NOAA sounding like Noah: head for the hills

NOAA sounding like Noah: head for the hills

Summary: Here are some findings on global warming released just now by NOAA.Heat waves will become more frequent and intense, increasing threats to human health and quality of life.

SHARE:

Here are some findings on global warming released just now by NOAA.

Heat waves will become more frequent and intense, increasing threats to human health and quality of life. Extreme heat will also affect transportation and energy systems, and crop and livestock production.

· Increased heavy downpours will lead to more flooding, waterborne diseases, negative effects on agriculture, and disruptions to energy, water, and transportation systems. · Reduced summer runoff and increasing water demands will create greater competition for water supplies in some regions, especially in the West. · Rising water temperatures and ocean acidification threaten coral reefs and the rich ecosystems they support. These and other climate-related impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems will have major implications for tourism and fisheries. · Insect infestations and wildfires are already increasing and are projected to increase further in a warming climate. · Local sea-level rise of over three feet on top of storm surges will increasingly threaten homes and other coastal infrastructure. Coastal flooding will become more frequent and severe, and coastal land will increasingly be lost to the rising seas.

By breaking out results in terms of region and economic sector the report provides a valuable tool not just for policymakers but for all Americans who will be affected by these trends. Its information can help:

· farmers making crop and livestock decisions, as growing seasons lengthen, insect management becomes more difficult and droughts become more severe; · local officials thinking about zoning decisions, especially along coastal areas; public health officials developing ways to lessen the impacts of heat waves throughout the country; · water resource officials considering development plans; · business owners as they consider business and investment decisions.

Responses to climate change fall into two categories. The first involves “mitigation” measures to limit climate change by reducing emissions of heat-trapping pollution or increasing their removal from the atmosphere. The second involves “adaptation” measures to improve our ability to cope with or avoid harmful impacts, and take advantage of beneficial ones. “Both of these are necessary elements of an effective response strategy,” said Jerry Melillo of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, MA, a report co-chair.

“By comparing impacts that are projected to result from higher versus lower emissions of heat-trapping gasses, our report underscores the importance and real economic value of reducing those emissions,” said Tom Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. and one of the co-chairs of the report. “It shows that the choices made now will have far-reaching consequences.”

The report draws from a large body of scientific information, including the set of 21 Synthesis and Assessment reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The government agencies affiliated with the program include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, State, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; NASA; National Science Foundation; Smithsonian Institution; and the United States Agency for International Development.

The report is available for download.

The report is available for download.

Topics: Data Centers, Health, Nasa / Space

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

27 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • The Sky is Falling!!

    Does this report mean that the climate has never changed, and that man has never adapted along side of the climate?

    My God!!!!!! We are all doomed!!!!!!!!
    GuidingLight
    • Funny...

      not. Sure, man has adapted to climate change before. There have been plenty of documented mass migrations of human beings in the course of history. But then, the migration of a few million people pales in comparison to the migration of billions of people. It's kinda like traffic in New York City. A couple hundred years ago there were no stop lights in NYC. It was like that for millions of years. Does the lack of those stoplights for millions of years bear any relevance to the need for them today? Of course not. And why not? Because there are millions of people in NYC today. More people, more problems you have to deal with. But then, it would take critical thinking skills to realize that.
      jasonp9
    • Don't panic

      Take a handful of quaaludes, relax, buy some ocean-front property in Florida.

      Everything will be all right...

      :o)
      Jack-Booted EULA
    • Define Adapt...

      At one point many millenia ago there was a huge volcanic eruption in the Pacific, so large that it blew enough particulates into the atmosphere to trigger ice age type conditions. The population of humans dropped (According to genetic evidence.) from millions to less than 100,000. Is that the kind of adaptation you had in mind?
      JimSatterfieldW
  • RE: NOAA sounding like Noah: head for the hills

    Yea - nothing to worry about, we'll all be dead and gone by the time the really bad effects start to kick in anyway - let the future generations clean up the mess - right? Seems like there are two sides to this issue, but little middle ground - either one wants a total and massive overhaul, or one doesn't care one way or the other-I'd consider myself a middle grounder, trying to lessen my environmental impact, where I can. Any way, I figure when the planet has had enough of it's current occupants, it'll just 'shake us off' like a dog with a bad case of annoying fleas...
    Cubbie
  • Dateline 1975 - Head for the hills! Why? Global COOLING!

