National Academy of Sciences :
Action needed to manage climate change risks — new report
WASHINGTON — Warning that the risk of dangerous climate change impacts is growing with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, a National Research Council committee today reiterated the pressing need for substantial action to limit the magnitude of climate change and to prepare to adapt to its impacts. The nation’s options for responding to the risks posed by climate change are analyzed in a new report and the final volume in America’s Climate Choices, a series of studies requested by Congress. The committee that authored the report included not only renowned scientists and engineers but also economists, business leaders, an ex-governor, a former congressman, and other policy experts.
“The goal of the America’s Climate Choices studies is to ensure that climate decisions are informed by the best possible scientific knowledge, analysis, and advice, both now and in the future,” said committee chair Albert Carnesale, chancellor emeritus and professor, University of California, Los Angeles.
The new report reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities — especially the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere — as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades. This trend cannot be explained by natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun. The report adds that the impacts of climate change on human and natural systems can generally be expected to intensify with warming.
While it recognized that climate change is inherently a global issue requiring an international response, the committee focused on the charge from Congress to identify steps and strategies that U.S. decision makers could adopt now. A coordinated national response to climate change, which the country currently lacks, is needed and should be guided by an iterative risk management framework in which actions taken can be revised as new knowledge is gained.
“America’s response to climate change is ultimately about making choices in the face of risk,” noted committee vice chair William L. Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Risk management strategies must be durable enough to promote sustained progress yet sufficiently flexible to take advantage of new knowledge and technologies.”
Substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions should be among the highest priorities in the national response, the committee said. Although the exact magnitude and speed of reductions will depend on how much risk society deems acceptable, it would be imprudent to delay taking action. The committee cited many reasons for not waiting, including that the faster emissions are reduced, the lower the risks. And because the effects of greenhouse gases can take decades to manifest and then persist for hundreds or even thousands of years, waiting for impacts to occur before taking action will likely be too late for meaningful mitigation. Beginning emissions reductions soon will also lower the pressure to make steeper and costlier cuts later. “It is our judgment that the most effective strategy is to begin ramping down emissions as soon as possible,” Carnesale said.
State and local efforts currently under way or being initiated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are potentially quite significant but unlikely to yield outcomes comparable to what could be achieved with a strong federal effort, according to the committee. It said the most efficient way to accelerate emissions reductions is through a nationally uniform price on greenhouse gas emissions with a price trajectory sufficient to spur investments in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies. Having such policies in place is crucial to guide investments in energy infrastructure that will largely determine the direction of greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come.
The committee deemed the risks of sticking to “business as usual” to be a much greater concern than the risks associated with a strong response. Most policy responses could be reversed if they prove to be more stringent than is needed, but adverse changes to the climate system are difficult or impossible to undo. It also said that uncertainty in projecting the severity, location, or time of climate change impacts is not a reason for inaction. On the contrary, uncertainty about future risks could be a compelling reason for taking action given that abrupt, unanticipated, or more severe impacts could occur.
Aggressive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the need for adaptation but not eliminate it, the committee emphasized, urging the nation to mobilize now to reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts. While adaptation planning largely occurs at the state and local level, the federal government should help coordinate these efforts and develop a national adaptation strategy.
In addition, the federal government should maintain an integrated portfolio of research programs aimed at increasing understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change and developing tools to limit climate change and adapt to its impacts. The government also needs to take the lead in collecting and sharing climate change information to ensure that pertinent knowledge is used to inform decisions. Public and private sector engagement through broad-based deliberative processes is essential as well. These processes should include transparent analyses of climate change information, an explicit discussion of uncertainties, and consideration of how decisions will be affected by differing personal values.
Because emissions reductions in the U.S. alone will not be adequate to avert dangerous climate change risks, U.S. leadership needs to remain actively engaged in international climate change response efforts, the committee emphasized. If the U.S. pursues strong emission reduction efforts, it will be better positioned to influence other countries to do the same. Given that climate change impacts elsewhere in the world may affect U.S. interests, it would also be prudent to help enhance the adaptive capacity of other nations, particularly developing countries.
The new report builds upon the four previous America’s Climate Choices panel reports: Advancing the Science of Climate Change; Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change; Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change; and Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change.
The America’s Climate Choices studies were sponsored by NOAA. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Committee members, who serve pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the Academies for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Academies’ conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Would they be dissapointed or happy if there is serious doubt about the greenhouse effect all togther?
What a load of crap…
“The US will be in a position to lead …” Ah, the old “moral leadership” wheeze.
Tacitly acknowledging that the actual change effected will be trivial, but if BRIC gets on board …!
Right. In their dreams. Both elephants in the room know better than to stop breathing. India and China are on the cusp of massive combustion-fueled energy demand and supply growth. Deal.
All based on inaccurate GIGO model forecasts and ignoring actual data? And the hidden agenda is?
They want to frighten us and grab our hard earned money………..
“The new report reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities”
… and exactly what is the “scientific evidence” ?????
. . . “ These processes should include transparent analyses of climate change information, an explicit discussion of uncertainties, . . .
The major uncertainty is they don’t know whether climates on Earth are changing — warming, cooling, or neither.
Had the total cost of the preparation of this report been used to accomplish something, say buying up houses in the Mississippi floodway and moving people and business out, some good might be done.
Consider this statement:
“. . .the exact magnitude and speed of reductions will depend on how much risk society deems acceptable. . .
