National Academy Of Sciences: Climate Change Is REAL

Politics Daily:

In what's being called "the most comprehensive report ever on climate change," the National Academy of Sciences urged aggressive action to curb global warming, including a cap-and-trade program and taxes on carbon emissions.

Read the whole story: Politics Daily

Comments

[StephenBP]

08:56 PM on 06/20/2010

I seem to remember a point in time when, if you sided with college dropouts like Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity, against prestigious bodies like the National Academy of Sciences, you were basically considered a ding dong. How times have changed. Now, masses of people have been so successfully conditioned by the multimillion dollar petroleum based misinformation campaigns, that the insane is now considered sane. So you denialists all just keep reading those petroleum sponsored blogs, and keep telling us how left is right, up is down, and the world is cooling. Maybe you can tell expound on your theory of universal gravitation and why Einstein was wrong too while you are at it.

[Richard2]

12:02 AM on 06/20/2010

Climate Change is Real! What a profound statement. The earth's climate has been changing for the past four billion years.

The earth was warmer during the age of the dinosaurs, and was colder during the four ice ages. We're lucky. We are somewhere in the middle.

Claims that we are today experiencing unprecedented heat ignore the long and deep history of the earth.

Plus, Prof. Jones has admitted there hasn't been any significant warming over the past decade or so. So how can things be "spinning out of control" if the climate change we are experiencing is insignificant compared to the changes in earlier periods of the earth's history?

[StephenBP]

09:13 PM on 06/20/2010

Misquoting someone or taking their words out of context, or outright distorting them is really despicable, as Daffy would say. What Jones actually said is basicalyy that, “while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years.” That is a whole lot different than saying that there has not been any significant warming. And if you think that waving nonsense like that at the freight train of evidence barreling down on you is going to somehow protect you from reality, you are liable to be in for some realy bad cognitive dissonance in the years ahead.

[dragonmaster]

08:07 AM on 06/14/2010

It seems that the National Academy of Sciences is releasing the same credible evidence that we could be- and probably are at significant risk with the catastrophic effects climate change- as have other reputable scientific organizations such as NOAA, NASA, the EPA- I am sure the science released by them is as unbiased and robust as possible.

The media however takes its cues from the far right - and the media wants its bills paid by advertisers- many of them who are anti environment/anti Green- so the media- both print and TV/Web/Radio choose to either; Print the latest data on climate change on the 3rd page, relegate to a status of secondary importance- but give as much prominence to the Deniers and the loud corporate mouth pieces who say climate change is 'junk science' and has been proven to be a hoax.

The media has failed miserably in presenting one of the most important challenges of the 21st century civilization. The media instead- like just about every other partyt of American culture cowers before the power of the far right. How sad.

[TQQ]

07:22 PM on 06/14/2010

Don't drink the kool-aid!

[dragonmaster]

05:41 AM on 06/15/2010

Kool Aid? The only Kool Aid is coming from the far right and the massive special interests- most of them tied to the energy industry. I would most surely believe the NOAA, NASA, NAS, &the EPA over any corporation-- too bad many Americans and others drink the 'Kool Aid' coming from the US Chamber of Commerce, the 'Club for Growth'- and aformentioned oil companies- who could care less about the planet.

[TQQ]

10:35 PM on 06/12/2010

...and in a related story they also said that the moon is trying to get us.

[dragonmaster]

05:42 AM on 06/15/2010

I know the far right hates science and data that point to a reality that may be uncomfortable to those who make huge profits- at the expense of hurting others- but that's what US corporations are about right?

[Publicola]

09:58 AM on 06/03/2010

Here are excerpts from the National Academy of Science's report:
______________________

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations...

continued...

[Publicola]

10:12 AM on 06/03/2010

...continued

Projections of future climate change anticipate an additional warming of 2.0 to 11.5 F (1.1 to 6.4 C) over the 21st century, on top of the 1.4 oF already observed over the past 100 years...

There is also the potential that the Earth system could cross thresholds that result in abrupt changes or other "surprises." The potential consequences of such events could be irreversible and highly challenging, but their likelihood is not very well understood.

Despite these uncertainties and complexities, it is clear that Earth's future climate will be unlike the climate that ecosystems and human societies have become accustomed to during the last 10,000 years, leading to significant challenges across a broad range of human endeavors. It is likewise reasonable to expect that the magnitude of future climate change and the severity of its impacts will be larger if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.
______________________

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science_Report_Brief_Final.pdf

[Richard2]

12:14 AM on 06/02/2010

Britain’s Royal Society, the UK’s preeminent scientific body, has joined national science bodies in India and France in validating the views of global warming sceptics.

