It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This is for readers who wanted one-stop, updatable introductory posts on various key topics. Please do add any key impacts you think I’ve missed — but focus on those with a scientific source.
In this post, I will examine the key impacts we face by 2100 if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path. I will focus primarily on:
Staggeringly high temperature rise, especially over land — some 15°F over much of the United States
Sea level rise of 5 feet, rising some 6 to 12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter
Dust Bowls over the U.S. SW and many other heavily populated regions around the globe
Massive species loss on land and sea — 50% or more of all life
Unexpected impacts — the fearsome “unknown unknowns”
More severe hurricanes — especially in the Gulf
Equally tragic, as a 2009 NOAA-led study found, these impacts be “largely irreversible for 1000 years.”
It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.
The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”
Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.
Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”
Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”
After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.
The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”
That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”
In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”
Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, many in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate. CBS reporter Scott Pelley went so far as to compare climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.
“If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel,” Pelley asked, “am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” he said in an interview on March 23 with CBS News’s PublicEye blog.
He added that the whole idea of impartial journalism just didn’t work for climate stories. “There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible,” he said.
Pelley’s comments ignored an essential point: that 30 years ago, the media were certain about the prospect of a new ice age. And that is only the most recent example of how much journalists have changed their minds on this essential debate.
Some in the media would probably argue that they merely report what scientists tell them, but that would be only half true.
Journalists decide not only what they cover; they also decide whether to include opposing viewpoints. That’s a balance lacking in the current “debate.”
This isn’t a question of science. It’s a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science.
World renowned climatologists as recently as the 1970s were convinced that the world was entering a prolonged period of global cooling. Newsweek reported in April of 1975 that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines were sure to result from the global cooling.
Prominent scientists at the time were even making wild propositions about the drastic steps world governments should take to counter the cooling trend. In some of the more extreme cases, there were plans to divert Arctic rivers and to cover the poles with black soot to melt the polar ice caps to stave off the next ice age.
An article titled "Fire and Ice," published by the Business and Media Institute, outlines four major swings in media hysteria concerning global climate change. In the early parts of the 20th century, The New York Times ran several stories about the signs of a new ice age. Then, in the 1930s, there was a series of articles about record-breaking heat waves with no end in site. This panic was followed in the mid 1970s by even bolder assertions of another impending ice age.
Originally posted by dodadoom
reply to post by infolurker
The earth was flat once but we made the leap of faith and basically
admitted we we're wrong about it in the first place didn't we.
No not much has changed then I see. We cant admit weakness and
learn new things I see. Way too critical.
I know, its the NWO order thing.
Ever think they might not care HOW we get killed off?
P.S. Theres no way you could of read all that info before you posted
the same post you throw up on every one of these threads.
Thats all I asked of you in the first place before you comment, was it not?
[edit on 14-4-2009 by dodadoom]
Originally posted by dodadoom
Since it seems like we are still having a debate over whether
global warming even exists or not, heres some good info!
All one has to do is admit to the dwindling water reserves of the SW,
to see the bigger picture. There are numerous places this is happening NOW!
Forests: High temperatures and drought lead to the death of millions of pinyon pines in the Southwest. Bark beetles, an invasive insect, thrive in these warmer temperatures and destroy the forests. It has also resulted in four times the number of major fires that were experienced two decades ago.
There is also high confidence that many semi-arid areas (e.g. Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and north-eastern Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change.
Warming in western mountains is projected to cause decreased snowpack, more winter flooding and
Originally posted by dodadoom
Um, in case no one has noticed the west and southwest have been in a
severe prolonged drought. While it is true everything you said, GW
exacerbates the problem. What you are refering to is mans greed for
more wanton development in unsustainable areas, I would have to say.
....
This says snow pack levels are normal! Wheewho!
It seems like the precip is more normal the past couple years now here.
That would either coincide with more water vapor in the atmosphere or
more normal weather patterns. Either way I'm not going to argue because we need the moisture here!
Forests: High temperatures and drought lead to the death of millions of pinyon pines in the Southwest. Bark beetles, an invasive insect, thrive in these warmer temperatures and destroy the forests. It has also resulted in four times the number of major fires that were experienced two decades ago.
www.nwf.org...
[edit on 14-4-2009 by dodadoom]