AIArchitect

Peace Great Blog I Found You on, Google sure I will Visit In the future One More Thing... 2 Stop By mywebsite

You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.

A power that can affect, persuade and cause changes to someone or something. In order to influence people, you first need to discover what is already influencing them. What makes them tick? What do they care about? We need some leverage to work with when we’re trying to change how people think and behave

Influence can be defined as the power exerted over the minds and behavior of others. A power that can affect, persuade and cause changes to someone or something. In order to influence people, you first need to discover what is already influencing them. What makes them tick? What do they care about? We need some leverage to work with when we’re trying to change how people think and behave.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

First of all, lets play nice boys, arguing is not respected in a blog. Secondly, the blog is posing the question whether a stimulus package is bad for design, not if global warming a "real-time issue". Finally, in our world we as a human species have affected the environment, politics are a major part of our society's structure, and we as a society caused global warming, (whether it is a prevalent issue or not), therefore the state of the environment and politics are interconnected. I am only a student, I am not here to impose my beliefs upon others, just discuss the issue.

I don't believe that a stimulus package is bad for design, I think it's a reason to become creative. The world is our canvas, and we should respect it so our architecture should reflect that. I think that Mr. Rawlings has read my thoughts when he says that this is our time to become "more valid". This is our chance to be creative, show the government how to rebuild society without spending so much money. If Obama is willing to listen to our ideas then politics is a major factor in this playing field. As architects, we're not completely obsolete, so lets make some racket as they try to push us out the door. Perhaps I'm naive, but attending school is Philly has inspired me. Perhaps the row houses here are simple and repetitive but it's the people who have breathed life into the architecture. Create something from shambles and see how the culture gives it meaning. This will help create a flexible architecture that's uniform yet unique.

Politics has no role here so far as I am concerned.

People who deny scientific evidence are obviously people who do not understand science. I hope they are not in denial about P/A as well.

But the failure to acknowledge the physics and the science from which our engineering capacity has evolved is a frightening revelation that reveals a mind set where political outcomes are more valuable to them than a good safe structure or a more sustainable built environment. Simply sad.

Global warming is documented by the science and the conclusion of the majority of climate scientists in the world is that human activity is a significant contributor as causation in the observed cause and effect relationships of the subject science and the observation and analysis of the data by the scientists.

What that means Dale, is your just a liar. There is a lot of evidence. No further comment needed by me because that is obvious. News stories that some scientists have doubts are good for science but do not invalidate the conclusions of the IPCC.

There is no debate about the conclusions of the IPCC as that is a historical fact. Regarding your statement Shawn,about my input "There is no debate in this nation or in our profession regarding the need to do better", it must be your position that everything is perfect. That is a laughable position in the context of the science and an insult to architects everywhere. Your political orientation is a dense fog that obfuscates reason, it is a reflex response associated with the Ostrich and not worthy of your intellect.

It is not about politics. The State where I live is currently inundated by flood waters, we have the so called 100 year flood for the second year in a row, just as bad as the 2007 storm waters and severe flooding and people are losing their homes and their farms. Forgive me if I will not tolerate your eschew obfuscation, I simply do not respect it, or your perspective that denial of observed physical facts is prudent.

These Bush bailouts might have looked like a die hard capitalist giving way to socialist concepts, but we've seen our tax payer money (most of which comes from the middle and lower class) be handed over to banks without any oversight or accountability. Citigroup is still spending millions to have a stadium named after them and they needed a bailout? CEOs are making off with millions and the banks still aren't lending money which is the root cause of why we Architects are starving. This is the rich robbing the middle and lower class blind one last time as our worst president ever leaves office (laughing all the way to the bank). Have a shoe buddy!

Of course we're wary of any more bailouts after the latest juvenile antics of a failed administration. How can you trust the government to spend our money productively when the antigovernment party just "conservatively" spent us into the ground AGAIN (remember Reagan-Bush and the 90s)?! How do you end up with trillions in debt after chopping programs and "reducing" government spending? How better to convince the population that government sponsored programs are all bad than to chop programs down to ineffectiveness, wastefully spend tax money to benefit the few, and then leave us all with the bill? FDR pulled us out of the Great Depression using programs that put Americans back to work. Without jobs and a healthy middle class, there is no economy! Where are the rich people and their trickle down right now? The free market will take decades to heal itself. America is too impatient to slug it out like Japan did, so we need intelligent intervention now! Let's see what happens when the grown ups take over the White House.

