Study: Global Warming Could Affect Calif.

[underpants]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=753&e=1&u=/ap/20040817/ap_on_sc/global_warming

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Global warming (news - web sites) could cause dramatically hotter summers and a depleted snow pack in California, leading to a sharp increase in heat-related deaths and jeopardizing the water supply, according to a study released Monday.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Scientists, focused on California because of its diverse climate, large economy, agricultural interior, and profuse pollution from industries and population centers.

Under the most optimistic computer model, periods of extreme heat would quadruple in Los Angeles by the end of the century, killing two to three times more people than in heat waves today; the Sierra Nevada snow pack would decline by 30 percent to 70 percent; and alpine forests would shrink 50 percent to 75 percent.
_______________
"It's another piece of climate alarmism," said Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It's layers of assumptions and it's all designed to paint a very frightening picture."


He and Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, questioned the reliability of the computer models, and said the report fails to account for human ingenuity and adaptability.

[underpants]

1. About CEI and the National Center for Public Policy Research

http://www.cei.org/pages/about.cfm

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that consumers are best helped not by government regulation but by being allowed to make their own choices in a free marketplace. Since its founding in 1984, CEI has grown into a $3,000,000 institution with a team of nearly 40 policy experts and other staff.


http://www.nationalcenter.org/

History
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NCPPRHist.html

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems. We believe that the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.

In the 1980s, The National Center helped change public opinion through vocal national campaigns aimed at supporting Reagan administration initiatives concerning the USSR, arms control, Central America and human rights. With the Cold War won, The National Center now trains its sights on other issues, including:

[Frodo]

2. Global Warming "Could" Affect Calif???

Wouldn't that be assumed in the term "global"???

[underpants]

3. One of those "alarmists" are you?

It's hard when the opposition could see globally for all the money thrown at them not to.

[Frodo]

4. Not really.

In fact, I don't buy in to the whole theory at this point. I still need to see more data.

But I still think it's silly to look at a presumed global phenomenon and think it's worth writing an article saying "gee, that might impact us too?"

[underpants]

5. The Pentagon, Fortune, Nasa, and Swiss Re seem sure of it

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0303-07.htm

[Frodo]

8. I didn't express myself as well as I should have

I'm not doubting that temperatures are rising (though I haven't seen proof that it is as bad as some have claimes).

But there's a whole big gap between "temperatures are going up" and "here's what we need to do about it". And that gap is not filled to my satisfaction.

[maxsolomon]

6. let's assume that it is NOT happening

why wouldn't reudcing our CO2 pollution & use of ozone depleting chemicals still be a good thing? you know, just in case?

and its happening. california, dependent on the vagaries of nature for its water, is going to be in a world of hurt, just like the regions dependant on the colorado for water.

[Frodo]

7. Ok,

One, CO2 is not "pollution". It's what other living organisms on the planet call "necessary food".

Reducing the output of ozone depleting chemicals is a GOOD thing for many other reasons.

And California won't be hurting quite as much as those relying on the Colorado river. They had another source that won't get tapped out (read second - or maybe third - longest coastline of any state).

[underpants]

9. A salination plant?

Yes that could work but a few years ago Va.Beach (and the state with a Repub governor) considered that until they saw the price tag so the decided it was cheaper and easier to just go steal some water from the Va. side of Lake Gason (mind you not any from the NC side) and flood tribal land or at least try to.

Above I was just trying to get all the sources into the subject line (Pentagon, Fortune,...). I am not what you would normally call a "tree hugger" and I had my doubts about global warming myself but from what I have seen -stories read- there doesn't seem to be much of a debate anymore in my mind.

[Frodo]

10. One would hope not.

I was thinking of DEsalinization plants. But yes. :-)

Sure they aren't cheap, but they're getting cheaper fast, and if people need water? It's an option those on the other side of the mountains don't have.

[Boomer]

19. Tell that to the dying sea life

As discussed previously on DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x11939

Seas turn to acid as they absorb global pollution
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.j...
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
01 August 2004

<snip>

The world's oceans are sacrificing themselves to try to stave off global warming, a major international research programme has discovered.

Their waters have absorbed about half of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities over the past two centuries, the 15-year study has found. Without this moderating effect, climate change would have been much more rapid and severe.

But in the process the seas have become more acid, threatening their very life. The research warns that this could kill off their coral reefs, shellfish and plankton, on which all marine life depends.

News of the alarming conclusions of the research - headed by US government scientists - follows the discovery, reported in Friday's Independent, of a catastrophic failure of North Sea birds to breed this summer, thought to be the result of global warming.

[Terran]

30. I believe he meant

CO2 pollution in the sense of there being too much of it--like noise pollution, heat pollution, that sense of the phrase.

[TX-RAT]

12. don't buy in to the whole theory at this point.

Neither do i.
Does the fact, that every day the earth gets closer to the sun, play into any of these predictions.

[Frodo]

13. Unscientific description.

The Earth does not get closer to the sun every day. In fact, on half the days it gets farther away (since we're not in a circular orbit).

