There is zero evidence that either heat or storms are getting worse.

I lived in Phoenix in 1979-1980 when three massive Interstate Highway bridges washed out on I-17 and I-10. Many people were killed by the washout of the Agua Fria bridges in Black Canyon city in 1979. The hottest temperature temperature ever recorded in Phoenix occurred 18 years ago.

Here is a good summary of Arizona flood disasters prior to the global warming panic.

1970 Tropical Storm Norma Deadliest Arizona Flooding Storm in History 12 inches in 24 hours.
1972 Hurricane Joanne Floods Much of Arizona
1976 Hurricane Kathleen Floods Tucson
1978 Thousands homeless 10 die, 2/3rds of state Declared Federal Disaster
1980 Salt, Verde, Agua Fria, and Gila Record flow. Phoenix Bridges wash out.
1983 Hurricane Octave and a tropical storm cause 14 Dead and 975 Injuries
http://data.afws.org/docs/symposium_2006/AFWS_Feb2006_Haffer.pdf

The worst hurricane disaster in US history was 108 years ago in Galveston. The worst worldwide hurricane disaster was 38 years ago in Bangladesh. The last category 5 hurricane to hit the US was 17 years ago. The worst tornado year was 34 years ago. The highest US temperature was measured nearly 100 years ago. No continent has set their record maximum in nearly 50 years.

Again, please show me one shred of evidence that storms or heat are getting worse. This entire movement is driven by nothing but anecdote, hearsay, and immature computer models.

What warming? There's been no statistically significant warming in the last decade. However, the CO2 keeps going up (see the first chart in the pdf).

Warming just isn't happening as predicted . If last century's warming resumes, it's unlikely to be any different from previous warm periods. It's highly unlikely that we will experience run-away warming, either.

I'm always the first to say it's better to be prepared than taken by surprise. But reports like the one mentioned need to be taken with a grain of salt -- is the underlying premise true? Is so, how likely is disaster? What are the risks versus the costs?

Page 3 of the Summary has a list of 6 measures in the "Decision Framework for Transportation
Professionals to Use in Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation Infrastructure" that I would hope all Federal, State, and local transportation professionals are adhering to on a periodic basis in light of the recent failures of the infrastructure, not necessarily a result of climate change.

On page 2 of the Summary they make a monumental error. "The report also summarizes previous work on strategies for reducing transportation-related emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)--the primary greenhouse gas--that contribute to climate change..." They've raised the status of CO2 from trace gas to "the primary greenhouse gas". What happened to water vapor? I hope the science in the rest of the report isn't as flawed.

The whole concept of global warming is confusing to me because it seems so politically driven rather than research based.

Our town, just north of Seattle, had its warmest St. Patrick's Day ever in 1947 at 72 degrees. Yesterday it was 45 degrees! And Accuweather is predicting possible snow flurries all the way through March, which is almost unheard of around here. Maybe the temperatures are getting warmer some place, but is sure isn't in the Pacific Northwest!

Some interesting statements from some environmentalists
I posted in my blog several days ago...

I wouldnt want to be caught eating a steak in front of these folks, so I will stick with my whey protein shakes

� "Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, Canada's former environment minister
� "No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral benefits" to global warming policies. - Christine Stewart
� "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, lead 2007 UN IPCC (United Nations International Panel on Climate Control) report author, who made this statement in 1989. Schneider also wrote one of the reports that led to the global-cooling scare of the 1970s.
� "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." - Dave Forman, founder of Earth First!
� The Kyoto Protocol is "the first component of an authentic global governance." - Jacques Chirac, then president of France, 2000.
� "I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." - Paul Ehrlich, current president of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford. Ehrlich made this statement in 1969.
� "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." - Paul Ehrlich, 1970.
� "Giving society cheap, abundant energy ... would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Paul Ehrlich, 1978.
� "If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
� "Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned." - George Monbiot, environmental author, 2006.
� "Free enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process. ... Capitalism is destroying the earth." - Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
� "Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby." - Helen Caldicott ( I really liked this one, as it probably described what happened
� to me)
� "The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

From the NOAA, 1922. Check out the picture of the weather station - considerably better maintained and located than many in use today.

Ten years of record obtained at the United States Weather Bureau's substation at Greenland Ranch, in Death Valley. Calif., indicate that this is the hottest region in the United States and so far as extreme maximum temperatures are considered, the hottest known region on earth. The temperature of 134 F recorded on July 10, 1917. is believed by meteorologists to he the highest natural air temperature ever recorded with a tested standard thermometer exposed in the shade under approved conditions.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-01-0010.pdf

Great floods in the Ohio River in the 18th century.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-01-0015.pdf

The library of Mrs. Mary Darlington, of this city, contains an account of the great flood in the rivers at Pittsburgh, on January 9-11, 1762

Weather happens....

The transportation industry deals with it....they always have and they will continue to.

Transportation engineers are among the most inventive of all the engineering disciplines. Building the railroads in the 19th Century....man power, mule power and black powder. Building the highway system in the 20th Century...mastering earthmoving on a scale that could not have even been dreamed of by those 19th Century engineers, mastering the laying of hard surface all weather roadway over hill, dale and valley. What ever challenges are presented by the 21st Century they will be handled with the same aplomb that similar challenges were handled in bygone eras.

Ah, yes, MSNBC! Such a leader in unbiasd reporting and journalism. Are they not Dan Rather certified? And the National Research Council. Making their recommendations with an iron fist. All over a NON-EXISTENT boogie man. Why, didn't the Minnesota bridge collapse happen because of glo-BULL wamring??? And even here in Pittsburgh, with our own Birmingham Bridge sliding like it did last month. Wasn't that attributed to everyone's carbon footprint? I mean, we'd better do something and fast (tax tax tax, control control control), cauz THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!! Poking fun a these people is way too easy anymore!!!!...;-DDDDDDD......