Did you know that sustainability is one of the best means to make Architects more valid in this country? If you don't get it, then shut it! Accept the fact that creating new and renovated structures that are more efficient and environmentally friendly means MORE JOBS FOR ARCHITECTS!!! Or we can just keep shooting ourselves in the foot in the face of opportunity, which seems to be what we do best.

“There is no debate…”
YAWN

Who writes the narrative? It matters.

According to the Associated Press on 12.10.08,
“Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate say they have completed one crucial task — proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real.”
“Now they have to figure out just what to do about it.”
“Dozens of scientists were among the delegations or nongovernment groups attending the Poznan conference, exhibiting some of the latest technologies and scientific studies.”
Minor detail… Sounds like a hoard of activists with a few scientists included for credibility.
Source of quotations: www.livescience.com/environment/081210-ap-climate-treaty.html

Similarly,
According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007, only 52 scientists participated. The April 9, 2007 AP article by Seth Borenstein reported:
"Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species."
Minor detail… Sounds like a hoard of bureaucrats with a few scientists included for credibility.
Source: epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

But here is a report from another source:

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Source: epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

I would like to add another point of reference for those thinking about the questions raised in the debate about science, technology, industry, economy, governance, sovereignty, liberty, and the ways individuals, of each one’s own volition – not by coercion, choose to live. Please read “A Critique of the Philosophy of Progress” by Lyle H. Lanier.
Link: books.google.com/books?id=V-wPC7Zw_9UC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=agrarian+critique+of+progress&source=bl&ots=EAumH8EhyG&sig=uIRtIqAcNumrqYgV77Te4fB2qw0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA122,M1

According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation,
"Financial Statements Show Approximately $56.4 Trillion in Federal Obligations
Prior to Recent Bailouts, Market Declines, Compared to $56.5 Trillion in Household Net Worth"
"The sum of America's liabilities and other financial commitments now exceeds the collective net worth of its citizens"
Source:www.pgpf.org/newsroom/press/owe/

Don't build your house upon the sand.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Walker does not have any evidence to support the claim about global warming, which is why such claims are usually followed by a demand not to question them. The catch phrase has recently morphed to "climate change", as more players realize that with no measurable warming over the last ten years, no leading statistical correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide, and the possibility that we are moving into a (natural) cooling phase, they want to be prepared to maintain their calls for massive government action in the face of the "crisis" of the moment, whatever it might be. BTW, Mars and other planets have undergone warming trends that paralleled ours, and I see no evidence of SUV's on the red planet.

As to the "stimulus" plans, its just more of the same massive government spending that is bankrupting the citizens and the productive segments of the economy. I wish I could take credit for the following observation, but I can't: If a bridge to nowhere is a crude example of wasteful pork barrel spending, why are a thousand bridges to nowhere believed (by some) to be an enlightened stimulus plan?
It is not. Brooks is correct that when it comes to government programs, we must plan well, not in haste, less we spend another generation (or more) undoing the damage. Think "urban renewal". Think "New Deal".

But more importantly, let's unleash the private sector and let innovation and great design come from the free market and free citizens. With the current economic woes predominately the result of government corruption and "good intentioned" meddling in economic affairs, the economic drag is coming more from Congress than Wall Street. That's where renewal is needed, but with those that put us at risk of economic ruin still in place and running the show, it is hard to be optimistic by promises of billions more for asphalt pavement.

Whenever government spending is proposed as a solution to creating jobs, ask yourself where the money comes from, and whether the acquisition of those funds is having the opposite affect elsewhere in the economy.

The majority of climate scientists on this planet have my back on this one Mr. Adams. So this is by nature a longer rather than shorter response. Happy to explain it to you.

Climate change that involves the planet we call Earth, establishes the context of the statement made by me in the AIA blog, and given that a planet is a phenomena of cosmic scale and is a measure of the size and proportion of that climate change, then global warming is a real life (meaning significant to living things) real time, (meaning it is happening right now)phenomena (meaning measurable in physical reality)as opposed to imaginary.

My neighbor across the street works for NOAA and is kind enough to occasionally talk to me about the science. Everyone however has access to the information that I do. NOAA is charged with helping society understand, plan for, and respond to climate variability and change. So my information is from the government agency that is responsible for this body of knowledge.

