In May 2010, the National Academy of Sciences released three reports confirming the strength of climate change science and recommending U.S. strategies to cope with climate change. Dr. Tom Wilbanks of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory chaired the NAS report on climate change adaptation in America. He summed up the underlying message of the reports.
Tom Wilbanks: Climate change is real, we have to act both to limit emissions and keep climate change moderate rather than severe. And we have to take action now to determine how to adapt to the impacts that are sure to come.
The reports are part of a broad and comprehensive climate change study – requested by the U.S. Congress in the spring of 2009 – called “America’s Climate Choices.”
Tom Wilbanks: They recommend that the nation adopt a kind of carbon budget, a total amount of carbon emissions to be acceptable to the U.S. over a 40-year period, which would require that we start reducing carbon emissions pretty soon to stay within that budget.
Wilbanks said the reports recommend that the American government coordinate a national response to climate change. They suggest that America’s water supply, food, and infrastructure systems could be vulnerable to climate change impacts such as sea level rise. He said that short-term adaptations might be relatively simple and cheap, but longer-term solutions will require increased levels of research and investment. Wilbanks explained that the three NAS reports will be followed by one more panel report, called the Panel on Informing Effective Decisions and Actions Related to Climate Change. Then, the National Research Council will synthesize all the reports into a final report.
Tom Wilbanks: The overarching report – which comes out in the fall 2010 – will look at what’s come out of all four panels and how it adds up to a coherent national strategy.
The reports released in May 2010 include: Advancing the Science of Climate Change, Limiting the Impacts of Climate Change, and Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change.
Tom Wilbanks: The Science panel says we should broaden support for science related to mitigation and adaptation. The Limiting report says we should take action now to set targets now for limiting emissions of greenhouse gases from the US. The Adapting panel says we should foster widespread practice of doing vulnerability assessments and provide technical assistance so people can act on matching up adaptation options with their vulnerabilities.
The report offered examples of options for sea level rise, for example: Hardening coastal infrastructure so it can handle higher water levels and storm impacts, insurance for climate change impacts, and altering development and land use practices to move human settlements and activities away from vulnerable coastlines.
Go back to the stone age and use Fred Flintstone as the model or any Indian tride in the Amazon!
“The reports are part of a broad and comprehensive climate change study – requested by the U.S. Congress in the spring of 2009 – called “America’s Climate Choices.” – Tom Wilbanks
Well, that says it all. The outcome was preconceived and very predictable. Congress wants to do a hard press for Cap and Trade. So, they choose the timing and pay some willing scientists to write three (one wouldn’t have enough impact) reports on global warming that Congress wants to be titled “America’s Climate Choices” based on the usual over-tweaked models and incessant over-exaggerated global warming claims by Al Gore and Dr. Hansen and their lot. And the scientists who danced for Congress’ money on this one really expect the public to take their reports seriously?
While I’m a luke-warmer and acknowledge man’s impact on the climate is measurable, I can’t help but feel it’s this kind of staged theatrics that’s eroding the credibility of the science community and for good reason.
Hank, I think you might be forgetting that many in Congress are strongly against cap and trade, and are self-proclaimed global warming skeptics. That’s why it’s so interesting that Congress asked for this report, and it will be equally interesting to see how they respond to it.
Lindsay, you are right. There are members of Congress who are strongly against cap and trade. Senator Inhofe is perhaps the most notable and outspoken example. However, I think it is important to point out that the current filibuster proof congress has snobbed off all dissenting voices to cap and trade in its highly partisan and closed door push for its passing.
I, like a growing number of my peers working in non climate related scientific research are increasingly expressing frustration with how government grant money stipulates a predefined outcome as condition to grant approval. Let us not ignore that all AGW climate research is government funded to the tune of nearly $8 billion a year whereas there is $0.00 funding for any climate research that doesn’t find the “A” in AGW. So, here is the published language of how these “America’s Climate Choices” reports were commissioned:
“The Department of Commerce Appropriations Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-161) calls for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to execute an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to establish a committee that will “investigate and study the serious and sweeping issues relating to global climate change and make recommendations regarding what steps must be taken and what strategies must be adopted in response to global climate change, including the science and technology challenges thereof.” The committee is directed to produce a report, with findings, conclusions, and recommendations, within two years of its first meeting.”