Slight degredation of that orbit (so that we're closer to the sun THIS year than we were LAST year at the same point in the orbit) is FAR too small to cause measurable climate changes (we're talking about a multi-million year process).

But looking at the cyclical nature of temperature change over the last hundreds of thousands of years DOES tell us that there ARE "natural" causes for these changes. We just haven't identified which one (or several) are impacting things this time.

[treepig]

22. this time, we're about to head into uncharted territory

at least wrt to carbon dioxide - who knows if temperature will follow?

who thinks it'd a good idea to do the experiment?

[Lindacooks]

31. How interesting that you didn't answer #19

too much factual science in it?

[Frodo]

34. Ummm nooooo?

1) When at work, I post in spurts as time allows. I didn't avoid #19, it wasn't there the last time I checked in.

2) Post #19 makes reference to a thread that links to an article. That link is currently dead. So there is no "factual science" for me to respond to. When I DID find the article (copied verbatim at dozens of sites), I still didn't find any "factual science" to respond to. In fact, the article seems to make a number of errors. The one that jumps to mind first is that the whole premise seems to be the difference in acidity levels in the ocean closest to North America (the source of the greatest pollution) vs. the levels in Antarctica.

The problem with basing a conclusion on that is that CO2 levels around North America are virtually identical to those around Antarctica. The average inter-hemispheric mixing time for CO2 runs in the 1-2 year range (putting the Antarctic about 2 ppmv behind the Northern reading. Which, as you can see from the chart right above your post, is in the 350 ppmv range).

So we're talking about less than a 1% variation? Did they account for anything ELSE that might impact acidity levels geographically (volcanic venting for instance)? Did they account for normal variability in the acidity of the oceans? What did they use as a baseline?

[Lindacooks]

37. Here you go:

http://www.rense.com/general56/acid.htm

Here's a clip from the article:

"Dr Peter Brewer, of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute - who was not himself involved in the research - calls the results "a wake-up call". He adds: "The numbers are crystal clear. The analysis is impeccable. There is no uncertainty about this. These impacts of a high carbon dioxide ocean are real, and are measurable today."

The research also explodes a heavily touted "solution" to global warming. Critics of international action, including members of the Bush administration, say that there is little need to curb carbon dioxide emissions because the gas could be collected and injected into the oceans for disposal. However, the study shows that this cure could be even worse than the disease."

and I'll believe this guy instead of you any time.

[Frodo]

40. Uh huh

But where is this "factual science" I heard about?

HOW did they make the correlation between the two. How did they show cause/effect instead of coincidence? Where's the follow-on study or supporting evidence?

In short - show me the study. Not what some guy who "was not himself involved in the research"

[Bandit]

14. I can offer some anecdotal evidence

I live in Alaska and we have had the hottest and driest summer ever recorded. I know that doesn't mean there is such a thing as Global Warming but it the weather is most definitely changing up here. They have found newts in Southeast Alaska that were never seen here before this year. People are talking about air conditioning for the first time ever. The previous record summer happened in 1952 and we had seven days where the temperatures reached eighty degrees or more. So far this summer we have had thirteen days and today looks like another.

[hatrack]

15. Also the worst fire season ever recorded in Alaska

Over 5 million acres have burned as record heat just keeps on going in the Interior and around Anchorage, which is usually moderated by presence of Cook Inlet.



Also, the spruce forest in the entire Kenai Peninsula - over 3 million acres - has died in the last ten years. Warmer winters not only failed to kill (or at least control) the spruce bark beetle, but cut its reproductive cycle time in half.

That's why the fire burning north of Homer in the report mentioned above has me worried. Many of those trees in the Kenai died years ago and are just as dry as matchwood.

Permafrost is imploding throughout the Interior as well. Streets, driveways and houses in Fairbanks and other towns are tipping, dipping and distintegrating as previously solid permafrost - millions of acres of it - melts down.

[ilovenicepeople]

27. my 2cents worth

I live on Vancouver island on the west coast of Canada,I've noticed over the last couple years that rain is pretty scarce around here and the temperature is a couple degrees warmer on average.My local paper asked people on the street:"What do you think of the hot weather? Everyone asked answered the same thing "I wish it would stay this warm,I wish it was 37 or 38 (Celsius not Fahrenheit) instead of 32,I HATE it when it rains.So judging by whose responses, global warming is good for the sun worshipers.I would tend to believe global warming is real (as real as the planes flying overhead leaving those pretty trails that spread out and cover the sky)Is it a coincidence that they spray just before a low pressure system is supposed to drop some rain on us?And is it a coincidence that the rain never materializes after they spray? :shrug:

[jpak]

16. Global warming is real and it's caused by human activity

The peer reviewed data and conclusions...

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, R. Schnur (2001) Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science Vol. 292 pp 270-274.

S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, J. Wang, T. L. Delworth, K. W. Dixon, and A. J. Broccoli (2001) Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System. Science Vol 292 pp 267-270.

J. E. Harries, H. E. Brindley, P. J. Sagoo, R. J. Bantges (2001) Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature Vol. 410 pp 355 - 357

further reading...