What is the meaning of “society” in this context? Such writing and thoughts are just high class barnyard manure. Maybe they mean the President. Or the folks in the EPA. Or the Senate. Maybe they will include the question on the 2020 Census. We could have a special survey and ask everyone over 12. Or we could get rid of most of these folks after the next national election. Then the nation’s experts could get on to real problems.
Seeing as funding for blaming humanity for climate change isn’t working anymore the Climate Alarm Industrial Complex is moving on to seeking funding to address the horrible consequences of climate change from whatever cause.
“The new report reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities — especially the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere — as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades.”
Horsefeathers. Presumably, that scientific “evidence” refers to alarmists’ consensus based on predictive modelling, long since debunked by empirical evidence. How much longer will these craven institutions funded by taxpayers trot out their rancid rants?
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/scary-exaggerations-unfounded/
“This trend cannot be explained by natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun.”
____________________________________________________________
At least this part is true. Kind of.
Internal climate variability and changes in incoming solar energy remain so poorly understood that it is impossible to use them to explain anything.
Puzzling that out would take a lot of darned hard work. Blaming everything on the CO2 “bogeyman” is so much easier………
Wow again.
Am I really this stupid? This is the N.A.S. for crying out loud.
I look at the science, the temporal, observational and mathematical scales, the satellite data and know that the science is still in it’s infancy.
The climate hypothesis can’t be finalized as Hooke’s Law was.
Thanks to AW, SM, JC, WE, RM, et al. You all are doing Yeomans work.
I see this, wonder how many millions they got to publish this nonsense and wan’t to scream from the mountain tops.
This is abuse from on High.
EJ
The timing is hilarious. And the message drones like a Sitar with rusty strings.
“As the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades” And if the reasoning be true, the cooling over that last one. But look closer: as the MOST likely cause of MOST of the global warming. Which percentage? And what might the other causes be, perhaps? Not a peep.
Hansen in court, and the Alarmists go to work again, cutting and pasting.
Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California-Santa Barbara, who resigned this month from the American Physical Society after 67 years of loyal membership. His resignation letter said this:
“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” bit.ly/h2XnZ8
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy
“Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history . . .When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, and award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
Global Warming Consensus was only 75 scientists worldwide http://bit.ly/eq5GBK
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way around. . . A large number of critical documents at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.” Andrei Kapista, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
“I am convinced that current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken . . . Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
Brian H says:
May 12, 2011 at 10:19 pm
“The US will be in a position to lead …”
Too late, Australia is already leading the world, according to our Julia.
What a load of hot air. There were so many of these – Coulds=1 ,Mays=1, Possibles=3, Likelys=3.
And then this gem.
‘And because the effects of greenhouse gases can take decades to manifest and then persist for hundreds or even thousands of years, waiting for impacts to occur before taking action will likely be too late for meaningful mitigation.’
They said and proved nothing at all. And they claim to be ‘not only renowned scientists and engineers but also economists, business leaders, an ex-governor, a former congressman, and other policy experts.’
God help us.
Douglas
Wot? No science?
Aggressive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would reduce the need for adaptation.
Since water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, are they suggesting we should have another Ice Age to save the earth.
The need for adaption is admitted. So now they are experts in adaption. They believe than can control temperature, gases in the atmosphere and the degree of adaption required. They can control the budgets of every nation on earth and redistribute wealth by making everyone poor, not wealthy.
They must be Almighty these warmists.
I wonder if they can chew gum and tie shoelaces at the same time?
Do the National Academy of Sciences write this crap for the purpose of treating insomniacs.
Clearly the NAS, the Royal Society, the Australian Academy of Science, and all their kindred societies around the world are full of gullible idiots who have no concept of how science should be done and are easily conned by a handful of climate alarmists.
Zzzzzzzzz…
Reminds me of a high pressure salesman trying to push me inti a really bad deal.
“as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades.”
Shouldn’t they say ‘prior to the last decade’, or have I missed some warming in the last 10 years?
Don’t forget that these organisations are so attached to the AGW scam that they simply cannot afford to take a different stance. Egg on face. Let NAS gain a new board of directors and maybe there would be a new approach.
Yawn. Don’t think you’ll find many people are still listening to this re- warmed drivel….
There’s a huge amount of firepower behind this report and it was commissioned by Congress. I have to say I’m very disappointed in this outcome and I fear this report will weaken the stance of Congress in rolling back the alarmists.
Warming? Not much warming going on down here in Oz.
“Cold blast has country shivering
May 13, 2011 – 4:24PM
The recent blast of cold air is having a wide-reaching effect, with unseasonable cold from Tasmania to the northern tropics.
It has been at least 30 years since a series of cold fronts has had such an impact this early in the year, affecting almost every state and territory, Brett Dutschke, senior meteorologist at weatherzone.co.au said.
It’s been more than 50 years since Sydney, Canberra and even Mount Isa have been as cold this early in the year.”
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/cold-blast-has-country-shivering-20110513-1elx6.html
They aren’t alarmists, they have bad science and professionals are blind to temperature.
Finding the cause of urban heat islands and why they use massive energy reponding to them showed solar emfs interacting with building exteriors. The result is extreme heat generated atmospherically all year round. We couldn’t see it before.
Here is a link to infrared images including time-lapsed infrared videos showing buildings being radiated right after sunrise. Heat rises from building development and a the link will show the National Weather Service video of winds moving across the country. http://www.thermoguy.com/blog/index.php?itemid=59