CLIMATE CHANGES: Human activities from farming to housing developments change the climate and are in turn affected by it, according to a new report released by the White House
Image: U.S. Global Change Research Program
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The Obama Administration on Tuesday released a report showing climate disruption is already leaving deep imprints on every sector of the environment and that the consequences of these changes will grow steadily worse in coming decades.
The 196-page report crisscrosses the United States and finds that global warming has touched every corner: Heavier downpours, strengthened heat waves, altered river flows and extended growing seasons.
These changes, the report notes, will place increasing stress on water, health, energy and transportation systems and have, in several instances, already crossed tipping points to irreversible change.
"This report is a game-changer," said Administrator Jane Lubchenco of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Much of the foot-dragging in addressing climate change is in the perception that climate change is a ways down the road and only occurring in remote parts of the planet.
"Climate change is happening now. It's happening in our own backyards, and ... it affects you and the things you care about."
The report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, is issued every decade by the federal government's Climate Change Science Program. It is an attempt to consolidate and transcribe into accessible language the latest climate science across a broad spectrum of disciplines and regions.
The latest version, more than a year in the making, reiterates findings that global warming is unequivocal and primarily caused by humans from the burning of fossil fuels, the clearing of forests, and the disruption of agricultural activities.
Its focus on such a broad swathe of everyday life and its release at a White House press conference by President Obama's top science and climate advisors was seen by many on Tuesday as an attempt to rally the U.S. public to action.
"It's not a document for scientists. It's not even a document for policymakers," said Katharine Hayhoe, a geosciences professor at Texas Tech University and one of 28 report co-authors.
"It's a document for every individual citizen who wants to know why they should care about climate change."
The report notes that reducing carbon dioxide emissions could lessen warming this century and beyond. But it makes equally clear that climate-related changes are already being observed globally and that new problems and challenges will develop no matter how radically emissions are reduced in the future.
For instance, since 1900 global average temperatures have risen 1.5ºF and are expected to rise another 2ºF given emissions already in the atmosphere but not yet reflected in slow-moving climate systems.
Yet temperatures are rising faster over land than over the ocean and more during the winter than any other season. The result, according to scientists, is that winter temperatures across the Great Plains and Midwest are now some 7º warmer than historical norms.
And that means a reduction in Great Lakes ice cover, which leads to more evaporation, lower water levels, and consequent impacts on shipping, infrastructure, beaches and ecosystems.
Meanwhile the Caribbean and Southeast will see increases in wind, rain and storm surges. California and the Southwest will see drier summers. All will see impacts to human health, water supply, agriculture and other aspects of society, the report's authors concluded.
In Chicago, for instance, annual heat-related deaths per six million people could rise from less than 200 that the city saw in the mid-1970s to almost 700 one generation from now.
See what we're tweeting about
64 Comments
Add CommentThis is complete BS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI assume by "this" you mean your own comment marklTman?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSticking your head in a hole won't change reality one bit.... and since the only proof it is likely those like you'll will accept is the type that only appears when it is far too late to prevent catastrophe, pardon those of us that don't want to wait for you to accept the facts around you.
I for one, would like to leave some kind of decent planet for my children and grandchildren and the future of humanity in general.
Tharriss, try getting your head out of your backside and look at the real science here. "Climate change" is the new social religion, where people can make erroneous claims by pointing at what are natural occurrences in the environment. Tell me when this planet was ever consistent with its climate and I'll tell you that you don't know history.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo suggest that we must revert back to living in a cave (whether that be by imposing expensive resolutions the average American cannot afford or by mandating removal of critical day-to-day services and/or tools for the living) is to turn back the clock of progress. Using doomsday fear tactics only prove that this initiative has the same coercive nature of the inquisition, including the egregious mysticism under the guise of pseudo intellectual jargon to support the argument. Youve got a theory? You better damn well prove it. Man-made climate change is NOT proven and more evidence shows that it is actually part of the natural evolution of this planet.
Do a little homework and youll find this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
Again, shame on Scientific American for putting so much emphasis on this nonsense. Lets get back to some real science please!
marklTman,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease cite a specific issue that you label as BS in this report and please support your statements by other peer reviewed literature. As this report was authored by several leading climate researchers and did undergo peer review.
To label the entire report as BS signifies a lack of understanding of the report and/or you just plain didn't read it!
Chickentbuttlips,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTalk about doing your homework, lol! You site the Oregon 31000 scientists petition which has been shown crap, time and time again. Do a google search for oregon climate petition and see what you find. Maybe you'll believe a bunch of MD's and non practicing scientists not in the field of climate science, on their take on AGW, but I won't.
In case you don't like to read or are unable to you google (which you have already shown) here's a nice youtube video to watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I&feature=channel_page
Funny how you feel content to believe a random bogus article but quickly refute a publication by leading climate scientists. Try and do some actual reading...
Heh, thanks Shoreliner and CBL, you saved me the effort of wasting my time in a reply to someone who has clearly decided not to look at the facts, but instead search for whatever unsubstantiated backup for pre-determined beliefs he can find, while ignoring the mounds of evidence and research to the contrary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it irritating that sci-am allows "energytomorrow.org" a PAC for the oil industry to advertise on its page. This is not the first time they have tried to hide their identity. I looked up electric cars on Amazon and they put a banner at the bottom of my page. The only way you would know it was a PR stunt is by scrolling to the bottom of the page and seeing the tiny oil and gas catch phrase in the bottom of the page. How deceitful of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe onus of proof is in the one making the claim. I am debating the validity of the claim and I don't have to prove a counter argument. I simply have to state the facts that are clearly evident. However, since I know that there are some in the audience who might not sincerely know the truth, here is an excellent resource: http://www.junkscience.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther, to cite someone who knows what he's talking about:
“Myth: The Earth is warmer than it was 100 years ago.
Truth: At most it’s risen by 0.3 Celsius, less than 0.003 degrees annually and at the moment we’re apparently in a cold patch.