The purpose of the “Agreement” was to commission a hand picked group of scientists to produce reports in favor of the desired outcome as clearly mandated in the language above. Dr. Willbanks confirms it very nicely with “The Limiting report says we should take action now to set targets now for limiting emissions of greenhouse gases from the US.” That’s political speak for cap and trade least anyone not catch the meaning. This isn’t science, it’s scientists being paid by the government to produce commissioned works for hire. John and Jane Q. Public are getting wise to this venue and it’s sadly eroding public trust and support of all of the sciences.
Hank, I have it on good authority that none of the scientists involved were paid for their work on America’s Climate Choices. They chose to do it as a public service for Congress. Therefore, I think it’s difficult to support the idea that this report was a “commissioned work for hire.”
Lindsay, I accept your word on this. I’ll concede on that issue. Still I think cap and trade is bad for the economy and does nothing for ecology as long as it can’t be decoupled from economic key performance indicators. It bothers me that folks like Al Gore and carbon bankers are poised to make multi-billions in profits as insiders. I have a passion for the environment but feel those billions in profits being sponged by traders and speculators would be better used to invest in energy technology development at grass roots levels.
I see cap and trade under its present design a license to pollute which draws capital from developing transitional and alternate fuel technologies. I’ve read the bill and its all about world banking and says little to nothing about measurable effects on CO2 levels, jobs, or transitional paths to alternative energy. I think the real solution is to forego draconian schemes like cap and trade and create an incentive for corporations and small business to invest in green technologies. As a researcher and technologies company owner, I would prefer to take the tens of thousands in taxes, penalties, and fees I’m expected to pay into the cap and trade system and buy solar panels, wind generators, efficient lighting and appliances, and insulation. But being robbed of those resources, I’m being sidelined in the process and that doesn’t seem the proper outcome.
Thanks as always for your kind responses, insight and open dialog.
We can change the Earth? Here is a big dose of truth and realism for you.
For all of you out there in America and across the globe who have fought so hard to tackle the hideous enemy of our planet, namely carbon emissions, that bogus god you worship named “Climate Change” or “Global Warming”, there is some really bad news that will be very painful for you to process. But it is my duty to pass it on to you anyway.
Are you sitting down?
Okay, here’s the bombshell. The current volcanic eruption going on in Iceland, since it first started spewing volcanic ash a week ago, has, to this point, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet. Not only that, this single act of God has added emissions to the earth estimated to be 42 times more than can be corrected by the extreme human regulations proposed for annual reductions.
I know, I know…. (have a group hug)…it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up til midnight to finish your kid’s “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, going on vacation to a city park instead of Yosemite, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your $1 light bulbs with $10 light bulbs …well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just the past week.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in the past week has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And, those hundreds of thousands of American jobs you helped move to Asia with expensive emissions demands on businesses… you know, the ones that are creating even more emissions than when they were creating American jobs, well that must seem really worthwhile now.
I’m so sorry. And I do wish that there was some kind of a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the brush fire season across the western U.S.A. will start in about two months and those fires will negate your efforts to reduce carbon emissions in our world for the next two years.
So, grab a Coke, give the world a hug, and have a nice day!
Well, darn…
I think this Volcano thing should be regulated by Congress. What’s going on man. Are the Repuplicains holding things up again?
Michael,
What is the source or reference dealing with the details of the volcano emissions. Who did the measurements and calculations?
Bob
Bob – on “Truth & Realism”… who knows where this stuff comes from? It’s certainly not true – Michael, did you just copy it out of the Marionsword blog?
I saw this and checked out NASA, Scientific American and the British Met Office … (Google volcanic+ash+climate+ change)
I’ll not describe it save for this from Scientific American
“volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity”