Climate Change must be tackled NOW

You Bush agents wouldn't recognize a pollution effect if it hit you in the face. The effects of global warming are already here. No matter how brainwashed you have been, the facts are undisputable: global warming is slowly evaporating the planet. The scientists that address this are not economically dependent from this, they have university jobs. The dependence can rather be suspected of fossil fuel propagandists and other CIA stooges soiling the internet. Soldiers of the reign of hate you are.

The impact of global warming in North America

Edmonton, Canada -- Warmest summer on record, 1998. Temperatures were more than 5.4°F (3°C) higher than the 116-year average.

Glasgow, Montana -- No sub-zero days, 1997. For the first time ever, temperatures remained above 0°F (-17.8°C) in December. The average temperature was 10.9°F (6°C) above normal.

Little Rock, Arkansas -- Hottest May on record, 1998.

Texas -- Deadly heat wave, summer 1998. Heat claimed more than 100 lives in the region. Dallas temperatures were over 100°F (37.8°C) for 15 straight days.

Florida -- June heat wave, 1998. Melbourne endured 24 days above 95°F (35°C); nighttime temperatures in Tampa remained above 80°F (26.6°C) for 12 days.

USA -- Late fall heat wave 1998. An unprecedented autumn heat wave from mid-November to early December broke or tied more than 700 daily-high temperature records from the Rockies to the East Coast. Temperatures rose into the 70°F (20°C) as far north as South Dakota and Maine.

Eastern USA -- July heat wave, 1999. More than 250 people died as a result of a heat wave that gripped much of the eastern two-thirds of the country. Heat indices of over 100°F (37.8°C) were common across the southern and central plains, reaching a record 119°F (48.3°C) in Chicago.

New York City -- Record heat, July 1999. New York City had its warmest and driest July on record, with temperatures climbing above 95°F (35°C) for 11 days -- the most ever in a single month.

Chesapeake Bay -- Marsh and island loss. The current rate of a sea-level rise is three times the historical rate and appears to be accelerating. Since 1938, about one-third of the marsh at Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge has been submerged.

Bermuda -- Dying mangroves. Rising sea level is leading to saltwater inundation of coastal mangrove forests.

Hawaii -- Beach loss. Sea-level rise at Waimea Bay, along with coastal development, has contributed to considerable beach loss over the past 90 years.

Glacier National Park, Montana -- All glaciers in the park will be gone by 2070 if retreat continues at its current rate.

Interior Alaska -- Permafrost thawing. Permafrost thawing is causing the ground to subside 16-33 feet (4.9-10 m) in parts of interior Alaska. The permafrost surface has warmed by about 3.5°F (1.9°C) since the 1960's.

Barrow, Alaska -- Less snow in summer. Summer days without snow have increased from fewer than 80 in the 1950's to more than 100 in the 1990's.

Bering Sea -- Reduced sea ice. Sea-ice extent has shrunk by about 5 percent over the past 40 years.

Arctic Ocean -- Shrinking sea ice. The area covered by sea ice declined by about 6 percent from 1978 to 1995.

Canadian Rockies - Disappearing glaciers. The Athabasca Glacier has retreated one-third of a mile (0.5 km) in the last 60 years and has thinned dramatically since the 1950s-60s. In British Columbia the Wedgemont Glacier has retreated hundreds of meters since 1979, as the climate has warmed at a rate of 2°F (1.1°C) per century, twice the global average.

Alaska - Increasing rate of retreat. A study of 67 glaciers shows that between the mid-1950s and mid-1990s the glaciers thinned by an average of about 1.6 feet (0.5 m) per year. Repeat measurements on 28 of those glaciers show that from the mid-1990s to 2000-2001 the rate of thinning had increased to nearly 6 feet (1.8 m) per year. Alaska has experienced a rapid warming since the 1960s. Annual average temperatures have warmed up to 1.8°F (1°C) per decade over the last three decades, and winter warming has been as high as 3°F (2°C) per decade.

Mexico -- Dengue fever spreads to higher elevations. Dengue fever has spread above its former elevation limit of 3,300 feet (1,006 m) and has appeared at 5,600 feet (1,707 m).