Myth: Global Warming must be happening, it’s warmer here in Small Town.
Truth: It’s global averages that matter (see above)
Myth: Carbon dioxide levels and average global temperatures are at a record high
Truth: Nope, they are among the lowest determined over the last few million years.
Myth: Rising carbon dioxide levels are directly linked to rising global temperatures.
Truth: Not necessarily, there’s a 400-4000 timelag
Myth: Receding icesheets prove anthropogenic Global Warming is happening
Truth: Some ice is melting, other areas are actually growing
Myth: Carbon dioxide is the most potent greenhouse gas
Truth: No, that’d be water vapour of which there is an abundance in the atmosphere, then there’s methane, and what about nitrogen trifluoride used in the manufacture of flatscreen TVs.
Myth: If we accept it’s real, we can do something about it.
Truth: There’s really no point in kidding ourselves, we cannot even control local weather, what makes us think carbon sequestration and seeding the oceans will allow us to affect the climate.
Myth: It must be true, they say so.
Truth: What if it’s a lot of hot air?"
(http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/climate-changed-debunked.html)
Bottom line is that the more people use fear to control others, the more I realize this country's issues aren't environmental, they're totalitarian mentalities.
Well Chickentbuttlsips, this response/rebuttal is going to be long, so bear with me. I'll first quote you, then post my rebuttal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Myth: The Earth is warmer than it was 100 years ago."
Instead of debating this, I'll let the data speak for itself:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
"Myth: Global Warming must be happening, it’s warmer here in Small Town."
Exactly correct. This myth is used incorrectly by both opponents and proponents of AGW. Just as this last fall was on average cooler, Australia was having simultaneous record breaking summer temps.
"Myth: Carbon dioxide levels and average global temperatures are at a record high.
Nope, they are among the lowest determined over the last few million years."
Incorrect, they are the highest for at least the last 800k years. See here from the just released joint agency report from the US govt.
http://www.slideshare.net/GlobalChange.gov/globalchangegovus-impacts-summary-1550347?type=presentation
Previously (last 800k years) they never got above 300ppm, compared to the 380+ we're seeing today. True there were substantially higher amounts of CO2 at the KT boundary 55million years ago and some will argue, organisms lived then, so high CO2 must be ok. The issue is that the biota living on the earth today has evolved under the current conditions. Drastically changing the temperature/co2/sea level etc in a short time, leaves many of these organisms with the inability to adapt fast enough leading to their demise.
"Myth: Rising carbon dioxide levels are directly linked to rising global temperatures.
Truth: Not necessarily, there’s a 400-4000 timelag"
You are comparing apples and oranges here. The previous interglacial/glacial periods were caused by changes in the earth's orbit. CO2 was a forcing which arose from an already warming world (when earth warms, CO2 is released from a # of natural processes), which allowed the earth to get that much warmer. The fact that CO2 is preceding temperature means only that CO2 rise is not a naturally caused phenomenon in this case.
"Myth: Receding icesheets prove anthropogenic Global Warming is happening
Truth: Some ice is melting, other areas are actually growing "
Try checking out http://nsidc.org/ . They are the go to agency for arctic sea ice. And please provide some links to show ice growing in the northern or southern poles. As indeed this greatly contradicts the vast majority of scientific literature on the subject.
To be continued...
Continued from above...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Myth: Carbon dioxide is the most potent greenhouse gas
Truth: No, that’d be water vapour of which there is an abundance in the atmosphere, then there’s methane, and what about nitrogen trifluoride used in the manufacture of flatscreen TVs."
Nobody claims (to my knowledge) that CO2 is the most potent greenhouse gas. Indeed water vapor and methane are much stronger molecule to molecule. However, this in no way negates the fact that CO2 is STILL a greenhouse gas that has risen because of man made burning of fossil fuels. Lets say for the arguments sake, that water vapor and methane are statics (they are not in real life of course), if you increase CO2 dramatically, you will still get a warming trend.
"Myth: If we accept it’s real, we can do something about it.
Truth: There’s really no point in kidding ourselves, we cannot even control local weather, what makes us think carbon sequestration and seeding the oceans will allow us to affect the climate."
The issue is not our ability to change a climate that has already warmed, but instead to lessen the warming to the greatest extent by reducing our GHG emission now. Both C sequestration and seeding the oceans are highly controversial theories in their ability to have any effect on a large scale. This is why we are trying to plan ahead now!
"Myth: It must be true, they say so.
Truth: What if it’s a lot of hot air?"
Not a very robust myth, but anyhow, if the vast majority of peer reviewed science substantiates the theory of AGW (which it does), then from a scientific perspective, you can conclude that AGW is true and caused by humans. True science is always changing but the fundamentals of AGW are well founded and supported by scientific literature. This is what policies should be based upon, not junk science and bogus petitions.
You also wrote, "The onus of proof is in the one making the claim. I am debating the validity of the claim and I don't have to prove a counter argument."
Your logic is lacking, one key thing, you do not in anyway refute their claim. All you show is that you have an inability to understand the science that substantiates the AGW theory. If you understood the fundamentals of the theory you would have picked apart one of them. Instead you write vague allegations and then conclude, they're wrong until they prove you are.
You put up a link to junkscience, in which I can respond by linking several similar cites refuting almost everything stated by junkscience.com
http://climateprogress.org/
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://globalchange.gov/
Wow. You really don't get it, do you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour first myth is supported by the following 2 truths!
You don't understand the difference between weather and climate.
You don't understand that the climate was fundamentally different millions of years ago.
In this particular case, since you are contradicting all evidence, you really should be prepared to bring a well supported counter argument.
We could go on and on, but it seems like you might just need to start over at elementary school and go from there.
