California has begun, through the long-delayed AB 32 signed in 2006 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to implement a carbon cap-and-trade system that would reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
That represents a modest but not insignificant 17 percent cut from where the state’s emission would be without the legislative action. That was the same goal that the Obama administration tried to set nationally in 2009 and 2010, prior to opposition by Republicans in Congress.
The problem is that it is probably too late. A major study was released this week, and found, “The latest carbon dioxide emissions continue to track the high end of emission scenarios, making it even less likely global warming will stay below 2 °C. A shift to a 2 °C pathway requires immediate significant and sustained global mitigation, with a probable reliance on net negative emissions in the longer term.”
As Time Magazine noted in an article this morning, “It’s not a good sign for the international effort to stop global warming that most of the news so far generated out of the U.N. climate summit being held this week in Doha has not been made by the diplomats and delegates actually involved in the negotiations. Instead, the scientists on the sidelines are generating the headlines.”
Global emissions of carbon dioxide hit a record high in 2011, the study found, with an increase of about 3 percent over the previous year.
The result is that scientists who were hoping that global warming could be limited to about 2 degrees Celsius now believe that is increasingly unlikely.
Part of the problem is that of the top ten polluters on the planet, only the US and Germany reduced their carbon dioxide emissions.
China remains the world’s bigger carbon dioxide polluter, accounting for 28 percent of all global emissions, and the US was second at 16%. There is, of course, a huge caveat there, as the Chinese have a far lower per-capita emission than the US.
“The level of CO2 has increased by 41% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution – enough to help warm the planet by 1.5˚ F since 1850,” Time reports.
The report found that the increase in emissions has already boosted temperatures by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (the 2 degrees Celsius), “considered the maximum amount of warming that the planet might be able to endure without serious consequences.”
The bleak news means that no matter what we do in the future, we are likely to face catastrophic change.
“These latest figures come amidst climate talks in Doha,” said Corinne Le Quere, the director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and a member of the Global Carbon Project. “But with emissions continuing to grow, it’s as if no one is listening to the entire scientific community.”
“In 1997, most of the world agreed to an international treaty, known as the Kyoto Protocol, that required developed countries such as the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 5 percent when compared with the baseline year of 1990. But countries that are still developing, including China and India, were not limited by how much carbon dioxide they expelled. The United States never ratified the treaty,” the Huffington Post reported.
Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in Canada which was not part of the study, said: “We are losing control of our ability to get a handle on the global warming problem.”
Critics, in particular, noted the lack of discussion on the issue during the Presidential debates. But with critical drought, storms and the Sandy Superstorm, the public might be awakening, albeit too late, to the realities.
A poll released right after the election showed that 68 percent of Americans see climate change as a “serious problem,” according to a poll conducted by Rasmussen, noteworthy in part due to the conservative leaning of recent Rasmussen polls.
Of the 1,000 likely voters surveyed, 68 percent said they thought climate change is a somewhat serious or very serious problem, while 30 percent of respondents said it was not a serious problem.
That polling shows a huge shift in the public’s perception of the issue. In 2009, a similar poll found that only 46 percent of Americans thought climate change a serious issue.
In July in a similar poll by the Washington Post, 60 percent said they believed climate change was real.
As the Huffington Post reported in early November, “It’s not just American voters that are becoming more convinced that climate change is a real problem. Some Republican politicians are also growing concerned. Earlier this year, New Jersey Governor and once-rumored VP candidate Chris Christie admitted that ‘climate change is real’ and ‘impacting our state.’ “
The belief is that the extreme weather in the US, with the hurricanes, record high temperatures and wildfires, are drawing the connection for the voters.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, “Hurricane Sandy provided a wake-up call about the impacts of climate change. Recent extreme weather and climate events make clear that ignoring climate change will be costly in human, environmental, and economic terms for the United States and the world.”
Meanwhile, in California, after the initial auction purchasing of credits on November 14 was deemed a bust, companies finally purchased all allowances that went up for sale with each allowance, at an average price of $10.09, allowing the buyer to emit 1 ton of CO2 in 2013.
Altogether, the auction raised about $300 million, much of which will be sent back to regulated electric utilities and then to customers as a “climate dividend.”
Time reports, “That $10.09 a ton might not sound like much – and indeed, it’s only a little bit above the legally-mandated floor price for the auction – but California regulators were relieved that all the carbon allowances on sale were finally purchased. (Had the auction been under-subscribed, it would have sent the signal that companies didn’t believe the state would actually follow through with capping carbon.)”
