Global warming threats to US study finally published - what do you think?

Question

Under a court order and four years late, the White House Thursday produced what it called a science-based "one-stop shop" of specific threats to the United States from man-made global warming.

While the report has no new science in it, it pulls together different U.S. studies and localizes international reports into one comprehensive document required by law. The 271-page report is notable because it is something the Bush administration has fought in the past.

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist who was not involved in the effort, called it "a litany of bad news in store for the U.S."

And biologist Thomas Lovejoy, one of the scientists who reviewed the report for the federal government, said: "It basically says the America we've known we can no longer count on. It's a pretty dramatic picture of all kinds of change rippling through natural systems across the country."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_sc/sci_climate_science

What do you make of this?

Answer 1

"Increased heat deaths and deaths from climate-worsened smog." They don't seem to mention that far more deaths result from cold winters than from hot summers so this item is moot or actually will result in fewer deaths.

"Worsening water shortages for agriculture and urban users." As crazycon points out, the IPCC states that rising CO2 will result in higher levels of water vapor, which inevitably falls back to the Earth as rain. More rain not less, not to mention ice melt will add to the water available. Empty argument.

"A need for billions of dollars in more power plants...to cool a hotter country." Again omitting the energy saved from milder winters and the greatly increased efficiency of all electrical devices we use today. The only problem is we use far more of them than we used to, the overall efficiency has gone thru the roof. Another empty argument.

"More death and damage from wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters and extreme weather." Where did they find a climatologist or meteorologist who'd make that claim? There isn't an iota of evidence that a warmer Earth would necessarily be stormier or more prone to fires, if anything the increased water supply would make preventing and extinguishing fires easier. The greater risk of fires remains the environmentalists who blindly insist we not cut down trees or remove underbrush, which results in fires that never occurred before those policies existed. A fabrication.

"Increased insect infestations and food- and waterborne microbes and diseases." Predictably they're repeating the ridiculous claim that warmer temp favors mosquitoes that carry disease. However, mosquitoes survive temp that would kill a human and one of the worst malaria outbreaks in history took place in the Ukraine during the winter of 1922-23, and outbreaks reached as far as the Arctic Circle well before the current warming. Another empty argument. http://books.google.com/books?id=N4fyLSw...

"Finally, climate change is very likely to accentuate the disparities already evident in the American health care system." This is certainly true, but that is only because of the proposed actions to curb climate change. Countless numbers will lose their jobs either because they can no longer drive to work or their job gets exported to a country without our Climate Act.

Is the Earth still getting warmer? I must have missed that headline, as far as I know the warmest year on record is still 1998 and the past year was very cold compared to recent winters. The PDO and ADO, and their multidecadal cycles as well seem to be causing cooling that nobody predicted, which shows how useless climate modeling is with a system as immense and chaotic as the Earth.

Oh yes, let's start another impeachment game, JS, that's always the best way to resolve scientific issues, isn't it? Just as shutting down debate and claiming it's not needed due to some nebulous "consensus" will have a happy ending. Unless of course, it gets colder instead and people stop trusting science and scientists and decide that they were coopted for political ends and went along willingly. The ones who write the summaries frequently distort the reports they are supposedly synthesizing and few scientists have a secure enough source of funding to buck the IPCC juggernaut.

Answer 2

Global warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact. A panel convened by the U.S National Research Council, the nation's premier science policy body, in June 2006 voiced a "high level of confidence" that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years. Studies indicate that the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) over the last century. This is the largest increase in surface temperature in the last 1,000 years and scientists are predicting an even greater increase over this century. This warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) in the Earth's upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels, industrial, farming, and deforestation activities.

Average global temperatures may increase by 1.4-5.8ºC (that's 2.5 - 10.4º F) by the end of the 21st century. Although the numbers sound small, they can trigger significant changes in climate. (The difference between global temperatures during an Ice Age and an ice-free period is only about 5ºC.) Besides resulting in more hot days, many scientists believe an increase in temperatures may lead to changes in precipitation and weather patterns. Warmer ocean water may result in more intense and frequent tropical storms and hurricanes. Sea levels are also expected to increase by 0.09 - 0.88 m. in the next century, mainly from melting glaciers and expanding seawater . Global warming may also affect wildlife and species that cannot survive in warmer environments may become extinct. Finally, human health is also at stake, as global warming may result in the spreading of certain diseases such as malaria, the flooding of major cities, a greater risk of heat stroke for individuals, and poor air quality.

Climate change is very likely having an impact now on our planet and its life, according to the latest installment of a report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And the future problems caused by rising seas, growing deserts, and more frequent droughts all look set to affect the developing world more than rich countries, they add. The report is the second chapter of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment -- the most comprehensive summary yet of research into the causes and effects of climate change. To read more, visit Effects of climate change tallied up.

Factors

Greenhouse Gases

The increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activity is often cited as one of the major causes of global warming. These greenhouse gases reabsorb heat reflected from the Earth's surface, thus trapping the heat in our atmosphere. This natural process is essential for life on Earth because it plays an important role in regulating the Earth's temperature. However, over the last several hundred years, humans have been artificially increasing the concentration of these gases, mainly carbon dioxide and methane in the Earth's atmosphere. These gases build up and prevent additional thermal radiation from leaving the Earth, thereby trapping excess heat.

Solar Variability & Global Warming

Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.

HUMANS MADE THIS MESS AND WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN CLEAN IT UP! SAVE THE WORLD! SEA LEVELS WILL RISE, MORE INTENSE HURRICANES, AND DIRTY AIR! RECYCLE: PAPER, PLASTIC, AND BOTTLES! *YES WE CAN STOP GLOBAL WARMING!*

Answer 3

Come on folks! I was a pretty big skeptic about man having an effect on global warming up until about a year ago. There's just way too much evidence now to keep our heads buried in the sand any longer.

Even President Bush finally started talking about the necessity of taking action to reduce the risk from global warming in this year's State of the Union Address. He called it a "serious" situation.

Newt Gingrich was still ridiculing the notion that humans are responsible for global warming as late as 2005. At a debate on April 10, 2007, Gingrich admitted that the evidence was now, "sufficient". He went on to say, "We have now passed the tipping point of that argument".

Pat Robertson, another staunch enemy of the Global Warming "Theory" finally began changing his tune in August of 2006. On a "700 Club" broadcast he said, "It is getting hotter, and the icecaps are melting and there is a buildup of carbon dioxide in the air." "We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels."

And every day the list of right-wing, conservative converts gets longer.

I feel pretty stupid because it took me so long to become convinced. You never-relenting skeptics are going to feel that way soon too.

Answer 4

I think the folks who speak of increased rainfall are missing the point.  We do not have the infrastructure to deal with the increased environmental FLUCTUATIONS that accompany climate change.  Sure, we may get more rain than usual one year, but if it doesn't rain AT ALL the next year, we won't have any water to drink.  And don't you think that increased rainfall can cause just as many problems as drought?

Humans have evolved during a period of relative environmental stability, and are notorious for not being able to deal with change and fluctuation.  

Think of a disaster like Katrina, the Chinese earthquake, the cyclone in Myanmar, or the Tsunami.  If disasters with similar loss of life are happening simultaneously all over the world, there will not be the influx of aid that has helped after these types of events in the past, because everyone will be dealing with their own problems.

Just because it is raining in the U.S., doesn't mean there is water to drink in China, and we might be too busy pulling our people out of floods too send any relief their way.

Answer 5

I think it's time to take the discussion to a "WHOLE 'NUTHER LEVEL"!  Now that the TRUTH  is out, all the 'deniers' can carry the collective guilt of what they did to try to delay or discredit any and all attempt to save mankind! SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!  

Unfortunately,now the panic may begin!  

Look at what happened when we were advised to go out and buy 'duct tape' as a weapon against a "terrorist" attack!  Now is the last chance to stock up on emergency supplies!   Look at the dramatic increase in tornadoes lately.  Look for mass migrations of citizens from storm ravaged areas that continue to experience severe weather.

The ever widening parameters of weather records are a clear example of climate change from global warming.

Answer 6

Hot air from Al Gore.

Check my link for an interesting look at Al Gore's personal commitment to the environment and you may view his integrity differently.

-----------------

To my friend Ken who addressed me below.