C'mon people, play nice. Al Gore and Kofi Annan say that AGW is real so it must be true. They wouldn't be betting billions of dollars on selling cap and trade credits it if wasn't would they?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the rebranding of Global Warming as Climate Change and then stating that climate change is real. What load of garbage. Stating climate change is real is scientifically sound and impactful as stating "Water is wet". It means nothing.
Climate change has been going on since the Big Bang and will be going on long after our bones have decayed to dust. Just because somebody uses it as a marketing slogan doesn't mean it's a threat to mankind.
The issue is whether people are responsible for changes in the climate through their CO2 emissions. And no evidence of that has ever been presented.
Computer models are not evidence.
Glaciers melting or growing are not evidence (they are effects and speak nothing to cause)
Sea levels are not rising. Tectonic forces have a far greater effect than most people can imagine. 70 million years ago most of central N. America was covered by a shallow sea. Was that due to CO2? No.
True Belivers in the AGW religion can't separate cause from effect. And that's ultimately what makes the AGW religion the biggest scam since One-Hour Martinizing and Scientology.
This graph (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/) doesn't demonstrate that "Climate change" is man made. This graph simply shows we've had a fluctuation. Tell me, has this Earth every remained the same temperature throughout the ages? Use common sense. You can make whatever assertion you want with this graph. All it does is show that "yeah, we've got some temp changes going on here," but that is it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, this graph (http://www.slideshare.net/GlobalChange.gov/globalchangegovus-impacts-summary-1550347?type=presentation) has not only NOT been peer reviewed by scientists, it doesn't prove climate change at all. It just suggests that things are dying. Now, if you want to elimate CO2, stop breathing. You create CO2, which plants need to thrive. Where does the majority of the CO2 come from? Plants that die. So, unless you have a plan to cut down the world's plants, you might want to reconsider the notion (read here for exactly what CO2 means to the world: http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php). Something a little more entertaining (if also vulgar) is Penn & Teller's BS: Being Green (http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/1795/218/).
See, it isn't that I think environmental science doesn't have a place in society. I just know better than to agree with and accept policies based on inconsistent and unproven data. Ask yourself, what is all this data for anyway? Why do we need to worry about climate change or CO2 levels? What is the purpose of all this focus? Explain to me how this will improve the quality of my life and to suggest that somehow I'll breathe better or have more trees is a lie. I breathe fine and the trees are a plenty. So, what are you really driving at when you insist that I accept restrictions and mandates based on inconclusive science? The real unconvenient truth, which is that you want to control my life, period.
Tell you what. If you don't like living in an industrial country. Move. Go to Africa. Go to Fiji.
@chickenbuttlips
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comments really make me sad to be a human being. I'm not sure at this point if you are serious or just trolling, but on a very real level, there are thousands that think like you, and I absolutely hate it.
The problem behind the "Global warming is a conspiracy theory" ideal is that it is against fundamental logic.
Logic would dictate that oil companies and loggers, rich industrialists, etc, would be against global warming. And they are... okay , fine, but they also have some VERY strong lobbyists that have made life a living hell for pro climate change politicians.
Then we had a select few individuals whom for years researched and pushed the idea that climate change is both happening and is man -made. You had scientists almost universally praise the research... You had one of the chief individuals behind this movement receive a nobel peace prize.
So, logically, looking at the two schools of thought,would you say logically, that the conspiracy is that global warming is happening and companies paid off specific groups to spread the lies and slander, or that the conspiracy is 90 percent of scientists, governments, researchers, and other individuals trying to make people aware of what is going on around them and what they can expect.
I am seriously asking because I really think some people set aside logic and disagree with GW because they feel they need to. Like its a partisan issue that can be solved with vicious rhetoric.
"sighs", again, keep up the refuting. See where it gets you.
@chickenbuttlips
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comments really make me sad to be a human being. I'm not sure at this point if you are serious or just trolling, but on a very real level, there are thousands that think like you, and I absolutely hate it.
The problem behind the "Global warming is a conspiracy theory" ideal is that it is against fundamental logic.
Logic would dictate that oil companies and loggers, rich industrialists, etc, would be against global warming. And they are... okay , fine, but they also have some VERY strong lobbyists that have made life a living hell for pro climate change politicians.
Then we had a select few individuals whom for years researched and pushed the idea that climate change is both happening and is man -made. You had scientists almost universally praise the research... You had one of the chief individuals behind this movement receive a nobel peace prize.
So, logically, looking at the two schools of thought,would you say logically, that the conspiracy is that global warming is happening and companies paid off specific groups to spread the lies and slander, or that the conspiracy is 90 percent of scientists, governments, researchers, and other individuals trying to make people aware of what is going on around them and what they can expect.
I am seriously asking because I really think some people set aside logic and disagree with GW because they feel they need to. Like its a partisan issue that can be solved with vicious rhetoric.
"sighs", again, keep up the refuting. See where it gets you.
Nuclear power. Then fusion. Possibly supplement grid power with per-house wind-vanes (government authoritarians hate this because they cant tax and meter it, its a distributed solution to a distributed problem). If this (nuclear, and real per home supplements) isnt on the table, then there is no real solution attempt and its pure trash. The first step to addressing this problem, whether within our control or not is to drop the bull and make power in the proper way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear power. Then fusion. Possibly supplement grid power with per-house wind-vanes (government authoritarians hate this because they cant tax and meter it, its a distributed solution to a distributed problem). If this (nuclear, and real per home supplements) isnt on the table, then there is no real solution attempt and its pure trash. The first step to addressing this problem, whether within our control or not is to drop the bull and make power in the proper way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin wrote,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The issue is whether people are responsible for changes in the climate through their CO2 emissions. And no evidence of that has ever been presented. "
It is statements like this that lead me to this question, "what would could be considered enough evidence to conclude that AGW is happening?" Global temp data, ocean pH reductions, Global CO2 data, robust computer models, all the while still looking at PDO, ENSO, solar irradiance apparently don't constitute any sort of evidence in your book. So again, "what would constitute significant evidence for you?"
