In 50 to 100 years. But don’t let that un-alarm you. The New York Times parrots—I mean reports—on a new study by the Obama Administration’s U.S. Global Change Research Program. The report predicts a list of bad, bad things that are going to happen thanks to “unequivocal” global warming. Hang on, are they implying that there’s another kind? Anyway, the Gray Lady points out that “Earlier cuts [in greenhouse has emissions] will be more effective than comparable later cuts, the document adds. Without efforts to limit emissions, the United States could warm 7 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Cutting emissions could hold that increase to just 4 to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit.” Balmy, barmy or Barney?
126 Comments on “NYT: Global Warming to Submerge 2,400 Miles of Gulf Roads...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
I have just one thing to say:
“SURFS UP!!!!”
Just lie on your back and do everything the nice man from the government tells you to do.
So the demise of the dinosaurs was due to global warming caused by their… SUVs? I get it now!
I think that the problem with this kind of article is that they extrapolate from limited data using models that aren’t really proven to be valid.
Let me give an example:
“I gained 5 pounds last month! If this keeps up, I’m going to weigh 600 pounds before I’m 40!”
Anthropogenic global warming. OMG. Can we please talk about something less controversial, like religion or politics? Though I guess that AGW combines the two.
Answer to your question – definitely barmy.
I’m OK with sea level rise as long as it submerges the NYT building.
Just do whatever we say and in 500 years we’ll see just who’s right!
Trust us, we’re climatologists.
The debate is over and we declared victory.
Only deniers and idiots question Global Climate Change. Which one are you?
and my favorite……..
It’s For The Children.
1) I believe global warming is for real.
2) I welcome it, since I own a house in this freezing land called Alberta (Canada). I mean, if the temperature goes up 20 degree in one century. Most regions of the US would be unbearable. The flood of Americans into Canada will definitely push the price of real estates up.
Uh – Oh.
The game’s afoot.
Ugh. Farago, your thinly veiled conservatism is showing. Didn’t you just announce to your readership that their comments were becoming to policital? Then posts like this. Moving on…
Climate change is a complex debate. While you can’t believe every report you read that predicts a watery doom, sometimes the skeptics can be even more uneven handed than the zealots. Yes it may happen and yes the existing data and models don’t predict the evolution of this trend with any accuracy. However, I don’t see the naysayers making much of a coherent contribution to this debate except maybe an extra helping of sarcasm.
carguy,
Here, please go to this website:
http://www.weather.com/
Type in your zip code…and when you pull up your local area there is a “10 Day Forecast” you too can pull up.
Prove to yourself these ass-monkeys in power don’t know what they are talking about, ok?
If you cannot accurately predict 10 days out (which you can’t), then who are these jokers to say what’s going to occur in the next 80 years?
One may say “Well, it’s not about the daily fluctuations, but the overall “trend” which matters”. Well, again…they don’t know what they are talking about. In the 70’s we were in for another “ice age”, do you recall??
Fear sells- but who’s buying??
+1 for puppyknuckles on this one. You don’t have to agree with the NYT, but in that case, please state scientific data as well, rather than pretty empty arguments.
Well, here’s a start:
Since we’re speaking about Louisiana, why don’t you tell me how NOAA’s weather prediction for Katrina turned out???
Anyone???
The skeptics are for the most part scientists, not failed politicians or government employees who rely on tax dollars for funding. Read anything by Pat Michaels for the real story on climate change.
The Truth About Louisiana Roads…
(I’m trying to find something about a car here, but I’m not into pickup trucks with gun racks either).
Also, the June 3 edition of the comic strip “Non Sequitur” tells me all I need to know about this debate…..
This is the same Administration that is saving/creating 600,000 jobs this summer? The one that states it wants a “light” regulatory hand on the economy yet is the majority owner of GM and is attempting to pass a bill that allows them to seize companies as they see fit for the “good of the public.” Right, I thought so.
