and tests new strategies to engage the public in climate science and solutions;
3. Empowers educators and communicators with the knowledge and tools to more effectively engage their audiences.

History

The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication (originally the Yale Project on Climate Change) grew out of a groundbreaking conference on %u201CAmericans and Climate Change%u201D that the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies convened in 2005 in Aspen, CO. Over 100 national leaders representing science, media, religion, politics, entertainment, education, business, environmentalism, and civil society came together to develop an action plan to engage American society on climate change. Their charge was to diagnose why, in the face of ever stronger climate science, the United States had been slow to act and to recommend a set of initiatives to catalyze action.

The conclusions and recommendations from the conference are available online in the conference report "Americans and Climate Change: Closing the gap between science and action."

Related efforts beyond climate per se involve catalyzing inspiring visions of a sustainable world and practical strategies to achieve them via our Visions of a Sustainable World project.


(After posting, edited for clarity only.)
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 156 Comments: 18934
17. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:54 AM GMT on October 13, 2012
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54827
16. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:41 AM GMT on October 13, 2012
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54827
14. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:01 AM GMT on October 13, 2012
Quoting VSanity:


1 to this. I have no doubt that climate change has occurred. The cause of it I'm still not sold is due to what people have done.


Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54827
13. Angela Fritz , Atmospheric Scientist (Admin)
11:58 PM GMT on October 12, 2012
Quoting NoDiggity247:
Climate Change and Global Warming are two different things. Please fix the title of this article.


How would you define the two?

I see climate change as the broader impact of a warming atmosphere. Climate is "normal," so when our "normals" are changing, then that is climate change.

Global warming is the warming of the earth's atmosphere by manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

Many people use the two interchangeably. I do it a lot, too. But in this case, I think the title is very specific -- these people polled are feeling the impact of their changing climate.
12. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:04 PM GMT on October 12, 2012
Vsanity, perhaps these links may help you to decide?

Global Climate Change - The Chapter Concerning Climate Change, From This Report

Humans Blamed for Climate Change - 2007

How Are People Changing The Climate?

How Much Does Human Activity Affect Climate Change?

Climate Change: How Do We Know?

The History of Climate Change

What Does Past Climate Change Tell Us About Global Warming?

I could put up similar links that would fill this page. I will not do so.

What you need to consider is that we have long known about greenhouse gases and how these gases help to trap the heat, from the our sun's energy, from being returned back into space. There are natural carbon sinks that help to remove or capture the carbon from the atmosphere. Mankind's activities are destroying much of these carbon sinks, such as by the clear cutting and burning of the tropical rain forests and other forested areas of the planet. Nature also has natural heat sinks. The largest, by far, is the oceans.

Are these natural carbon and heat sinks able to meet the challenge of removing the excess CO2 from atmosphere and the extra heat that the greenhouse gases trap on our planet? Well, as with anything else, these "sinks" have points of saturation to where they are no longer able to keep up with the supply available to them. The planet's carbon sinks are only able to capture about half of the CO2 that, from the burning of fossil fuels, that we are emitting now. The oceans will also reach a point to where they cannot absorb all of the extra heat that is trapped by the greenhouse gases. The oceans will eventually, by The Laws of Physics and The Laws of Thermodynamics, have to start releasing the stored heat back into the atmosphere where the greenhouse gases trap much of this heat from returning back into space.

Then we have the denial industry. This is an industry that has set out to achieve the goal of offering confusing and misleading information in order to instill doubt about how much of a human factor is involved in the current and rapid climate change we are witnessing today. The reasons for the denial industry to do this are as varied as the individuals that are a part of the denial industry. There are a few groups that most will fall under:

Personal greed - This group would be willing to risk what the future climate will be in order to achieve all the personal wealth that they can now obtain. They seem to have the mindset that they will be long dead before we see the worst that the AGW will bring to the future generations of all life on Earth. In others words, they seem to think that AGW is not their problem, but a problem that future generations will have to deal with in their own and by their own means to do so.

