For those still sleeping, yesterday we received another scientific wake up call on global warming threats.
But this was no abstract global plea – this warning hit hard. It was graphic and particularly close to home – describing effects on daily life right here in our backyard.
Scientists presented a July 2007 report titled: “Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts, and Solutions.” I strongly urge folks to read the full Report, which can be found here: http://www.climatechoices.org/
But it’s unfortunate that the wake up call was presented to a small group of professionals already aware of and working on the issue. This warning needs to be delivered widely to the public, particularly to those who have the economic resources and political power to influence the energy policy choices we make, including the NJ Legislature, local officials, the media, and the leadership of corporate New Jersey.
Bottom line of the Report: Global warming is already here and impacts are already being felt. Data show that spring is coming sooner, with earlier spring snowmelt and earlier peak river flows.
Winters are shorter with less snow, less lake ice, and more rain. There are more days when the temperature exceeds 90 degrees. The growing season is longer, but warmer temperatures also stimulate growth of weeds and invasive plants that reduce agricultural productivity.
These changes in temperature and precipitation already are having ecological and economic impacts.
Projections show it could get far worse if current emissions are not dramatically reduced.
NJ will be particularly hard hit.
Dramatic changes in climate could make Newark feel more like Savannah Georgia in July, causing a public health emergency for many who simply can not cope with extreme 100+ degree heat. For example, 35,000 mostly elderly died in France during a heat wave. Newark already has the highest childhood asthma rates in the country – 100 degree days would make bad air days and respiratory problems for those kids far worse.
Increases in temperature will alter precipitation, causing more frequent and severe droughts, punctuated by floods. NJ is already experiencing more frequent and severe cycles of flood and drought – and it will only get much worse.
Sea level rise and increasingly severe coastal storms will put billions of dollars of Atlantic City and coastal real estate investments underwater far more frequently (hundred year flooding could occur annually). NJ’s farmers will suffer reduced productivity.
These impacts will cost NJ billions of dollars to cope with.
Data show that real adverse impacts of global warming are already here and will get worse as a result of energy choices we have already made. We are stuck with those choices – but they were made by the last generation, who knew nothing of devastating global warming risks.
In contrast, we are now faced with choices with the full knowledge of the economic costs, ecological destruction, and human suffering that will occur. In light of this knowledge, we must dramatically reduce emissions and begin to adapt to changes already underway. The energy choices we make today will shape the climate and quality of life our children and grandchildren inherit.
Concrete action is required now – not more hot air from public officials.
The Report was issued by The Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment, a collaborative effort between the Union of Concerned Scientists and a team of more than 50 independent experts using state-of-the-art tools to assess how global warming will affect the northeastern United States.
The scientists who spoke were Nancy S. Cole, director of climate outreach for the Union of Concerned Scientists; Dr. Susanne Moser; a scientist with the Institute for the Study of Society and Environment (ISSE) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado; and
Dr. Lewis H. Ziska is a Plant Physiologist with the US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service.
I urge folks to download, read, and distribute the Report widely. You can contact the Union of Concerned Scientists for copies of the Report and additional information.
The USDA scientist also presented compelling data on agricultural impacts – for example, temperature increases would reduce dairy productivity by 20% –
How would NJ’s already struggling dairy farmers adapt to that change?
Interesting reading. But I have to ask, why don’t we ever see dissenting scientists’ opinions on the state of global warming side by side with these opinions. That would offer fair debate versus being perceived as propaganda.
Other thoughts – with rising temperatures melting the polar caps and consequently causing a rise in ocean levels, how come there is never, within the same discussion, the offsetting impacts of increased evaporation of water due to that same warming effect. Or are we to deduce that the effect is presented as a net result?
Show me the stats where, as I recall from my youth, that there were far more 100 degree days in the Northeast than I can ever recall as an adult.
How do we not know that the globe is going through normal cycles of heating and cooling that cannot be substantiated due to the fact the record keeping cannot go back that far to show comparisons.
Am I the only one that asks these questions? And shouldn’t the scientific community be asking the same questions rather than positioning themselves for donations and grants? Present both sides of the story and stop scaring people please.
Richl
I’ll try to take your points one by one – you are not the only one that asks these questions and they have all been responded to with a high degree of scientific certainty.
The reason you don’t see side by side dissenting scientific opinions is that there is strong scientific consensus on the observed facts that document global warming has occurred – there is no debate. The folks that are trying to manufacture a debate and dispute this consensus are the ones engaging in industry funded propaganda.
The data on 100 degree days is in the Report I linked to (and others)
The scientific consensus is that global warming is man made and not a natural cyclical phenomenon – this has been conclusively demonstrated. The science of global warming mechanisms have been known for some time – CO2 acts ass a blanket and keeps the suns’ rays and heat from escaping the earth’s atmosphere.
If you go to the Report and supporting links provided in my post and read the documents, answers to all your questions are provided. Sorry I can’ answer them here.
I’m sorry to be so blunt but your assertions are ridiculous, you are only correct on one point, There is no debate. Climate change has become a cult religion and Al Gore is now worth $100 million +. Ok lets start the taxes drink the Kool-aide.
Here is a little known fact: 3 people exhale as much CO2 in a day as an SUV on the average day’s commute. I guess we should start a war to lower the population.
Since 1998 the world has gotten cooler not warmer. The Southern hemisphere has just had one of the coldest winters on record and the Antarctic ice mass is increasing. But heck send me a $250,000 grant and I will gladly switch over to the Climate Change Crowd and fly off to the next convention. Bali anyone? Where is my Lear Jet?
It’s snowing in Iraq! Greenland is becoming….green.
What’s the optimum temperature for planet earth? Would that be warmer or cooler than 2007?
Snowmen fall from Heaven….unassembled.
Unknown author.
Posted by ThomasReid on 01/13/08 at 12:18AM
What’s the optimum temperature for planet earth? Would that be warmer or cooler than 2007?
I do not know if there is a single optimum temperature for the earth, but I think there is at least an optimum range of temperatures, and a limit on the desired rate of change. If the rate of climate change is very slow ,as it has usually been in the past, then life and societies can adapt. At some point the rate is too rapid and most forms of life can no longer adapt.
How do we know what the maximum desirable rate of change is? Well for one we would know when we started to exceed it. We would start to see larger and larger numbers of species begin to decline in numbers or become extinct.
This is a bit troubling since we are already seeing a large increase in the rate of species extinction. The rate of species loss is becoming so high that we might wonder if we are already bumping up against an unacceptably high rate of change.