For years, scientists have been talking about the future impact of global warming. Well, according to a new government report, the future is now. The report claims that heat waves have increased in the Northeast, droughts have increased in the Southwest, coastline has eroded, and adds that "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced."
The report, produced by the United States Global Change Research Program, is the third report put out by the program since a 1990 law required a published evaluation of climate change every decade. This report, compiled primarily during the Bush administration, confirms that many of the predictions made in the 2000 report are now indeed coming to pass.
In addition to the climate-related effects already occuring, the report projects that increased warming will result in the spread of disease, decreased hydroelectric power production, added pressure on agricultural resources, and even changes to the nation's social fabric.
"Climate change will combine with pollution, population growth, overuse of resources, urbanization, and other social, economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone," says the report.
The report also comes down strong on the anthropogenic side, saying, "global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."
The report even breaks the impacts down by region, so you can see what impact global warming will have in your specific neck of the woods.
One interesting point is how the tone has shifted, from preventing climate change to mitigating its effects. For example, the New York Times quotes Thomas R. Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a principal author of the report as saying, "Our destiny is really in our hands. The size of those impacts is significantly smaller with appropriate controls."
Ultimately, the report mainly repeats what the 2000 report said. However, for the dire conclusions of that earlier report to be confirmed is a big step in getting past "debates" over warming that bogged down earlier attempts to avert calamity.
say good by to that 8 bill carrying capasity and say hello to 2 the future is indeed bleak
Taint bleak, its a bright warm future full of goodness and plenty. Most of the heat will happen in the polar regions ware it is needed. There will be some land loss due to higher sea level but permafrost areas will be more habitable. In all winters will be milder and summers wont be that much hotter. There will be more net rainfall some wet areas will become dry and allot of dry areas will become wet. I look forward to it with much excitement. We ot not try and prevent it but make full use out of it. Lets make more lakes in deserts to cause it to rain. Bore a tunnel from the Mediterranean to the dead sea. Dig a channel from the ocean to airs lake. Lets terraform earth!
The above review was true, apparently, the report was prepared by a 13 federal agencies and was overseen by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, under the umbrella of a joint venture called the United States Global Change Research Program. Under a 1990 law, the group is required to report every 10 years on climate change effects on the environment. In fact, Public health advocates have been fighting for FDA regulation of tobacco for over 15 years. However, not every public health advocate has supported this particular piece of legislation, and the fact that Philip Morris Tobacco Company supported it caused many to have doubts. In Addition, the new smoking regulations are part of a bill that make tobacco products part of the realm of the Food and Drug Administration. Personal loan companies and payday lenders haven't been called yet by the tobacco companies for some fast cash, as they new smoking laws aren't predicted to put a huge dent in their business, even if it's known that President Obama smokes, or at least used to. Many people would give instant cash loans to get even more new smoking regulations that would outlaw the habit altogether. New smoking regulations are about to go into effect. The new smoking regulations are part of a bill that make tobacco products part of the realm of the Food and Drug Administration Personal loan companies and payday lenders haven't been called yet by the tobacco companies for some fast cash, as they new smoking laws aren't predicted to put a huge dent in their business, even if it's known that President Obama smokes, or at least used to. Many people would give instant cash loans to get even more new smoking regulations that would outlaw the habit altogether. Please follow the link for further reading: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/06/12/smoking-law-approved/
Sawyer K., you sound extremely copy and pasted.
PopSci, the politically correct believers? Propaganda is your name and stupidity disguised as science is your game?
Shame on you for publishing more of this one sided tripe.
Same old technique. Repeat the mantra, stick in the main buzz words, copy/paste the ubiquitous fear mongering key phrases. Complete the Hegelian dialectic.
I have bad news for you AGW fanatics: "consensus science" is an oxymoron. So stop being morons.
* Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004) "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)"The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006) "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007
* Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."
* Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."
* Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."
* Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".
*Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.
*Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."
*William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."
* William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."
* George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."
* David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."
The list is much longer. Maybe PopSci should stop being an Al Gore groupie and learn the meaning of the words 'honesty' and 'science'.
Wow, I feel like I have repeated myself one to many time in saying - once again popsci has been outscienced by it's readers. That is very sad.
You are totally right Vigir, now I know not everyone has bought into this scam. I'm completely with you r stance on this.
The Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts recently completed a 9-part seminar series detailing the likely effects of global climate change in Wisconsin, and their findings also apply to the entire Upper Midwest and many mid-latitude locations in both the U.S. and Europe. Their findings confirm everything in this article.
We will do well to start taking what scientists are modeling seriously.
I am grateful to have the best data available as I manage my own 44 acres and make decisions about farming and forestry.
Well if our government says it's true, it must be, right? This would be the same government that has always told us the truth; like the CIA that told us about WMD in Iraq, that government, right? Or how that swine flu vaccine back in the 70's was safe, right?
This "report" is already rebutted here:
@ kstauff. are you kidding, they aren't going to read that (wuwt) if it has actual science involved and actual math and stuff, they aren't interested. they just want to be told that they are bad, and that it is their fault the earth is heating up and to empty their wallets so they can fix it. it is the classic guilt trip.
The U.S. is absolutely getting warmer. The glaciers in the Rockies are melting, we have photographic evidence of that. If there was once a big pile of ice, and now there's a small pile of ice, that can mean only one of two things; it's getting warmer, or there's salt storms. Meanwhile we're seeing droughts and more wildfires, and the hottest years on record are in the last 15 years. These are all facts, people. Let me repeat that it doesn't make sense to rant and rave about there not being a connection between CO2 emissions and global warming, when we're all moving away from carbon based fuels because they're dirty, send money to terrorism, and don't produce as many American jobs as renewable sources. We can either make the switch now and save our economy and stop emitting smog and mercury or keep whining about how science is never ever 100% sure about anything and watch as the Europeans kick our butts.
Regional variations in temperature are as natural as global ones. In fact, our planet has been 10 degrees Celsius warmer than it is now, and contained 15 times the present amount of CO2; life not only survived, it flourished. Droughts and wildfires are also natural occurrences. The Dust Bowl of the 30's was due in part to a significant drought long before the CO2 levels we have today. Doesn't it stand to reason that perhaps these effects may have more to do with regional and global variations in our climate?
One other fact that you should consider is that the global average temperature has been declining for the last 10 years. Further, while ice has melted in some parts of the world, it's increasing in other parts. When considering global climate, it's important to look at *all* of the data, not cherry pick what's convenient to support a theory.
Finally, you should be aware that the Europeans have affected no significant change in the amount of CO2 they emit. They created their own cap and trade scheme and found it to be a resounding failure. Frankly, I'm not much concerned about the Europeans kicking anyone's butt. I'm much more concerned with the stupidity of creating policy that will drive up the cost of living in the US by 20%, without a corresponding increase in income. Cap and trade is at best poorly misinformed and at worst outright theft of taxpayer wealth.
Well, at least 1 part of the above comment is correct, if in a rather skewed way. When average temperatures on earth were higher by 10 degrees Celsius, life did indeed flourish -- tropical forests, insects, and very large reptiles that snacked on much smaller mammals. Not exactly the kind of scenario I'd look forward to. Needless to say, humans were not alive at the time, would have had a very hard time staying alive at that time, and would have had an impossible time building any kind of civilization while avoiding giant snakes and alligators.
As for the Dust Bowl,drought was only part of the picture. CO2 levels were also not to blame, but human influence in the form of overly aggressive plowing exacerbated the situation by loosening soil that became the ubiquitous dust in the presence of drought and windstorms. Parker's comment about the Rockies losing their glaciers may have seemed anecdotal, for anyone that buys the argument that it's just a local phenomenon, except that mountain ranges from the Andes to the Himalayas have also been suffering from shrinking glaciers. It really seems that you would have to "cherry pick" data to support a view that the planet is not warming.
But if you go to the fall back position that it is warming, but because of natural causes, even the list of guest scientists from the Michael "Savage" Wiener show higher up this page includes one or two that admit at least some of the warming must be due to human influence. The Australian scientist that Wiener really seems to like having on his ranting radio show no doubt has a lot of support from his country's very vigorous coal industry (Australia is even more coal dependent that the US).
As for any prediction that our cost of living will go up 20%, how is this prediction of future economic conditions supposedly more concrete than multiple computer models and tons of data regarding human influence on the future climate? Besides, in case anyone hasn't noticed, if we remain dependent on oil, we can expect our cost of living to rise even more than 20% as the global demand for that commodity increases. I think I'd rather bet on innovation and a healthy concern for the future, rather than maintain a status quo that seems to benefit very few at the possible risk of human civilization.