Central America -- Dengue fever spreads to higher elevations. Dengue fever is spreading above its former limit of 3,300 feet (1,006 m) and has been reported above 4,000 feet (1,219 m).

Lake Mendota, Wisconsin -- Fewer days of ice cover. The number of days per year with ice cover has decreased by 22 percent since the mid-1800s.

Mirror Lake, New Hampshire -- Earlier spring ice-out. The ice-covered period has declined by about half a day per year during the past 30 years.

Nenana, Alaska -- Early river thaw. During 82 years on record, four out of the five earliest thaws on the Tanana River occurred in the 1990's.

Washington, D.C. -- Cherry trees blossoming earlier. Average peak bloom from 1970-1999 came April 3, compared to April 5 from 1921-1970.

California -- Butterfly range shift. Edith's Checkerspot Butterfly has been disappearing from the lower elevations and southern limits of its range.

Olympic Mountains, Washington -- Forest invasion of alpine meadow. Sub-alpine forest has invaded higher-elevation alpine meadows, partly in response to warmer temperatures.

Alaska -- Sea bird population decline. The black guillemot population is declining from 1990 levels because melting sea ice has increased the distance the birds must fly to forage for food and reduced the number of resting sites available.

Canadian Arctic -- Caribou die-offs. Peary caribou have declined from 24,000 in 1961 to perhaps as few as 1,100 in 1997, mostly because of major die-offs that have occurred in recent years after heavy snowfalls and freezing rain covered the animals' food supply.

Monterey Bay , California -- Shoreline sea life shifting northwards. Changes in invertebrate species such as limpets, snails, and sea stars in the 60-year period between 1931-1933 and 1993-1994 indicate that species' ranges are shifting northwards, probably in response to warmer ocean and air temperatures.

Monteverde Cloud Forest, Costa Rica -- Disappearing frogs and toads. A reduction in dry-seson mists due to warmer Pacific ocean temperatures has beenlinked to disappearances of 20 species of frogs and toads, upward shifts in the ranges of mountain birds, and declines in lizard populations.

U.S. West Coast -- Sea bird population decline. A decline of about 90 percent in sooty shearwaters from 1987 to 1994 corresponds to a warming of the California Current of about 1.4°F (0.78°C).

Pacific Ocean, Mexico -- Coral reef bleaching.

Caribbean -- Coral reeef bleaching.

Florida Keys and Bahamas -- Coral reef bleaching.

Bermuda -- Coral reef bleaching.

New England -- Double normal rainfall, June 1998. Rainfall in Boston on June 13-14 broke a 117-year-old record, closing Logan Airport and two interstate roads. Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts each received more than double their normal monthly rainfall.

Black Hills, South Dakota -- Record snowfall, 1998. At the end of February, the Black Hills received 102.4 inches (260 cm) of snow in five days, almost twice as much snow as the previous single-storm record for the state.

Texas -- Record downpours, 1998. Severe flooding in southeast Texas from two heavy rain storms with 10-20 inch (25.4-50.8 cm) rainfall totals caused $1 billion in damage and 31 deaths.

Santa Barbara, California -- Wettest month on record, 1998. 21.74 inches (55.22 cm) of rain fell in February, the most rain in a month since record keeping began.

Mount Baker, Washington -- World record snowfall, 1999. 1,140 inches (2,896 cm) of snow fell between November 1998 and the end of June 1999, a world record for most snowfall in a single winter season.

Florida -- Worst wildfires in 50 years, 1998. Fires burned 485,000 acres (196,272 hectares) and destroyed more than 300 homes and structures.

Florida, Texas, Louisiana -- Driest period in 104 years, April-June 1998. San Antonio received only 8 percent of its normal rainfall in May. New Orleans suffered its driest and hottest May in history.

Mexico -- Worst fire season ever, 1998. 1.25 million acres burned during a severe drought. Smoke reaching Texas triggered a statewide health alert.

