Global Warming

National Climate Assessment: It's Getting Hot Around Here!

|

Gonna get hotter says Feds.

Hot on the heels (so to speak) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's declaration a couple of days ago that 2012 was the hottest year on record in the lower 48 states, the U.S. Global Change Research Program released earlier today the draft version of its National Climate Assessment [downloadable] report. From the executive summary:

Climate change is already affecting the American people. Certain types of weather events have become more frequent and/or intense, including heat waves, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods and droughts. Sea level is rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, and glaciers and arctic sea ice are melting. These changes are part of the pattern of global climate change, which is primarily driven by human activity.

Many impacts associated with these changes are important to Americans' health and livelihoods and the ecosystems that sustain us. These impacts are the subject of this report. The impacts are often most significant for communities that already face economic or health-related challenges, and for species and habitats that are already facing other pressures. While some changes will bring potential benefits, such as longer growing seasons, many will be disruptive to society because our institutions and infrastructure have been designed for the relatively stable climate of the past, not the changing one of the present and future. Similarly, the natural ecosystems that sustain us will be challenged by changing conditions. Using scientific information to prepare for these changes in advance provides economic opportunities, and proactively managing the risks will reduce costs over time.

Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans. This evidence has been compiled by scientists and engineers from around the world, using  satellites, weather balloons, thermometers, buoys, and other observing systems. The sum total of this evidence tells an unambiguous story: the planet is warming.

U.S. average temperature has increased by about 1.5°F since 1895; more than 80% of this increase has occurred since 1980. The most recent decade was the nation's hottest on record. Though most regions of the U.S. are experiencing warming, the changes in temperature are not uniform. In general, temperatures are rising more quickly at higher latitudes, but there is considerable observed variability across the regions of the U.S.

U.S. temperatures will continue to rise, with the next few decades projected to see another 2°F to 4°F of warming in most areas. The amount of warming by the end of the century is projected to correspond closely to the cumulative global emissions of greenhouse gases up to that time: roughly 3°F to 5°F under a lower emissions scenario involving substantial reductions in emissions after 2050 (referred to as the "B1 scenario"), and 5°F to 10°F for a higher emissions scenario assuming continued increases in emissions (referred to as the "A2 scenario") (Ch. 2)

The policy relevant line from the report is:

Large reductions in global emissions, similar to the lower emissions scenario (B1) analyzed in this assessment, would be necessary to avoid some of the worst impacts and risks of climate change.

I suspect that President Barack Obama will break his silence over climate change policy in his upcoming second inaugural speech. For the record, it is still my judgement that the balance of scientific evidence indicates that man-made global warming is real and is a problem. The question remains: Is What Governments Are Likely to Do About It Worse than Global Warming?

Advertisement

NEXT: PA Turnpike Officials Gifted With Cars, Gas Money

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Climate change is already affecting the American people.

    Groaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.

    1. The hits just keep on coming. Remember when we used to say “holy shit, Obama’s so terrible, I dread what a second term would look like?”

      We’ll, were seeing.

    2. Well so long it is only affecting me and not effecting me, I don’t see the big deal.

  2. This is so much horseshit, that I am apalled that any intelligent person with an ounce of integrity can promote it.

    Once again, they are conflating any climate change with anthropogenic global warming, and further conflating AGW with catastrophic AGW.

    Many impacts associated with these changes are important to Americans’ health and livelihoods and the ecosystems that sustain us. These impacts are the subject of this report. The impacts are often most significant for communities that already face economic or health-related challenges, and for species and habitats that are already facing other pressures. While some changes will bring potential benefits, such as longer growing seasons, many will be disruptive to society because our institutions and infrastructure have been designed for the relatively stable climate of the past, not the changing one of the present and future.

    The wheather records of the past 200 years do not describe a static climate but singificant variation in droughts and precipitation little Ice Ages and warm periods. And people adapted because we know how to. A free market handles this nicely thank you. (cont)

    1. The climactic sensitivity is almost certainly much lower than what the scenarios the NOAA and IPCC are peddling.

      And it’s not due to accident but malfeasance, a willfull attempt to use inappropriate stats to bias results in an alarmist direction.

