Science.

Quote

 

Major Trump administration climate report says damage is ‘intensifying across the country’

The federal government on Friday released a long-awaited report with an unmistakable message: The effects of climate change, including deadly wildfires, increasingly debilitating hurricanes and heat waves, are already battering the United States, and the danger of more such catastrophes is worsening.

The report’s authors, who represent numerous federal agencies, say they are more certain than ever that climate change poses a severe threat to Americans' health and pocketbooks, as well as to the country’s infrastructure and natural resources. And while it avoids policy recommendations, the report’s sense of urgency and alarm stands in stark contrast to the lack of any apparent plan from President Trump to tackle the problems, which, according to the government he runs, are increasingly dire.

The congressionally mandated document — the first of its kind issued during the Trump administration — details how climate-fueled disasters and other types of worrisome changes are becoming more commonplace throughout the country and how much worse they could become in the absence of efforts to combat global warming.

Already, western mountain ranges are retaining much less snow throughout the year, threatening water supplies below them. Coral reefs in the Caribbean, Hawaii, Florida and the United States' Pacific territories are experiencing severe bleaching events. Wildfires are devouring ever-larger areas during longer fire seasons. And the country’s sole Arctic state, Alaska, is seeing a staggering rate of warming that has upended its ecosystems, from once ice-clogged coastlines to increasingly thawing permafrost tundras.

The National Climate Assessment’s publication marks the government’s fourth comprehensive look at climate-change impacts on the United States since 2000. The last came in 2014. Produced by 13 federal departments and agencies and overseen by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the report stretches well over 1,000 pages and draws more definitive, and in some cases more startling, conclusions than earlier versions.

The authors argue that global warming “is transforming where and how we live and presents growing challenges to human health and quality of life, the economy, and the natural systems that support us.” And they conclude that humans must act aggressively to adapt to current impacts and mitigate future catastrophes “to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health and well-being over the coming decades.”

“The impacts we’ve seen the last 15 years have continued to get stronger, and that will only continue,” said Gary Yohe, a professor of economics and environmental studies at Wesleyan University who served on a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed the report. “We have wasted 15 years of response time. If we waste another five years of response time, the story gets worse. The longer you wait, the faster you have to respond and the more expensive it will be.”

That urgency is at odds with the stance of the Trump administration, which has rolled back several Obama-era environmental regulations and incentivized the production of fossil fuels. Trump also has said he plans to withdraw the nation from the Paris climate accord and questioned the science of climate change just last month, saying on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that “I don’t know that it’s man-made” and that the warming trend “could very well go back.”

Furthermore, as the Northeast faced a cold spell this week, Trump tweeted, “Whatever happened to Global Warming?” This shows a misunderstanding that climate scientists have repeatedly tried to correct — a confusion between daily weather fluctuations and long-term climate trends.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday’s report. However, the administration last year downplayed a separate government reportcalling human activity the dominant driver of global warming, saying in a statement that “the climate has changed and is always changing.”

Given that history, some of the hundreds of scientists and federal officials who spent months working on the detailed document were frustrated, but not surprised, that the administration chose to release it on the day after Thanksgiving — typically one of the slowest news days of the year. Several people involved in the report said its release originally had been planned for early December, but after a behind-the-scenes debate in recent weeks about when to make it public, administration officials settled on Black Friday.

Several federal experts who participated in a media call after the release of the report on Friday were repeatedly asked about the timing of its release on a day when the country’s attention is likely elsewhere.

For the most part, they demurred, saying that in part the report was finished early and that they wanted to make sure it was out ahead of both an American Geophysical Union gathering next month, as well as a major international climate conference in Poland around the same time. Rather, they implored reporters to focus instead on the contents of the report, which they said had not been tinkered with by administration officials.

“This report has not been altered or revised in any way because of political considerations,” Monica Allen, a spokeswoman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), told reporters. She said the decision on when to release it had been made during the past week, but added, “It’s not as significant as the content of what’s in the report.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, said the report shows how climate change will affect all Americans.

“No matter how hard they try, the Trump administration can’t bury the effects of climate change in a Black Friday news dump – effects their own federal government scientists have uncovered," he said in a statement. "The president says outrageous things like climate change is a hoax engineered by the Chinese and raking forests will prevent catastrophic wildfires, but serious consequences like collapsing coastal housing prices and trillions of dollars in stranded fossil fuel assets await us if we don’t act.”

That report is striking in its clear statement that climate change is not only already affecting the U.S., but that the effects are getting worse.