Global warming is not a hoax that is being perpetrated by a wold wide conspiracy of climate scientists. Only an idiot would think so. Be careful there are groups who are telling lies in an effort to debunk the hard science, and distort the very good science that is being done.

There is no doubt that the majority of climate scientists are convinced that global warming is very real. Science is not a court room but rather a continuous process of acquiring data, testing hypothesis with experiments and samples of physical phenomena and then defining new experiments.

So the debate you are seeking here with me, that as long as some (a few actually) scientists express doubts then no proof of global warming exists, is in the first place simply a false idea of what science does.

Second; There is the obvious of course which you can examine yourself. There is photographic evidence that the polar ice caps are shrinking, ice cores that show the co2 content increasing over the last century and so forth. Glaciers are shrinking world wide the mass extinction of species world wide among other clues have led the majority of climate scientists to support the global warming hypothesis. I assure you no one has faked this massive quantity of information.

There are still scientists, although fewer all the time who do not support the global warming hypothesis. Science is a careful scrutiny of facts and the careful analysis of variability. It is not a political rally where the consensus of opinion drives participation.

The data and the models that scientists are using by their nature must be and are complex. There will always be room for limited doubts and caution in the making of conclusions.

The great thing about complex data is that one can basically come up with any number of headlines describing it - all of which can be literally true - but that give very different impressions.

Thus I am sure that you will soon read that 2008 was warmer than any year in the 20th Century (with the exception of 1998), that it was the coolest year this century (starting from 2001), and that 7 or 8 of the 9 warmest years have occurred since 2000. There will undoubtedly also be a number of claims made that aren't true; 2008 is not the coolest year this decade (that was 2000), global warming hasn't 'stopped', CO2 continues to be a greenhouse gas, and such variability is indeed predicted by climate models. Today's response to your post is therefore dedicated to cutting through the hype and looking at the bigger picture.

The bottom line: In the GISTEMP, HadCRU and NCDC analyses D-N 2008 were at 0.43, 0.42 and 0.47ºC above the 1951-1980 baseline (respectively). In GISTEMP both October and November came in quite warm (0.58ºC), the former edging up slightly on last month's estimate as more data came in. This puts 2008 at #9 (or #8) in the yearly rankings, but given the uncertainty in the estimates, the real ranking could be anywhere between #6 or #15. More robustly, the most recent 5-year averages are all significantly higher than any in the last century.

The last decade is by far the warmest decade globally in the record. measured any way you want to do it and the trend which is moving at a cosmological scale is an enduring trend. These big picture conclusions are the same if you look at any of the data sets, though the actual numbers are slightly different (relating principally to the data extrapolation - particularly in the Arctic).

So what to make of the latest year's data? First off, we expect that there will be oscillations in the global mean temperature. No climate model has ever shown a year-on-year increase in temperatures because of the currently expected amount of global warming.

A big factor in those oscillations is ENSO - whether there is a a warm El Niño event, or a cool La Niña event makes an appreciable difference in the global mean anomalies - about 0.1 to 0.2ºC for significant events. There was a significant La Niña at the beginning of this year (and that is fully included in the D-N annual mean), and that undoubtedly played a role in this year's relative coolness. It's worth pointing out that 2000 also had a similarly sized La Niña but was notably cooler than this last year.

While ENSO is one factor in the annual variability, it is not the only one. There are both other sources of internal variability and external forcings. The other internal variations can be a little difficult to characterise (it isn't as simple as just a super-position of all the climate acronyms you ever heard of NAO+SAM+PDO+AMO+MJO etc.), but the external (natural) forcings are a little easier. The two main ones are volcanic variability and solar forcing. There have been no climatically significant volcanoes since 1991, and so that is not a factor. However, we are at a solar minimum. The impacts of the solar cycle on the surface temperature record are somewhat disputed, but it might be as large as 0.1ºC from solar min to solar max, with a lag of a year or two. Thus for 2008, one might expect a deviation below trend (the difference between mean solar and solar min, and expecting the impact to not yet be fully felt) of up to 0.05ºC. Not a very big signal, and not one that would shift the rankings significantly.

There were a number of rather overheated claims earlier this year that 'all the global warming had been erased' by the La Niña-related anomaly. This was always ridiculous, and now that most of that anomaly has passed, we aren't holding our breath waiting for the 'global warming is now back' headlines from the same sources. HA HA!

