Scientific American: Ten places already affected by climate change

January 7, 2009 | By | 9 Replies More

Scientific American has published a list of ten places that have already significantly experienced climate change. When the insurance companies weigh in (see the second entry on the U.S. Gulf Coast), you can be sure that we’re dealing with money (based on dispassionate probabilities), not ideology.    Many major casualties on the list, including the Great Barrier Reef (#5 on the list). The predictions are horrifying:

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that by 2050, 97 percent of the Great Barrier Reef will be bleaching yearly.

Share

Tags: , , ,

Category: Environment, global warming, Science

About the Author ()

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on consumer law litigation and appellate practice. He is also a working musician and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in the Shaw Neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri, where he lives half-time with his two extraordinary daughters.

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dan Klarmann says:

    Not to side with the deniers, but that warming is occurring is a separate issue from whether the effect of fossil fuels is a significant factor, and whether we can now do anything to slow it down.

    After all, in the era of modern man, the Sahara turned from rainy Eden to sweltering desert, and the Dakotas went from ice fields to verdant plains.

  2. Karl says:

    The experts also said that the Artic Ice would nearly all break up this year and that the ice pac would not recover. Well, lo and behold, the ice pac is back to its 1979 level this year.

  3. Erich Vieth says:

    Karl: Where are you getting your data regarding arctic ice? From ancient sacred writings? Based on NSIDC data, the 2002 to 2008 average shows "the steepest decline in ice extent over the thirty-year record."

    Consider this too: "Arctic sea ice in 2008 was notable for several reasons. The year continued the negative trend in summer sea ice extent, with the second-lowest summer minimum since record-keeping began in 1979."

    http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Look at the animation at the NSIDC "overview" page and let your eyes inform you. http://www.nsidc.org/about/expertise/overview.htm

  4. Karl says:

    Eric, ice pack depth data from Watt's up with that.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-

    Even the UN has had to rethink this one.

    http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/09/cli

  5. Niklaus Pfirsig says:

    Dan, you have a very valid point. I could go into a lot of detail ( and I was prepared to) have decided that my opinion in this matter is not consider valid as I don't agree with the multitudes of reporters, politicians and celebs that believe in the anthrogenic hypothesis. Many can take the global warming test, but if you have already determined, as many politicians have, the CO2 is causing the climate change, you may be denying decades of proven climatology.

    The Clobal warming test is at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/st
    The same site has a very readable explanation of the role of different greenhouse gases, by a climatologist.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data

    BTW the name "Greenhouse Effect" is somewhat misleading in that it implies that the reflected back into the system. In reality the heat is trapped either by the thermal mass of the greenhouse gases, or modulated by phase changes that occur primarily in water, which exists on earth in three distince phases. When watervapor condenses, or liquid water freezes, heat energy is released, when water evaporates, or ice melts ( and particularly when ice ablates) heat energy is absorbed and stored. the creation of vapor from a liquid stores considerably more heat energy than a simple change in the temperature of a mass, and water vapor is the only atmospheric that changes phase within the climatic tenperature ranges of the Earth.

  6. Erich Vieth says:

    Karl: You have no credibility. Zero. The first article you submitted only concerns 365 days of measurement. You've thus made a conscious decision to present short term stability as though it were long term stability. This is like saying that the climate is not changing merely based on the stable weather this month. Weather is not climate. There is no doubt (see the NASA data to which I linked) that the Arctic is losing vast amounts of ice. Prudent people take notice because the ramifications are terrible if this trend continues (whatever might be the cause, though fossil fuels are certainly a serious candidate).

    The second article you provided has nothing to do with Arctic ice.

    I've shown great patience with your disingenuous arguments over the months, but I'm finished. You are not engaging in discussions in good faith. I see a long-term pattern to your contrived and evasive arguments, a "climate" of disingenuousness.

  7. Mindy says:

    The climate is change. Global warming is occurring. Part of a very long-term cycle? Probably. Exacerbated by the extensive use of fossil fuels? Probably again.

    Regardless of global warming, those fuels create fumes that are bad for living creatures Finite supplies of the fuels exist. Why is it so hard to accept that we need alternative energy sources sooner, rather than later? We use science and technology to make life easier and more "convenient" – how about using science and technology to expand the life span of our planet?

    Just a thought . . .

  8. Ben says:

    I feel for Nicolaus. (in the past i had insulted him). I saw a tv show where the earth belched a plume of magma from deep within which made the dinosaurs and 95 percent of all life go extinct. What we can't argue is the fact that CO2 levels have indeed risen by 100 percent since womankind has taken foothold. ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution" if you don't believe me)

    This spells disaster if it continues. We should do what we can for the future inhabitants of earth.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

  9. Niklaus Pfirsig says:

    I don't deny thaat the climate is warming. What irks me is the media popularization of a single hypothesis and the resulting politicization that works to inhibit scientific study that allows a full understanding of an observed phenomena.

    This has been largely the case with the anthropogenic CO2 concept. It has become a shoot first and ask questions later sort of thing. The idea of carbon credits, loses any meaning as a regulatory step, when the credits are transferable between non industrial nations and industrial nations.

    There is a new alternative fuel technology that is receiving little media coverage. It is a farily new biodiesel production method that has a high yeild, worksd well in areas not suitable for crops, actually removes some hazardous wastes from streams and is relativel inexpensive when compared to the production costs of hydrogen or ethanol fuel products. It is similar in concept to an idea that I had at one tiome and it looks very workable.

    http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Leave a Reply