@carguy
the existing data and models don’t predict the evolution of this trend with any accuracy
and that’s the issue – proposing a solution to a problem that isn’t understood, may not be controllable (or mankind’s fault) and may not even be a problem
I’m writing from under a mile thick ice cap and I’m about 450 feet above sea level. Well, that was true 130 centuries ago. Now the ‘ice cap’ is a seasonal thing – a few feet of snow for a few months and even that doesn’t linger in those few months and I’m about 25 feet above sea level today. Wait! That means that the sea level has risen 3 1/4 feet per century during the geologic eyeblink represented by 130 centuries – except the last century rise has been measured in inches. Does that suggest a trend?
The cooling trend during the 60’s and 70’s was IIRC(largely) due to power plant emissions decreasing energy absorption of the upper atmosphere (remember the great acid rain hoax decried by conservatives at that time?) Well, cleaning up the smokestacks has allowed the warming trend to re-emerge … obviously we need more pollution, not less (/sarcasm)
Look at THIS people….a glacier REFUSES to listen to the United Nations Global EXPERTS(!!)- and continues to GROW…*DESPITE GLOBAL WARMING*:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31363631/ns/us_news-environment/
“Scientists just AREN’T SURE WHY!!!”.
The cooling trend during the 60’s and 70’s was IIRC(largely) due to power plant emissions decreasing energy absorption of the upper atmosphere
You believe that? Really? Cite please, and good luck finding one that’s not from a blogger.
Hey I got a car related thing. I bought a new car in January. I’m not 100% sure the A/C is working right. Why,you ask, b/c it hasn’t been warm enough to check.
For another TTAC first,I totally agree with a Rastus post. Ten days Mr Rastus? They can’t predict two days.
Yes indeed fear sells well.
Oh and your acid rain is the end of the world claim..
Here’s the result of one 20 year study…..
http://www.physorg.com/news143735620.html
This report is,
“Decision-based evidence making”.
a new study by the Obama Administration’s U.S. Global Change Research Program.
According to Wired ( http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/climatereport/ ), this is just a final version of a report commissioned by the Bush administration.
Key findings of the report may be found here:
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/key-findings
Personally, and it makes me sad to say it, but in the absence of any cogent counterargument, I’m increasingly inclined to believe this report and others like it. This probably means that I’m going to have to stop being quite so selfish and start catching the train to work and start driving the family WRX, MS3 and RAV4 V6 a bit less (and probably get rid of one of them – 3 inefficient cars for a family of 2 + a 2yr old is hard to justify).
Forget the “crisis” sales pitch, and just take our money. You’re gonna do it anyway. Insulting our intelligence just makes it worse.
@lokkii try looking up the term Global Dimming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/ might give you some reading material about pollution causing temperature drops.
If we really believe that sea level will rise, why the heck would we rebuild a city that is below sea level?
chuckR and rastus – I don’t doubt the limitations of computer modeling (in fact, it was my post graduate thesis) but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the climate is getting warmer and that carbon dioxide levels are increasing rapidly. There needs to be a debate but it will take more than a gut feeling “I don’t believe it” from the skeptics to drive policy on this issue. My challenge to skeptics is to move beyond that and maybe offer an alternative interpretation of the existing data or to offer an alternative causative mechanisms for the temperature increase. As yet I seen very little of that.
allythom:
Have you found a cogent argument in favor of GW? I have found a lot of speculation and data models that have been extrapolated to the extreme, but thats it. If you haven’t, then you are more guilty of lazy thinking than the skeptics you are criticizing.
On the other hand, if driving your family haulers less or getting rid of them makes you feel better, go for it. Just don’t expect everyone else to jump on the bandwagon so easily.
whynotaztec:
Because it has “culture”, or something.
Try reading the literature from ….NASA of all sources:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17977/Mars_Is_Warming_NASA_Scientists_Report.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html
Global Warming- it’s not just for EARTH anymore!!!
@Lokkii
Re. climate impacts of acid rain. A few minutes search found the following references:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8835
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/960425SM.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html
I don’t have time for further search at present.
BTW, could you point out where I said acid rain was the end of the world? I really don’t recall saying or even implying that.