That report, although not published in a peer reviewed journal, did undergo peer review. In a press release Jane Lubchenco said that this report underwent a rigorous peer review. Do you really think with a report spanning work by 13 of this nations governmental science organizations, there would be absolutely no peer review!?!?
You've now switched your argument again. I never claimed CO2 as a pollutant, nor did I say CO2 by itself is harmful to life. Indeed plants and animals all respire which releases CO2. This in no way negates the fact that it is still a greenhouse gas. CO2 is not the limiting factor in growth for much of the world's primary production. Most phytoplankton in the world are limited by trace minerals, such as iron. This is why ocean seeding experiments dump iron to increase phytoplankton production. Again, the plants and animals alive today, evolved under the conditions over the last 1m years which do not have CO2 concentrations over 300ppm.
Regarding your last paragraph, you obviously haven't read any of the relevant information regarding the changes that are likely to occur. The purpose of all this focus, as you put, is to try and preserve a climate that will continue to support all life on this planet, not just human. This is
You wrote, "Tell you what. If you don't like living in an industrial country. Move. Go to Africa. Go to Fiji."
Being an industrial country does not give us the right nor does it mean we have to be the largest per capita emitter of GHG's. Burning fossil fuels and being and industrial country are not mutually inclusive. The current economy is based upon fossil fuels, which no matter how you look at it, are finite resources. The switch to a sustainable means of energy production, will either coincide with reducing CO2 emission to combat AGW, or they will happen down the road when we used up all the fossil fuels. Personally I'd rather have a livable climate for ALL of humanity, and sustainable energy
Did you review the "peer review?" There was so much debate and refuting of the theories that it turned out to be an embarrassment to the scientific community. No, the science is still inconclusive. Argue what you will, but that is a fact. And no, we're not dying. No, we're not going to explode. No, we're not going to swim to the arctic. We are going to be just fine without politicians removing our individual rights.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, look at the premise of your argument. You want to impose controls on people's life because you are afraid of some cataclysm you can't prove will happen. That is causeless guilt. That is the crux of your argument. You want to control us. You want to remove our rights to choose our course. You want to bring us back to the totalitarian regime we fought a revolution to escape.
I don’t care what pet projects you get involved in. You can be the strongest advocate for GHGs. But don’t you dare suggest that I have to change my life and moreover, demand petulantly that all of us HAVE TO change just to suit your whims. If you really want to make a difference, get a degree, start a company and come up with viable products that really make a difference. Otherwise, get out of the way. Progress moves on.
I can’t wait until I’m older, and I see the newer generation (who are convinced that the world is going to be destroyed before they grow up, based on all these fear tactics!) where they finally scoff at us now for worrying about something so inane.
Well Chickenbuttlips,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou last post is more telling than the previous. You are coming in with a preconveived notion of that anything that supports the theory of AGW, inherently means you'll have to change your lifestyle, therefore, AGW must not be happening.
And no, sadly, I wasn't on the list of those who peer reviewed this new global change document. Maybe next time...
You keep saying the science is inconclusive, but you display a lack of knowledge and understanding of basic climate science. You are in no position to make that statement, based upon your lack of knowledge.
I'm getting awfully tired of people complaining about their rights as Americans. We have it far better than most of the world. The minute somebody has to stop driving their SUV and be a conscious citizen of this WORLD, and not just this country, people like you start complaining. Man up, take responsibility for yourself and your effect on this planet (however minuscule in the grand scheme of things). And what rights are you worried about losing? So the government phases out fossil fuels to create a smooth transition to a sustainable energy economy. You can't drive a SUV that gets below 25mpg. All of this is peanuts compared to our liberties us Americans enjoy (freedom speech, press, religion etc).
And lastly this is not some whim. Without government regulations, acid rain would still be prevalent, CFC's would still be used, as would leaded gas. These are the things that governments do. When they find something is harmful to the environment and/or the populace, they make restrictions. While CO2 itself is not harmful to us, the effects on local, regional and global climates will indeed be detrimental to us and indeed the rest of the world.
Do one thing, try reading at least the part of this document that pertains to your home area. If you can conclude after reading that there is no shred of credible evidence that this may in some way detrimentally effect you or the environment in which you live, then I suggest you to try to leave your preconceived notions behind and read with out and ideological mindset that all AGW science is false.
The cause and effect of AGW were theorized over 100 years ago. Nothing about the basics has changed since then. The only thing that changed was the make-up of the atmosphere and the resulting shift in multiple variables (hence global climate change, rather than just first order warming).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory was developed long before any mechanism existed to make money off of its effects.
People who understand the theory and its supporting science do not wish to live in yurts and ride bikes everywhere either. Progress is great, but we can do it in a more thoughtful way.
Nor is there any motive of control. What control will scientists (the people that feed Al Gore with information to disseminate because people will grant him an audience before scientists) have? There is no control there. We just report the findings. And it is the responsibility of others to decide what to do about them. People who understand climate change do not want rights to be removed. We would simply like for others to choose the right answer, as well. We won't be choosing for you, but as things work in democracy, once the majority gets it, there will be change enforced on the minority.
Much better put than I loopsyel. Thanks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAGW is a scientific theory that is completely unproven. There are absolutely no working models that have proven to be accurate at all in showing CO2 concentration correlation to temperature increases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere has been a lot of fraud, ie. Mann's hockey stick, a lot of misleading info , like Al Gores presentations which indicate that CO2 increases precede temperature increases when CO2 actually lags temperature rise.
The IPCC has already predicted the end of the world a couple of times. If you can't model and prove the theory then it certainly is not settled science. And now we supposed to believe them?
Governments really like AGW because it shifts more power to them form the individual in the name of saving of the earth. Call it a cap and trade or a carbon tax or whatever you like it does shift wealth/power towards the government.
So now can you see why some of us who value liberty and freedom may not be so eager to jump on the bandwagon just yet?
