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.
Do you folks know how much CO2 you have contributed just writing on this blog?
Do you know where your food is going to come from this winter due to the crop failures all over the world from COLD weather?
Do you know if fish is going to be available due to the horrendous over fishing of the oceans?
Obama sets his folks off to re-mouth the words of a previously discredited report to keep you distracted from the fact there is a looming food crisis. You won’t be worrying much about “Climate Change” when you are out searching for food in a few years.
As recently as 2007, California lost most of its citrus crops (billions in value) due to one of the coldest winters on record. My house, which had never seen a freeze, had busted pipes 4 times due to bitterly cold temps. I had to retrofit pipe insulation (like I had in Colorado) to prevent it in 2008. The house was built in the 30’s…
Scott, you are starting to look like conFusion with your misunderstanding.
Patrick I think sea level rise can happen in localized fashion. For example, the Maldives is frequently cited as another affected country, but there the sea level has been dropping.
http://tinyurl.com/maldiv
# 96 MikeN said, “Patrick I think sea level rise can happen in localized fashion.”
Yes, but only temporarily, not over years in the same ocean. Good link. Refutes all the nuts quite nicely.
#94 – Food is easy. Remember the “too many people” argument. We can solve that and food simultaneously: think “Soylent Green”.
#91 – PatDick,
Umm, land is the lowest where it meets the sea. How steep the coastline is not relevant. It has not risen here. High tide isn’t any higher. Sea level remains the same in CA. How do you explain that if you say that the sea level has risen?
A) Storm tides make far less difference where the coast is steeper.
B) You haven’t shown me any data stating that the sea level where you are is unchanged.
C) Apparently sea level rise is not constant around the globe. I’m surprised, but this indicates that it is not a constant rise around the globe.
http://tinyurl.com/n7t9eo
Strangely, yes, California’s sea level is not rising. Tuvalu’s is. Global average sea level is observed to be rising.
# 99 Misanthropic Scott said, “Strangely, yes, California’s sea level is not rising.”
Correct. As I stated based on direct observations over a 40 year period. The overall level of the Pacific isn’t rising either.
#92 – smittybc,
#88 Misanthropic Scott
That link wasn’t really at all solved using an economic system. That was solved by first cleaning up the emissions using clean coal technology techniques (scientific approach). Then using other technologies to mix the high sulfur and low sulfur coals (again scientific approach). They did not create an external economy and sell high sulfur credits.
Actually, creating a cap and trade market is exactly what they did. How do you see it otherwise?
As for irrational, I think the rest of your post is far less rational than what I have been posting. Why not simply back up your own statements with links?
What is not addressed by environmentalists is what will be the cost to those in the developing world (we saw this with ethanol), what are the required reductions to the standard of living in this country, and is solar and wind really any more “environmental” than oil, hydroelectric, or nuclear? Why should we impact so much of our society, reduce productivity, reduce standards of living to delay Global Warming by about 2 years (according to the IPCC)?
Where exactly does the IPCC say this about 2 years? Where exactly do you address how we will technologically perform the functions of cleaning air and water when the biosphere does not do it for us for free? Are you aware that the estimate for the services provided by nature to us for free is at about $30 trillion per year? How will anyone, even all of humanity, fund that?
http://biodiversity.ca.gov/newsletter/v9n2/wilson.html
#100 – Patrick,
# 99 Misanthropic Scott said, “Strangely, yes, California’s sea level is not rising.”
Correct. As I stated based on direct observations over a 40 year period. The overall level of the Pacific isn’t rising either.
Nice job quoting me out of context like that. I knew I could count on you.
How about the fact that the global average sea level is indeed observed, not modeled, to be rising and to be accelerating its rise?
#96 – MikeN,
Scott, you are starting to look like conFusion with your misunderstanding.
If you are comparing me to Mr. Fusion, thank you for the compliment.
If you are expressing confusion at my last post, yes, I guess an example of someone learning something new might be confusing to one who has not done so in years.
#97 – PatDick & Lyin’ Mike,
# 96 MikeN said, “Patrick I think sea level rise can happen in localized fashion.”
Yes, but only temporarily, not over years in the same ocean. Good link. Refutes all the nuts quite nicely.
I guess the blog of a retired weatherman would be of greater value than a peer reviewed scientific work by those actually working in the field of climatology to those who can’t tell the difference.
Here’s a news article citing a new report aggregating many others showing that global warming is already happening much faster than even what was expected just a few years ago.
http://tinyurl.com/lftdgc
So, I guess the sea level is rising everywhere except CA. Force fields? In Florida, the beaches I’ve been going to for decades haven’t see any rise either…
I’m glad the US is immune to global sea level rise. LOL
# 105 Misanthropic Scott said, “Here’s a news article citing a new report aggregating many others showing that global warming is already happening much faster than even what was expected just a few years ago.”