Nicaragua -- 2.2 million acres (890,308 hectares) burned, 1998. Over 15,000 fires burned in 1998, and the blazing acreage included protected lands in the Bosawas Biosphere Reserve.

Eastern USA -- Driest growing season on record, 1999. The period from April-July 1999 was the driest in 105 years of record-keeping in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Rhode Island. Agricultural disaster areas were declared in fifteen states, with losses in West Virginia alone expected to exceed $80 million.

North America - Genetic adaptation to global warming in mosquito. Ecologists have identified the first genetic adaptation to global warming in the North American mosquito Wyeomyia smithii. Modern mosquitoes wait nine days more than their ancestors did 30 years ago before they begin their winter dormancy, with warmer autumns being the most likely cause. Higher temperatures, enhancing mosquito survival rates, population growth and biting rates, can increase the risk of disease transmission.

Colorado - Earlier emergence from hibernation. Marmots are emerging from hibernation on average 23 days earlier than 23 years ago. This coincides with an increase in average May temperatures of about 1.8°F (1°C) over the same time period.

Southeast Arizona - Earlier egg-laying. Mexican jays are laying eggs 10 days earlier than in 1971. The earlier breeding coincides with a nearly 5°F (2.8°C) increase in average nighttime temperatures from 1971 to 1998.

Alaska - Changing vegetation patterns. Comparison of photographs taken in 1948-50 to those taken in 1999-2000 of the area between the Brooks Range and the Arctic coast show an increase in shrub abundance in tundra areas, and an increase in the extent and density of spruce forest along the treeline. The increased vegetation growth is attributed to increasing air temperatures in Alaska, on average 1.8°F (1°C) per decade over the last three decades.

Western Hudson Bay, Canada - Stressed Polar Bears. Decreased weight in adult polar bears and a decline in birthrate since the early 1980s has been attributed to the earlier spring breakup of sea ice. Rising spring temperatures have shortened the spring hunting season by two weeks over the last two decades.

Banks Island, Canada - Expanded Ranges. The Inuit now regularly see species common much further south that previously were never seen on the island, such as robins and barn swallows. Thunder and lightning, never before recorded in Inuit oral history, have also been reported.


http://www.climatehotmap.org/index.html

I read Wolf's reply with interest. I also read his link. The link says nothing except that there is some warming in the world.

So what?

I do not believe that Wolf is reading the right sources.

First of all- Wolf should CAREFULLY reread the most excellent statement given by George Ob 1.

I will replicate the statement and comment on it.

George Ob 1 said:( I will highlight certain sections of this most excellent comment since I wish to make my own observations concering the comment made by George OB 1)

quote

"While it is clear that Greenhouse gases are ACCUMULATING in the atmosphere, it is not at all clear that SUSTAINED GLOBAL WARMING will be the result. MANY OTHER COMPONENTS OF A COMPLEX DYNAMIC COULD READILY COUNTER THAT EFFECT or REDUCE ITS EFFECT BELOW THE NOISE LEVEL DUE TO OTHER KNOWN VARIABLES.

Further, even if one acepts the worst case scenario, it is FAR FROM CLEAR that the net global effect would be SIGNIFICANTLY ADVERSE and that it would be at all WORTH THE HIGH COST OF FIXING.

Let us proceed to reinforce George OB 1's excellent statement with evidence.

First of all, it is clear that climate always changes. Richard Lindzen of MIT tells us that climate always changes.

Climate changes are not a calamity but a truism.

Evidence taken from ice cores, glaciers, boreholes and treerings show that surface temperatures in some centuries have been far very different from temperatures in others. From roughly 800 until 1200 AD, for example-during what is called the Medieval Warm Period- the Nothern Hemisphere became so hot that the Vikings cultivated Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland. By the 1300's and 1400's a widespread cooling had begun that devasted Europe with shortened crop growing seasons and human life spans fell by ten years. THAT LITTLE ICE AGE PERSISTED UNTIL THE LATE 19TH OR EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY. MORE IMPORTANT, THE EARTH;S CYCLES OF WARMING AND COOLING

PREDATE HUMAN EXISTENCE--NOT TO MENTION SUV'S.

