Signs of Global Warming Already Evident in the U.S.
Climate change is already having visible impacts in the United States, and the choices we make now will determine the severity of its impacts in the future, according to a new and authoritative federal study assessing the current and anticipated domestic impacts of climate change.
The report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,” compiles years of scientific research and takes into account new data not available during the preparation of previous large national and global assessments. It was produced by a consortium of experts from13 U.S. government science agencies and from several major universities and research institutes. With its production and review spanning Republican and Democratic administrations, it offers a valuable, objective scientific consensus on how climate change is affecting—and may further affect—the United States.
“This new report integrates the most up-to-date scientific findings into a comprehensive picture of the ongoing as well as expected future impacts of heat-trapping pollution on the climate experienced by Americans, region by region and sector by sector,” said John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. “It tells us why remedial action is needed sooner rather than later, as well as showing why that action must include both global emissions reductions to reduce the extent of climate change and local adaptation measures to reduce the damage from the changes that are no longer avoidable.”
The report, which confirms previous evidence that global temperature increases in recent decades have been primarily human-induced, incorporates the latest information on rising temperatures and sea levels; increases in extreme weather events; and other climate-related phenomena. Adding greatly to its practical value in the realm of policy and planning, it is the first such report in almost a decade to break out those impacts by U.S. region and economic sector, and the first to do so in such great detail.
“This report stresses that climate change has immediate and local impacts – it literally affects people in their backyards,” said Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “In keeping with our goals, the information in it is accessible and useful to everyone from city planners and national legislators to citizens who want to better understand what climate change means to them. This is an issue that clearly affects everyone.”
A product of the interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program, the definitive 190-page report, produced under NOAA’s leadership, is written in plain language to better inform members of the public and policymakers. Commissioned in 2007 and completed this spring, the science-based report is a consensus product spanning two presidential administrations and transcends political leanings or biases. It underwent intensive review by scientists inside and outside of government and includes information more recent than that incorporated into the last major report on global climate change released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The report is not intended to direct policy makers to take any one approach over another to mitigate climate change or adapt to it. But it emphasizes that the choices we make now will determine the severity of climate change impacts in the future. “Implementing sizable and sustained reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible would significantly reduce the pace and the overall amount of climate change,” the report states, “and would be more effective than reductions of the same size initiated later.”
The study finds that Americans are already being affected by climate change through extreme weather, drought and wildfire trends and details how the nation’s transportation, agriculture, health, water and energy sectors will be affected in the future. The study also finds that the current trend in the emission of greenhouse gas pollution is significantly above the worst-case scenario that this and other reports have considered.
Among the main findings are:
* Heat waves will become more frequent and intense, increasing threats to human health and quality of life. Extreme heat will also affect transportation and energy systems, and crop and livestock production.
* Increased heavy downpours will lead to more flooding, waterborne diseases, negative effects on agriculture, and disruptions to energy, water, and transportation systems.
* Reduced summer runoff and increasing water demands will create greater competition for water supplies in some regions, especially in the West.
* Rising water temperatures and ocean acidification threaten coral reefs and the rich ecosystems they support. These and other climate-related impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems will have major implications for tourism and fisheries.
* Insect infestations and wildfires are already increasing and are projected to increase further in a warming climate.
* Local sea-level rise of over three feet on top of storm surges will increasingly threaten homes and other coastal infrastructure. Coastal flooding will become more frequent and severe, and coastal land will increasingly be lost to the rising seas.
By breaking out results in terms of region and economic sector the report provides a valuable tool not just for policymakers but for all Americans who will be affected by these trends. Its information can help:
* Farmers making crop and livestock decisions, as growing seasons lengthen, insect management becomes more difficult and droughts become more severe;
* Local officials thinking about zoning decisions, especially along coastal areas;
* Public health officials developing ways to lessen the impacts of heat waves throughout the country;
* Water resource officials considering development plans; and,
* Business owners as they consider business and investment decisions.
