White House puts out report on Global Warming impact

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-obama-report

"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.
In the Northwest, the spring snow pack has already declined 25 percent over the past 40 to 70 years. It will likely shrink another 40 percent by the 2040s, the report said, seriously stressing water supplies, agricultural production and hydropower.

"It's so comprehensive," said Nancy Grimm, a co-author and professor of life sciences at Arizona State University. "This is a right-angle turn from where we've been over the past eight years or so."

Green groups and government watchers praised the report and the Obama Administration's elevation of it on Tuesday. A coalition of 16 science and environmental groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, issued a joint statement praising the assessment, while others said it provided much-needed context for sticky debates on Capitol Hill and in statehouses across the land.

"I have not seen the administration talking much about climate change impacts. I see them messaging the climate change legislation in terms of green jobs and green energy and the need to reduce emissions. But why? Why is it so urgent?" asked Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch, a nonpartisan, nonprofit policy watchdog. "This makes the case."

It is, in passages, a downright gloomy case, and several authors on Tuesday said the next report in 10 years hence will likely see a shift in emphasis from mitigation - or avoiding the problem - to adaptation, or learning to live with warming. At least some degree of adaptation will be essential in the future, they agreed, yet how to respond and how much it will cost remains very much unknown.

"It's clear to us already that no matter what we do today, we are going to see some degree of change in the future," Hayhoe said. "We need to understand how we can help our economy, our society, our natural environment .... adjust to coming change."

Still, on Tuesday, there was a sense of optimism. "We can do something about this," said Donald Wuebbles, a co-author and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois. "What we've shown in this assessment is that we need to act soon. Sooner rather than later.

"That's an important part of the finding. We want to avoid the worst of the (impacts) we looked at in these different projections.""


These changes are getting worse in the coming decades! It effects you and those you care about!!!!! AHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


More FUD. :awe:
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Is it a crisis yet? Are we in crisis?

This is yet another example of ignoring the people because most people don't believe in this crap.

LOL! Blame bush. That should tell you how objective this entire paper is. It's claiming global warming is going to kill people because it will get so hot (see the part about chicago heat deaths).
"It's so comprehensive," said Nancy Grimm, a co-author and professor of life sciences at Arizona State University. "This is a right-angle turn from where we've been over the past eight years or so."
 
Last edited:

ccbadd

Senior member
Jan 19, 2004
456
0
76
I'm real worried, last week it was cold and guess what, this week it isn't! Must be proof of climate change that will lead to all those bad things.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Ignoring the idiots. There's a difference. Sounds like an important report for rational people, and something to mix with water into paste and eat for the right.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Ignoring the idiots. There's a difference. Sounds like an important report for rational people, and something to mix with water into paste and eat for the right.

Ohhh! Name calling are we? Allow me to retort.

Craig, you are the dumbest asshole on this forum, and thats saying a lot. Stupid shit-for-brains idiot, you just believe everything this administration tells you, dont you?

Dolt
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Ohhh! Name calling are we? Allow me to retort.

Craig, you are the dumbest asshole on this forum, and thats saying a lot. Stupid shit-for-brains idiot, you just believe everything this administration tells you, dont you?

Dolt

lol at global warming warning reports coming from the administration. These reports have been steadily flowing from the scientific community for 40 years.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Ohhh! Name calling are we? Allow me to retort.

Craig, you are the dumbest asshole on this forum, and thats saying a lot. Stupid shit-for-brains idiot, you just believe everything this administration tells you, dont you?

Dolt

Yes, but without Craig, P&N would be empty and not filled with drivvle as it is today.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Ignoring the idiots. There's a difference. Sounds like an important report for rational people, and something to mix with water into paste and eat for the right.

Allow me to quote:

"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."

It's a propaganda piece.

Fern
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
The Obama administration is simply trying to subvert Congress because Cap & Tax is dead. Simple as that.

obamao.jpg
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
The Obama administration is simply trying to subvert Congress because Cap & Tax is dead. Simple as that.

obamao.jpg

Things can change overnight.

<--------thinks Cap and trade would have been a hard sell anyway. Difficult to inject race into the issue.
 

AMDScooter

Senior member
Jan 30, 2001
303
3
81
Seeing as you seem to wanna C&P the same story w/o comment I'll simply C&P my response again.


Story hits all the MMGW faithful talking points offering a big ole goose egg on substance to support the title's premise. Could there possibly be a reason the story fails to point out that we've only been able to track said ice with satellites for about 30 years? Or that recorded observations made by early arctic explorers saw a similar lack of ice in said passage way before the industrial revolution? Naw... keep moving..

The claims about the Northwest Passage the BBC and other outlets were forced to backtrack on..

The surprising real story about this year’s Northeast passage transit: The media botched it

The polar bears declared "endangered" despite the local's actual observed data that shows the populations booming and getting fat. But don't try to harsh the faithful's mellow with facts and actual data, you'll be shown the door..


Polar bear expert barred by global warmists
Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.


But hey.. what do I know. It must be MMGW.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
If this is so important then funding research to economically viable non-greenhouse gas producing power should have been Job #1.

We spent how many hundreds of billions of dollars on bailouts over the last year?

They should have given MIT and other institutions a fraction of that and said "go to it"

Nope.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
if this is so important then funding research to economically viable non-greenhouse gas producing power should have been job #1.

We spent how many hundreds of billions of dollars on bailouts over the last year?

They should have given mit and other institutions a fraction of that and said "go to it"

nope.

but what about all the foreclousures!? We would of lost everything if the banks disappeared!!!
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,109
6,358
136
If this is so important then funding research to economically viable non-greenhouse gas producing power should have been Job #1.

We spent how many hundreds of billions of dollars on bailouts over the last year?

They should have given MIT and other institutions a fraction of that and said "go to it"

Nope.

They tried that looking for an alternative for gas some years back, Carter administration I think. Spent a billion dollars and didn't produce anything.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
They tried that looking for an alternative for gas some years back, Carter administration I think. Spent a billion dollars and didn't produce anything.


The technology wasn't there at the time. Right now solar electric is close, but not quite economically. It shouldn't take 30 years to tweak it.

If the only thing done was make solar more economical than being on the grid, then that would be a big thing, and I know that there's a lot more being done than just that.

But of course, the administration isn't serious about this. It's all talk once again.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
The technology wasn't there at the time. Right now solar electric is close, but not quite economically. It shouldn't take 30 years to tweak it.

If the only thing done was make solar more economical than being on the grid, then that would be a big thing, and I know that there's a lot more being done than just that.

But of course, the administration isn't serious about this. It's all talk once again.

Solar and wind are not the answer to "the grid". The answer is Nuclear. It always has been. It's cheaper and much more efficient and doesn't pollute the landscape.

Seriously, drive over the Altamont Pass in California if you want to see how ugly wind power is. I love watching the rusted monstrosities.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Solar and wind are not the answer to "the grid". The answer is Nuclear. It always has been. It's cheaper and much more efficient and doesn't pollute the landscape.

Seriously, drive over the Altamont Pass in California if you want to see how ugly wind power is. I love watching the rusted monstrosities.

simpsons-radioactive.jpg