The Royal Society’s decision, which follows a revolt by 43 Fellows of the Royal Society, will see it rewrite its position on climate change in a tacit admission that it and in particular its previous president, Lord May, had been acting more as lobbyists for a cause than as agents for scientific reason. Without canvassing his membership, May had famously stated that “The debate on climate change is over” and that “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”

Following the revolt over the society’s recent history of alarmism and hyperbole, the current president, Lord Rees, by no means a sceptic, has nevertheless decided to take a more balanced view: “Climate change is a hugely important issue but the public debate has all too often been clouded by exaggeration and misleading information,” he said. “We aim to provide the public with a clear indication of what is known about the climate system, what we think we know about it and, just as importantly, the aspects we still do not understand very well.”


.....from an article by Lawrence Solomon

[Publicola]

09:05 PM on 06/02/2010

Do you always get your "news" from opinion essays by global warming deniers, Richard2? Evidently so.

From Nature, one of the world's most respected (by scientists, anyway) scientific journal:
-----------

Nameless fellows attack Royal Society's climate stance - May 28, 2010

The Royal Society, Britain's top scientific organisation, is reviewing its position on climate change after receiving a complaint from 43 of its 1,361 fellows, according to the BBC News.

According to the BBC report, the fellows were angered by a policy document known as 'Climate Change Controversies', which seeks to "help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science". In their complaint to the society, the fellows say that the document is too dismissive of recent attacks on our current understanding of climate change.

Several of the fellows, who appear to be climate sceptics or 'agnostics', were willing to talk to BBC environment reporter Roger Harrabin, but interestingly, none of them were willing to comment on-the-record. I must say that I'm a little surprised by that. Fellows of the Royal Society are well-respected senior scientists. Presumably if they have an objection as important as this, they should be in a strong position to speak out publically about it...

Were they really so worried about "blowback" from the broader scientific community that they were afraid put their name to their complaint? Was there another reason for them remaining nameless?

---
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/05/nameless_fellows_attack_societ.html

[realpolitic]

10:05 PM on 06/02/2010

Richard tried to make the same case for the United States Physical Society when a couple members out of thousands wanted to re-write their climate change position and it was later discovered they were financed by energy concerns.

[realpolitic]

07:52 PM on 05/29/2010

Of course, climate change is real. One might as well say that today is Saturday. Of course, it helps combat the misinformation by the denier crowd who are always busy conjuring more misinformation and lies.

[Richard2]

05:55 PM on 06/20/2010

You are right. Climate change is real. The earth's climate has always been changing, from the days of Jurassic Park to the the present. The more serious question is whether mankind is having a significant influence on climate change, or whether the change that occurs is simply from natural forces over which we have no control or influence. The jury seems to be out on that one.

[Publicola]

11:42 PM on 05/28/2010

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (and 12 other national science academies), 2010:

"The IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment of climate change science concluded that large reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases, principally CO2, are needed soon to slow the increase of atmospheric concentrations, and avoid reaching unacceptable levels. However, climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid. Feedbacks in the climate system might lead to much more rapid climate changes. The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

[Richard2]

06:22 PM on 06/02/2010

"indisputable?"

[realpolitic]

10:07 PM on 06/02/2010

Yes, indisputable, meaning beyond dispute!

[TQQ]

09:13 PM on 05/21/2010

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

[realpolitic]

02:21 PM on 05/23/2010

May as well say "I am not too bright, I am not too bright!"

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

08:54 PM on 06/10/2010

The upper atmosphere is cooling, thus condensing. The sky is indeed shrinking as evident by the decrease in atmospheric drag on our orbiting satellites. You did not know it, but your statement is true.

[Publicola]

03:11 PM on 05/21/2010

Downthread, HuffPost Blogger Nelson Montana wrote:

"Water does something else when heated. It evaporates. Which would probably lead to more rain. Which would probably lead to more cooling."

Water does something else when heated via a warming atmosphere: more of it remains in the atmosphere.

More from Dr. Solomon's 2009 Congressional testimony:

--------------------
By about the end of the 21st century, carbon dioxide concentrations could become as high as 1000 parts per million if emissions worldwide continue rising at a rate typical of the last decade, which is about 2% per year. The best current science implies that with a sustained level of 1000 ppmv over carbon dioxide, an average day would be about 10 degrees F warmer than today, which corresponds to a greatly changed climate. Heat wave as bad or worse than the worst current heat waves (such as the one in Europe in 2003 that led to the deaths of more than 10,000 people) would become common. There is now increased confidence that decreased rainfall can be expected as the world warms in parts of southwestern North America, west Australia, southern Europe, and both northern and southern Africa.

continued...