Pretty funny. You missed one major omission in the article. No mention of actual real world temps rising. Just some rises in stuff they think will result in temp rise. Easy to miss if you have no training in science, I guess.
Patrick, here is an article in Nature saying
that sea level rise can differ significantly in different areas. They are saying that sea level is not likely to rise by more than 1 meter by 2100. Someone needs to tell James Hansen.
They also say the variation can be decimeters.
http://tinyurl.com/mzlbr7
Scott, I’m referring to your post #87, where you confused no sea level rise with high cliffs. I still don’t get how sea level rise differs in places, which would properly explain things.
#108 “Global mean sea-level change has increased from a few centimetres per century over recent millennia to a few tens of centimetres per century in recent decades.”
~1.3 feet over the last few decades. Not in the US. The US borders the 2 major oceans of the word. I’ve read many articles about this. I just checked with someone I know who has lived in the Normandy area for 50 years. No rise there either. So, the US & EU have apparently been immune…
#107 – Patrick,
Actually, the news article missed that. The full report did not.
http://tinyurl.com/l44me9
Emphasis mine.
look, our solar system is passing through the galactic plane for the first time in our brief history. there is an electromagnetic ribbon around the edge of the galaxy that is intermingling with, and pushing against the electromagnetic sphere around our solar system (the sun’s heliosphere) as well as Earth’s and the rest of the planets magnetospheres.
This is why the sun “has gone dark” (no sunspots) much longer than usual thus far. -why the sun’s heliosphere has shrunk 25% in the past decade. -why the Red Spot on Jupiter has shrunk 10% in the past decade and Heck, even Betelgeuse (red giant) has shrunk 15% since 1993
This is all part of a cycle [one of several] (enter the galactic plane – get magnetically squeezed-etc)
Simplistically, this pressure is squeezing the earth a bit, causing tectonic shifting and kinda like a zit..the magma is being forced out in the via volcanoes, fissures and the like.
This is manifesting in the large increase of volcanic activity, earthquakes and especially, underwater volcanoes forming and erupting as of late.
There have been increased seismic activity in the Antarctic as well a volcano becoming active. -think that might help with breaking up the ice a bit?
-also, with the increased underwater volcanic activity more land is being formed that is out of sight, but nonetheless, must displace water, causing sea level rise.
-add…the sea has been warming from the bottom up.
look around and you’ll see all sorts of reports of dead fish washing ashore or not showing up for their yearly migrations (or greatly diminished)
you hear the same of migratory birds.
-the magnetic changes chaos is messing with them as well…
last for now… here is the short list of cycles that effect weather that the IPCC completely ignores: (note, when several of these cycles overlap, weather effects are greatly magnified)
SHORT-MEDIUM TERM
11-22 year magnetic sunspot cycle
88 year Gleissberg cycle
206 year cycle of solar variability
LONGER TERM
26,000 year cycle of the ‘wobble’ with precession of the equinoxes
40,000 year cycle of the +/- 1.5° change in the Earth’s axial tilt
100,000 year cycle in the eccentricity of Earth’s elliptical orbit
225,000,000 year cycle (and smaller sub-cycles) due to rotation of the Solar System about the galactic centre which takes the Earth up and down through the galactic plane, interstellar dust and cosmic ray fluxes change as a result slowing of the Earth’s rotation
Climate change is strictly a natural cycle.(barring weather modification via military technology)
Climate change via the IPCC is strictly a political tool, nothing more..
The weather from now out to about 2020 will be completely insane.
What we SHOULD be doing is preparing the masses for this very serious reality and hardening our power generation facilities as well as getting coastal people ready for changes coming.
-Not wasting trillions of dollars on completely useless cap and trade policies and carbon tax scams.
(carbon tax will be the *new* derivative bomb/asset bubble)
GET A CLUE PEOPLE.
-s
# 111 Misanthropic Scott said, “Actually, the news article missed that. The full report did not.”
Ah, the same report that is claiming sea level rise, except along the coasts of the continents… Cool!
I guess that means that ships have to steam uphill to reach the center of the ocean. I guess it will save on fuel as they approach ports…
Scott most of those data points are invalid. IPCC issued temperature projections based on modls, with error ranges, and the real temperatures are below those ranges. Check out Lucia at The Blackboard for the graphs.
Arctic sea ice extent has increased, and is at the 30 year mean. Extreme climatic events has been shown to be false and based on non-peer-reviewed papers which are contradicted by peer-reviewed items.
Ocean heat levels have not increased either, suggesting a flaw in the models, though there is some dispute over how well they are measuring this heat.