      However, as Figure 4 below shows, the IPCC’s Forster/Gregory 06 PDF curve for S (as per Figure 1) is very different from the PDF based on the original results, shown in Figure 3. The IPCC curve is skewed substantially to higher climate sensitivities and has a much fatter tail than the original results curve. At the top of the ‘extremely likely’ range, it gives a 2.5% probability of the sensitivity exceeding 8.6?C, whereas the corresponding figure given in the original study is only 4.1?C. The top of the ‘likely’ range is doubled, from 2.3?C to 4.7?C, and the central (median) estimate is increased from 1.6?C to 2.3?C.

      1. We know the Roman Warm Period and the Medeival Warm Periods were warmer than the climate we are now experiencing. And those were times of prosperity because higher temperatures led to more biological activity which at the time was the basis of most production.

        We now have better command of energy sources, better transportation systems, more robust and sustainable economic systems, and frankly are well situated to adapt whatever natural variation throws at us.

        What we don’t have is any decent understanding of how the climate works. The notion that we can control it by using CO^2 like a thermostat is laughable. It’s like arguing that we can fly an aircraft from Boston to London steering it solely with one elevator trim tab.

        And any attempt to do that will be an embarassing, expensive, failure.

          1. Oh yes, let’s read what Fenton Communication’s propaganda outlet has to say… lots of stentorian assertions of what the science says, but they don’t actually address the points!

            Then again, Dana Nuticelli never lets the empirical evidence get in the way of his religious observations (although his melt-downs when painted into a corner are kind of entertaining).

            1. Don’t respond to it, dude. That’s what it wants. Make it a sad sockpuppet by ignoring it.

            2. Dude even Exxon no longer denies global warming. You have long lost this battle and you don’t even know it. Read through the list and see if you don’t turn red in shame at how much bullshit you’ve bought into in order to arrive at preconceived conclusions on this issue.

              1. Who cares what Exxon believes? There is plenty of evidence that the globe was warmer in the past and life carried on. Stop freaking out, relax, and enjoy life a bit.

                1. So the globe was warmer in the past and life didn’t perish. How is that relevant in any way to whether potentially catastrophic human-caused warming is happening?

                  My moral code allows for ignorance to be an excuse to an extent. But climate change denial requires such a willful refusal to address the facts–and the consequences for human beings are so potentially catastrophic–that your ignorance makes you the moral monsters. History will not look kindly upon climate change deniers and their role in slowing action. That is a safe prediction.

                  1. $

                  2. Actually, this one is even better:

                    http://www.examiner.com/articl…..ew-ice-age

                    1. Scientists were wrong once, therefore the moon is made of cheese.

                  3. My moral code

                    You have no moral code. Your interests are self-serving; they are the exaltation of man and worship of the self. The progressive sewage trickling from your mouth is based on emotionalism and a desire to feel superior to the unenlightened, unwashed masses. “I am a good, progressive person,” you tell yourself as you prostate yourself before the altar of Government and Man. “I am working to make the world a safer place,” you say as you slavishly defend the Party.

                    1. Actually all I’m saying is stop being idiots and refusing to believe in facts because you don’t like them.

                  4. So the globe was warmer in the past and life didn’t perish. How is that relevant in any way to whether potentially catastrophic human-caused warming is happening?

                    It is not going to be catastrophic.

          2. What a pathetic list of insipid worthless ‘rebuttals’. Thanks for showing us how desperate you people are Tony.

        1. The Romans planted grape vines in England to support wine making. Those went away when the Romans left. You can grow wine grapes in England now. When they start planting vineyards in Southern England, then I’ll maybe start to pay attention.

          1. You can’t grow wine grapes in England now….

            For dog’s sake, fix the fucking preview function.

          2. Forget that. Call me when the Sahara is forested. That will be “warm enough” for me.

          3. is there proof that they did do that, and we can not do that now?

  3. Alerted by the mention of the SRES scenarios, we can find in Box 1 of the Executive Summary the following astonishing fraud:

    In this report, the two SRES emissions scenarios recommended for use in impact studies are a higher emissions scenario (the A2 scenario from SRES) and a lower emissions scenario (the B1 scenario from SRES). These two scenarios do not encompass the full range of possible futures: emissions can change less than those scenarios imply, or they can change even more. Recent carbon dioxide emissions are, in fact, above the A2 scenario. Whether this will continue is unknown.