“This report draws a direct connection between the warming atmosphere and the resulting changes that affect Americans' lives, communities, and livelihoods, now and in the future,” the document reads, concluding that “the evidence of human-caused climate change is overwhelming and continues to strengthen, that the impacts of climate change are intensifying across the country, and that climate-related threats to Americans' physical, social, and economic well-being are rising.”

The report finds that the continental United States already is 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it was 100 years ago, surrounded by seas that are on average nine inches higher and being racked by far worse heat waves than the nation experienced only 50 years ago.

But those figures offer only the prelude to even more potentially severe impacts. The report suggests that by 2050, the country could see as much as 2.3 additional degrees of warming in the continental United States. By that same year, in a high-end global-warming scenario, coral reefs in Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific territories could be bleaching every single year — conditions in which their survival would be in severe doubt. A record-warm year like 2016 would become routine.

Key crops, including corn, wheat and soybeans, would see declining yields as temperatures rise during the growing season. The city of Phoenix, which experienced about 80 days per year over 100 degrees around the turn of the century, could see between 120 and 150 such days per year by the end of the century, depending on the pace of emissions.

And those who face the most suffering? Society’s most vulnerable, including “lower-income and other marginalized communities,” researchers found.

In another major step, the authors of the new report have begun to put dollar signs next to projected climate damage, specifically within the United States.

In a worst-case climate-change scenario, the document finds, labor-related losses by the year 2090 as a result of extreme heat — the sort that makes it difficult to work outdoors or seriously lowers productivity — could amount to an estimated $155 billion annually. Deaths from temperature extremes could take an economic toll of $141 billion per year in the same year, while coastal property damage could total $118 billion yearly, researchers found.

Of course, mitigating climate change would also mitigate this damage, by as much as 58 percent in the case of high-temperature related deaths, the report finds.

The categorical tone of the new assessments reflects scientists' growing confidence in the ability to detect the role of a changing climate in individual extreme events, such as heat waves and droughts. At the same time, increasingly sophisticated computer simulations now allow them to project future changes in highly specific regions of the country.

For many Americans, however, no simulations are necessary. The effects of climate change are already playing out daily.

“We don’t debate who caused it. You go outside, the streets are flooded. What are you going to do about it? It’s our reality nowadays,” said Susanne Torriente, who also reviewed the report. She is chief resilience officer for Miami Beach, which is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to adapt to rising sea levels. “We need to use this best available data so we can start making decisions to start investing in our future. … It shouldn’t be that complicated or that partisan.”

The report is being released at the same time as another major federal climate study that, in contrast, reaches a more positive conclusion — at least with respect to what can be done about climate change.

The Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report, which examines all of North America (not just the United States), finds that over a decade, greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil fuels declined by 1 percent per year. The result is that while North America emitted 24 percent of the world’s emissions in 2004, that was down to 17 percent in 2013. This occurred in part thanks to improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency, the growth of renewable energy and the swapping of coal-burning for natural gas.

“For the globe, we’re still going up, but regionally, there have been these changes in how humans have been acting that have caused our emissions to go down,” said Ted Schuur, a Northern Arizona University expert on permafrost carbon who contributed to the report, the follow-up to an initial effort released in 2007.

The report concludes that it appears possible to for economies to grow — at least in the United States, Mexico and Canada — without increasing overall emissions of greenhouse gases. That would be an important signal for the ability of the world to slow climate change over the course of the century. However, it does not mean any lessening of climate-change impacts within the United States. As long as global emissions continue, the risk of impacts here continue, because carbon dioxide circulates around the globe.

The release of the National Climate Assessment comes on the heels of other recent global warnings, most notably a report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finding that the world would have to make unprecedented changes in the next decade to remain below 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) of total warming above preindustrial levels.

The last time a U.S. National Climate Assessment was published, in 2014, Obama administration officials took the document seriously, with top policymakers heralding its release and embracing its findings.

“These tailored findings help translate scientific insights into practical, usable knowledge that can help decision-makers and citizens anticipate and prepare for specific climate-change impacts,” White House science adviser John Holdren and NOAA head Kathryn Sullivan wrote at the time.

On the other side of the country from Washington, at least one well-known atmospheric scientist this week was wrestling not with the contents of a climate report but with the changing view from his window.

“Normally, I can see San Francisco Bay from my home,” said Ken Caldeira, a senior researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science. “Today and for the past few days, I could not see the bay for all the smoke from the Paradise fire. Fires that approach the size of the Paradise fire are most common in the hot dry years — the kind of years that we are likely to see many more of.”