These assertions just simply do not pan out. There is one painfully obvious reason for this: the government did not pick up on the idea of AGW until after the theory was tested and shown to work in many different climate models.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt works very simply. Take a model, tell it there is additional CO2, and then the temperature goes up. It goes up just as the chemistry and radiation physics explain.
When there was no anthropogenic influence, yes, CO2 did lag temperature rise. This is because natural shifts in orbital parameters caused an increase in solar radiation over a very extended period of time. Subsequently, the oceans, which are large reservoirs of CO2, degassed their CO2 because the ability for water to dissolve CO2 gas is inversely proportional to its temperature (Think about the relative fizziness of a cold soda versus a warm one).
The further problem is this: highly predictable changes in orbital do not match the temperature time series of ancient climates. So what happened? Essentially, it was a positive feedback between temperature and CO2. First, the earth warms, CO2 is degassed, increased CO2 causes temperature to increase, which allows for more CO2 degassing, and on and on...UNTIL...orbital parameters shifted to the point where a decrease in solar radiation counteracted CO2 heating. Temperatures cooled, and CO2 settled back into its reservoirs. Note that CO2 degassing is much faster than the process of returning the CO2 to a reservoir (http://www.processtrends.com/images/chart_paleo_climate_1.gif)
That's all well and good, but is it what is happening now? No. Not at all, and you can see the simple evidence on most recent fraction of time on the linked chart. Compare the most recent warming episode with that of the previous ones. Things start out just the same, but whereas temperature begins to fall after it's peak and CO2 begins its slow decline in the previous cases, in the current setup, both CO2 and methane are spiking and temperature is not falling off like the shifts in the orbital parameters would like to have happen. Granted YBP usually refers to 1950. And here (http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/environment-book/co2problemE.html) you can see that neither rise has given way to date. By the way, please don't give me that junk about how global warming has stopped because of a couple of recently relatively cold years (take a look at temperatures in 1900, then 'much' colder ones in 1907-8, then compare to today; a few years alone mean nothing).
Continued in next post...
By the way, we think we have quite the hilarious explanation for that warm spike in the 40s followed by what appears to be a cooling in the immediately following decades. Turns out that since the ocean is a huge part of the globe, it makes up a proportional component of the global temperature record. How did they take ocean temperature records in the 40s? Well there were an awful lot of war ships floating around the world. Interestingly, before and after WWII, the British ruled the oceans by number of ships, and it turns out that they took their measurements off the side of the boat. No problem. But when the Americans kicked into gear and flooded the oceans with ships, they decided to take their temperature measurements from within the ship, in the engine rooms, after the water had passed through some hot machines. This is in the process of being fully proven with temperature records, but unfortunately, the data is like in some disorganized dusty room on microfilm or something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, the physics understands the warming, the models understand the warming, and the scientists understand the warming. There is no other way about it. That unusual CO2 spike is from people. We make a living out of making the stuff. That's just the way it is right now. And people can understand it if they take the time. I help teach a course on weather and climate for K-12 teachers. We start with "What is energy" and go all the way through radiation and clouds and storms and weather patterns and climate. By the end of the course, everyone understands how the system works, how global warming works. They are left at the same point that the scientists are. We know that the world is warming up, and we know that that is not going to be the only change, and we have a few good ideas on what the other changes will be. Therefore, climate change.
To address some other issues, the IPCC never predicted the end of the world. The IPCC said that the earth will warm, it is unquestionably human induced, and there will be other effects that we may not find pleasant. It's not the end of the world, but it will not be problem free. Species will die (maybe that's important) and people will have to be relocated (that's problematic no matter how you look at it).
As far as the US government is concerned, at least half of it does not want to act on AGW. The remainder that understands the theory and is unwilling to accept its consequences is trying to solve the problem in the way that governments do, by governing and legislating solutions.
Continued..
If you can't model AGW accurately it is just a theory not a fact. The AGW models do not prove the theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnproven theories do not warrant the extreme government action being proposed.
They are excuses for a government power grab.
Further, it is my understanding that cap and trade is handed over to the businesses to profit from and that any carbon taxes would be returned in the form of an equal rebate, such that if you use little carbon, you make money, and that if you use a lot, you lose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLastly, liberty and freedom. It's a touchy subject. But it is comparable to many other situations. Smoking has been banned in many public buildings at the 'expense' of smoker's liberties and freedoms, but it was for the benefit of those who wished to visit enclosed public places without being subject to the ill health effects of second hand smoke. Smoking is banned in national parks at the 'expense' of smoker's liberties and freedoms, but it was done so to protect humans and wildlife from accidental fires. Traffic signals are in place at the 'expense' of driver's liberties and freedoms, but they impede to save lives. Sin taxes are enacted at the 'expense' of user's liberties and freedoms so that the effects of harmful excessive use are discouraged to save health and prevent influenced crimes. Income taxes are enacted 'expense' of worker's liberties and freedoms, but they are used to pool money to larger sums that accomplish many beneficial (an some not so) projects (roads and schools) that would otherwise be cost prohibitive.
While I do not agree that the issue is a bandwagon (it's just as popular as converting to atheism in America), I do understand why one may initially not wish to support the proposed solutions. They're not all that great, unless the carbon tax is enacted and you cash in. People hate change. It's always going to be that way. I don't want to be forced to walk everywhere, especially when it's raining, but it doesn't have to be that way. Just make me a hydrogen car. Or one of those compressed air cars that perform so surprisingly well for the price. It's not that hard. And it's not that big of a change. You can waste all of the solar power you want. If the grid isn't stressed, leave everything on all the time if you want. Cars can look and feel the same, contrary to the beliefs of some designers, just change the fuel. Maybe the leading company changes. So what? A new group of rich people replaces the old one, and people work for different bosses.
We must also remind ourselves that just because we don't like the solutions does not mean that the reason for developing the solutions is wrong.