That last post's link is

landholders.tripod.com/id108.htm

Wolf may not be aware that the US Senate rejected the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the astoundingly one sided figure of 95-0. Even Ted Kennedy voted against the ratification of the Kyoto Treaty.

I am sure that the Senators had the finest minds available to explain the "alleged" global warming to them, but they voted against it anyway. This vote came in the tenure of the President who all consider one of the most environmentally aware Presidents of the twentieth century- William Jefferson Clinton.

When George W. Bush came into office, he asked the National Academy of Sciences to review the state of knowledge about climate change.

source-

www.techcentral station.som/102501A.html

That last link should be revised to

www.techcentralstation.com/102501A.html

And what did the prestigious National Academy of Sciences report?

The conclusion of the NAS( capitalizations mine)

QUOTE

"Because there is considerable UNCERTAINTY in current understanding in how the CLIMATE SYSTEM VARIES NATURALLY, and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, CURRENT ESTIMATES OF THE MAGNITUDE OF FUTURE WARMING SHOULD BE REGARDED AS TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO FUTURE ADJUSTMENT."

source

www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html?onpi_newbooks_060801

Now, did the NAS report that the earth had gotten warmer?

Yes, they did.

Over the past 100 years the temperature observed NEAR THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenhiet but

there are two important qualifications of that fact.

First, there was a strong SURFACE warming between the 1890's and the 1940's followed by a pronounced cooling( In fact, some predicted a new Ice Age by some of the same people who now predict disasterous warming). The cooling came in from 1940 to 1970, then temperatures rose from 1970 to today.
What is important to note is that CO2 emissions were insignificant in the early part of the twentieth century, yet substantial warming occured anyway.


Secondly,the recent warming has been observed ONLY ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH using thermometer measurements that have major uncertainties like the local heating produced by growing mechanized cities.

More sophisticated temperature records--taken from the surface to a few miles up into the lower atmosphere using NASA satellites show NO WARMING FOR THE PAST TWENTY TWO YEARS- the period for which the satellites have been yielding measurements.

Source- www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html?onpi_notebooks_060801

You're holding an outdated monologue. You don't adress the effects of global warming I posted (only for North-America). How can you say so what if it's obvious biotopes and weather conditions are destabilised by global warming like never before. These effects are but a start to what will rapidly get worse every year. Stop your idiotic propaganda and wisen up.

Wolf,

One could perhaps fault Italgato's arguments on some aspects, but they are very far from being "idiotic propaganda" as you characterized them. He (and others before him) outlined a reasoned argument that is based on observed facts and scientific knowledge. You have never in this thread engaged these arguments directly or even conceded the uncertainty about climactic trends that is universally acknowledged in the scientific community. Instead you merely return to the same bombastic assertions and selective reporting of anecdotal data that you claim support your rather fixed position. While there may well be an idiotic propagandist on this thread, it is not Italgato.

Delete

That's all right, George OB 1, there is more for Wolf to consider.

PS- Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your suggestions as to how to proceed. However, You will note that I will not become at all and in any way personal with wolf as long as he stays on the subject.

I will let the Idiotic comment pass since I know it is not at all true and perhaps merely indicative of Wolfs' frustration.

Now, back to business.

The last point I made is worth expanding.

The Report by the National Academy of Sciences goes on:

It tells that Aerosols may indeed influence clouds.

Of the possible impact of areosols on clouds,the report concludes, that "Its great uncertainty....presents a severe handicap both for the intepretation of past climate change and for future assessments of climate changes"

Furthermore, and this is very very important, Clouds are closely related to the MOST IMPORTANT natural greenhouse agent, water vapor. The computer simulations that produce alarming levels of warming over the next century all assume that water vapor will AMPLIFY the small bit of warming expected from an increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the air.

THAT ASSUMPTION HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED.

The academy report says:

"The nature and the magnitude of these hydrological feedbacks give rise to the largest source of UNCERTAINTY ABOUT CLIMATE SENSITIVITY...."

All of the computer models ASSUME that water-vapor feedbacks oroduce a large gain in global warming. If that is not true, then every model exaggerates the warming at the lowest levels of the atmosphere.