As for this: Again, please show me one shred of evidence that storms or heat are getting worse. This entire movement is driven by nothing but anecdote, hearsay, and immature computer models.

REPLY: You forgot to mention PH, Liberal Left Radical Politics. That is the driving force behind the things you listed. Don't forget it.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!

The National Research Council is fully on board the AGW train to nowhere. Their report assumes that AGW is driving global warming, which it clearly is not.

If they want to do something really worthwhile then they should investigate the materials and methods used in bridge and elevated highway construction since recent failures have been traced back to improper design or sub-standard materials.

Showing a photo of hurricane damage from Katrina suggests that AGW caused the hurricane, which is false, and that had their recommendations been in place beforehand that the roadway would be intact.

This is utter nonsense!

As an engineer myself, and with a brother who is a civil engineer, this report is laughable. I am not familiar with the details of civil engineering and roadway design that my brother does, but we have on many occassions discussed some of the basics about it.

First, what is the most dire prediction anyone anywhere is making for warming--11 degrees F or so? I can absolutely guarantee that the bridges and roads that are designed correctly today have more than 11 degree failure tolerance over the maximum expected temperature. Additionally, ambient air temperature is not the main factor in how hot a bridge or roadway gets. If an asphalt road is in 120 degree shade, it will be cooler than if direct sunlight is hitting at 90 degrees. I guarantee that if warming gets so out of control that steel bridges and asphalt roadways go into massive failure, it will be way too hot for life to go on.

Regarding storms, there are now and always have been storms that destroy infrastructure. If engineers can come up with a cost effective way of designing bridges that can take category 5 hurricane winds and massive tidal surges overlapping them, it will be done. If we don't currently design bridges to handle this, how is it feasible or logical to suggest that the civil engineers should have an eye toward designing them for STRONGER storms?

Squawk
Squawk
The sky is falling.
Give us more money. You have a problem you don't know about that we need to solve for you.

Squawk
Squawk

First and foremost, it should be said that the NRC is merely making sure they have mentioned the current crises buzzword in the report. I suspect that this is to show that they have some relevence.

As Chris B pointed out, the vast majority of issues related to GW will not have any effect on civil engineering elements. As a structural engineer, I deal with the vagaries of the beaker in which we live in that being the environment. In fact, most of my job is to battle wind, rain, flooding, snow, ice, temps and the like.

What I have noticed is that after some extreme event, say an Andrew or the "Perfect" storm we get a rash of revisions to the codes. So, design no longer addresses once in a 100 year events but rather once in a 500 year event. Net effect to you as a consumer, increased costs and not too much benefit. Why do I say not much?

Simple, even in an Andrew, there were buildings that survived the event. Most of the time, buildings and structures don't perform well because of a lack of maintenance or improper construction in the first place. And, for those of you in the Northeast and Canada, how much snow is sitting on your roofs? Any collapses? Betcha the snow load greatly exceeds the design load.

The point is that the NRC is trying to say that GW will change design and that, even if GW is a fact of life, is not true. Those things are already being considered in most designs. Seems to me that this is a report designed to alarm people unnecessarily since they have no understanding of how civil projects are designed.

"What I have noticed is that after some extreme event, say an Andrew or the "Perfect" storm we get a rash of revisions to the codes."

Imagine that? When a structure gets damaged or destroyed, people have the nerve to want to rebuild it and make it BETTER. Oh the horror! They want to make it such that, if the same event happened, it wouldn't get destroyed. How dare they??

Engineers are supposed to eliminate or reduce single points of failure as much as they can. Nothing in reality will be 100% safe, but we try getting as close to 99.999999% as we can. I guess in Darren's world, we should rebuild the WTC and the levees in New Orleans the same exact way they were built before.

It's amazing how people are so caught up in their anti-government persuasions that they are willing to skimp on safety just to save a couple taxpayer bucks. But don't worry, I'm sure the "free market" can make buildings safer, too. After all, it's the solutions to all of life's problems...LOL.

Mark:

I hate to say it, but you really don't understand engineering enough to understand my comment. I suppose I should not even have brought it up. That's OK, I probably don't understand your profession well enough to make reasonable comments upon it. Say, what do you do by the way?

The WTC performed admirably in light of an event it was not designed to handle. The levees failed mostly due to improper construction as I understand it. As I mentioned, that is the reason most things fail.

I suppose I did not make my point clear enough. My main gripe is that codes changed here in Ohio in response to the hurricanes. Last I looked, it's extraordinarily rare to have a 'cane come up the Ohio River. So why change the code? Oh right, because things we be better for it right?

Really why did they change? Because government agencies have a habit of responding to reactionary people are trying to do the "right" thing to make people "safe". Who could argue with that right?

Sad thing is that these people do not understand what occurred and are just trying to help the world as if they are the only ones who can. If someone points out the fallacy of their argument, you are treated like a leper who wants to kill everyone for the good of the free market.

That is an overly dramatic viewpoint that really is not rooted in logical debate.

Granted, there are real instances where change is needed, but those are the exceptions not the rule.

AS I have said, regulation is important to a point, but it can run amok and lead to a waste of resources. We reached that tipping point in the mid 90's. Example: nearly 40% of the cost of gasoline is related to excessive and unnecessary regulations meant to help society. Can't debate it though as any change is bad and therefore can't be done.