For that matter, the IPCC still hasn’t corrected the hockey stick. Michael Mann tried to resurrect it last year, but in fact his math in that one was just as bad. Using the same data and methods as Mann, you can show that temperatures have gotten smaller over the last 100 years.
http://tinyurl.com/6e4bg2
#113 – PatDick,
# 111 Misanthropic Scott said, “Actually, the news article missed that. The full report did not.”
Ah, the same report that is claiming sea level rise, except along the coasts of the continents… Cool!
I guess that means that ships have to steam uphill to reach the center of the ocean. I guess it will save on fuel as they approach ports…
For those paying attention, no. It was two different reports. And, the fact that you don’t understand how sea level varies over the planet does not make it false.
#114 – MikeN,
Scott most of those data points are invalid. IPCC issued temperature projections based on modls, with error ranges, and the real temperatures are below those ranges. Check out Lucia at The Blackboard for the graphs.
Arctic sea ice extent has increased, and is at the 30 year mean. Extreme climatic events has been shown to be false and based on non-peer-reviewed papers which are contradicted by peer-reviewed items.
Ocean heat levels have not increased either, suggesting a flaw in the models, though there is some dispute over how well they are measuring this heat.
For that matter, the IPCC still hasn’t corrected the hockey stick. Michael Mann tried to resurrect it last year, but in fact his math in that one was just as bad. Using the same data and methods as Mann, you can show that temperatures have gotten smaller over the last 100 years.
I believe the point of this report is precisely that the models have been incorrectly predicting lower warming than has been actually observed. The real results are worse than expected.
And, c’mon Mike, another blog??!!? Cite a real source, please.
And, get with the program. The hockey stick was upheld years ago. It’s valid. Get over it.
http://tinyurl.com/n444w7
The second paragraph in your own link:
The panel said that a statistical method used in the 1999 study was not the best and that some uncertainties in the work “have been underestimated,” and particularly challenged the authors’ conclusion that the 1990’s were probably the warmest decade in a millennium.
Add to that the followup papers that have tried to correct it, and the scientists keep getting found out using bad math.
Using the same source data and methods that Prof Mann uses, you can create the opposite graph!
great post, many vey interesting comments to, many thanks guys!
Patrick’s attitude on global warming.
So far in the middle eastern US, we’ve had a cooler and wetter spring, that usual. Whereas G.W. usually causes hotter and dryer conditions. So has bad old G.W. taken a few years off? Of course my gullible friend would argue that ANY deviation from the norm (colder or hotter, wetter or dryer) is what G.W. is responsible for. To which I would vainly try to counter (to his duped mindset) that weather is by definition mainly unpredictable and random. And what is considered the norm, is really an “average” of past weather events. The mistake is in assuming that climate must closely adhere to the calculated norms, at all times. Otherwise something is very wrong with the earth’s climate. But that’s what normal variations are all about. And just checking what the record lows and highs were for any one day (in your area). Shows what temperature extremes have resulted, often many decades ago (before G.W. kicked in?). And what variation their is (or may be), isn’t necessarily caused by mankind (read, “Americans”) alone (or at all). Particularly since some of the other planets are also showing a “climate change”. And we’re all just a little bit too far away to be that cause of that too. So many it’s the sun, or something.
The only reason these G.W. proponent “climate scientists” are stirring up a new scare story, now, is this. It’s a combination of the bleak economy threatening to put a damper on their anti-G.W. spending and policies. And that most of the country (US) isn’t experiencing the severe weather G.W. usually predicts.
For example, this year National Weather Service, tired of being wrong about the number hurricanes they predict will occur (and having to adjust their estimates in August). Have scaled back their usually G.W. inflated numbers, without admitting that why they’re doing it. Or that G.W. isn’t producing the larger number of Named storms, or stronger fewer storms. A lot of last year’s storms just petered out in the Atlantic Ocean. It was kind if embarrassing. In fact the near absence of these storms, reduced the rainfall totals that coastal states have come to rely on.
There’s also dire predictions of coastal cities like Miami, disappearing under water, as the ocean rises. But the current tide data doesn’t reflect this. So they must be assuming the sea levels will quickly rise, some time in the future. Even though there’s little or no sign of this now.
Well that’s not science in my book. That’s fortune-telling. And apparently these scientists and policy makers, have learned the trade of predicting the worst, and asking for funds to prevent these things from happening. And if we fork over enough of our wealth to them. They’ll magically lift the climate curse. Without having to prove, it ever truly existed in the first place.
# 116 Misanthropic Scott said, “I believe the point of this report is precisely that the models have been incorrectly predicting lower warming than has been actually observed.”
Well, since there hasn’t been warming actually observed in many years, the model must have predicted cooling…
Lyin Mike,
As usual, you missed something. Try reading the third paragraph. Here, let me help,
then go down a few paragraphs for this gem
As usual, the right wing nuts like to cherry pick certain words and sentences out of context. It must be the short attention span.
#120, Glenn,
Good summary and well made points.
My hat is off for you sir. Than and I had an itch.
🙂