    Their two recommended scenarios are A2 — the dysfunctional, globally divided high carbon future — and B1 — the utopian, globally harmonized low carbon future. Only this way could they get the future GDP of the low carbon projection to exceed that of the high carbon projection and take out the argument that, other things equal, greater carbon consumption correlates with greater wealth.

    1. Here’s how the SRES describes A2 in a nutshell:

      The A2 scenario family represents a differentiated world. Compared to the A1 storyline it is characterized by lower trade flows, relatively slow capital stock turnover, and slower technological change. The A2 world “consolidates” into a series of economic regions. Self-reliance in terms of resources and less emphasis on economic, social, and cultural interactions between regions are characteristic for this future. Economic growth is uneven and the income gap between now-industrialized and developing parts of the world does not narrow, unlike in the A1 and B1 scenario families.

      How do these people look themselves in the mirror and/or sleep at night?

      1. How do you manage to brush your teeth in the morning?

        1. Probably by holding other variables constant when I change the particular variable I am interested in.

    2. The other lie in that is that emissions are up. Maybe they are globally, but not here in the US (you know the place everyone wants to turn into a third world shot hole for “progress”.)

  4. It’ll be the 8th or 9th hottest year on record globally.

    The question remains: Is What Governments Are Likely to Do About It Worse than Global Warming?

    Governments did more good than harm by banning leaded gasoline, controlling CFC, automobile, and sulfur dioxide emissions, demanding sewage treatment, and essentially ending trash dumping in the ocean. But this time, total economic collapse for sure!

    1. REally, banning CFC’s was a good thing?

      Had no effect on the ozone hole, saved the profits of the companies who were losing patent protection on the CFC’s (but were filing patents on the replacement compounds), and imposed huge costs on people who had to buy new equipment to work with these inferior compounds.

      So Jersey, when did you become an apologist for crony corporatism?

      1. Uh the link between ozone depletion and CFCs was pretty strong. The ozone hole has definitely been reduced since.

        1. There is some question about what the Ozone hole is doing (I assume you’re talking about the one over Antarctica that was first observed by satellite in the 1970s).

          Less than forty years of observations does not tell us much of anything about something whose size actually seems to be fluctuating.

          Besides CFCs, though all the things JP listed are things that cause documented harm and the removal of them has been relatively low cost compared to the benefits.

        2. So why was the hole over Antarctica and not North America?

    2. Jersey Patriot| 1.11.13 @ 5:29PM |#
      “Governments did more good than harm by banning leaded gasoline, controlling CFC, automobile, and sulfur dioxide emissions, demanding sewage treatment, and essentially ending trash dumping in the ocean. But this time, total economic collapse for sure!”

      Some valid, none shown where:
      1) Gov’t was leading rather than following the curve.
      2) The gov’t activity was the best alternative.

    3. None of those things is like reducing CO2 emissions.

      And being the 8th/9th/whocares hottest year on ‘record’ is only consistent with the plateau of warming we’ve seen for 10+ years.

  5. This morning, the talking heads on Bloomberg let it slip that China is in the grip of the coldest winter in nearly thirty years.

    Meaningful?

    Who the fuck knows?

  6. our institutions and infrastructure have been designed for the relatively stable climate of the past

    These guys must sit around the faculty lounge all day bitching about how jazz ruined music.

  7. Where I live, the temperature range over the course of the year is AT LEAST one hundred degrees(F). The thought of a half-degree change in the average does not exactly fill me with uncontrollable terror.

  8. The lower 48 had a particularly hot summer.

    The globe was the same temperature it has been for 20 years.

    What is the government going to do about this?

  9. It didnt get much above 5 in Steamboat this past new years…really really fucking cold.

  10. Compared to the A1 storyline it is characterized by lower trade flows, relatively slow capital stock turnover, and slower technological change. The A2 world “consolidates” into a series of economic regions. Self-reliance in terms of resources and less emphasis on economic, social, and cultural interactions between regions are characteristic for this future.

    A veritable paradise on earth.

    If you’re a stasis-fetishizing progressive.

    1. Indeed. Compare to A1:

      The A1 storyline is a case of rapid and successful economic development, in which regional average income per capita converge – current distinctions between “poor” and “rich” countries eventually dissolve. The primary dynamics are:

      Strong commitment to market-based solutions.
      High savings and commitment to education at the household level.
      High rates of investment and innovation in education, technology, and institutions at the national and international levels.
      International mobility of people, ideas, and technology

      Freedom and markets? Can’t consider that possibility. It is just too hellish.

