"Climate Change is Real" CNN

[Warfish]

Climate change is real


By Chris Field, Special to CNN

updated 8:40 AM EDT, Thu November 1, 2012

Editor's note: Chris Field is the director of the Department of Global Ecology of the Carnegie Institution for Science and co-chair of a working group tasked with assessing climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

(CNN) -- Hurricane Sandy gave the Eastern seaboard a real pounding this week, with heavy rain, widespread flooding and high winds.

In addition to damage from water and wind, the East Coast is experiencing cascading effects of power outages and disrupted transportation systems. Downed power lines have led to fires and electrocutions. Widespread shutdowns of government and business operations are curtailing economic activity.

More than 50 lives have been lost. It is too early to get an estimate of damages, but the economic costs will likely amount to billions or perhaps tens of billions of dollars. The element of risk is epitomized by the disabled boom of a construction crane, dangling 80 stories over the streets of Manhattan, an all-too-real sword of Damocles.

Many of the areas buffeted by Sandy were hit by Hurricane Irene in August of 2011.

What is going on? Is the punch from Sandy or the one-two pounding from Irene and then Sandy a consequence of climate change or an unlucky roll of the climate dice?

The evidence is not yet in for the East Coast in 2011 and 2012, but the general trends are increasingly clear. In its 2012 report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that "A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events."

Many observations and many lines of evidence support this conclusion. Yet, the fact that hurricanes and other climate extremes occur only rarely means that it is very difficult to know for sure that the recent pattern is really outside the range of historical variation.

Globally, we don't have conclusive evidence that hurricanes are increasing, but we do see a clear indication that the major storm tracks outside the tropics are moving further from the equator.

From the perspective of expected damages, two trends highlight causes for concern. First, economic losses from weather-related disasters have increased over the last several decades. This is mostly because of increases in the value of the assets in harm's way. Second, sea level is rising. Globally, sea level is now about 6 inches higher than in 1900.

This may not sound like much, but a modest change can have big effects. Flooding from storm surge is a classic threshold event. If the waves are 1 inch below the top of the sea wall, there is no damage. One inch above leads to flooding. This combination of increasing exposure and increasing sea level is gradually notching up the level of risk.

What can be done? For disaster managers, the long-standing foundations for effectiveness are preparation, response, and recovery. So far, disaster management agencies, from the local to the national level, have taken Sandy very seriously, appropriate for a storm of its magnitude.

The tradition in disaster management has been to base planning on past experiences. That's a reasonable approach when the future looks basically like the past. But it is a recipe for regret when climate and development are changing. Much can be done to incorporate new knowledge into disaster management, including steps to reduce the risks of future disasters.

One key is recognizing that the future won't be like the past. To cope with changes in climate, development and population, we should be building climate and sea level projections into infrastructure planning, building codes and plans for managing disasters.

We have the scientific knowledge and engineering knowledge to improve all three phases of disaster risk reduction -- preparation, response and recovery. But we don't know everything.

As a consequence, it is important to make learning by doing an integral part of disaster management. We need to continue to refine our understanding of the role of climate change in altering the risks, at the same time we test technologies and strategies for dealing with a future that we know will be different from the past.

Climate change is occurring now. We see its consequences in hotter temperatures, higher sea levels and shifted storm tracks. In many parts of the world, we are also seeing an increase in the fraction of rainfall that comes in the heaviest events. When it rains, increasingly it pours.

Climate change over the next couple of decades is already largely baked into the system, but changes beyond that are mostly in our hands. As we learn more about the links between climate change and extreme events, it will benefit all of us to think hard about the opportunities and challenges of getting a handle on climate change, so we control it and not vice versa.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter

As expected.

1. No proof either Storm was in any way related to climate change.

2. Demand we do something anyway.

4. Citing local weather within historic norms as proof of climate change emergency (hotter, storm tracks, etc.)

5. Reminder that Climate Change is "already baked into the system", so even if we DO something, it won't actually change anything.

[parafly]

Of course it's real as the climate is perpetually changing and it's never static.

Just curious ... in your mind, what exactly needs to happen for you to say "well, maybe the vast majority of scientists around the world actually have it right and humans ARE affecting the climate."

From a purely logical standpoint, the "it's a natural cycle" argument can always be made because proving otherwise with 100% certainty is basically impossible.

[MCBNY]

To deny man-made climate change is to deny 99% of scientists.