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2006/20061024143134.aspx
    DJJazzyJeff
    • That was Newsweek

      Newsweek has always gotten stories wrong.
      Cooling was not as big a concern to scientists of the 70's as you think.
      See these:
      http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/1897180018opinionguestcolumns02-18-09.htm
      http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/?p=3418
      Reality-based
  • RE: NOAA sounding like Noah: head for the hills

    Check around on the internet to what the solar scientists are saying. They are chuckling to each other about the fact that these other guys don't get it. It's the SUN dude. That's what drives the earth's temperature. The greenhouse gases have a miniscule effect.

    And the solar scientists predict that we're in for some cooling - which the current data supports.

    Ever wonder why 'global warming' was dropped and 'climate change' is now in. That's because the earth has been cooling ever since 1998.
    ted15
    • Cooling since '98?

      Yes '98 was an exceptionally warm year.

      http://tinyurl.com/c2355x

      http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/208488main_global_temp_change.jpg

      :o)
      Jack-Booted EULA
      • Why the pause in 1940-1980?

        The chart you cited shows rapid increase in temperature from about 1900 to 1940, a slight cooling from 1940 to 1980 (the origination of the worries over global cooling in the '70s), followed by rapid warming again until the late 1990s, with what looks like another pause ever since. So do scientists have an explanation for the 1940-1980 pause? And the 1900-1940 rise is at about the same rate as today, even though the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere was *much* less (the global economy being only a quarter or less the size of what it is today). It's these kinds of discrepancies that keep me from buying into man-caused global warming until I see convincing explanations from scientists.

        I'm not saying mankind didn't cause all this or that these pauses can indeed be explained, but I want some pretty solid answers before committing tens of trillions of dollars globally.
        zackers
    • Actually both terms are wrong

      What we should be discussing is what some scientist referred to as "TOXIC GAS BUILD-UP. Humans continue to be the only species which s**ts in its own nest. Carbon dioxide is only one of a number of toxic chemicals which we are filling the Earth with every day. Every decision we make should be based on at least partially how it will effect this toxic load. Many people are doing this and looking at how they can lesson their impact. It is a case of "When the people lead, the Leaders will follow. For those who continue to keep their head in the sand and pretend that they can breathe that brown muck which hangs over our cities well I hope they will figure things out sometime soon.
      BoneLazy
      • Toxic gas?

        CO2 is a toxic gas? Tell that to the rain forests, your local farmer, or even your back yard.
        pointzerotwo1
      • CO2 toxic at 5000 PPM

        CO2 ain't exactly toxic.
        CO2 becomes unpleasant at 1000 PPM, dangerous at 5000PPM.
        Many scientists (there's that term again) think we are easily headed for 800PPM CO2, maybe 1000PPM.
        I think I'll invest in oxygen bars.
        Reality-based
        • CO2 is currently at 387 PPM

          As of March, 2009, CO2 levels are at 387 PPM. That's with burning up most of the world's oil and much of its coal over the last 150 years. Before the industrial revolution, the baseline was around 250 PPM. So with all of our activity in the last 150 years, we only increased the CO2 by about 140 PPM. Adding another 400 PPM to get to 800 PPM seems highly unlikely to me. We'll run out of oil and coal long before that.
          zackers
      • RE: TOXIC GAS BUILD-UP

        Toxix?

        CO2 is vital for life on earth.

        Water is toxic if you get too much at the wrong time in the wrong place...

        CO2 becomes unpleasant at 1000 PPM, dangerous at 5000PPM.

        Current CO2 levels are at 387 PPM.

        The pre-Idustrial Revlution basseline was around 250 PPM.

        Besides, China is the number one emitter of so-called greenhouse gases. Any US legislation will have little to no global effect.
        bb_apptix
  • RE: NOAA sounding like Noah: head for the hills

    The theory of global warming is challenged by many prominent scientists. Don't be fooled by the hype.
    frivenburg1
    • You know...

      You know of course that many can still be a tiny minority, right?

      :o)
      Jack-Booted EULA
      • RE: You know...

        You know that less than half of all published Scientists ndorse Global Warming Theory.

        The skeptics are in the majority.

        http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966
        bb_apptix
  • how long can you tread water?

    Sounds like the old Bill Cosby routine to me. I wish they would concentrate on getting the 24 hour forecast to be accurate. Or are they going to blame that on global warming too?
    ca1ic0cat
  • RE: NOAA sounding like Noah: head for the hills

    Many scientists have raised the concern that the models don't take into account precipitation. That's the rain that the weather guys can't forecast correctly from day to day. So how can the models be correct? Precipitation is a greenhouse gas.

    We're looking at this backwards. Greenhouse gases keep the heat IN to keep us from freezing. Anyone want to guess the temperature in outer space?
    ElCondor11