Religious beliefs - This group believes that their God would not allow us to destroy ourselves or that it is simply God's will if we do. This group seems to forget two of the main things that the major religions of the world teach us.

1. We were cast out of The Garden of Eden. God supplied all that Adam and Eve will ever needed and tended to their well being. Once we were cast out of The Garden of Eden, we could fairly easily say that what God has given us is all that God will ever give us. What we do with it is up to us. Also known as "free will".

2. God encourages us to better ourselves in our lives. Some have taken this to mean that we should acquire as much wealth as possible. Become "fruitful" and to not just rely on God to sustain us in our material needs. I must question as to if this is what God meant by being fruitful in our lives. When we give our love to God does this not make us more fruitful? More fruitful in a religious sense as opposed to monetary gain during our life on Earth. ... What was it that the Bible says about a camel and a needle? - Mark 10:25

Personal freedom - This group tends to believe that they should have the freedom to pursue whatever it is that makes them happy and prosperous. This is an unachievable fantasy. Any actions that one person takes will have a reaction on others. Putting in a pig farm next door to an affluent neighborhood is not going to make the neighbors happy. This person's quest for personal freedom and happiness has just interfered the rights of the neighbor's quest for personal freedom and happiness of not living anywhere near a pig farm. :-)

Political beliefs - This, to me, is the absolute worst reason for denouncing the science concerning climate change. Yet, it appears to be the most prominent reason for denouncing all science in general. Unless, of course, the science serves your political agenda. Perhaps better stated, science that meets your financial desires. Such as new, scientific knowledge that allows you to more financially prosper? Patenting the human genome? Seriously? Who invented the human genome? Pharmaceutical companies? What a joke! Except the joke is on us all!

I am not a scientist, nor am I well qualified to discuss all of the science involved on a technical level. Others here are better qualified to do so and Angela is certainly able to better word this and to correct any mistakes I may have made in my statements concerning the science.

Added - One last comment. I have never seen anyone, in the denial industry, to try to disprove the AGWT. Why is this?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
11. Neapolitan
2:25 PM GMT on October 12, 2012
Quoting VSanity:
I have no doubt that climate change has occurred.
Congratulations! That puts you one huge step ahead of many who fancy themselves "skeptics".
Quoting VSanity:
The cause of it I'm still not sold is due to what people have done.
It's okay to remain skeptical, of course, so long as that skepticism is honest and open to change once more data has been consumed. And you should know that there is a quickly-growing pile of data out there pointing an ever-increasing number of fingers at the anthropogenic origins of our recent rapid warming.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
10. VSanity
1:21 PM GMT on October 12, 2012
Quoting NoDiggity247:
Climate Change and Global Warming are two different things. Please fix the title of this article.


+1 to this. I have no doubt that climate change has occurred. The cause of it I'm still not sold is due to what people have done.
Member Since: October 12, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
9. Neapolitan
12:50 PM GMT on October 12, 2012
Quoting NoDiggity247:
Climate Change and Global Warming are two different things. Please fix the title of this article.
I don't speak for Ms Fritz, of course, but I'll take a swing at this.

"Climate change" is the term used to define and describe the wide and comprehensive set of recent observed changes to the planet's systems: heavier rainfalls, stronger storms, deeper heat waves, longer droughts, bigger floods, along with disappearing polar ice, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, desertification, and so on. "Global warming", on the other hand, is the term used to describe one aspect of climate change: increasing surface temperatures. Now, that surface warming is in part causing many of those changes described above: those heavier rainfalls, stronger storms, deeper heat waves, longer droughts, bigger floods, etc. So as such, the following two statements are parallel and entirely compatible with one another:

1) Americans agree that GW is making weather increasingly extreme.

2) Americans are feeling the impact of climate change as manifested in that increasingly extreme weather.