We are the 99%! Heh.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by parafly

Of course it's real as the climate is perpetually changing and it's never static.

Indeed.

Just curious ... in your mind, what exactly needs to happen for you to say "well, maybe the vast majority of scientists around the world actually have it right and humans ARE affecting the climate."

Proof.

Despite the common misconception, they do not have proof as yet.

What they have is a consensus, based on exceedingly partial evidence, over a exceptionally short-period for the factors involved.

A consensus, it should be noted, that is based on the opinions on all science, not climate scientists. This is important, since a Geologist is not in a position to make such a definitive claim without having worked the evidence himself. Climate Science itself is not the portrayed 100% consensus, the consensus only exists because the media asks astronomers, gologists, biologists and other non-field experts who wisely (since their funding depends on it) fall in line.

Do I beleive mankinds activities have an effect on the climate: Absolutely, 100% I do.

Do I beleive we can go from what I wrote above to "We must implement policies X, Y and Z" because of climate change? Absolutely not.

From a purely logical standpoint, the "it's a natural cycle" argument can always be made because proving otherwise with 100% certainty is basically impossible.

Incorrect. Life itself is a natural cycle. If I shoot you, thats man-caused body change. In such a case, the "proof" is easy, one factor involved clearly different from normal course of the natural cycle.

In this case, I'm sorry, but one cannot seperate the socio-econo-political motivations involved from the rush to judgement, and more, the rush to POLICY based of what scant and limited evidence they have.

Worse, those who support the Climate Change model do themselves a great disservice when they try and claim "Sandy was because of Global Climate Change", which is patent bunk.

But such "today's weather is brought to you by, Climate Change, today;s global enviomental disaster waiting to happen, and Budweiser, Budweiser, the king of beers......" is extremely common now. Bit was great at this, in his "it's 95 out today, the norm is 94, hence CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!" threads.

Yes, man can and does effect the climatology of the planet.

No, that does not validate 10 trillion of investment to create fortress Long Island, where 100 billion is spent on stuff, and the rest is a Govt. giveaway to labor, friends, and political slush funds.

I believe in Climate Change.

I do not believe in those who would use it for their own financial, political or social engineering agendas.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Proof.

Despite the common misconception, they do not have proof as yet.

So I guess my question is what is proof?

The only way to have 100% definitive proof is to have a large number of identical global environments (Earths), each with the same exact conditions and variables, some with humans circa 19th-21st century, some without, and compare the trends between them. Of course, this is impossible, but other than an experiment of this kind, there is no way to come to any type of definitive conclusion deemed as "proof" that humans are 100% the cause of Earth's current climate change.

Do I beleive mankinds activities have an effect on the climate: Absolutely, 100% I do.

Do I beleive we can go from what I wrote above to "We must implement policies X, Y and Z" because of climate change? Absolutely not.

We are in agreement here.

I believe in Climate Change.

I do not believe in those who would use it for their own financial, political or social engineering agendas.

And here.

[DeanPatsFan]

"Climate Change" LOLZ...

It used to be "Global Warming" until places like Baghdad got snow for the first time in a century.. then suddenly it's "Climate Change" LMAO....

The oceans are warming ....ahhh we're all going to die...

No mention from the chicken littles that the Pacific Ocean is the coldest it's been in the last 20 years...

Just wondering, did humans cause global cooling that resulted in the Ice Age?

[parafly]

Just to add, I don't really consider this "proof" but the science behind greenhouse gases is rock solid. It's basic chemistry and physics.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Breaking News: despite the fact that the global temperature has risen and the evidence that fossil fuels contribute to these issues, there is no definitive proof that is true. Therefore, the only action we can take is continue to study the affects indefinitely. In the mean time, it is only fair to continue to consume and uncover more fossil fuels.


This message is paid for by Friends for a better environment. (who is secretely created and financed by exxonmobile)

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Breaking News: despite the fact that the global temperature has risen and the evidence that fossil fuels contribute to these issues, there is no definitive proof that is true. Therefore, the only action we can take is continue to study the affects indefinitely. In the mean time, it is only fair to continue to consume and uncover more fossil fuels.


This message is paid for by Friends for a better environment. (who is secretely created and financed by exxonmobile)

I'd bet I've given more time and money to environmentalism than you have IJF. I'm a fisherman, outdoorsman, animal rights supporter and a strong conservationist, and I believe in giving to and working for the things you find important.

What is your contribution, apart from internet posting snarky replies?