The temperatures of the other planets are all going up, too. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t caused by Republicans and SUVs, and neither was the end of the last 10 ice ages on earth.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081204-mars-climate-cycles.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090309-mm-jupiter-great-red-spot.html
Global warming comes from two sources: 1)the sun, and 2)the hot air coming from gw crisis-mongers.
As for the road submergence issue, if Al Gore’s prediction 10 years ago of a 20 foot rise in the oceans in 100 years was true, we could easily see the first 2 feet rise now. But it’s not there – has anyone lost a road?
And a question: Who’s to say that today’s temperature is the “right” one for earth, when it was so much warmer in the past?
“Balmy, barmy or Barney?”
Or perhaps just blarney.
If the U.S. reduces it’s emissions to zero, it won’t even amount to a fart in an auditoreum from all the crap the “emerging” countries will spew out.
One bicycle each will be replaced by one Tata. How do WE offset 40 gazillion of THEIR Tatas?
Ryan Knuckles :
June 17th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
allythom:
Have you found a cogent argument in favor of GW? I have found a lot of speculation and data models that have been extrapolated to the extreme, but thats it. If you haven’t, then you are more guilty of lazy thinking than the skeptics you are criticizing.
On the other hand, if driving your family haulers less or getting rid of them makes you feel better, go for it. Just don’t expect everyone else to jump on the bandwagon so easily.
Ryan
Have you read the report already ? The parts I have (and I will gladly stand up and say that I have not read it from begining to end) read make for a pretty believable argument.
I, unlike you, am not criticizing anyone.
Rest assured, I have no expectations from anyone I don’t know besides basic humanity. I meant no more than to say that I, an inveterate car enthusiast, am sufficiently convinced by the Climate Change argument to consider altering my behaviour by driving less and owning fewer inefficient vehicles. This is not a conclusion I have arrived at lightly, I *really* like driving and cars. You may think I am mistaken or you may not care. You can, and I’m sure will, do as you please in this regard. My remark was not intended to induce you or anyone else to follow.
‘Who’s to say that today’s temperature is the “right” one for earth, when it was so much warmer in the past?’
gslippy: fair point. Of course, “in the past” involves geologic periods of time (unless you’re a young earth creationist), and we’ve added what–six? billion people since then.
If and when GW creates significant effects on local climates and weather patterns, that does have implications for food growing, water availability, and overall habitation conditions for some areas of the world. None of those dependencies existed when the climate was significantly different in the past, at least at the scale to which they exist now.
All of these points can be argued, even without the namecalling and aspersions about intelligence that underlie so much of the debate, even here in ‘flame-free’ TTAC-land. But I tend to agree with those who say that the next major resource wars will not be over oil or gas, but over fresh water access.
The Earth is now cooling. the Sun has less Sunspots than in over a hundred years, there are cool cycles in the Pacifac and Atlantic and a La Nina. Algore had better hurry up.
vento97,
The change in sea level will probably outpace nature’s ability to build beaches suitable for surfing. It will be more like “Swamp’s up!” for quite a while.
—
dubtee1480: “This is the same Administration that is saving/creating 600,000 jobs this summer? The one that states it wants a “light” regulatory hand on the economy yet is the majority owner of GM and is attempting to pass a bill that allows them to seize companies as they see fit for the “good of the public.” Right, I thought so.”
You might give some thought to actually reading the article. The Obama administration is releasing a report drafted during the Bush administration. Bush suppressed if for a while, to the delight of Cheney’s oil and gas buddies, but then his party lost the election.
—
Rastus: “Look at THIS people….a glacier REFUSES to listen to the United Nations Global EXPERTS(!!)- and continues to GROW…*DESPITE GLOBAL WARMING*:”
Let’s read the entire first paragraph of that article together, shall we?
“Argentina’s Perito Moreno glacier is one of only a few ice fields worldwide that have withstood rising global temperatures.”
Let’s see, temperatures are rising and there are only a few ice fields worldwide that, oddly, continue to grow. Well, you know, rastus, sometimes it rains in the desert. It’s true. Of course, it’s still a desert but, there you are.