Taking a longer perspective, the 30 year mean trends aren't greatly affected by a single year (GISTEMP: 1978-2007 0.17+/-0.04ºC/dec; 1979-2008 0.16+/-0.04 - OLS trends, annual data, 95% CI, no correction for auto-correlation; identical for HadCRU); they are still solidly upwards. The match of the Hansen et al 1988 scenario B projections are similarly little affected (GISTEMP 1984-2008 0.19+/-0.05 (LO-index) 0.22+/-0.07 (Met-station index); HansenB 1984-2008 0.25+/-0.05 ºC/dec) - the projections run slightly warmer as one would expect given the slightly greater (~10%) forcing in the projection then occurred in reality. This year's data then don't really change our expectations much.

Finally, as we've discussed before, what climate models did or did not predict is available for all to see. The IPCC did a good job. Despite many cautions about using short-term changes to imply something about the long-term trend, these comparisons will still be made.

More? ok

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

Recent analysis of temperature trends in the lower and mid- troposphere (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) using both satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data show warming rates that are similar to those observed for surface air temperatures. These warming rates are consistent with their uncertainties and these analysis reconcile a discrepancy between warming rates noted on the IPCC Third Assessment Report (U.S. Climate Change Science Plan Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1).

An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased "blanketing" effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500 ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data (see previous figure), but is larger in the radiosonde data likely due to uncorrected errors in the radiosonde data.

Relatively cool surface and tropospheric temperatures, and a relatively warmer lower stratosphere, were observed in 1992 and 1993, following the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The warming reappeared in 1994. A dramatic global warming, at least partly associated with the record El Niño, took place in 1998. This warming episode is reflected from the surface to the top of the troposphere.

There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (DTR: the difference between daily high or maximum and daily low or minimum temperatures) over about 70% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20th century. However, for the period 1979-2005 the DTR shows no trend since the trend in both maximum and minimum temperatures for the same period are virtually identical; both showing a strong warming signal. A variety of factors likely contribute to this change in DTR, particularly on a regional and local basis, including changes in cloud cover, atmospheric water vapor, land use and urban effects.

Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. Evidence such as changes in glacial mass balance (the amount of snow and ice contained in a glacier) is useful since it not only provides qualitative support for existing meteorological data, but glaciers often exist in places too remote to support meteorological stations. The records of glacial advance and retreat often extend back further than weather station records, and glaciers are usually at much higher altitudes than weather stations, allowing scientists more insight into temperature changes higher in the atmosphere.

Large-scale measurements of sea-ice have only been possible since the satellite era, but through looking at a number of different satellite estimates, it has been determined that September Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 2007 at a rate of about -10% +/- 0.3% per decade. Sea ice extent for September for 2007 was by far the lowest on record at 4.28 million square kilometers, eclipsing the previous record low sea ice extent by 23%. Sea ice in the Antarctic has shown very little trend over the same period, or even a slight increase since 1979. Though extending the Antarctic sea-ice record back in time is more difficult due to the lack of direct observations in this part of the world.

Globally-averaged land-based precipitation shows a statistically insignificant upward trend with most of the increase occurring in the first half of the 20th century. Further, precipitation changes have been spatially variable over the last century. On a regional basis increases in annual precipitation have occurred in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and southern South America and northern Australia. Decreases have occurred in the tropical region of Africa, and southern Asia. Due to the difficulty in measuring precipitation, it has been important to constrain these observations by analyzing other related variables. The measured changes in precipitation are consistent with observed changes in stream flow, lake levels, and soil moisture (where data are available and have been analyzed).

Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent has consistently remained below average since 1987, and has decreased by about 10% since 1966. This is mostly due to a decrease in spring and summer snow extent over both the Eurasian and North American continents since the mid-1980s. Winter and autumn snow cover extent have shown no significant trend for the northern hemisphere over the same period.

Clouds are also an important indicator of climate change. Surface-based observations of cloud cover suggest increases in total cloud cover over many continental regions. This increase since 1950 is consistent with regional increases in precipitation for the same period. However, global analyses of cloud cover over land for the 1976-2003 period show little change.