Responses to climate change fall into two categories. The first involves “mitigation” measures to limit climate change by reducing emissions of heat-trapping pollution or increasing their removal from the atmosphere. The second involves “adaptation” measures to improve our ability to cope with or avoid harmful impacts, and take advantage of beneficial ones. “Both of these are necessary elements of an effective response strategy,” said Jerry Melillo of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, MA, a report co-chair.
“By comparing impacts that are projected to result from higher versus lower emissions of heat-trapping gasses, our report underscores the importance and real economic value of reducing those emissions,” said Tom Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. and one of the co-chairs of the report. “It shows that the choices made now will have far-reaching consequences.”
The report draws from a large body of scientific information, including the set of 21 Synthesis and Assessment reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The government agencies affiliated with the program include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, State, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; NASA; National Science Foundation; Smithsonian Institution; and the United States Agency for International Development.
The report is available for download online.
Accompanying video will be available on NASA TV June 16 at 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. For coordinates and schedule information, please see the NASA TV Web site.

The most hot air being generated these days over global warming (I refuse to capitalize a non-event) is coming from the flapping wings and open beaks of all those Chicken Littles yelling, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" I used to think that being awarded a Nobel Prize meant something, but when they awarded one to Al Gore for his ridiculous propaganda film, which has been proven wrong on so many levels...well, I think, were he alive today, Alfred Nobel would use the product he invented to blow the whole global warming crowd into the next century, where they'd see what idiots they are!
Before you of the aluminum-foil hat crowd start firing up your keyboards, I don't deny that something is going on out there, but it ain't our fault! It's called climate change for a reason -- climate changes. If it didn't, the Earth would be -- let's see -- the Moon.
This whole debate is a prime example of the supreme hubris of certain people, who inflate and conflate their importance all out of proportion to who we really are in the greater scheme of things.
I have another question for you: Why is it that in debates about climate change the proponents against the existence of any man-made effect are almost always from the US?
Is this because of an inherent isolationism that refuses to see things in global terms?
Is it because lobbyists for the oil industries are more vociferous in the US?
Is it because North America uses way more energy per capita than the rest of the world and thus feels it has the most to lose?
Is it because everywhere else is waiting for the US to catch-up?
I don't wish to undermine your rights as an individual but when everyone is avoiding you maybe it is time to consider having a bath rather than assuming that they are all lying.
Science is not a popularity contest. Just because everyone believes something doesn't mean it's true. The last 100 years is filled with examples of where a supposed consensus in science was proved false. The fact is it is primarily the European public that firmly believes in GIobal Warming, not all the world outside North America as you would suggest. In all your arguments you have failed to come up with one single scientific analysis to support your case. The fact is among Climatologists and Meteorologists there is not a consensus either way except among the political factions of the IPCC who write the summaries.
I do have a solid background in Science (BS degree) and a fair knowledge in Meteorology and Climate Science, enough to understand the literature when I read it. At first I was agreed with the man made global warming theory (yes, it's a theory, not a fact). Now I'm a doubter for the following reasons.
CO2 is only 0.038% of the total atmosphere. Water vapor is the primary Greenhouse gas and makes up 1.0% of the atmosphere. There are other Greenhouse gasses but their quantities small they can be ignored. At present then CO2 makes up only 4% of all greenhouse gasses. Since the start of the industrial revolution CO2 has risen from about .025% of the atmosphere so there has been only a 1.3% increase in the amount of CO2 relative to total Greenhouse gasses.
The warming of the Earth since the early 1800's followed a period of cooling which exaggerates the of global warming.
The computer models used to make predictions are flawed partly because we don't know enough about all the things that effect climate and partly because it is impossible to accurately calibrate these models since it would take at least 100 years of data to do so and then there would then have to be repeated runs of 100 years to fine tune the calculations.
IF everything the Global Warming proponents think is true and IF the Computer models are correct it is probably already too late to do anything about it, especially if the warming of the Earth is caused by a combination of factors, both natural and man made (the most likely scenario). For this reason I believe that we should be concentrating on adapting to these changes rather than a futile effort to stop them. If the Earth warms there will be both beneficial and harmful effects (I find it amusing that only the worst case negative effects are ever mentioned, scare tactics? You be the judge).