I'll give you some credit for being correct that the question does not address Al Gore directly.  However, Gore is the biggest, most well-known proponent on the planet of man-caused Global Warming, and thus I think it's perfectly appropriate to bring him into a discussion of that, and to show proof that he doesn't put his money where his mouth is when it comes to the environment.  Gore clearly doesn't believe his own hype of he wouldn't live the lifestyle he does with regards to energy waste.  

Thus, it stands to reason that if Gore is exposed as a fraud with regards to Global Warming, then it may cause people to open their eyes and not think with their (bleeding) hearts and question what is being fed to them.

If I have caused even one person to question the validity of our actions causing Global Warming, then I have done my job.

--------------

For the record, I never said climate change wasn't happening.  I just don't believe our actions are having much impact on it.  The planet's climate changes throughout the centuries and will continue to do so.  SUV's were not responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs or the end of the ice age.  That's not to say we can't be good stewards of the planet, be responsible and look for alternative energy sources, but we also need to know when we're being duped so someone else can profit on our fear.

----------------

To my misinformed friend "madnoelle" who addressed me (indirectly) below.  In case you're not familiar with my source, Snopes is THE leading internet urban myth buster, often used by Liberals, but in either case, very well respected and VERY accurate.  In the case of my link, they clearly find that Al Gore has indeed not put his money where his mouth is with regards to his own enormous energy hogging mansion, compared to Bush, who is on the love to hate environmentalists list, who's own house is VERY eco-friendly.  It's NOT BS, and in fact A BLACK AND WHITE FACT.  You don't have to like the truth, but that doesn't change what it is.  The more people like you ignore the truth, the more charlatans like Gore with perpetuate, and make money, off this hoax.

Answer 7

Just sounds like the true colors of the global warming agenda are finally showing:  believe our side or we'll force you to.  Fascism at it's finest.

Answer 8

That is the other side of the lie.

The globe is warming causing the atmosphere to warm.  All of the volcanoes are active now which means the molten lava is at the surface.  What is causing that?  The more oil that is removed the less block there is for the lava and the lava rises.

Answer 9

I think it's a travesty that any politician (including the POTUS) is allowed to bury this kind of information for 4 years.  There's really nothing new in the report, for those who follow the science carefully.

Edit:

Whiskey - if you want anyone to look at your link or give you ANY credibility then you should actually read the posted question before responding.  This report has absolutely nothing to do with Al Gore (who, FYI, has been out of the government for almost 8 years).

Backyard - LOL

Answer 10

What lies before us is a  271 page scientific report that is comprehensive in scope, and an Administration guilty of belatedly offering up page upon page of what's going on and how it is expected to impact the America of the future. History will not judge this administration kindly on several fronts.  This is one of them.

I encourage every skeptic on this site who is really a skeptic, and not in denial, to read the report. Investigate further by following up with information available through NOAA, NASA, USGS, DOE, DOD, and other U.S. agencies that have been researching the topic, sometimes for decades.  Read, investigate, think, think some more.  By now, every answer you get prompts more questions.  Now, you're truly curious.  Now, you want to know how you can help.

http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/NSTC%20Rep...

Answer 11

suppressed for 4 years??? outrageous.

i had seen several other warnings e.g. of the drying of the south west that seemed obvious

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may...

and had started wondering how your gov. could possibly be so behind the science. so, looks like they weren't...

Answer 12

ITS GODS WAY OF SAYING ,LOOK ,YOU ALL SCREWED IT UP GOOD THIS TIME!

Answer 13

Has anyone actually seen a few copies of this report NEXT TO EACH OTHER? I have.

DOESN'T ANYONE THINK ITS A BIT IRONIC THAT A REPORT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING PROBABLY KILLED QUITE A FEW TREES?

Anyways, it isn't a bit shocking. Kinda expected that.

Answer 14

That's great! I hope some of these 'skeptics' read it w/o listing some bs thing about Al Gore. Ooops! Too late...

Answer 15

"The report was required by a 1990 law which says that every four years the government must produce a comprehensive science assessment of global warming. It had not been done since 2000."

Figures...

Nothing too surprising in the study.  It just goes to show our lives are going to be changing drastically, either voluntarily to stop the accelerated climate change, or involuntarily as a result of it.

Answer 16

Like many reports, this one seems to be lacking in substance.

• Worsening water shortages for agriculture and urban users. From California to New York, lack of water will be an issue.