A rather abrupt change in the El Niño - Southern Oscillation behavior occurred around 1976/77. Often called the climatic shift of 1976/77, this new regime has persisted. There have been relatively more frequent and persistent El Niño episodes rather than the cool episode La Niñas. This behavior is highly unusual in the last 130 years (the period of instrumental record). Changes in precipitation over the tropical Pacific are related to this change in the El Niño - Southern Oscillation, which has also affected the pattern and magnitude of surface temperatures. However, it is unclear as to whether this apparent change in the ENSO cycle is related to global warming.

Global changes in temperature extremes include decreases in the number of unusually cold days and nights and increases in the number of unusually warm days and nights. Other observed changes include lengthening of the growing season, and decreases in the number of frost days.

Global temperature extremes have been found to exhibit no significant trend in interannual variability, but several studies suggest a significant decrease in intra-annual variability. There has been a clear trend to fewer extremely low minimum temperatures in several widely-separated areas in recent decades. Widespread significant changes in extreme high temperature events have not been observed. There is some indication of a decrease in day-to-day temperature variability in recent decades.

In areas where a drought or excessive wetness usually accompanies an El Niño or La Niña, these dry or wet spells have been more intense in recent years. Further, there is some evidence for increasing drought worldwide, however in the U.S. there is no evidence for increasing drought.In some areas where overall precipitation has increased (ie. the mid-high northern latitudes), there is evidence of increases in the heavy and extreme precipitation events. Even in areas such as eastern Asia, it has been found that extreme precipitation events have increased despite total precipitation remaining constant or even decreasing somewhat. This is related to a decrease in the frequency of precipitation in this region.

Many individual studies of various regions show that extra-tropical cyclone activity seems to have generally increased over the last half of the 20th century in the northern hemisphere, but decreased in the southern hemisphere. Furthermore, hurricane activity in the Atlantic has shown an increase in number since 1970 with a peak in 2005. It is not clear whether these trends are multi-decadal fluctuations or part of a longer-term trend.

Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7 mm/year (plus or minus 0.5mm) over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Depending on which greenhouse gas increase scenario is used (high or low) projected sea-level rise is projected to be anywhere from 0.18 (low greenhouse gas increase) to 0.59 meters for the highest greenhouse gas increase scenario. However, this increase is due mainly to thermal expansion and contributions from melting alpine glaciers, and does not include any potential contributions from melting ice sheets in Greenland or Antarctica. Larger increases cannot be excluded but our current understanding of ice sheet dynamics renders uncertainties too large to be able to assess the likelihood of large-scale melting of these ice sheets.

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

The entire system is driven by the suns energy which I do know something about. In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

Due to the enormous complexity of the atmosphere, the most useful tools for gauging future changes are 'climate models'. These are computer-based mathematical models which simulate, in three dimensions, the climate's behavior, its components and their interactions. Climate models are constantly improving based on both our understanding and the increase in computer power, though by definition, a computer model is a simplification and simulation of reality, meaning that it is an approximation of the climate system. The first step in any modeled projection of climate change is to first simulate the present climate and compare it to observations. If the model is considered to do a good job at representing modern climate, then certain parameters can be changed, such as the concentration of greenhouse gases, which helps us understand how the climate would change in response. Projections of future climate change therefore depend on how well the computer climate model simulates the climate and on our understanding of how forcing functions will change in the future.

The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates.

According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used. However, this global average will integrate widely varying regional responses, such as the likelihood that land areas will warm much faster than ocean temperatures, particularly those land areas in northern high latitudes (and mostly in the cold season). Additionally, it is very likely that heat waves and other hot extremes will increase.

recipitation is also expected to increase over the 21st century, particularly at northern mid-high latitudes, though the trends may be more variable in the tropics, with much of the increase coming in more frequent heavy rainfall events. However, over mid-continental areas summer-drying is expected due to increased evaporation with increased temperatures, resulting in an increased tendency for drought in those regions.
Snow extent and sea-ice are also projected to decrease further in the northern hemisphere, and glaciers and ice-caps are expected to continue to retreat.

Thanks for the question!

I wonder if Mr. Walker might explain what evidence he has to support the statement that "[g]lobal warming is a real life real time phenomenon of cosmic proportion and impact."