Even if it turns out that physics and chemistry are lies, your day to day life does not have to be heavily impacted.
Don't get me started on the definition of a theory. I'll just say that a theory in science is a collection of facts, like the theory of evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with this is that the only way to really prove that the models have it right is to wait 100 years. If that's how you want to verify, fine. Deal with the consequences, whatever they may be.
And if you want total exactness, forget about it because the outcome depends on human actions.
But the fact remains. Climate models can accurately predict past events. There is no reason to assume that they will be wrong about the future.
Climate models CANNOT accurately predict the past without constantly adjusting their constants to make the results match reality. The AGW models adjust the constants which are thus just "fudge factors" to obtain a certain result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would the scientists do this? Because the "right" answer for continued government funding is that CO2 greatly affects climate change. Thus the models overly weight the effects of CO2 that justify the dire predictions of the future. Since these models do not match historical data the constants, and I use the term loosely, are adjusted to try and prove the model. Of course all of this is a total fraud but those who only look at the surface , most of the population, are easily fooled.
This is the fraud that AGW supporters tout as science.
Ok, now we're just making things up here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you turn on a model, constants are constants are constants, the end. They do not change as the model runs.
Of course, not all constants are well known, so they are adjusted in test simulations before a model runs. That's just how every science works. We get you close.
Even if constants were adjusted to predict reality, which they are not, the supposed method has obviously worked to accurately predict reality. Either way the model predicts reality, and the methods that were used to predict the past will apply equally well in predicting the future.
I love the whole argument that the scientists are in it for the money. Go look at how they live and you'll know that can't be what it's about. They don't weight things for money. CO2 effects have had the same constant values for over 100 years. There's not a whole lot anyone can do about that.
Those who are certainly looking well beyond the surface are the scientists. They've got the details and they share them with others, who continually verify and reverify. If it can't be verified, it gets tossed out. The problem for AGW deniers is that the science keeps giving the same answer.
I'm making stuff up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen I guess those 1996 IPCC predictions were right on the money?That would be a big no.
So how have the models been proven? Why should we believe their future dire predictions? What about the AGW's propensity to cherry pick data, like using tree ring data but excluding other data? What about that hockey stick?
Of course scientists are worried about their funding for next year. Wouldn't you be worried about your next paycheck?There is huge money in AGW funding. It so happens to be my tax dollars.
You are definitely in the land of make believe.
Predictions and 'right on the money' don't really ever go together in the atmosphere. I certainly wouldn't say they were off by a lot given the science 15 years ago and that their projections had huge error bars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe've already discussed proof of models.
What is the other data that was excluded? There is often quite a good reason for excluding certain proxies.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy
While they are your tax dollars that support the funding, you are the person who voted for the person who appointed the person to make that decision.
And scientists were doing just fine with funding before the funding was funneled to climate research. There are plenty who survived then and now in other areas of atmospheric science. In fact, most of them don't research the climate and would like very much the issue to just go away.
They don't sit around all day, making up data and hoping for the world to live in fear. They got jobs in science to have jobs in science. They do the science and report what the science says. Sometimes the things they find affect everyone and sometimes they don't. Fact is fact. Sorry if you don't like that. End of story.
To add an actual practicing scientists opinion to this thread, here I go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo reiterate what loopsyel has already said, scientists are not in it for the money. If they were, they wouldn't go to school for a minimum of 10 years to get there PhD all the while coming out of it making less than 50k a year.
Funding for many projects, comes from grants. If you're at a government institution like myself, a lot of it also comes from congress mandated money, which in no way is dependent upon whether or not you come to a particular finding in your research. Grants, again, are not dependent on your research outcomes. They expect you to get a result, but in no way dictate what those findings should be. Getting grant money depends on your ability to write grant proposals. Which again, have nothing to do with your end results.
From all the scientists I've met (from a range of different fields) publish what the writing/data says. Making egregious claims beyond that is very difficult to do in the peer review process. And indeed most scientists would be very embarrassed to conclude something not founded by their data, because it would be picked apart by other peers in their field.
To some up, scientists are trained to be skeptical of others work. This is why publishing science is the rigorous process it is. You're always striving to do better and/or learn from others before you. With all that said, I have not met 1 scientist that would consciously manipulate data to support their preconceived hypothesis. They may be out there but they are in the vast minority, and hey, denialist supporting scientist (however few they are) have to come from somewhere right?
"If you're at a government institution like myself"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLoopsy this explains it all. You are the very type of scientist who has that vested interest in the Co2 fraud. Without it you don't have a job! And an interesting twist, I'm your boss.
If you are going to propose something as big as trashing 50% of our electrical generation and our vehicles because they emit "dangerous CO2" then you better get a little more precise on exactly how dangerous that CO2 is.
Kinda of getting it right doesn't cut it. Here are some things that the AGW supporters have kinda of gotten wrong:
1. The hockey stick. It's a fraud. Here is a dummies guide to AGW. Don't believe anything the IPCC says. It's the UN for God's sake. How gullible can you be? Do you think they named it Greenland out of humor? Temperature has not remained constant until the 20th century. Grow a brain.
2. The warmest years was in the 90's, oops it was in the 30's
3. Climate models. Here's a hint . You are over weighting CO2 because you have an agenda. If you are a true scientist than model reality not politics.
Come back when you have you're act together. I say you don't and it appears BO's CAP an Trade might be DOA because the rest of us just aren't so convinced. I haven't turned my A/C on this year yet. What's up with the cooling? Maybe I should go outside and burn some stuff to get the temp up.
Also, Cap and Trade is a government scam. A stealth tax. If you can really show CO2 is a grave danger to us all then the government needs to set limits to phase it out over time.
Unless of course their motives aren't pure and this is really all about money and power.
Nah that couldn't be.