A: Global warming will increase rain fall as the warmer air will trap more water vapor. There is no evidence of water shortages except for the droughts which have always and will always occur in different parts of the world. We just got through a drought. But the rains came agian and now we are at our average. Of course, much of the problem was a direct result of mismanagement, not lack of rain. The rain is back, the management still sucks.

• A need for billions of dollars in more power plants (one major cause of global warming gases) to cool a hotter country. The report says summer cooling will mean Seattle's energy consumption would increase by 146 percent with the warming that could come by the end of the century.

What estimate are they using for temp? So far, the IPCC's "models" are way to high. Hansen's are even more pathetically off base. Also, we need more power plants because #1 more people, #2 More electric "gadgets". Also, what is the energy savings during the winter. They forgot to mention that one. Also, the fact that the theory states that global warming will produce milder winters, warmer evenings, but not drastically hotter "hot" times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/724046...

• More death and damage from wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters and extreme weather. In the last three decades, wildfire season in the West has increased by 78 days.

A: This is really pathetic. No major scientist claims AGW will create more storms or more powerful events. Only Al Gore likes to use natural disaster for his personal enrichment. As for wildfires, you may want to study why these fires are started and what fuels them?

http://www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/de...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?i...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech...

• Increased insect infestations and food- and waterborne microbes and diseases. Insect and pathogen outbreaks to the forests are causing $1.5 billion in annual losses.

A: Another completely baseless statement. Warmer weather is not the cause of outbreaks, poverty is. The AGW policies proposed by the AGW loonies will increase these issues as they will leave more of the earth's poor without power.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.h...

"Finally, climate change is very likely to accentuate the disparities already evident in the American health care system," the report said. "Many of the expected health effects are likely to fall disproportionately on the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the uninsured."

A: This is partially true. The only error is that the policies meant to combat thismyth are what causes the poor to suffer needlessly. Let's look at the first AGW legislation to come along. Government mandated more biofuels. So people grow more biofuels. Only problem is they atre growing less food. This means the price of food as soared causing the poor to suffer.

The environmental wackos have also effectively shut down further exploration for oil (our primary source for energy in cars, etc).  This has caused the supply of oil to be pinched, thus causing prices to rise. Couple this with the previous policy of biofuel additives (these are more expensive than gas), and Presto! we have higher gas prices. Environmentalist around the world pat yourself on the back for causing more death and misery around the world.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12118445...

http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl...

This report is useless, except maybe for toilet paper.

Answer 17

Here are a few of the highlights:

• Increased heat deaths and deaths from climate-worsened smog. In Los Angeles alone yearly heat fatalities could increase by more than 1,000 by 2080, and the Midwest and Northeast are most vulnerable to increased heat deaths.

• A need for billions of dollars in more power plants (one major cause of global warming gases) to cool a hotter country. The report says summer cooling will mean Seattle's energy consumption would increase by 146 percent with the warming that could come by the end of the century.

• More death and damage from wildfires, hurricanes and other natural disasters and extreme weather. In the last three decades, wildfire season in the West has increased by 78 days.

White House associate science director Sharon Hays "declined to characterize the findings as bad".  After all, what could a few thousand more American deaths per year possibly mean to an administration that prides itself on the art of illegal surveillance, jailing without trials, and torture?

The Bush administartion has been avoiding releasing this report since 2000, so surely the report itself will be highly watered down..  However, the capitulation on writing the reprot and its admission that GW is happening and will affect all Americans is significant.  Shouldn't we immediately impeach the people who clearly lied to us on this issue for so long (and about so many things such as the justification for invading Iraq), and get down to the serious business of planning a detailed least-cost adaptation strategy?

Here's another timely piece of evidence on the Bush Administration:

"In a shocking turnabout, the press secretary most known for defending President Bush on Iraq, Katrina and a host of other controversial issues produced a memoir damning of his old boss on nearly every level — from too much secrecy to a less-than-honest selling of the war to a lack of personal candor and an unwillingness to admit mistakes."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_o...

Over 100 million people take the time to vote on Ameican Idol, but few people can be bothered to care about their own future.  By tolerating delay and deceit at the highest levels of government, we're practically begging to be blindsided in the most dramatic way (as we're just starting to see with gas and food prices).