    2. Here’s the environmental panacea B1:

      The central elements of the B1 future are a high level of environmental and social consciousness combined with a globally coherent approach to a more sustainable development. Heightened environmental consciousness might be brought about by clear evidence that impacts of natural resource use, such as deforestation, soil depletion, over-fishing, and global and regional pollution, pose a serious threat to the continuation of human life on Earth. In the B1 storyline, governments, businesses, the media, and the public pay increased attention to the environmental and social aspects of development. Technological change plays an important role. At the same time, however, the storyline does not include any climate policies, to reflect the SRES terms of reference. Nevertheless, such a possible future cannot be ruled out.

      In B2, the ice weasels come.

  11. Despite Ron’s wavingthe realist flag, the drift here seems to be away from entitled to our own facts to entiltled to make up our own historical record..

    While lpaaeoclimatology tends to grow less persuasive as the record recedes in time , radiative forcing is one of the permanent things , and present physics takes precedent over wishful thinking about the past .

    1. Yup, in my reality, there was a thing called the Medieval Warm Period.

      And once it was much warmer and these things called dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

      1. Didn’t you read the babble about the relatively stable climate of the past? Get with the program already!

        1. The climate was so stable that the Sahara stayed a prairie.

      2. See my link above and stop peddling lies.

        1. T o n y| 1.11.13 @ 7:18PM |#
          “See my link above and stop peddling lies.”

          Shithead, if you peddled fewer of them, someone might pay attention when your lies are less than normal.

      3. BTW how well did humans fare when dinosaurs roamed the earth?

        What exactly do you think we’re talking about here? As long as some form of life survives, it’s OK to just let it go? The whole point is what’s optimal for the human species.

        1. What’s optimal for the human species is not shuttering industry and going back to subsistence farming like the greenies fantasize about. If warming is a threat, the market will be able to address it so long as gubmint doesn’t get in the way.

          1. That is chicken little bullshit. And pathetic excuse-making for the industrial status quo. Doing nothing is much more costly and disruptive. And the idea that the market addresses pollution all by itself is absurd. Prove it. Otherwise, shut up.

            1. That is chicken little bullshit.

              AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        2. The whole point is what’s optimal for the human species.

          Indeed. And what is most optimal for the human species is almost certainly to let humans’ wealth increase as fast as possible by using the lowest cost energy possible.

          1. Oil and coal are hardly the lowest-cost energy possible. Especially if you actually add up the costs and don’t just pretend that the price at the end of a chain of government subsidies is the only cost.

            1. Oil and coal are hardly the lowest-cost energy possible. Especially if you actually add fabricate up the costs

            2. You know, I keep hearing about all these subsidies that oil and gas get but when called upon to list them those who make claims about them are strangely silent.

      4. Lief the Lucky never bragged about sailing around Svalbard in January, because the medieval sea was too bloody frozen most of the time for the place to get discovered until , depending on what you make of the literature , until 1176 at the earliest, or smack in the middle of the little ice age at the latest.

        What isn’t specuative is that – take a look at the satelite imagery, the sea is unfrozen to 80 north right now, in the bloody middle of january .

        1. Russell| 1.11.13 @ 7:35PM |#
          …”What isn’t specuative is that – take a look at the satelite imagery, the sea is unfrozen to 80 north right now, in the bloody middle of january.”

          OK, and what should be done about this?

          1. It should be thought about long and hard by those who can still differentiate between old cliche’s and new (at least in our lifetime)states of the clinate system.

            1. I’ve thought about the vast benefits to shipping.

    2. Shorter Russell: my facts are better than your facts because I SAY SO!

      ^Best read in an 8-year old’s voice^

  12. Dude makes a ll kinds of crazy sense dude.

    http://www.DotAnon.tk

  13. BTW how well did humans fare when dinosaurs roamed the earth?

    Life seemed pretty good for that Fred Flintstone feller.

  14. The climate is not stable and never has been.

    Everything is not about us. People invariably overestimate their importance.

    This is just another excuse for statism. Mead, Schneider, Holdren, and Woodwell cooked this crap up 40 years ago. They fucking put it on record that they were manufacturing a crisis, stood up in front of a microphone and said so in those words. Now the chicken littles look at it hard enough and see what they want to see.

