WASHINGTON (AFP) – The harmful effects of global warming are being felt “here and now and in your backyard,” a groundbreaking US government report on climate change has warned.
“Climate change is happening now, it is not something that will happen decades or centuries in the future,” Jerry Melillo of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Massachusetts, one of the lead authors of the report, told AFP.
Climate change, which the report blames largely on human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases, “is under way in the United States and projected to grow,” said the report by the US Global Change Research Program, a grouping of a dozen government agencies and the White House.
The report is the first on climate change since President Barack Obama took office and outlines in plain, non-scientific terms how global warming has resulted in an increase of extreme weather such as the powerful heatwave that swept Europe in 2003, claiming tens of thousands of lives.
Thanks BubbaRay.
Wow! People got tired of “man-made global warming”, so the new buzz words are “man-made climate change”.
There is no consensus among the scientific community that the warming/change is man-made.
Heck, back in the 70s the scientific community was worried about man-made global cooling. Big whoop. They can’t seem to make up their minds.
Why are climate change alarmists also the most vehemently against nuclear power, the only energy source that could replace fossil fuels and emits zero greenhouse gases?
Solar, wind, and geothermal are all great for limited applications but only nuclear can produces the gigawatts needed to replace coal, oil, and natural gas. Yet, Al Gore and the rest won’t even mention it. Why is that?
@28 Daavo. Well said.
@16 Sea lawyer. Good point. Although hard to achieve.
Perhaps a better way of dealing with this is to separate the issues.
1) Is there climate change?
2) What causes it?
3) Will it will have an impact on humanity?
4) If it does have an impact, what can we practically do about ?
And so on…
Lots of the comments here appear to be
It may cause taxes -> doesn’t exist.
Al Gore (?) -> its a conspiracy -> doesn’t exist.
It does exist but its not man made -> do nothing.
It does exist, and some may be man made but we can’t do anything about it -> do nothing.
And so on and so on.
If we could separate the issues then perhaps we could get some clearer answers. For example if its not man made, but it is going to have a serious effect on humanity, and we can do something practical about it, then we should probably do that.
That’s not the form of many of the arguments presented here though. They are of the form of picking at an issue and then that somehow invalidates everything else. For example…
Climate change is natural -> therefore we do nothing.
Say your home and community was going to be destroyed because it was in low lying land, and you had good evidence that sea levels were rising. If it was practical/economic to build a sea wall to keep you and your community safe then you’d do that. Assuming climate change caused the sea level rise you would have solved at least in part climate change for yourself + your community community. Perhaps its not economic + you have to move.
In the example it is not important, exactly what caused the sea level change in terms of doing something about it. It’s also analogous in that, in that situation doing nothing because your community hadn’t been flooded yet, would probably be a poor decision, as the implications of there being a flood on you and your community are large.
And if you think that’s all academic – then consider the impact of sea level changes (for whatever reason) on the people of Bangladesh.
You guys are all so smart. You know more about the subject than people who devote their lives to studying it…
I don’t see any downside to not creating pollution. Let’s say we spend the time and money to create new technologies that don’t pollute and then we find out that all the climate change stuff is wrong. Well, so what? We (the developed western world) have created new jobs by developing new technologies. We have created new businesses that the rest of the world will use to that we will be a leader in manufacturing these new technologies. We have made the middle east irrelevant by eliminating or at least vastly reducing the amount of oil we use. Oh noes, the horror!
@35 I agree.
It seems to me off the bat, the easiest thing to try and do is to try and be more efficient.
And yet people are up in arms about that – even though it will make the US a nicer place (less pollution), safer (less money and dependence on oil), wealthier (because of new technology we can export, and needing to import and use less resources).
Why a vocal section US population doesn’t want to pursue that irrespectively, is completely beyond me.
35, 36: No one here is pro-pollution. What I do see is government at times being an instrument of force to create behavioral changes.
