North America will continue to experience more heat waves, intense rains, increased drought, and stronger hurricanes due to the worsening effects of climate change, says a new report from the U.S. federal government. The report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program is being billed as the first comprehensive federal review of climate change's effects on weather extremes in North America. The gist: People who love watching Xtreme Weather shows will not be disappointed. "This report addresses one of the most frequently asked questions about global warming: what will happen to weather and climate extremes?" said Tom Karl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "This synthesis ... concludes that we are now witnessing and will increasingly experience more extreme weather and climate events."
The Weather Aboveground
U.S. federal report details climate change’s impact on weather extremes 29
-
Posted 6:41 AM on 20 Jun 2008
-
Posted in
-
Read More About
Related Stories
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Orfintain Posted 4:42 am
20 Jun 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:26 pm
20 Jun 2008
Uh, the last time I checked, IPCC had readjusted their models and said that we were supposed to have cooling for the next 5 years because of El Nina...at least that's what the excuse was this time.
Guess the programmers in Geneva are up late trying to fit the "predictions" to the data once again...
Permalink
catman Posted 7:26 am
21 Jun 2008
There's a great interview on NPRs Living on Earth with Richard Heim from NOAA who keeps track of this severe weather.
http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=08-P13-00025 ...
He said that for the past 20 years the increases in temperature and rainfall events have matched climate models quite nicely.
I'm glad this well kept secret is finally out.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cei/cei.html ...
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:01 pm
21 Jun 2008
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:29 pm
21 Jun 2008
You can only come back if you fly on an airline with NO regulation and safety standards.
And you know what else, Ron Paul? Energy independence means real freedom: not being a slave chained to OPEC and Chavez oil and borrowed money from China. And clean energy independence will require SOME regulation and SOME revenue-neutral taxation.
By the way, what exactly happens there in Thailand when you criticize the royalty? How is the free speech there?
-Christopher S. Johnson
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:41 pm
21 Jun 2008
And you do understand that these other forcers like El Nina or particulate pollution from people or volcanoes, only MASKS the effect of rising temps, right? You know that when the temporary forcing agent declines the heat line is right there waiting for us and can be ever stronger, right?
I thought you did.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:19 am
22 Jun 2008
I don't like to fly period. Regulated or not.
I have my own solar power for my house, and I don't own a car (have a motorcycle, doesn't need squat for gas) so energy prices really only impact me when it comes to imported items. My food comes from local sources, so no serious impact there to date. Production of the local food is done mostly by manual labor.......
The United States and Europe don't have "some" regulation, they are regulated to death. I could NEVER do there what I am doing here. That's why I live here and not there.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:37 am
22 Jun 2008
No, I went to a good school.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 8:16 am
22 Jun 2008
I did too, and they taught me that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was entirely true.
-Christopher S. Johnson
Permalink
JohnnyRook Posted 1:12 pm
22 Jun 2008
For clarification on what that article actually said, I recommend you read Joe Romm's piece at Climate Progress.
Here's the link: Nature article on `cooling' confuses media, deniers: Next decade may see rapid warming
[Check out Climaticide Chronicles>]
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:02 pm
22 Jun 2008
Most people don't give a lot of thought to what really happened back then. "We lost" is a mantra that's spouted without thinking through what the true objectives were.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:31 pm
22 Jun 2008
Everybody lost. There is indeed a time when unnecessary loss of life of the other, and opening the savage beast within ourselves, makes military combat immoral.
And the fact that you are replying to my offhanded comment about Gulf of Tonkin and how one would justify lies says a lot.
That is what this Grist site is about: exploring the truth. And you're going to lecture us on the justification of lies from our government? The same institution that censored climate science from the public?
Please -- shove off friend.
Either participate in how to make our environmental understanding better, or take a f*cking hike.
-Christopher
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 7:40 pm
22 Jun 2008
What hilarity!
I laughed so much, that my belly hurt, and I wet my knickers, and had to dash to under a cold shower to relieve my stomach cramps.
Oh boy, there are some fantasy fairies around!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:11 pm
22 Jun 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/12/102024/948/#co ...
It would be nice if you were to grace us with your wisdom on the later unnswered matters
Permalink
christophersj Posted 3:56 am
23 Jun 2008
I tell you, keeping up with a thread on Grist days after it started is priority number 26 for me in my life. I work and have a life. In addition, Grist decided to omit the feature that would be really helpful on a forum: email alerts when a thread is updated.
Until then, its spotty responses from me.
What was it you wanted me to answer?
I know I have a question for you that is danced around because of so many complex details on this issue:
What is your motivation? Do you really want to help clarify what are the fuzzy edges of humanity's understanding of our relationship with the biosphere? Are your criticisms meant to bring a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of human caused global warming or other environmental issue, or are you simply out for a drive by shooting of the entire effort?
Or, do you want to contradict the CENTRAL THESIS of this endeavor, contradicting the scientific findings of
-NOAA
-NASA
-IPCC
-AGU
If so, then why arent you publishing peer reviewed articles in the scientific community rather than hanging out with us amateurs here?
You remind me of a High School bully who couldn't make the team so you went and picked on the freshmen to bide your time.
This isn't a game! If you have the incredible knowledge to debunk anthropogenic global warming outright, or any other environmental travesty, then what the f*ck are you doing with us here on this little web-forum??? Why aren't you publishing???