For those that have done a read and understood on global warming prepare for the alterations and leave the dimwitted remainder to stew in their own juices. You can't save them so why bother.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, it was not me that said I was at a government institution, that was shoreliner. And just like shoreliner says, it doesn't matter anyway. Those government institutions have very little to do with climate change research. They are the ones who watch the storms and keep records and declare warnings and do various other kinds of completely unrelated research. I will say it again, climate change work is not all that the government pays for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe IPCC is just called to order by the UN. Few, if any of the people there are actually from the UN. There are representative scientists from every country, and EVERY SINGLE LINE of text that goes into the reports is voted on in a big room by members from every country. It doesn't go in until everyone agrees that it is a supportable statement.
They named it Greenland because they didn't go very far inland to the massive Ice Sheet. Dork. Jeez. Like it wasn't there.
I just love being told what my agenda is, as if I actually had any control over what is going on in government. Shoreliner is right. 50K/yr just doesn't make any sense for a money and power grab. There is no power in the job, and there is just enough money to call it a job and pay off student loans.
The hockey stick is not the only temperature record. There are many other supporting sources.
You still don't know anything about what global warming means when you cite that, geez it's been cold where I live, must be doing that everywhere. http://www.kitv.com/news/19763122/detail.html. There is a little bit more world than what happens to you.
Shoot, you don't even understand the timescale involved, and the concept of something being relative. Here are the last 110 years IN THE US http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/images/1208natltemp.png. though GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE US. A blip in the 20s, a blip in the 30s (STILL not higher than recent) but LOOK AT THE MEAN! Single years alone DO NOT MATTER. Local effects alone DO NOT MATTER.
Once again, over weighting CO2 is just a lie. Plain and simple. Show me that I'm wrong. Just try.
Truthe wrote,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Loopsy this explains it all. You are the very type of scientist who has that vested interest in the Co2 fraud. Without it you don't have a job! And an interesting twist, I'm your boss."
Just as loopsyel explain, my job, nor the vast majority of other government scientist jobs, do not depend one bit on climate change. I personally am a marine biologist, and although the effects of climate change are investigate in a number of studies, there is always plenty of other anthropogenic influences on the marine environment we can investigate. And indeed the majority of studies I've contributed to do not even touch on climate change. So this whole scientist conspiracy thing is laughable. You obviously have no idea what sorts of science goes on at major science institutions and universities.
Thank you for the clear explanations of AGW, Shoreliner11 and loopsyel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the first AGW discussion on-line that I have visited over the past few months which has not been overpowered by repetitive posts by skeptics and deniers.
Thank you!
It does not matter if you believe in climate change caused by humanity or not. What I believe everyone can agree on is; we need high paying jobs and we need to stop paying big bucks for energy. Now is the time to exploit space power and resources. Sunlight is available in high Earth orbit 24/7, 365 days a year. We have had the technology since the late 60s to transmit via microwave all the energy we could ever use, to Earth, from orbit. The material for constructing the space end of the system is available on the near Earth asteroids and the Moon. We the people need the government to fund the project just as the government funded World War II. Our survival as a people with liberty was threatened by mad men with weapons during WWII. Today our survival is threatened by mad men with oil. If we as a people shrink from the task at hand we will lose our liberty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMuch better than reading non-peer-reviewed comments on this site would be to actually get hold of and read the reports of the IPCC and also all the detailed studies done by the 8000 very best and most highly qualified research scientists in the world on which these reports are based. Maybe then we would see less remarks about people not 'believing' in Climate Change. But the US is the country of 'Free' Speech. Of debateable value...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost definitely. I second that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi haven't seen any articles or discussion on global dimming. Very scary stuff. is it still a problem?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has kind of dropped off the radar as efforts to reduce the aerosols that cause the dimming have been proving successful. The current trend is about a 4% in brightening over the last decade. That's not yet long enough to say anything conclusively useful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, brightening let more light in, very likely increasing temperatures more to some degree.
Interestingly, some are proposing to deliberately throw more of the aerosols into the air to geoengineer a solution to increasing temperatures. There are plenty of other bad effects that come with that. It's a very bad idea.
How about this,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/26/26greenwire-two-epa-staffers-question-science-behind-clima-89720.html
All science is based on skepticism except in this case, anyone who disagrees is shouted down. Remember Y2K? There are real economic questions that need to be asked here, such as; what if the developing nations decide to advance their respective societies with a cheaper fuel while we play around with wind and solar. I'm truly supervised by the bias shown by SA.
How about this,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/26/26greenwire-two-epa-staffers-question-science-behind-clima-89720.html
All science is based on skepticism except in this case, anyone who disagrees is shouted down. Remember Y2K? There are real economic questions that need to be asked here, such as; what if the developing nations decide to advance their respective societies with a cheaper fuel while we play around with wind and solar. I'm truly supervised by the bias shown by SA.
The planet has been changing since it was made, It will always evolve and it will always change. The planet warms and freezes continualy, Only an idiot would say that we have control and can prevent warming, we can do our best not to hurry these changes but they will happen no matter what, On a universal scale humans are totaly insignifcant, to the plant earth!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe planet has been changing since it was made, It will always evolve and it will always change. The planet warms and freezes continualy, Only an idiot would say that we have control and can prevent warming, we can do our best not to hurry these changes but they will happen no matter what, On a universal scale humans are totaly insignifcant, to the plant earth!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst it was "Global Warming" now our politicians, along with their gaggle of truth-twisting pseudoscientists have mysteriously transformed their pseudo-crisis into "Climate Change"....I have another word for it..."Politicial Bull*hit". The Earths climate is a dynamic system, not a static system. The truth is it's been constantly changing since the Earth first developed an atmosphere. That will not change no matter how much we tax and spend, or Cap and Trade....or whatever. Ice ages have been coming and going throughout geologic time, long before people ever walked this Earth. The Earths atmosphere has been warming up since the end of the last Ice Age, and it will keep warming up until the beginning of the next Ice Age. Sea level ALWAYS rises and falls. It only becomes a crisis when it effects Real Estate Values in Florida. Hello! I've got news for you Global Warming / Climate Change / tooth fairey believing fruitcakes, the stratigraphic record clearly shows Florida has been underwater numerous times in the past, and in time, it will be underwater again just as sure as I'm sitting here writing this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe hockey stick was a deliberate hoax. That forces me to be skeptical right off the bat! The graph is a random walk with a downward drift at this time. It is global cooling we should be concerned about. Warming is better than cooling though and we should wish it is warming instead of cooling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClear cutting causes warming. CO2 causes the earth to get greener. It appears we need more clear cutting and more CO2! Clear cutting here is not needed because last years record ice storm topped all the trees here in nearly a four state area. It was declared a disaster area in my nearby state.