Case in point. No one will be able to buy incandescent light bulbs in a few years in favor of Energy saver bulbs. Energy saver bulbs are the only feasible option right now (since decent LED lighting is still expensive). Energy saver bulbs have mercury in them. Would you have us all believe most of those bulbs are going to be properly disposed of? Or do you suppose they will end up in landfills where the mercury could possibly poison the land and/or drinking waters?
But you’re right about being wealthier… GE, Sylvannia, and Philips probably benefit the most out of having legislation created to force people to buy mercury filled light bulbs.
The reason why some people who are vocal is beyond you is probably because you take an approach that everyone should live like you. To each their own.
#23 “Climate change is happening now. It’s also happened yesterday, last year, 10,000 years ago, and 100,000 years ago.”
I keep hearing this ad nauseum as well. The terms “Global Climate Change” has been chosen over “Global Warming” because it is more accurate, but what they both are “titles”. Attacking the “titles” is boring and silly.
It is the phenomenon, and the causes and effects that need to be addressed.
Temperatures have been rising for a century, the temperature rise correlates with rises in CO2 from fossil fuel usage. All of this has been scientifically proven.
#37 Guyver
“The reason why some people who are vocal is beyond you is probably because you take an approach that everyone should live like you. To each their own.”
No not at all – I general really couldn’t care less how anyone chooses to live. Really.
This is a situation where peoples choices may seriously effect other peoples lives. So in those situations some kind of resolution is advisable – and it generally involves the modification of some peoples behavior.
And therefore ‘to each their own’ in such situations is completely inappropriate. I hope you agree.
I hold John C. Dvorak responsible- look at all the hot air here!
Just so no one’s disappointed- it’s all the fault of those statists. And President Obama. ACORN and teleprompters also. Let’s waterboard them all! My plastic Jesus says it’s okay.
Every time there’s a global warming/climate change post here on DU we get to see the same silly pea brained arguments. It used to be funny. Regardless of the cause, or whether or not we can do something about it, scientific consensus is that – it’s a fact.
Facts are useful, and aren’t just there to help you win arguments, or make you look clever.
Another fact is there’s nothing we can do about it, except prepare. It might be a good time to start building dykes aroung the important costal cities. Unless it’s cheaper to abandon them like you guys did with New Orleans. Or maybe they could prepare Manhattan to be like a new Venice, that’d be cool, right?!
39. “This is a situation where peoples choices may seriously effect other peoples lives.”
Maybe, maybe not. There is no scientific consensus as to whether this “problem” is man-made.
30 years ago, scientists were screaming bloody murder over global cooling.
#37 Guyver
Oh and whilst I’m at it.
“No one here is pro-pollution.”
Well that’s a bit sweeping.
There may not be people saying ‘lets create more pollution’. But there are plenty of people here arguing do nothing. Or in particular lets not as a country try and be more efficient.
And since there is a significant amounts of unwarranted pollution – for a variety of reasons including lack of efficiency, they are in effect pro-pollution. Absolutely.
#42 Guyver
Yeah – the point was about being more efficient and people arguing against that.
There doesn’t need to be a “problem” per se, to make that something worth pursuing.
So whether there is a “problem” or if its man made is irrelevant. That was what my previous post saying I couldn’t understand people arguing against being more efficient was about…
Never mind.
But if you need a concrete “problem” to inspire pursing anything (as opposed to advantages), how about doing it to try and keep the US competitive with China, India + the rest of the world. As well as the other touched upon advantages – such as security, money etc..
Just in case some of you may want more facts and not just read these ridiculous posts ->
http://epa.gov/climatechange/
Yeah I know some of you are gonna say it’s a government agency totally controlled by a liberal agenda. That’s probrably because the EPA didn’t get rid of lead in the gasoline quick enough.
43, IMHO, If you are in favor of legislating behavioral changes because you think it’s best for all due to “man-made” global warming BEFORE there is any proof of it, then that would be an environmental alarmist. The justification is based on an idea that hasn’t been proven. People like this want to legislate force by government due to their opinions.
IMHO, If you are someone who tries to encourage people to make less of an impact on the planet (regardless of global-warming) I would say you’re a conservationist.
No one wants to p1ss in their own back yards. One is in favor of legal and behavioral force, while the other tries to promote a way of life. One is based on an unproven idea while the other is essentially good common sense. But it’s an individual choice.
Speaking of efficiency, I always hear about how so many people disapprove over someone’s purchase of a truck or SUV, but I don’t see those same people belly-aching over how many single people buy 3 or 4 bedroom homes. Hypocrites? What about the rich who live in mansions?
As for “unwarranted” pollution, you do realize the mere act of you breathing is pollution? LOL. You exhale CO2. You better have less children so as to lower your personal impact on this planet.
45, What I would have said is that water vapor is a green house gas in much greater abundance than CO2. Good grief. Do you want to start limiting water vapor emissions or man-made lakes?
If you go back to the 70s, you’ll probably also find information on how the EPA was worried about global cooling. So what?
Do you think governmental agencies are not immune to playing politics?
Look on page 25 of this report, and their own slides show that actual observed temperatures are below model projections, even including their error bars.
The people doing these reports have an agenda, frequently writing up summaries before the actual sub-reports are done.
In 2000, they issued a report, and it was determined that the report didn’t meet the federal government’s requirements for solid science. So even now, it has a disclaimer on it like the surgeon general’s warning on cigarettes. See it for yourself:
http://usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/
In response, the various global warming alarmists tried to get Congress to exempt
NOAA and global warming research from the Federal Data Quality Act.
Here’s one scientist showing how they rejected peer-reviewed science to make this report sound alarming.
http://tinyurl.com/pielke
The only thing that will reverse Global Warming is by jumping to geothermal electric, wind electric, solar electric and variations on electric transportation by 2020. And that’s simply not going to happen.
Even if it were possible, technically, globally and culturally, it would take around 300 years to get back to 1800 atmospheric conditions, and that CERTAINLY will never happen.
So the verdict is this: We are friggin’ doomed. Not kidding.
44, What you essentially did is contradict yourself in the same post in a roundabout way.
In your post 39, you said: “No not at all – I general really couldn’t care less how anyone chooses to live. Really.”
You then immediately follow up with: “This is a situation where peoples choices may seriously effect other peoples lives. So in those situations some kind of resolution is advisable – and it generally involves the modification of some peoples behavior.”
What you essentially said, you could care less about how others live but we should use government legislation to change how others live.
So maybe I misjudged your comment… maybe what you’re meaning is you could care less how others live so long as government is involved to change the way they live as you see fit?
If you truly did not care how others lived, you wouldn’t be saying behavior modification through government legislation is needed whatsoever…. but truth be told, how others lives does seem to bother you.
Just so there’s no error in perception: Hydrogen vehicle power is a variation on electric. You get it by putting energy into water, then retrieving that energy in engines.
>the temperature rise correlates with rises in CO2 from fossil fuel usage.
No it doesn’t. It correlates better with solar activity, and with ENSO.
http://i44.tinypic.com/144ag5f.jpg
Increasing CO2 causes a logarithmic increase in temperatures. A doubling of CO2 increase temperatures by 1.2C, and a quadrupling another 1.2C.
Staring at 270 historical CO2, we are at about 385 now, with estimates ranging as high as 1000 for the future, and 450-600 in many IPCC estimates. So if it gets to a doubling, you can expect 1.2C of warming. The higher warming comes from feedback. They assume that this warming will create more CO2, and more importantly, the oceans will evaporate, creating more water vapor, which is a larger greenhouse gas, and this water will create more warming. So all of the high warming scenarios are based on feedback factors of 2,3,4,5 or more. It could also be the case that the water vapor forms clouds, and this reflects sunlight, reducing the warming. Currently, the models operate on the assumption of a positive feedback for clouds.
If the feedbacks are negative to neutral, then the warming will not be anywhere near the alarmist scenarios being predicted.