OF COURSE the edges of the knowledge are fuzzy and changing on a regular basis! Duh! That is good! That means scientific efforts to understand are increasing and getting better. But none of that dismantles the central thesis at all!
Be honest what is your internal, personal, motivation?
And I have to add: In the United States, there is now a 100% chance that carbon will be regulated in the next presidency and that the energy transition will start. At this point you are powerless to do anything about that. The train has left the station. So what is your goal here? To waste our time or to clarify the lesser understanding on then edges?
-Christopher S. Johnson
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:25 am
23 Jun 2008
"To waste our time or to clarify the lesser understanding on the edges?"
Posting before coffee. :-)
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 1:53 pm
24 Jun 2008
I think those people are generally called "contrarians" and they find fun in disturbing those of us who act as Cassandra, foretelling the true future but not being believed.
MAD MAC - well named, Sir. Living under a government I had no connection to, except license, would drive me a little mad, too.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:10 pm
24 Jun 2008
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/climate/highlights/PDF/ ...
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:31 am
26 Jun 2008
Yeah. There is an excellent summary out there that goes back even further. It shows that there has been a dramatic decrease in extreme weather events recently compared to earlier times, despite all the model projections to the contrary (pp.49-50).
http://www.globalwarming.org/files/report_20.pdf
Of course, it was published before the recent cold period starting last winter that brought snow to southern China, the Middle East, etc., extreme cold to Canada, plus strings of tornadoes to the US Midwest and floods on the Mississippi in its wake.
And of course the "model guys" aren't going to admit this.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:39 am
26 Jun 2008
Don't count on it.
If the current 10-year temperature plateau and the most recent cooling continues for a bit longer, the "global warming bandwagon" is likely to end up in the ditch. And the USA is still a democracy, where more than half the people (a growing number today) see that the AGW hysteria and proposed carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes are a boondoggle.
But keep the faith anyway.
Max
PS This has nothing to do with very pertinent moves toward energy self-sufficiency, elimination of waste and real pollution, switch to real renewables, nuclear, etc., all of which are good programs but have nothing to do with a virtual computer-generated threat to humanity from AGW which does not exist.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 7:07 am
26 Jun 2008
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_ ...
Permalink
christophersj Posted 7:08 am
26 Jun 2008
Two things:
#1) the PDF pages you refer to are about DEATHS, not weather events. Deaths are down because of technology. I think you are conflating deaths with events.
#2) show me a climate scientist who does NOT say that temporary local and even global plateaus and pauses, and even slight reversals, in warming can occur, all the while the long term trend is up.
#3) its not faith sir, its well founded confidence. Your claimed poll numbers are dubious.
#4) because you know better than NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and AGU, why aren't you publishing and lecturing?
#5) why not play a more positive role and be a skeptic around the fuzzy edges of our understanding of the issue rather than a fool, trying to debunk the central thesis?
Permalink
christophersj Posted 7:10 am
26 Jun 2008
OK now I say 2 and mean 5.
:-) Couldn't stop myself with such foolishness going on.
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:48 am
26 Jun 2008
Here's a "playback" for you:
"why not play a more positive role and be a skeptic around the extremely fuzzy edges of our understanding of the issue rather than a fool, swallowing the whole story as is?"
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:51 am
26 Jun 2008
You wrote: "the PDF pages you refer to are about DEATHS, not weather events. Deaths are down because of technology. I think you are conflating deaths with events."
Yep. Deaths from extreme weather events are down by a factor of 10 to 1 compared to earlier periods.
But extreme weather events themselves are up?
Gimme a break. You can't be that naive.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:02 am
26 Jun 2008
Nice to see you back.
"SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia), is an internet site which is a "collaborative project" of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD). It was created by the CMD's research director, Sheldon Rampton. According to the project's website, it "aims to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests."
"The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a nonprofit American-based media research group founded in 1993 by environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber."
Yikes!
Do you want to believe what these guys say?
You must be kidding, josullivan.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 10:11 am
26 Jun 2008
This is entirely beside the point.
The trend is "up". Duh! All you have to do is look at the record since 1850.
There just isn't a real good correlation between CO2 and temperature, except for the 1976-1998 period.
And, with a total 20th century increase of 0.65C (Hadley), there is not much evidence of any feedbacks. You can arrive at that value just with CO2, CH4 and solar influence without any postulated or assumed feedbacks to create a "climate sensitivity" (2xCO2) of 3K. It's more like IPCC says (without feedbacks) = 0.7K.
That's the point, Christopher.
Not that there has not been warming. Just that it is not very alarming and appears to have slowed down most recently, although no one (not even the GCMs) know for how long.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
christophersj Posted 11:10 am
26 Jun 2008
NASA
NOAA
IPCC
AGU
My God man, why don't you publish your amazing revelations and show these heathen fools for the idiots they are!!!??? What a massive amount of intellectual weaklings all of these scientists are!
With your unique knowledge you probably shouldn't be spending time here with the amateurs like me. Its a waste of your breath. Publish. Lecture. Show the truth to the science community.
Oh and by the way, your "no correlation" comment (among others) is bullshit. I don't care if there is a 100 year lag or if heat comes before CO2 some times, the ice core records clearly show that they are correlates.
Go pick up your paycheck at the American Enterprise Institute.
Both US Democrats and Republicans will regulate CO2 in the next 4 years. Both US presidential candidates have promised to do so. Your goal is lost. Many of the ulterior intentions behind these conversations are moot now.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 11:29 am
26 Jun 2008
Permalink