Richard A. Kerr (2001) It's Official: Humans Are Behind Most of Global Warming. Science. Vol 291 pp 566

[jimbot]

11. Er, Um

CO2 is pollution. Just because it is food for some doesn't mean it is not pollution. Global atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing every year for the past three decades and this is mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels.
As for coastlines, Alaska is #1, Florida is #2 (if you count the Gulf), California is #3.

[denverbill]

17. I think we can keep our heads buried in the sand.

After all, what's the big deal? There is no rock-solid scientific proof that this could destroy the earth as we know it, so until we have absolute proof that the world is actually going to hell, we should just do absolutely nothing different.

</sarcasm>
You know, if these boys treated the threat of global climate destruction 1/2 as seriously as the threat of Saddam, we'd probably solve the problem in a few years.

How much are we spending on Star Wars versus how much on pollution control? Yet, in the extremely unlikely event that we are attacked by nuclear missile, Star Wars 'might' save a million lives. MIGHT, if it even works.

How many lives might be lost if global warming causes cataclymic results?

[underpants]

21. "Global warming can't exist because it would mean that God is wrong"

--The esteemed Reverend Jerry Falwell on "Politiclaly Incorrect" a few years ago.

That is part of the reason the right refuses to believe even a bit of the facts, that and the polluters who fund them-a strange but convenient political marriage.

[denverbill]

23. I would like to disagree with Mr Falwell, but I can't.

Because I can't make any friggin sense out of his statement.

Seriously, how would global warming 'mean the God is wrong'? Did God say global warming could never occur even if mankind burned enormous quantities of hydrocarbons putting billions of tons of carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere? If so, I must've missed that chapter in the Bible. Must be the same chapter that bashed evolution and gays.

[hatrack]

24. Evidently, the trilobites did something to seriously piss God off

So, too, the many and varied Permian life forms, to say nothing of the dinosaurs.

Come to think of it, mass extinctions fit right into Falwell's view of the world - provided, of course, that you can establish that lungfish, sauropods and passenger pigeons are somehow vulnerable to sin and corruption.

[denverbill]

25. Phhft. Shows what you know.

IIRC, creationists believe that fossils from dinosaurs and trilobytes are just a big joke God created to try to fool people into not believing in him.

You see, if you were God, and you desired that people obey your commandments and live according to your rules and worship you, wouldn't you also create fake 'evidence' to make people not believe in you and not follow your commandments? Cause then, you'd have the pleasure of sending them to eternal damnation cause you were able to trick them into not believing in you.

God really wants you to love and believe in him. That's why he tries to trick you into not believing in him. So he can send you to hell.

[underpants]

28. Because it might mean God created a faulty planet/universe

That is what I took from that.

Was it Lynn or Vanessa Redgrave sitting across from him who immediately said "You HAVE to be kidding!!!"

[Swede]

18. 7 of the warmest winters in Saskatchewan happened in the last 10 years.

This is not speculation.

[treepig]

20. in a way it's speculation

because, although i had difficulty deciphering the font, the last time i was browsing through The Journal of Heiroglyphics - the ancient egyptians detected some pretty damn hot weather some 2500-3000 years ago.



(and that's a pretty neat trick how they made the figure appear as though it was really published ca. 2000 A.D., not ~ 1000 B.C.)

[jpak]

29. Was there a Medieval Climate Optimum and a Little Ice Age????

The IPCC concluded that these were minor regional (not global) events.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

Global climate warming observed in the latter half of the 20th century (an ongoing today) is clearly anthropogenic in origin and clearly anomalous.

and Greenwash don't wash with me...

[jpak]

32. Northern Hempisphere temps over the last 1000 years...

[treepig]

33. yes, but is that data for regina, moose jaw, saskatoon, or prince albert?

btw, do you have prince albert in a can?

[jpak]

35. The lower plot was the Northern Hemisphere. Here's the global plot...

btw: I do

:)

[Gregorian]

26. The UN commissioned thousands of scientists

to study global warming. The results were unanimous. They found that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere were 400 ppm, up from 280 ppm, where it has been at a steady level for the last 100,000 years. If that isn't proof, then what is? They also stated that we need to decrease our production of these pollutants by 70%, immediately. It works like this- 1/3 energy production; 1/3 transportation; 1/3 manufacturing. That's where the pollution comes from.
Now, we haven't even taken into consideration all of the new people that parents want to have. Nor have we considered that the undeveloped countries are just starting to do what we have done.

People, it's ugly. And like I have been saying for decades now- stop breeding and stop driving. At first I was saying that out of just plain disgust. Now it's no longer negative talk- it's a matter of survival.

[0rganism]

36. GLOBAL warming will AFFECT THE ENTIRE FARKING PLANET

Hence, use of the term GLOBAL.

I nominate this article for wackiest understatement headline ever.

[LiberalBushFan]

38. Study:

Global warming might increase the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.

[hatrack]

39. Study links marijuana with sitting around, getting stoned

With thanks, as always to The Onion! ;-)