IOW, I believe the title is scientifically accurate and sound as it is--though I readily that Ms Fritz may have a different take. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
8. NoDiggity247
11:17 AM GMT on October 12, 2012
Climate Change and Global Warming are two different things. Please fix the title of this article.
Member Since: October 12, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
7. LurkyMcLurkerson
11:11 PM GMT on October 11, 2012
What I find interesting is that so many Americans are starting to see the effects and actually feel some degree of personal harm and connect it with global warming, but that simultaneously so few report it as an important issue to them in polling on politics.

What I wonder, I guess, is whether that reflects them not seeing policy change as related, or whether it has more to do with not understanding the scale or the probably much faster time frame we're looking at for much more major effects than we've seen. Some combo of both, I suppose, combined with the neverending "well, you know, nature just does stuff, it's changed before, dunno, we'll have to adapt or guess we'll all be screwed, but whatever" line.

The last of these being maybe the most maddening.
Member Since: August 26, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 368
6. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:26 PM GMT on October 11, 2012
Quoting angelafritz:


I think one of the most important results of this poll was that 1 out of 5 Americans had been *financially* impacted by climate change-related extreme weather this year. I think it's a completely different story when it starts hitting your wallet. That really brings it home.


That is very true, Angela, but until it hits the pockets of those that fund the denial industry then you are just going to hear statements like this:

It's your fault for building there.

Bad weather has always cost money. Now there are just more people so more people are being affected.

We just need better building codes.

This is just Mother Nature doing what Mother Nature does.

Well, at least we are not in another ice age. That would be worse!

The list is as long as the number of reasons that can be used. No matter how logical or illogical those reasons may be.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
5. Angela Fritz , Atmospheric Scientist (Admin)
5:13 PM GMT on October 11, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Angela,

Neapolitan is correct. Opinions change nearly as often as does the weather.


I think one of the most important results of this poll was that 1 out of 5 Americans had been *financially* impacted by climate change-related extreme weather this year. I think it's a completely different story when it starts hitting your wallet. That really brings it home.
4. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:02 PM GMT on October 11, 2012
Angela,

Neapolitan is correct. Opinions change nearly as often as does the weather.

The only thing that I know, for certain, is that your generation has to step up now and take charge of what you want your future to look like, in terms of the ecology and the climate. Waiting for my generation to safeguard the future generations is not a wise decision for your generation to make. I am convinced that it is now time for your generation to take control of what happens in your future. Literally, your future will be determined by those that take charge of which paths we use to determine the future you will arrive at.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4754
3. Neapolitan
2:29 PM GMT on October 11, 2012
Excellent entry, Ms Fritz.

It's a very positive and welcome sign that people are able to recognize some of the more visible and immediate effects of climate change. I just wonder, though, given their fickle nature, whether many Americans will rapidly reverse their opinions on this issue with the coming winter's first deep cold snap or major snow event--you know, "Snowmageddon VI" or whatever number we're up to now. After all, many people get their "news" from certain outlets that are demonstrably unable and unwilling to report science truthfully, so we know many broadcast hours will be spent showing reporters throwing snowballs and guffawing while repeatedly asking, "What global warming?" For a number of reasons, many people want so badly to believe that nothing is happening with the climate that they'll latch on and cling tightly to even the slimmest threads of information that give them hope that it's not--and there is, of course, a 24-hour cable "news" channel devoted to trumpeting those slim threads while completely ignoring the overwhelming amount of data that show something definitely is.

IOW: will folks be convinced to accept reality in time for the push to do something about it to reach critical mass?

Again, great entry...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13597
1. etxwx
10:38 PM GMT on October 10, 2012
Thank you Ms. Fritz. Nice summary on the feelings of the American people. I hope our political leaders start paying attention. Appreciate the info.
Member Since: September 4, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1516

Viewing: 47 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page

About angelafritz

Atmospheric Scientist here at Weather Underground, with serious nerd love for tropical cyclones and climate change. Twitter: @WunderAngela

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
66 °F
Scattered Clouds