Mike, I think you stepped in a big steaming pile of propaganda.
Every time that the government has implemented regulations, whether it be in the form of taxes or price floors and ceilings, it has hurt the economy of that region. (See rent controls in NY for more proof if needed, or the Cap and trade system in Europe)
While we have nothing other than models and predictions of the "impending" doom from AGW. There is no data from the past to look at to prove these models right. Also, these predictions keep getting push further and further out as to when they are going to effect us. Just like the IPCC saying that temps would raise by 3-5 degrees from 90-2000. And the the oceans would rise in sea level 1-3 inches, only to have it not happen.
I'm glad you buy the BS, cause I don't. If you want to use less carbon, be my guest. But don't force me to.
Before trillions of dollars are wasted/looted can one of these brilliant "scientists" answer a simple question?
How are you predicting weather-temp-climate 20 or 50 years into the future yet can't tell me with any accuracy how hot it will be TOMORROW?
It's just common sense, even when it's uncommon...
I used to live in Maryland. Water table drops in Maryland has forced counties to pass laws that require all homes have a 100 foot well or be connected to city water. Because of the shortage of rain fall the city water system has to tap the largest hydroelectric power plant as a source of water. Ever drink muddy river water? Yuck. After Maryland was hit by a hurricane and I lost electric power for a month, I sold my property in Maryland and moved to Ohio.
Now that I have moved to Ohio, I have heard reports on the local news, about the impact upon shipping, because the Great Lakes has lost a foot of water. Each inch of water drop in the Great Lakes mean 100 million tons of water has been lost from the Great Lakes. This foot drop in water levels has happened in the past 10 years, because of lower rain falls. All the states surounding the Great Lakes have passed laws forbidding exporting water from the Great Lakes out of state.
Because of rising water temperchures, Lake Erie is freezing over later in the Winter, increasing lake effect snows. More snow means greater need to use salt on the road. Shorter road lifespan. More salt use means increased air and water pollution. The cost of the extra salt and the extra fuel used mean less money for other parts of state and local governments. With the depressed economy, the effect is force reducions in police, fire and school budgets.
News about law suits over dropping levels of the water table in the Mid West have made the national news. The Learning Channel reports on with dropping water tables near the Rockies have made national news.
Dropping water tables is expected to cut food production by 25 percent in the next 20 years.
The water shortage in the South made news last year.
News reports about reduced rain fall in the South West means that cities in the South West will run out of water in 20 years. Some are projecting abandonment for several major South West cities because of water shortage.
Sounds like the projected side effects of Global Warming to me.
As more communities build and connect to municipal sewer systems, the groundwater tables will gradually drop. This is seen on Long Island NY where individual septic systems have been replaced by community sewage systems. Instead of treated wastewater going back into the water table it now goes out to a river or ocean outfall. This is progress, not global warming, but with a consequence that it lowers the groundwater table.
The water shortages in the southwest are a different story. There is too much development without consideration for sustainable water supply, particularly in and around the Colorado River watershed.
I am very familiar with the Great Lakes. Please don't tell me you take everything you hear in the local news as gospel. You need to go farther than that to get real information. The Great Lakes Upper Missipppi River Board (which OHIO is a member)and USGS have plenty of reliable information about the hydraulics of the Great Lakes. The ups a downs of the water levels go in roughly 10 to 15 year cycles. With the very wet season we have had recently, the Lakes have plenty of water now even if the remainder of the summer is relatively dry. The Lakes privide tourism, commercial shipping, drinking water and a huge amount of hydroelectric power via Niagara Falls where my electricity comes from.
"Because of rising water temperchures, Lake Erie is freezing over later in the Winter, increasing lake effect snows."
Lake effect snows are a way of life east of Lake Erie and have been for a very long time. Communities east of Lake Ontario have always dealt with it since that lake never freezes. It actually helps add water to the water table during spring melt. As for Lake Erie freezing later in winter than it used to...that too occurs in cycles.
I am not very familiar with "News reports about reduced rain fall in the South West means that cities in the South West will run out of water in 20 years." Please cite your sources.
the gov has billions and billions of extra $$$ for different emergencies, so what's stoppin them from taking action?
We're all doomed. Run for your lives!
Who cares about climate change, these are the things I'm worried about: <a href"http://celebslam.celebuzz.com/2010/05/hayley-williams-topless.php">Hayley Williams Topless</s>