This year has had record lows and for longer periods EVER!!
Those records happened all over the world this winter. It is a downward trend at this time. Poor Florida suffered like never before this winter. Hey, I think the gov should send me a bunch of money so I can study this global cooling trend!! The world may be at risk!! I only need a few million to work on this. Thank you for your support and if you don't believe me then you are a: add your fav insult here.
Global Warming (Warming) I live in Dallas Tx and we have seen the coolest summers and the coldest winters for quit a while now, I thought Global warming was warming? I sometimes wonder if these so called scientists are smoking crack or something like that? If the ice melts and water levels raise, so what, it will get rid of most of the gettos (ie costal cities) in the US and around the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere will eventually be no place for people on this planet anyway... the earth always changes...we are not doing this to it, its a cycle and its been running the course for millions of years and to think that we can change anything is just human arrogance. the planet doesnt need us ,we need it. the planet would be better off left alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt proves nothing for either side as to whether it is getting warmer or colder, neither observation connects man's responsibility to the climate change theory. The only way it can be proven is through models built on historical data. This is where the real argument rests, because it is the only proof available for climate change theory. In the real world of medicine, or engineering, computer models alone are useful tools, however, on their own are highly unreliable and never allowed, WHY DOES CLIMATE CHANGE THEROY GET AN EXCEPTION????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause we need the MONEY!! Now stop trying to be a voice
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisof reason. That is not allowed in the GW / GC world!!
Although this story is interesting, I am one of the few that does not believe Global Warming is taking place. I have been living in New England for most of my 56 years. Back in the 1960`s and early 1970`s our Summers were much hotter and lasted longer, as much as two months longer. The weather changed by the mid 70`s with cooler Summers and longer and colder Winters that still continue to this day! With that being said, I do believe we have turned this planet into a garbage heap and we need to take steps to save the planets natural beauty and resources...before it is all gone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour ancedotal evidence is useless!! What is actually happening in the world is not used here. We in the GW/GC world only go by computer models!!! Now get a ton of money from the gov and private sector to me so I can study this now!!! Before it is too late!! You can't say I havn't warned you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRich industrialists and big business are making tons of money and are the ones creating global warming. Let's put a stop to those greedy people destroying our planet once and for all... to hell with the free market system. God forbid providing something useful and making a profit... THOSE EVIL CAPITALISTS!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpecial interest groups create NOTHING and feed us misinformation. Oh, and are making millions in the process.
Read: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
Now what are the greedy ones?
You need to remember why it's so cold in the South is Global Warming. I live in the Northeast and we have had the coolest summers and winters in 75 years... again, Global Warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again this is merely ancedotal evidence. Just because this winter has hit new lows all over the world with much longer persistence and staying power does not prove anything! Well, other than that I should study this and I need the grant and private monies as quickly as possible. Thank you for your support!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello everyone, I don't normally jump into these discussions, but to believe that by simply changing our carbon footprint by reducing fossil fuels or other silly notions it clearly missing the picture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe space around the planet with the effects of solar bursts, expansions / contractions of other solar system and other larger issues effects the planet much more. To suggest "hugging trees" or such, will not control the temp nor will your wish that planet can never change less than a degree is very funny.
Change is normal and you must learn to adapt, because when it happens, you will only be able to modify the effect slightly!
Excuse me but have any of you visited the Midwest in the past 3 years? Or do you even know where the Midwest is? Ive been here for 60 years.. We have had cool summers& DANG cold winters with above average precipitation. During the 30s and dust bowl.. it got hot and dry.. other years it is cold and wet.. its a cycle.. Global Warming is a myth that is padding the pockets of Al Gore among many others.. my PROOF for this statement comes from the report:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, is issued every decade by the federal government's Climate Change Science Program&
The latest version, more than a year in the making, reiterates findings that&
Whenever I see federal governments report, I know it is going to say exactly what the federal government wants it to say&. And more than a year in the making proves they are using our tax money to keep them in business by causing hysteria..
Now, with that being said.. I do believe that we should take better care of our world.. It is a beautiful place that we can destroy out of greed, laziness, and apathy. So if this will make one more moron decide to recycle or cut down on the water bottles they throw into the landfills.. Ill go for it.
Since the beginning of time there have been changes to our climate ! But the changes place over an extented period, this will give man a chance to adapt to the changes ! Everytime a baby is born from now on their systems will be able to handle the changes in the climate as well as the methods of feeding and taking other messures to make them thrive and continue to be the dominant species on earth !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy thinking on the whole global warming thing is, if it happens it happens ! Man will adapt or evovle into know matter what mother nature throws at it, this would include asteroid hits, as well as super volcanoes ! Their will always be a band of humans somewhere that will weather the storm, no matter the scenerio ! But my thinking is man is here for a special reason, and that is to go to the heavens and create many other earth like planets !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis question is for Scientific American: Who in the Obama administration bought you out? You have become nothing more than just one more propaganda outlet for his radical agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, SA sells mags and ad space. How in the world do you expect them to be profitable if they don't go with the GW/GC community??? Science is nice but we gotta make MONEY!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing a skeptic equals..... NO MONEY!!! So stop it and send me a ton of money so I can study this. Thank you!