    I am stunned at how easy it is to get people to fool themselves.

    Oh yeah, and fuck you T o n y, you despicable piece of shit.

    1. No, you are the despicable one. For other periods of climate change people always cite, we know the cause. And we know the cause now too! It doesn’t stop being humans just because you have this faux-humble little bromide on the tip of your tongue.

      1. God damn you are a statist little shit weasel. We don’t know shit about shit and consensus is not fucking science.

        And here’s a little news flash for you fucktard: the earth has been warming since the last ice age and will continue to warm until whatever climate shift causes the next ice age.

        So sit down, shut the fuck up, and go play with your tonka trucks.

        Or you know, kill yourself and rid the world of one more carbon spewing, electricity using hypocritic Luddite.

        1. It is an established fact that current warming has been caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. There is no controversy about this among people who know what they’re talking about, and my political beliefs don’t change that.

      2. Am I? It is only a coincidence then that you wholeheartedly support wealth redistribution and this climate scam just happens to be the perfect excuse for theft writ large? A perfect pretense for crippling the economy and concentrating wealth in a few hands while impoverishing everyone else?

        Is there any statist position that you dont support?
        State sponsored theft? Govt monopoly on force? Positive rights?

        I think DesigNate hit the nail on the head. You and your ilk are a bunch of cowardly little shit weasels who love to hide behind the power of the police state.

        1. This sounds like an admission that you’re refusing to believe in inconvenient facts. You are the one applying a slimy political calculus to this simple matter of facts. And you sound like a loon. You lost this argument a long time ago, you’re just too willfully stupid to realize it.

          1. But Tony: All the experts agreed in 2003 that Iraq had nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction. If you questioned their facts, you were a treasonous idiot who hated soldiers and your country. I’m sure you believed them at the time.

            And pardon me, but the same idiots who predicted both an ice age, the end of oil supplies and mass global starvation without major population control well over ten years ago don’t really have much credibility in my mind.

      3. BTW, you should try answering questions or addressing criticisms once in a while, it might give you a sliver of credibility. ( A pretty high mountain to climb, but you have to start somewhere )

  15. Was the world colder this year or warmer?

  16. Bailey, it’s really time to admit you were wrong at least about the notion that the warming will be a problem and that it requires government to do something. It won’t and it doesn’t. That much is settled.

    1. He refuses to admit that climate change isnt anthropogenic or that carbon dioxide causes as much of a greenhouse effect as a cow shitting on the moon. Nevermind the new biomass estimates of deep sea aphotic prokaryotic life that’s been pumping more methane per hour hour than most major cities produce in a month.

      1. Hold on there pal. I think we can say that human CO2 has definitely had an effect. Muller’s study found a pretty good correlation.

        That doesn’t mean we should do anything about it. CAGW requires an H2O based positive-feedback loop that just isn’t happening.

        1. CAGW requires an H2O based positive-feedback loop that just isn’t happening.

          How so? What would CAGW be like without the H20 based positive-feedback loop?

  17. Solar cycles are the most likely cause of short term climate variations (10-1000 years). Recent evaluation of the interaction of the Jupiter-Saturn-Sun tidal patterns reveals that they can be very closely modeled by a pattern of beat cycles of 115-, 61- and 130-years in length. Excellent correlations with 14C, 11B, temperature proxies, and sunspot data are presented. The well known Roman Warm Period, Dark Age Cold Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and Current Warm Period are all fit with the model.

    Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter?Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle Nicola Scafetta, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 80, May 2012, Pages 296?311

    In the Abstract:
    These results clearly indicate that both solar and climate oscillations are linked to planetary motion and, furthermore, their timing can be reasonably hindcast and forecast for decades, centuries and millennia. The demonstrated geometrical synchronicity between solar and climate data patterns with the proposed solar/planetary harmonic model rebuts a major critique (by Smythe and Eddy, 1977) of the theory of planetary tidal influence on the Sun.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…..2612000648

    1. Unless you can figure out a way that that can be used to tax everyone into oblivion and reduce the world population to half a billion people living on subsistence farming lorded over by the ruling elite, you can just can that shit right now.

  18. Sometimes dude, you jsut gotta roll with it man!

    http://www.hot-anon.tk

  19. Maybe we should start detonating megaton-yield nuclear weapons to counteract this. Did not five scientists prove that would be an effective countermeasure back in 1983?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.