In conclusion, I can only say I don't know but the politicians and news media are NOT giving you an unbiased view of what is really going on. I find it interesting that in general the public questions what the news media and our politicians say but not when it comes to Global Warming (or anything they agree with politically). Why is that? You are a prime example of that liquidmonkey. You believe everything that is said that in favor of man made global warming and disbelieve everything said against it. If you try to have a more neutral stance in the issue you would be better informed.
Check the following link for a generally unbiased summary on Global warming from a US University.
http://www.umich.edu /~gs265/ society /greenhouse.htm
Hmmm you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I pay any attention to politicians - I don't. I do however subscribe to scientific journals and generally keep abreast of "current" research into climate change . The moment I come across any remotely serious research which challenges the idea of man-made global warming I will pay it the respect it deserves. At the moment none of the arguments put forward by skeptics pass this test. The " science " that is usually trotted out by skeptics is either non existent, erroneous, irrelevant or in many case dated. That is to say it many have been valid at one time but further evaluation / data collection has shown it to be incorrect.
Ok to directly deal with all your points 1 by 1:
1. CO2 is only 0.038% of the total atmosphere. Water vapor is the primary Greenhouse gas and makes up 1.0% of the atmosphere.
There is a very important distinction to be made, as you will read if you follow the link to Real Climate, between water vapour's role in the Earth's Greenhouse effect and it's role in climate change. If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report or at NASA's page about forcings in its GCM, you won't find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.
2. The warming of the Earth since the early 1800's followed a period of cooling which exaggerates the of global warming [sic].
Not on any data that I have seen. There are of course fluctuations but these average out. The global cooling in the middle ages has shown to be myth based on very localised climate reports.
3. IF everything the Global Warming proponents think is true and IF the Computer models are correct it is probably already too late to do anything about it.
Quiet possibly true but are you really proposing that we accelerate our cycle of decline by continuing as we are? This is a little like not attempting to resuscitate someone because they would have died at some point anyway.
While I partly agree with you that scientific consensus in itself does not make something correct, in most cases it usually is. The idea of a lone scientist fighting the scientific establishment is a lovely idea that plays well in Hollywood but has little baring in reality. That is why the peer review system is in place - it generally works. While we are on the subject of consensus opinion surveys show that even most North Americans believe man has played a significant role in climate change http://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/412.php?lb=bte&pnt=412&nid=&id =.
1) The true effect of water vapor and how it relates to CO2 increases is unknown. As usual the IPCC only reports what supports their agenda. Please go to the following link with an essay supposedly debunking the role of water vapor overriding CO2 in global warming and then read the lively debate that follows. There are all kinds of theories as to the role of water vapor and it's effects on global warming but no consensus conclusion.
2)Your statement here is totally incorrect. The global nature of the Little Ice Age is well documented and accepted as fact accept possibly by Global warming advocates. I suppose you doubt the validity of the ice ages whose end came without the assistance of man made CO2. Major temperature fluctuations are well known throughout paleontological history without man's influence. Also there is evidence of far higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 at different stages in the Earth's history.
3) Sorry I don't buy that argument. Most scientists agree that another ice age may be imminent with far worse consequences than global warmong. By your thinking we should continue to pump more CO2 in the atmosphere to prevent it. How about an asteroid destroying the earth. Maybe we should concentrate our resources to find ways to prevent that. Sorry, The evidence that man made CO2 is going to cause catastrophic global warming is too flimsy for me to accept as fact.
Let me conclude that I am totally in favor of finding alternative energy sources to fossil fuels and actually agree with the steps taken to eliminate them. It's the reasons for doing so I disagree with. When global warming is finally disproven I'm afraid the public will feel duped and go back to their energy wasting ways. Our knowledge of climate science is so sketchy that it's kind of like the trying to prove the cause of disease in the early Middle Ages.
The reason the public believes in man's role in global warming is because the media gives a totally slanted view, never giving the opposition a voice.