[Publicola]

03:12 PM on 05/21/2010

...continued

Droughts comparable to the dust bowl can be expected to occur in the future not just occasionally in limited regions, but in all of these places and at the same time. Many of the world's most desolate deserts would expand as semi-arid soils dry out. Glaciers and snowpack that provide water to at least a billion people would disappear. Fires would become more common in these dry regions, and fire frequency is also expected to increase in many locations that dependent upon snowpack for their water supply, such as California. Insect pests would become more common, with attendant damage to crops and forests. All of these impact are based on physical processes that are well understood, and represent aspects of the science for which confidence is very high.

---
http://appropriations.house.gov/Witness_testimony/CJS/Susan_Solomon_03_17_09.pdf

[Publicola]

01:40 PM on 05/21/2010

Downthread, HuffPost Blogger Nelson Montana wrote:

"We're not going to lose millions of people if the planets temperature rises one degree and the oceans rise one inch."

From Congressional testimony by climatologist Dr. Susan Solomon, March 17, 2009:

--------------------
Sea level rose by about 6 inches in the 20th century. How much further it will rise is not well understood. It is well understood that water expands when heated... It is also clear that small glaciers world wide have lost mass as the world has warmed... These two processes are well understood and can be expected to produce up to 3 feet of sea level rise within the next two to three centuries if carbon dioxide continues to increase. Three feet of sea level rise would inundate many small island and low lying coastal regions, such as Florida, and this is already becoming part of coastal planning in many regions. A third process many be very important but is very poorly understood, the rapid flow of the great ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. There is evidence for locally rapid ice flows, but it is not yet possible to integrate this contribution over larger areas as would be needed to quantify the total contribution to sea level rise. The potential contribution could be on the order of a few meters over centuries, but this is very uncertain.

---
http://appropriations.house.gov/Witness_testimony/CJS/Susan_Solomon_03_17_09.pdf

[rbenjamin]

02:39 PM on 05/21/2010

Thanks for taking the time. It's important to counter the deniers and paradoxers with referenced fact based science. Even though it takes time.

[Publicola]

03:09 PM on 05/21/2010

De nada.

[snowbird1]

12:08 PM on 05/21/2010

Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the
Earth's temperature.

In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming trend.

The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
less do, to correct the situation.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada



http://beforeitsnews.com/news/44/692/Astonishing_Science:_Sun_May_Cause_Global_Warming.html

[realpolitic]

12:50 PM on 05/21/2010

"Another likely cause of past climatic changes is variations in the energy output of the Sun. Measurements over recent decades show that the solar output varies slightly (by close to 0.1%) in an 11-year cycle. Sunspot observations (going back to the 17th century), as well as data from isotopes generated by cosmic radiation, provide evidence for longer-term changes in solar activity. Data correlation and model simulations indicate that solar variability and volcanic activity are likely to be leading reasons for climate variations during the past millennium, before the start of the industrial era."

"What carbon dioxide is doing now is enhancing that greenhouse gas effect. So we understand the basic physics of that. It's enhancing that greenhouse effect and leading to an increase in temperature, so we're trapping more energy into the planet because of increasing levels of carbon dioxide."

"How do we know that it matters? Well you don't have to really think to hard that if you've gone from before we started our industrial activities in the 19th century, carbon dioxide levels were at 280 parts per million by volume. We are now rapidly approaching 390 parts per million which means it's been a 40% increase. Most of that increase has happened in the last 50 years. And if we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it's hard to believe that if you increase it by 40% you're not going to do something to the temperature of the planet."

[rbenjamin]

02:35 PM on 05/21/2010

One drop in a scientific sea.

[rbenjamin]

02:53 PM on 05/21/2010

When I stop seeing seeing drops of contrarian papers in the scientific literature I'll know the system is totally broken, it's dogma. The drops are healthy, I wish them well. But I'm not putting large bets on them just yet.

[WRP64]

09:07 PM on 05/20/2010

Good to see a few informed people on the side of science tonight.

[PlinytheYounger]

04:19 PM on 05/20/2010

Oh those scientists, they always claim they're trying to help us, but what they really want is to RULE THE WORLD!

Paraphrased from the Mel Brooks classic, Young Frankenstein.

[flyguytom]

03:22 PM on 05/20/2010

I walked into the National Academies bookstore in Washington DC during the Bush administration to judge for myself the extent of denial about climate change that dominated the political environment. In a half an hour of searching, I could find not a single book, let alone a chapter, about global warming. The same denial still exists for this administration. We need leadership on the issue of fossil fuel exploration and consumption. For all we know, the same manipulation of the public and the scientific community still exists. The problem is not climate change as much as over-consumption. Mythologies about use of coal and oil and about carbon capture still pervade the atmosphere. This is the moment to capture the public fancy with regard to our raping of the planet; the administration is not only silent, but complicit.

[Publicola]

04:11 PM on 05/20/2010

"The same denial still exists for this administration."

How so?