Clouds and water vapor ARE SIMPLY NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD BY CLIMATOLOGISTS ACCORDING TO DR. RICHARD LINDZEN THE PROFESSOR OF METEOROLOGY AT MIT.

Lindzen theorizes that clouds tend to REDUCE much of the warming expected from increased CO2.


So you see, Mr. Wolf, there is a great deal of uncertainty about what is really happening.

And, Mr. Wolf- a word about the computer programs used to model climate change. The report by NAS says that: "Climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulties in interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature"

It has been estimated that an ideal computer model would have to track FIVE MILLION PARAMETERS over the surface of the earth and through the atmosphere, and incorporate all relevant interactions among land, sea, air,ice and vegatation.

According to one researcher, such a model would demand ten million trillion degrees of freedom to solve, A COMPUTATIONAL IMPOSSIBILITY EVEN ON THE MOST ADVANCED SUPERCOMPUTER, as far as I am aware.

Difficult, eh, wolf?

The workings of climate change are naturally not understood in detail. That would be impossible. But it's insane to portray the influence of aerosols and water vapor as a buffer for global warming. As has been repeated over and over to you contract-skeptics, is that the climate is already changing over all hemispheres, and of all the best explanations for these changes, the greenhouse effect is the best one. The rest is conservative spin. Russian roulette with the planet at stake.

This just in: the record heat wave from past summer caused European agriculture 13 billion euros. Most affected are corn, maize and cattle stock. Not exactly those foodgroups we can so easily do without.

Better brace ourselves for next year. We are in peril. And why? Because some morons decide to prolongue the oil economy, killing thousands in the process, instead of investing in renewable energies preserving life for the long term.

Wolf,

Are you forecasting a hot summer for the Northern Hemisphere (or some areas in it) next year? If it doesn't happen will you change your opinions on global warming?

Yes. I expect -- I hope -- it will be a less hot one than this past summer, but the average temperature should be in the vicinity. And I do expect further detrimental effects because of that. Everybody informed on this planet expects the same, not counting ostriches such as yourself.

We shall see.

...and we should avoid.

I am afraid that Wolf has not read my posts.

I will summarize-

Go back for details-

I will be glad to answer SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

A. The earth's cycles of warming and cooling predate human existence and can also be seen in current history(e.g. Medieval Warm Period followed by "Little Ice Age")

b. The US Senate rejected the Kyoto Protocol- 95-0.

Do they know something Wolf doesn't know?

c. The National Academy of Sciences issued a COMPREHENSIVE REPORT in 2001 which said many things, the most important, IN ITS CONCLUSION, "current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be tenative"

d. There was strong surface warming inthe 1890-1940, followed by a pronounced cooling from 1940 to 1970, then rising temperatures from 1970 to today. ( No one has explained this in terms of the catasthrope theorists- There was more Co2 emission from 1940 to 1970 than from 1890 to 1940)

e. The recent warming has been observed only on the surface of the earth. There has been no recording of surface warming using NASA satellites

f. The warming measured on the surface of the earth has been on the order of 1(one) degree Fahrenheit-MUCH LESS THAN THE WARMING WHICH WAS NEEDED TO TURN GREENLAND INTO A VIABLE FARMING COMMUNITY IN THE MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD)

G. With regard to Aerosols( the NSA made this comment- I would suggest that wolf argue with the Scientists of the most prestigious group in the USA)
"There is great uncertainty both for the interpretation of past climate change and the future assessments of climate change"

H. The academy also stated that the computer simulations all ASSUME that water vapor will amplyfy the small bit of warming expected from an increase of CO2 in the air.

I. If that assumption is untrue, then every model exaggerates warming at the lowest levels of the atmosphere.

J. An ideal computer model would have to track FIVE MILLION parameters over the surface of the earth. The Academy concluded tha"Climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit ammost as much complexity as in nature"

All of this I have laid out in more detail before, but Wolf has not even attempted to rebut these statements. I am very sorry but with no rebuttal to show they are wrong, they must stand.