“We are trained to be skeptical and resist jumping to quick conclusions,” he said. “But looking at the smoke, I could not help but think: ‘This is climate change. This is what climate change looks like.’ ”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/major-trump-administration-climate-report-says-damage-is-‘intensifying-across-the-country’/ar-BBQ1DIZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vince did you even read all that

29 minutes ago, DAVE said:

 

 

 

 

My thoughts exactly. 

1 hour ago, steve from amherst said:

Vince did you even read all that

Yes, and I'm doing more reading of the report itself, it's pretty extensive and was put together by 13 different agencies including DOD.

List of agencies  https://www.globalchange.gov/agencies

Guide to the report https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/front-matter-guide/

 

I'm not sure how we "fix" this. It seems govt answer is taxes. I don't follow. 

What damages are a result of MMGW? Zero

 

wince got played again 

36 minutes ago, Rod Johnson said:

What damages are a result of MMGW? Zero

 

wince got played again 

Ballsack is a gullible dumb dago shitstain  

It’s all fake.

3 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said:

Yes, and I'm doing more reading of the report itself, it's pretty extensive and was put together by 13 different agencies including DOD.

List of agencies  https://www.globalchange.gov/agencies

Guide to the report https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/front-matter-guide/

 

I can only imagine how much money was wasted on that.

Smh

17 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

It’s all fake.

First non Fake post you made  

13 AGENCIES !!!!!11111 IUOFDIVN

17 AGENCIES !!!111SFDVNSDFV

Edited November 24, 20186 yr by f7ben

9 hours ago, Anler said:

I'm not sure how we "fix" this. It seems govt answer is taxes. I don't follow. 

We are humans.  We do what we have always done - adapt.  

1 hour ago, racinfarmer said:

We are humans.  We do what we have always done - adapt.  

Universe would be a better place if our current iteration got wiped out anyways. Mother nature will try again

8 hours ago, Mainecat said:

It’s all fake.

It doesn't matter if it is fake or real.  Taxes will not change anything.  Start doing things yourself and maybe others will follow.

Like Jordan Pederson said—- if you’re worried about your carbon foot print and over population, there’s a real simple fix for you to do your part. 

21 hours ago, Anler said:

I'm not sure how we "fix" this. It seems govt answer is taxes. I don't follow. 

Of course it's going to cost money, a lot of things cost money, a simple example is the automobile as what followed was all kinds of tax money in roads, traffic control, enforcement, etc.

The only way to get some kind of control and adapting to what's happening with the climate is to spend money, get used to it. 

 

Quote

 

Federal climate change report paints grim picture for Midwest

Rising temperatures in the Midwest are projected to be the largest contributing factor to declines in U.S. agricultural productivity, with extreme heat wilting crops and posing a threat to livestock, according to a sweeping federal report on climate change released Friday.

Midwest farmers will be increasingly challenged by warmer, wetter and more humid conditions from climate change, which also will lead to greater incidence of crop disease and more pests and will diminish the quality of stored grain. During the growing season, temperatures are projected to climb more in the Midwest than in any other region of the U.S., the report says.

Without technological advances in agriculture, the onslaught of high-rainfall events and higher temperatures could reduce the Midwest agricultural economy to levels last seen during the economic downturn for farmers in the 1980s.

Overall, yields from major U.S crops are expected to fall, the reports says. To adapt to the rising temperatures, substantial investments will be required, which will in turn will hurt farmers' bottom lines.

These are some of the findings of the report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 1,600-page report - vetted by 13 government agencies and written collectively with the help of 300 scientists - is perhaps the most authoritative and comprehensive statement on the risks of climate change, which has contributed to extreme weather that has cost the U.S. nearly $400 billion since 2015, the authors found.

According to the report, the threat to Midwestern agriculture is just one potential blow to the region.

Scientists say human activity is changing the planet's climate faster than at any point time in modern civilization, heralding costly and, in some cases, life-threatening consequences in every region of the country. Though the monstrous 2017 hurricane season and wildfires in California in recent years may be some of the most visceral images of the devastation a changing climate can wreak, the subtle effects from increasingly unpredictable water availability, more frequent heavy rainfall and hotter weather in the Midwest are just as important, according to Jim Angel, Illinois' state climatologist, who contributed to Friday's report.

"Some of those things don't grab headlines as much but are still significant," Angel said. "We kind of got a taste of that in 2012 with the big drought that shook not only U.S. markets but world markets. Those kind of things should be a big concern by midcentury."

Illinois, a leading producer of soybeans and hogs, ranks third among the states in exported agricultural commodities, with $8.2 billion worth of goods shipped to other countries. The state has become 1.2 degrees warmer and 10 to 15 percent wetter in the past century. Angel said farmers are trying to adapt by increasing drainage and planting cover crops that will protect against heavier rainfall and runoff that can cause soil erosion.

"The question is can they adapt fast enough," Angel said.

Meanwhile, William Hohenstein, director of U.S. Department of Agriculture's climate change program, said the federal government is helping farmers track drought conditions.

"We are working to advance the ... drought forecasting," Hohenstein said. "USDA is also partnering with seed companies to develop new cultivars of crops that are more resilient to drought. To help improve soil health and conserve water, we are providing guidance through our Midwest Regional Climate Hub on conservation practices."

The reports cites other impacts climate change could have on the Midwest.

Warmer air also can hold more moisture, leading to more frequent and severe storms, which would overwhelm aging stormwater systems across the region. Scientists estimate the annual cost of retrofitting urban stormwater systems will exceed $500 million for the Midwest by the end of the century.

Higher temperatures also are expected to lead to diminished air quality. Without policymakers taking steps to mitigate the issue, hotter weather, which is more conducive to smog creation, could result in as many as 550 premature deaths per year by 2050, according to the report.

Brian Urbaszewski, director of the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago's environmental health program, said he fears that warming will extend the seasons in which we could see unhealthy levels of ozone. People with asthma and others who struggle with respiratory diseases, he said, will be the most vulnerable.

"This reinforces the need to cut down and get rid off of pollutants that form ozone," Urbaszewski said. "The problem with global warming is that it makes it harder."

Climate change, once a benign area of research, has become a polarizing and politicized issue in recent years, at times pitting scientists against politicians.

Friday's report, the fourth National Climate Assessment, is the latest in a line of federal research into climate change. Mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, it seeks to assess the environmental, economic, and health and safety consequences of climate change. It builds on a 2017 report in which federal scientists found "it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence."

The conclusions of Friday's study directly contradict the views of President Donald Trump, an outspoken skeptic of climate change who has vowed to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, a global pact that aims to reduce greenhouse gases. On Wednesday, Trump tweeted about an incoming cold snap on the East Coast, saying: "Whatever happened to Global Warming?"

Under Trump, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scrubbed references to climate change from its website.

Environmental advocates and journalists questioned whether the Trump administration's apparent distrust of climate science influenced the decision for NOAA to release the report the day after Thanksgiving, a day when newsrooms are thin and public interest is likely distracted by Black Friday deals. NOAA spokeswoman Monica Allen acknowledged the report was out "earlier than expected" but referred questions pertaining to the timing of its release and White House tampering to Mike Kuperberg, executive director for the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

"This report has not been altered or revised in any way to reflect with political considerations," Allen said.

Kuperberg coud not be reached for comment.

Perhaps more consequential than the timing was the Trump administration's decision to dissolve a federal advisory panel that sought to translate these national and regional findings to the state and local levels. The defunct panel, chaired by Richard Moss, an adjunct professor in the Department of Geographical Sciences at University of Maryland, was revived earlier this year when it received funding from the state of New York, Columbia University's Earth Institute and the American Meteorological Society to complete its project. Their report will be released early next year.

Moss, a Deerfield native, argues that the information will be all-important to cities and states, which he said will be key to slowing climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions while also needing to design their communities to become resilient to the climate changes.

"It shows we can't waste any more time," Moss said. "We have to be reducing emissions to avoid the worst impacts in the future and then we have to get ready for what we can no longer avoid. Because we've already set in motion some pretty substantial changes."

tbriscoe@chicagotribune.com

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-climate-change-report-paints-grim-picture-for-midwest/ar-BBQ36Sf

 

 

Do you know what a regressive tax is Vince?

What kind of tax will change the planets current cycle?

6 minutes ago, old indy said:

What kind of tax will change the planets current cycle?

Been waiting on the answer to this question for years. 

How many of these doom and gloom climate based predictions have come true so far? 

1 minute ago, Edmo said:

How many of these doom and gloom climate based predictions have come true so far? 

Ya...even Hillary lost.

12 minutes ago, old indy said:

What kind of tax will change the planets current cycle?

 

5 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Been waiting on the answer to this question for years. 

If the price of gas doubled, would people drive less?

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

 

If the price of gas doubled, would people drive less?

Only the rich would drive.  LOL

You don't have anything to prove how much this would change climate.

2 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

 

If the price of gas doubled, would people drive less?

Some.  a worldwide tax would have to be enforced if thats the plan..     Havent carbon emission levels actually dropped over the last decade. at least in the U.S.    

1 minute ago, racer254 said:

Only the rich would drive.  LOL

You don't have anything to prove how much this would change climate.

Are you saying you don’t believe decreasing consumption of fossil fuels will slow climate change?