Other physical parameters in the models, that are not well known, is how much heat can the oceans absorb before the atmosphere heats up(a few meters of ocean has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it), and how much negative feedback do aerosols create(this is why volcanoes lower global temperature)?
Playing around with these parameters in the models change the amount of warming from 7C to .5C, without changing CO2 emissions.
You can run some of these scenarios yourself. Just lookup MagicC.
#42, guyver,
30 years ago, scientists were screaming bloody murder over global cooling.
Actually, you are not only wrong, you are effen wrong. It was a few people that brought up the hypothesis that all the soot from manufacturing may block the sun’s rays from hitting the earth. There was also the fear of what would happen from a nuclear winter if the West and USSR ever traded missiles.
In case you missed it, that theory never gained much traction. It did serve to get the attention of politicians to pass clean air laws.
#46, Guyver,
No one wants to p1ss in their own back yards.
Say what? That is a requirement to be a neo-con, right wing nut, conservative, libertarian.
Actions such as advocating Nuclear power is the only option then not telling us where we will store the waste.
#49 Buzz
Society as it’s currently conceived is doomed, but the human race will continue. Humanity as a mass has a terrible inertia where the individual doesn’t necessarily have one. Those of us convinced of our perceptions of the future can prepare and will have advantages over those who limit themselves to complaining when the government tries to prepare and also complaining about when they fail to prepare.
#16 – Sea Lawyer,
What this planet really needs is fewer humans.
Nailed it!! What’s your opinion on a sustainable number? Mine is something well below 300 million, possibly around 60 million or so.
Anyone care to join the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?
Attrition is still the only painless way to reduce the population. Having it reduced for us by trashing the biosphere is going to be extremely painful.
Hey, for all of you global warming deniers, what do you think of ocean acidification? Is that not a good enough reason to reduce our CO2 emissions? Or, are you OK with having zero fish in our oceans?
http://tinyurl.com/mshzab
#56, people should see what is happening.
Global warming alarmists see planetary temperatures dropping, and so they shift the focus to another issue that they can spread their message of doom. This time it is ocean acidification, and they really know very little about this subject beyond some modeling. Already they are engaged in putting out false studies on the subject.
For example this one:
http://climateaudit.org/?p=6189
Mercury is closer to the sun than Venus but Venus is much hotter because of greenhouse gasses.
#56, no clue what is ideal. What I can say is that when we have to resort to even greater methods of mass-producing cheap foods that are actually pretty unhealthy for us, just to feed ourselves, then there is a problem. And on top of that, we want to bring the entire underdeveloped world up to somewhere near our level of development, all while we are doing everything we can to advance medical technology to artificially prolong our wasteful, unhealthy lives even more. Something has to give.
#50 Guyver
Its not complicated, and is completely consistent. No contradiction is required.
I don’t care how people live their life’s _unless_ it materially and detrimentally effects other peoples lives.
In such situations some kind of resolution is advisable, as I said previously. I didn’t say what it was, or how that would be achieved.
I didn’t say anything about government legislation. Although that’s one way of attempting to achieve behavioral change.
For example murderers, seriously impact other peoples lives. Our government has used legislation to create police forces. One of there responsibilities is to stop or bring to justice people who murder.
I’m assuming ‘To each their own’ doesn’t go as far as saying murder is ok. So yes – on some issues I do care how other people live their lives. Such as murder.
And the whole climate change debate is exactly this scenario. In that people may be killed, or have their lives seriously and detrimentally effected. So if that’s the case, then yes I may have to care about how some people choose to live their lives, as much as I’d prefer not to. If it’s not the case, then I don’t have to care.
Oh – and the thing about cooling in the 70s that was wrong. There isn’t a causal link. That that was wrong then doesn’t mean the whole climate change thing now is wrong. Just like if I throw a heads, it doesn’t mean the next time I throw it it’s more likely to be a tails. So whilst interesting as a warning to say it could be wrong – it’s otherwise somewhat weak.
Jccalhoun, more expensive energy has a sever impact on people’s standard of living.