We’re getting warmer and this is, like rain in the desert, an ANOMALY in that process, not evidence that we’re getting colder and it’s also not evidence that people who put a lot of work and effort into learning and understanding the climate are still, somehow, clueless. It may surprise you but in their zeal to understand the climate and honestly develop science, climatologists and other scientists don’t start from a political argument but actually go out and measure things and then ask, “why does it behave this way?” Once they develop an idea, they will then ask, “What other evidence should support this?”
Climate involves a lot of factors, so the science is daunting and somewhat uncertain but the idea behind ACC comes from three simple things:
1. CO2 traps heat. The more CO2 is in the mix, the more heat is trapped. You can measure this in the lab. This was discovered 50 years before Al Gore was born, so you can set aside your protestations that Al Gore thought this up in his spare time.
2. CO2 levels, before we started digging up coal and burning it wholesale were about 285ppmv. Mauna Loa observatory began direct measurement in 1958 or so, at 310ppmv or so. We’re now at about 385ppmv. CO2 levels have increased by about a third.
3. The increase in CO2 levels are due to human activity. You can both look at the carbon budget (estimates of huw much CO2 plant activity removes, how much we dig up and burn, things like that, estimates that are under continuous review) or you can use isotopic analysis (fossil carbon has a different isotopic signature than biosphere carbon) to figure out how much is due to our activity. Both investigations lead to the same result: it’s us.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say these three things are absolutely irrefutable but, so far, no one has successfully challenged them. No Denier nutjob ranting that I have ever read has said, “no, the math in that isotopic calculation is wrong and here’s why.” No, the Denier Nutjob rantings that I read start from the premise that Liberals are evil and want to control us, so the science must be {wrong | politically motivated}.
These three things could be challenged, of course. Science is not a secret or a secret society. Challenge is part of the idea of science. When scientists come up with these ideas, after all, they publish them and put their ideas and calculations on the table for people to look at and challenge. Those three points have survived the test of time.
Now, if you’re clever enough, you can compute the general change in surface temperature due to the extra CO2 in the air. That calculation generally agrees with the observed recent increase in the global mean temperature although the existence of many other factors (global dimming – it’s real, too) mean that a much better atmospheric model is far more complex but also more precise. Probably most college physics majors graduate with enough tools to do this calculation, if they’re so inclined.
Some may find this thought-provoking:
NSIDC Glacier Photos
carguy
The foremost test of a predictive computer modeling system is how well it tracks reality. The wonderful thing about reality is that we have boatloads of it. If someone wants me to believe that their models are accurate a century from now, they need to start with the reality of 100 years ago and predict today. Not the exact weather today – chaotic sensitivity makes that unlikely – but the climate today, give or take a few years. If they can’t do that – someone would be shouting it from the treetops if they did – then they shouldn’t tell me they can predict a century from now. Because they ain’t all that. There are both validation and verification issues unresolved.
chuckR and rastus – I don’t doubt the limitations of computer modeling (in fact, it was my post graduate thesis) but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the climate is getting warmer and that carbon dioxide levels are increasing rapidly. Well, the number of pirates has decreased radically from past eras when it was colder. Do we need even more pirates than the Somalis are currently providing? ==> Coincidence does not equal causality. And if the relationship is causal, which way does the arrow point?
Global Warming to Submerge 2,400 Miles of Gulf Roads = SUV’s demise is premature due to ground clearance needed on Gulf coast roads.
There was a former thread on this blog about this, and it clearly demonstrate the level of fake evidence the deniers are concocting.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/omb-memo-criticizes-epa-co2-ruling/
It’s very informative, since you’ll find answers to assertions like this: “The skeptics are for the most part scientists, not failed politicians or government employees who rely on tax dollars for funding.” – because you’ll learn conclusively the leaders of the skeptics are frauds, the same deal as intelligent design.
-
Global Warming- it’s not just for EARTH anymore!!!