[Ernie]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I'd bet I've given more time and money to environmentalism than you have IJF. I'm a fisherman, outdoorsman, animal rights supporter and a strong conservationist, and I believe in giving to and working for the things you find important.

What is your contribution, apart from internet posting snarky replies?

Take it easy on him. He may have to work until 4th of July this year.

[PatriotReign]

Kind of a moot point when you consider China, India, Russia, etc will belt out the carbon clouds no matter what science proves. They're not exactly known for being eco concious let alone eco friendly.

[sg3]

Another Republican leader and elected official adds a nail to the Willard Romney electoral coffin


..

New York Mayor Bloomberg endorses Obama
By JOSH LEDERMAN | Associated Press – 10 mins ago...
.


Video: Obama, Republican Christie tour storm-hit New Jersey1:28 | 0 views

..
.
.


WASHINGTON (AP) — New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg backed President Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney on Thursday, saying the incumbent Democrat will bring critically needed leadership to fight climate change after the East Coast devastation wrought by Hurricane Sandy.

The endorsement from the politically independent and nationally recognizable mayor was a major boost for Obama, who is spending the campaign's final days trying to win over independent voters whose voices will be critical in determining the winner of Tuesday's election.

Both candidates had eagerly sought the nod from Bloomberg, who didn't endorse a presidential candidate in 2008 and has publicly grumbled about both Obama and Romney. But Bloomberg said the possibility that Sandy resulted from climate change had made the stakes of the election that much clearer.

"We need leadership from the White House, and over the past four years, President Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption," Bloomberg wrote in an online opinion piece.

A full-throated stamp of approval this was not. Even as he pledged to cast his vote for Obama's re-election, Bloomberg faulted the president for discounting centrists, trading in divisive, partisan attacks and failing to make progress on issues like gun control, immigration and the federal deficit.

The billionaire businessman and former Republican also praised Romney as a good man who would bring valuable business experience to the White House but said Romney had reversed course on issues like health care and abortion. "If the 1994 or 2003 version of Mitt Romney were running for president, I may well have voted for him," he said.

Vice President Joe Biden, campaigning in Fort Dodge, Iowa, said the essence of Bloomberg's endorsement was that "we've got to work together."

"We got to stop this blue, red — I mean we're a purple nation, man," Biden said.

Bloomberg's endorsement could have the effect of injecting climate change and the environment into the national conversation just five days before the end of a campaign where both topics have been virtually absent.

"Our climate is changing," Bloomberg said. "And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be — given this week's devastation — should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action."

To the dismay of environmental activists, climate change never came up during any of the three presidential debates and has been all but absent throughout the rest of the campaign. When Romney invoked the environment in his August speech accepting the Republican nomination, it was to mock his rival for making the issue a priority.

"President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet," Romney said. "My promise is to help you and your family."

In his first term, Obama was unable to push limits on carbon emissions through a Democratic Congress and shelved plans to toughen smog standards. But he landed other historic achievements, including an increase in fuel-economy standards and the first regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming.

Romney, who has expressed doubts about the cause of climate change and charged Obama with punishing coal-fired power plants, wants clear air and water laws amended to balance environmental benefits with economic concerns.

Bloomberg, whose last presidential endorsement was for Republican President George W. Bush's re-election in 2004, has been a persistent advocate for policies intended to combat climate change and had previously faulted both Obama and Romney for failing to offer solutions for gun violence.

Romney advisers, asked about the endorsement, dismissed it as inconsequential and suggested it would have no bearing on the race outside of New York City.

Although Obama's campaign has long expected to win New York by a wide margin, independents like Bloomberg hold the key to his second term in battleground states across the country. Obama welcomed the endorsement, pledging in a statement to continue to stand with New York in its time of need.

"While we may not agree on every issue, Mayor Bloomberg and I agree on the most important issues of our time — that the key to a strong economy is investing in the skills and education of our people, that immigration reform is essential to an open and dynamic democracy and that climate change is a threat to our children's future, and we owe it to them to do something about it," Obama said.

___

Associated Press writers Steve Peoples in Richmond, Va., and Matthew Daly in Fort Dodge, Iowa, contributed to this report.

[MnJetFan]

Bloomberg is a frigging idiot. The maration goes on while the people suffer. No wonder he backs Obama!

[DeanPatsFan]

Originally Posted by sg3

Another Republican leader and elected official adds a nail to the Willard Romney electoral coffin

Bloomberg is a Republican?

Who knew!