Monday, Dec. 5, 2016    Login | Register        

2 views on climate change

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “Summary for Policymakers” was released on March 31, 2014. Not all of the news is good.

The impact of global climate change is different throughout the world. The assessments of the impact are based on models which incorporate different assumptions. It’s good science (which can be studied more closely in the Working Group II study at

Looking only at North America, there is very high confidence among researchers that the risk of wildfire-induced losses, including property losses and deaths as a result of drought will remain “medium” through 2040.

After 2040, with a projected increase in average global temperature of two degrees centigrade, the risk rises to “high.” A more drastic scenario, which projects a four degree rise in temperature, would raise this risk to “very high.”

There is high confidence that the risk of heat-related deaths would remain “low” through 2040 and through the end of the century for the two-degree temperature scenario; for the four-degree scenario, the risk would increase to “medium.”

There is high confidence that urban flooding, in riverine and coastal areas, including property and infrastructure damage, public health impacts, and water quality impairments, which are presently “low,” would move toward “medium” by 2040, and would be “medium” and “high” under the two temperature scenarios.

What does this mean to us? For one, most peach varieties require between 500 and 1000 hours of winter temperatures of 45 degrees or below or they will not bloom. If peach trees don’t bloom, they don’t make peaches. If there are no Georgia peaches, we’re going to have to rename half the streets in Atlanta — and the city in which I live.

Looking on the global level, there are other, more serious risks. More CO2 in the atmosphere does spur plant growth, and there are estimates that this could increase some crop yields. On the other hand, it appears two-and-a-half times more likely that increased temperatures and decreased rainfall will decrease crop yields.

More severe and more frequent extreme weather events coupled with our stupidity in continuing to build in coastal areas, plus even slight rises in sea level are going to stress the ability of the insurance industry to provide affordable insurance.

One positive effect is expected to be fewer deaths due to cold. However, that’s outweighed by the risk of more deaths due to heat.

Continuing at the global level, there is medium confidence that throughout the 21st century, climate change impacts will slow down economic growth. There is very high confidence of increased risk from food- and water-borne diseases, and medium confidence of increased risk of disease from vectors such as mosquitoes.

Global climate change is a complex issue, and is intertwined with politics, the economy, and more. Many of the projected risks can be mitigated, but only if we have the will to do so, and the willingness to make this a priority.

Paul Lentz
Peachtree City, Ga.

[Editor’s note: From S. Fred Singer in “The American Thinker” posted March 27, 2014 — “The just-published NIPCC reports may lead to a paradigm shift about what or who causes current climate changes. All the evidence suggests that Nature rules the climate – not Man.

“NIPCC Conclusions in Brief

“Backed by thousands of peer-reviewed studies, are in striking contrast to the IPCC’s alarmist predictions:

“• Climate data tell us that the human impact on Earth’s climate is very small and that any warming due to GH gases will be so small as to be indiscernible from natural variability.

“• The net impacts of modestly rising temperatures and higher carbon-dioxide levels on plants, animals, wildlife, and human welfare have been positive so far and are likely to continue to be positive.

“• The costs of trying to mitigate climate change by reducing emissions vastly exceed the benefits. Annual cost per US household would run to some $3,900; would destroy millions of jobs.

“• In light of the new science and economics of climate change, thousands of laws passed at the height of the global warming scare need to be re-evaluated, modified, or repealed.”

“S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored the NY Times best-seller “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years.” In 2007, he founded and has since chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See]. For recent writings, see and also Google Scholar.”]



I think that most of us who are "informed" are aware that the scientists that Al Gore got his climate data from for global warming "cooked the books"- using models that greatly exaggerated how bad global warming had become.
However, how many of you readers are aware of this fact? Last summer, more than half of the continent of Greenland was in full meltdown, dumping billions and billions of gallons of fresh water into the North Atlantic. This is the very first time that this had been recorded as occurring in history. The Gulf Stream depends on a degree of salinity for it to function properly. Without the Gulf Stream, the island of Great Britain would have a climate more comparable to Iceland.

There are islands in waters off of Alaska that are disappearing at alarming rates.

An Egyptian luxury hotel is no longer habitable due to the rising water table.

Mt. Kilimanjaro, for the first time ever last summer, was ice free!

Several years ago, an ice burg broke off of Antarctica that was the size of Connecticut. The impact was so severe that it literally changed the map of that continent.

Australia is undergoing record drought, as is the Gobi area of Mongolia.

Say what you will about a degree here or a degree there of global warming, or about models for the amount of carbon dioxide that we can safely coexist with nature. However, there is inescapable proof that we are going thru global climate change at record levels. To this account, however, there are areas of both Oregon and Washington state that are
sparsely populated that regularly receive Air Quality fines fines from the EPA. This is due to the highly acidic smog that is drifting over the ocean from China, which continues to put a new coal powered power plant on line at the rate of over one a month.

In the movie "The Day After Tomorrow", the culprit that scientists blamed the sudden severe cooling off of the planet on was worldwide torrential rain. Yet are we not now creating the exact same scenario, only perhaps at a slower rate? How many of you were aware that the science in this movie was based upon a real scientific climate model that is in use today?

Al Gore, or not, we really are facing an "inconvenient truth" if we do not change our ways. Do these changes mandate solar power and cars that run only a short distance on electric power? Perhaps not. But if we all contribute only a small amount, such as thru recycling, and cutting down on the use of energy, we can make a significant speed bump on the progress on climate change right now, not decades down the road.

chris Kimball
Peachtree City

For a long time, I did not understand why a few degrees Celsius make a difference. And then I read it. The earth is 'warm blooded'. Just like a hman wants a about temperature around 98.6, increase that but 4 degrees Celsius is around 7 degrees F. If a human runs a temp of around 105 or 106, you will not be around long.

And so it goes with the earth. Think of the earth as a live thing and then it makes sense.

Think of it as a skillet, and you can't fry an egg on a skillet 7 degrees warmer.

But the living earth may not survive 7 degrees F gain.

What is the problem? A biosphere stretched to the max to fed 9 to 12 billion people by the end of this century.

So when folks talk climate change policy. It is not looking a couple of days weeks or months ahead. It is years, decades, centruries, millenia.

And what we do tadoay matters.


PTC Observer's picture


what exactly do you want us to do today?

Be specific.

I do not think I would consult a conservative propoganda website to understadn a subject like Climate Change. That is why I would not bother with Why would I dismiss NASA and NOAA but accept the writings of the American thinker ? That is difficult to understand.

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank based in Chicago (wikipedia description)

The Independent Institute - from WIkipedia, The Independent Institute is an American libertarian think tank based in Oakland, California, (wikipedia description)

Is it possible that these folks are funded by the coal and oil industry?

Coal and oil are industrial revoultion technologies. Their days are numbered. For sure they should advocate for the survival of the business. But as there are vaible alternatives, they should be allowed to fail.

Why would we subsidize some of the most profitable businesses on the planet ?

When the I can make my car go without buting gas, that is what I am going to do.

Who among us laments the passing of steam powered passenger rail ?

Then if when I stop buring stuff to make tings move, the air and water will all be cleaner. And who can be critical of clean water and air ? Or do you prefer dirty, toxic air and water?


Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content