What’s amusing here about the ignorance is the only understanding is of words and not ideas connected to them. In this case, “Warming”, in places with entirely different atmospheres. Of course, they don’t realize the word is only used for ironic effect or as attention grabber for a headline, and thus they become easy targets for mockery subsequently.
-
if Al Gore’s prediction 10 years ago of a 20 foot rise in the oceans in 100 years was true, we could easily see the first 2 feet rise now
Awesome reasoning, because hillbilly math demands all relations to be linear. That and some presentation by some former vice president represents all of science because that’s the only guy billies know about.
And by awesome I sincerely mean incredibly hilarious.
I bet I could prove, with a moderately funded research study, that over 90% of global warming believers are communists, socialists, or some closeted version of the two.
Not to imply that they are grasping at a means to control your lifestyle, but the degree of correlation would be…interesting, to say the least.
If someone wants me to believe that their models are accurate a century from now, they need to start with the reality of 100 years ago and predict today.
That’s actually exactly what they do, except they go back much much further. This is detailed in just about any site on global warming.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ is a good place to start a science instead of ignorance-based education on climate change.
–
I bet I could prove, with a moderately funded research study, that over 90% of global warming believers are communists, socialists, or some closeted version of the two.
That 90% is wrong. It’s 100% since people who believe in science are defined as communists. Or H1tler.
OK. I am going to put a pool in the back yard and a beer fridge in the garage.
“As for the road submergence issue, if Al Gore’s prediction 10 years ago of a 20 foot rise in the oceans in 100 years was true, we could easily see the first 2 feet rise now. But it’s not there – has anyone lost a road?”
As has been mentioned, sea level rise is predicted to be slower at first, but once the albedo (reflection of sunlight) of Greenland is reduced, the melting will increase rapidly.
Then Antartica starts, and the shite really hits the fan.
The irony is that Chinese materialism (learned from us) will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
I’m a pretty good materialist myself, but I’m getting the message, and trying to reduce my
carbon footprint.
And I don’t even have children/grandchildren to give a crap about – but my sister does.
Good, all them damn roads get in the way of my airboat when I’m hunting allimigator.
The thing about global warming is that it will be bad for Europe, absolutely horrible for Asia, and pretty damn good for the US, except for Louisiana and Florida sinking. . . oh wait, that’s good for the US also.
Nuclear proliferation is spreading and some nuclear countries are destabilizing, only uneducated people in third world countries are breeding, productivity advancements (IT and robots) and offshoring are creating dangerous economic hardship and inequality in first world countries (except for government employees), and technology is putting acopolyptic biological warfare within reach.
And I’m supposed to worry about this?
I live in a cold, relatively high area of the Midwest, bring it on.
If you cannot accurately predict 10 days out (which you can’t), then who are these jokers to say what’s going to occur in the next 80 years?
If this is what passes for the skeptics’ idea of logic, then no wonder that it tends to make laugh.
Honestly, that sort of quip is rotten to the core. Anyone who believes something like that needs to take a class or six about science and logical reasoning, because this comment is pretty much bankrupt of any sense at all.
A basic application of random walk theory makes it obvious that it is far easier to make generalized observations about long-term trends than it is to predict specific short-term movements. The dynamics are quite different, with the short-term more random by nature, so there is no comparison at all.
Politics and science don’t mix, particularly when they are of the troglodyte variety. Hoping that something is true, and it actually being true, are two different things.
OMG, a swamp is going to become slightly swampier and we only have 100 years to react to that? We’re doomed.
Of course, if at some point in the next century the people living in the doomed areas, like, move, maybe we’ll be OK. I’ve moved 8 times in the past 12 years.
Then again, the brief run of global warming actually seems to have ended about 10 years ago, so maybe this is all bunk.
Bill H,
I’m pretty sure the question isn’t “which temperature is right for the earth”, but “which temperature and atmosphere is right for humans and the crops on which we depend?” The Earth will be fine! It’s us you should be worried about…
Everyone,
Just to inject some non-ideological data into this partisan d***-waving contest, I submit a study showing an observed sea level rise is around 3.1mm/year (about 1/8″ per year). This is a result of a large number of observations that have been run though a statistical process to weed out the affects of tides, storms, and other noise. This paper shows a higher number than some, but I chose it because it’s easy to get the PDF: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch05.pdf
(I’ve been on conference calls with staffers at UCAR. They generally have their stuff together.)