My objections to the global warming mantra are due to the advocacy. Opposing views are suppressed or dismissed. Man made global warming is not a fact it is an unproven theory. Good science encourages debate. The total suppression and dismissal of all opposing views is bad science plain and simple and is the same as the way the the "scientific community" dismissed theories of the Earth rotating around the Sun back in the day. Also the Global Warming advocates always project worst case scenarios that are extremely unlikely to happen even if man made global warming is real. You should do some research into how respected scientists skeptical papers are rejected for peer review simply because they don't follow thw mantra. How the IPCC suppresses any opposing views in their reports and makes their predictions sound more and more dire even if the evidence doesn't support it. That my friend is a political agenda.
The IPCC clearly states in their own publications that role of water vapor is not well understood. It then goes on to discount almost entirely any role at all for water vapor. The much discussed positive feedbacks have yet to be verified outside of the climate models.
As for the accuracy of the climate models, they are not independently verified. Indeed, Willie Soon recently demonstrated that the models are woefully inaccurate by comparing the CO2 driven models to a data set which assumed simply that each year's climate will have a 90% + chance of being the same as the year before. The CO2 models, those used by the IPCC, were off by a factor of 7. The same as the year before were nearly dead on.
People would do well to frequent sites in addition to Michael Mann's Real Climate. That site is heavily edited. Pielke Sr., Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, among others, all run sites in which the discussions are lively and open to all.
I would also recommend this video by Dr. John Christy, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA
Yes he is a critic of man made global warming . He is also a reviewer for the IPCC and a pioneer in satellite temperature measurement. I also recommend this brief review of research by Willie Soon, http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Soon07-CO2-TempCORR-Preprint.pdf
As for the politics and the scientific consensus, it is rapidly falling apart. Efforts to curb CO2 in Australia have been abandoned due to a lack of scientific evidence. Japanese scientists have come out stating unequivocally that AGW is a hoax. Allegre, in France, once a proponent of AGW, has recanted and is being appointed to a new post by Sarkovsky. This list is getting long. Those who are skeptical of the findings are finally speaking out as more evidence piles up debunking AGW. This in spite of the magazines, "Science" and "Nature," who have taken a clear advocacy position supporting the notion of AGW. Amazingly, they refuse to publish even peer reviewed literature. Read about Roy Spencer's efforts to get his recent works published in spite of three separate peer reviews, including one by a colleague who disagree with him and changed his own work after reading Spencer's.
Not saying I agree with you but I will look at the video and pdf when I get a moment. I wish I could spend longer discussing the points you raise but I have a friend coming over for the weekend and need to tidy up. Yes, even with the imminent threat of climate crisis looming I still find the time to clean LOL.
I'll pick this up at some point in the near future.
For some reason that link only takes you to the home page but if you do a search on that page for Greenhouse Gases it is the first one on the list that comes up.
The report is not totally unbiased as it falies to give enough space to arguments against man made Global warming but the opinion at the end is unbiased. See below.
"The world's leading scientists project that during our children 's lifetimes global warming will raise the average temperature of the planet by 2 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1-3.5 degree Celsius. In contrast the Earth is only 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit or about 3-6 degrees Celsius warmer today than it was 10,000 years ago during the last ice age. Man-made global warming is occurring much faster than at any other time in at least the last 10,000 years. ( www.toowarm.org/factsheets/basfact.html #How) This information would suggest that the warming Earth is experiencing now is not a natural phenomenon, but caused by the increased concentration of greenhouse gases.
While evidence is strong to support the notion of human contribution to the global warming problem, an alternative view is that recent global warming is a natural occurrence. Some theorists believe that the Earth's climate works in a cycle, cooling, and then warming itself. Scientists point out the fact that 75 million years ago, the Earth's average temperature was ten degrees higher than it is today. Conditions were warmer and more humid, but life sustained. ( www.enviolink.org/orgs/edf/sitemap.html )
Another phenomenon to take into account is the "little ice age", which occurred from 1550-1850 A.D. Conditions around the world were cooler than usual; many bodies of water froze over. The average global temperature since the little ice age has risen by one degree Fahrenheit! Shouldn't it be expected that after that ice age was over that the temperature on Earth would rise at least one degree?
The bottom line is that it may seem that only human actions are causing global warming, but it is very possible that global warming is nothing to worry about and is just part of the global temperature cycle. Both theories are credible, but neither has yet been proven."