Thank you! We could be looking at the best opportunity in 40 years to reassert the order back to "DESIGN-Build".
I had the opportunity to meet and briefly speak with then Senator Obama in Orlando in 2006. I found him to be the same young man I had listened eagerly to in 2004 and, now I know, the same person we elected to be our President.
He certainly has the intelligence and political skill to get us involved; his choice of Shaun Donovan is a good first step.
Design has been remaking the past for far too long; we can plunge headlong into "Max Headroom" territory OR we can design our way to an incredible future.
Why put people to work with backhoes and shovels if we can automate private car travel? Why use sticks and bricks when we can design and use "smart" materials? Why improve the energy grid when we can get beyond it by going local?
The opportunity is here and now. The Obama-Biden transition team is looking for people to team up on a local level - with assistance from the O_B team, to communicate the new ideas!
When do we start?

Architects can make a difference.

There is no debate in this nation or in our profession regarding the need to do better. Our built environment faces significant challenges and we need to empower architects in this nation so they can contribute design intelligence to build that significantly more sustainable and enduring civilization we want to achieve. There is no sustainable future in fossil fuel, high energy embodied or toxic materials for example, so we should be aggressive as a profession to promote better alternatives, but we fall short of what we should be and want to be. We do need infusions of money in our profession but not as bad as we need a shared vision.

Much of our built environment and the general context of our times is simply out of touch and out of scale, it all is estranged from reasonable proportion if not reason itself. Even our financial crisis seems to be incomprehensibly huge! Yes, president elect Obama has challenges of scale equal to our problems.

Let me touch on a few relevant points.

Global warming is a real life real time phenomenon of cosmic proportion and impact. We have an imperiled ecology, irremediable pollution of the oceans, air, and soil.

We simultaneously face massive overpopulation in the range of 9 billion to 10 billion by 2050. We have world hunger and starvation, depletion of resources, environmental diseases and a vanishing wilderness, uncontrolled technologies, chemical toxicity in the food supply, endangered species on land and marine environments.

There is an expanding suspicion of authority, distrust of our institutions, fragmentation of family ties and community, erosion of religious commitment, decay of morality, contempt for law, disregard for tradition, confusion in place of ethical and cultural values, artistic chaos and aesthetic uncertainty, in fact there is clear debate and confusion in the profession about what is beautiful and what is not.

Our cities are a huge mess, rapid deterioration of the infrastructure, megalopolis, massive scale sprawl, expanding ghettos, overcrowding, traffic congestion, untreated wastes, smog, soot & grime, budget shortfalls & insolvency, failing public education & inadequate schools, declining education standards, built -in systemic poverty and welfare systems complete with police brutality and racial profiling. We have overcrowded hospitals, clogged court calendars and simultaneously attorney’s priced way beyond what any common wage earner could ever afford! We have reinvented inhuman prisons and racial injustice, sex and age discrimination, poverty, crime & vandalism, massive illegal immigration and fear in proportion to everything else.

We are afraid to invest in our own future. Labor in China, India or some other nation is too low, too tempting and just too profitable. God forbid we regulate the market place and secure t\our domestic prosperity and tranquility against the threat of cheap offshore labor.

There is ever more political discontent and rigid political polarization, alienation and rigidified bureaucracy on top of administrative inefficiency, legislative ineptitude, along with mounting judicial inequity and systemic corruption.

There are abuses of power and national debt at record setting new scales. We now have nuclear proliferation at a frightening pace, nuclear blackmail from North Korea with expanding International instability.

There is war, trade dispute, inadequate international law and expanding economic uncertainty all at global scale. We struggle with unemployment, inflation and devaluation of our currency or the erosion of our power to buy goods and services here in the United states and we see the growth of loneliness, powerlessness, insecurity, anxiety, boredom, bewilderment, alienation, suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse, divorce, violence and sexual dysfunction along with unprecedented personal debt foreclosure and bankruptcy, corporate mismanagement, white collar crime, government scandal, waste and inefficiency.

But worst of all is the maldistribution wealth and a growing statistical trend for the working class to have less every year and the wealthiest Americans to have more.

Having touched upon quite a few points in a condensed and rapid manner, it blurs in the mind and takes up aspects of intangibility. When it is expressed this way it all fades to seem unreal and all too much of it is perceived to be of the same hue and value. We become numb to it, desensitized to it, even while acknowledging the truth of it.

There must be a better vision of the future. As architects we have in our hands the opportunity and the creative capacity to make an impact with a vision of a more desirable future state and it falls to our profession to make that vision tangible enough, cogent enough, shared in our collective consciousness enough to inspire real hope and serve as the genesis of real change. Economic stimulous from any quarter is a positive potential. Let us embrace every opportunity to make a positive contribution.