Here’s part of the author’s summary:
Global mean sea level has been rising. From 1961 to 2003, the average rate of sea level rise was 1.8 ± 0.5 mm yr–1. For the 20th century, the average rate was 1.7 ± 0.5 mm yr–1, consistent with the TAR estimate of 1 to 2 mm yr– 1. There is high confi dence that the rate of sea level rise has increased between the mid-19th and the mid-20th centuries. Sea level change is highly non-uniform spatially, and in some regions, rates are up to several times the global mean rise, while in other regions sea level is falling.
There is evidence for an increase in the occurrence of extreme high water worldwide related to storm surges, and variations in extremes during this period are related to the
rise in mean sea level and variations in regional climate.
The rise in global mean sea level is accompanied by considerable decadal variability. For the period 1993 to 2003, the rate of sea level rise is estimated from observations with satellite altimetry as 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr–1, signifi cantly
higher than the average rate. The tide gauge record indicates that similar large rates have occurred in previous 10-year periods since 1950. It is unknown whether the higher rate in 1993 to 2003 is due to decadal variability or an increase
in the longer-term trend.
This is an interpretations of actual observations, which is a lot better than just an opinion. There’s still a human element, of course, but it strikes me as many orders of magnitudes more objective than anything I’ve ever seen on TV.
There is a lot of detailed information later on in the article, particularly in “Appendix 5.A: Techniques, Error Estimation and Measurement Systems”.
It is worth mentioning to those who don’t make their living in Big Science a couple of things:
1. This paper is an overview. They have a huge bibliography for those who want to delve deeper.
2. That the author’s won’t try to prove every mathematical technique they use — they’re trying to give you an overview of what they did, and refer to well-established techniques. The bibliography is there, in case you’d like to go deeper.
These things saves a lot of time and paper, but it has the unfortunate side-effect of making research less accessible to the general public. (I assert that science is of limited value if it isn’t shared with the public.)
If folks start picking apart the argument in the paper (or any other paper), that will elevate this discussion to a very insightful level. Even if you just plain disagree, these kind of papers really are worth the read — you’ll need to understand how the other folks are thinking in order to undermine their arguments.
I’ve personally changed my mind on this topic over the last few years — but, then again, I’ve had good reasons to change my mind about a lot of things over the last few years… :-)
-Luke
P.S. One thing that doesn’t seem to be mentioned in this overview article is the ice core data. The composition of the layers of ice on the north and south poles can tell a lot about the composition atmosphere at that time. There’s also an awful lot that can be inferred from geological sources, like layers of mud and details of rocks. To those who assume that the data they’re using is only from the last 100 years or so since we’ve been keeping good meteorological records. The newer data is more precise, but the old data covers an awful lot of time. I agree that, if the models were only made using the last 100 years of meteorological data, they would be crap. However, without that ancient data, there’s simply no sane way to validate a model! A non-validated model wouldn’t produce results than anyone, especially people whose job-security is on the line, would take seriously.
It’s laughable to watch people cling to this theory.
I first encountered this idea in 1988 in an environment course. The prof remarked casually on several coffee breaks that increased carbon dioxide could lead to more rain, hence cooling. But then the lecture began again and there was no alternative, no variables. More carbon, more heat.
Also, we’d just spent weeks learning the environment was incredibly complicated so nothing should ever be changed because the outcome could not be predicted. That sounded logical, but apparently it’s possible to predict what added carbon will do, right down to a few degrees over a hundred years.
I quickly learned from that course that lying is acceptable, because you’re doing the “right thing”. I have severe doubts that even half the advocates really believe this nonsense, but a method of increasing taxation and regulation, plus limiting consumption, is ever so close and they’re not letting go.
If catastrophe is that imminent, then it’s too late because the biggest emitters are doing absolutely nothing about it.