Time further reports that the low price on the market might be a good thing for the environment, quoting environmental economist Robert Stavins, “On the one hand, it is very good news that the allowance price is as low as it is, because this is indicative of the market’s prediction of what the marginal cost of abatement will be. Lower cost is good news for the California economy. Of course, low prices mean smaller funds raised by the auction ($233 million raised by the 2013 auction, and $56 million by the 2015 auction). However, given that the fundamental purpose of the auction is to cap emissions through the cap-and-trade system, not to raise revenues for the state, this doesn’t appear to be bad news either.”
On the other hand, Mr. Stavins argues, “The low auction prices might also indicate that companies are worried that state legislators in California may end up backing out on the carbon cap if they become concerned about the economic cost of cap-and-trade.”
Time further notes, “AB 32 is in its early stages, and it only covers one U.S. state. Meanwhile, prospects for concentrated national or global action on climate change remain dim. But California’s economy is the 9th largest in the world, and it has shown a willingness in the past to push the rest of the country on environmental action, ranging from air pollution to fuel efficiency. Even if the state’s cap-and-trade program is still a work in progress, it has the potential to be an important experiment.”
Still, given the immensity of the problem, this seems an awful lot like too little, too late.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A Norwegian ship is moving liquified natural gas to energy-starved Japan traveling from Norway through the Arctic above Russia. The trip takes three weeks less than it would if the gas took its normal route though the Mediterranean Sea, the Suez Canal and around Asia.
Global warming is not all bad.
Also, we can thank free enterprise and the private sector for unleashing a global supply of shale gas… a fuel made cheaper by the increased supply, and that is an order of magnitude cleaner than coal. Again we have proof that capitalism fixes problems, improves lives, lowers costs… while giverment continues to fail.
You point to a single example? Really? Is the drought in the midwest a good thing too?
[i]”…companies finally purchased all allowances that went up for sale with each allowance, at an average price of $10.09, allowing the buyer to emit 1 ton of CO2 in 2013.
Altogether, the auction raised about $300 million, much of which will be sent back to regulated electric utilities and then to customers as a “climate dividend.”[/i]
This is why I think cap-and-trade is a pointless endeavor. We need to focus on flood control, sea level issues, and preparation for the increasing likelihood of climate-related natural disasters. But just shifting money from carbon emitters back to utility customers accomplishes nothing whatsoever.
“Really? Is the drought in the midwest a good thing too?”
Is this the first drought in the midwest? In the 1950’s there were 10 hurricanes on the east coast.
Just pointing out the other side of Boone’s point.
[i]You point to a single example? Really?[/i]
There are other examples.
Let’s put it this way, global cooling would be just as difficult in terms of adaption and economic impacts. The alarmists will always focus on all the stories of tragedy and crisis (e.g., polar bears are starving because of not enough ice – or – other animals are starving because of longer and colder winters).
But nothing is all bad. And everything has tradeoffs.
There are a lot of people living in cold climates that are looking forward to a bit warmer weather.
I will add one more “positive”… developing a collective mindset for the weather being more volatile. Adaption should not be a singular pursuit, but a constant consideration.
Related to this, we need to stop our giverment from spending every last dime on our growing entitlement system so that we have the resources to build and rebuild infrastructure after natural disasters. Albert Brooks (yes, the comedian) wrote a book “2030”. In that plot, the US is completely broke… spending 100% of GDP on entitlements and debt service. Then a massive 9.2 earthquake hits LA. The US does not have enough money to rebuild, and so it sells LA to China. In a few years, unless our country’s direction changes, I think we will move 2030 to the non-fiction shelf.
The biggest natural disaster for the US is the direction of our giverment.
Jeff:
“giverment” you crack me up.
Here’s one for you:
OweBlamer
“But nothing is all bad. And everything has tradeoffs.”
I agree on that point. But your analysis is not an effort to weigh the balance of positive and negative impacts.
[quote]Global warming is melting Greenland’s ice, extending its shipping season and revealing massive oil and mineral deposits. This is making possible a mining boom and the royalties that go with it, which in turn is convincing Greenland’s people that eventually they may not need the £370m in annual subsidies they get from Denmark—more than £6,000 a person. Which itself is convincing Greenlanders that soon they may not need Denmark at all.[/quote]
David: when you say ” Is the drought in the midwest a good thing too?” with the underlying premise that global warming ’caused’ the drought in the midwest, you are veering strongly into the realm of non-science. Here is a good overview of the Midwest drought as understood by climate scientists: [url]http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/White_etal_jc_2008.pdf[/url]
Once you find the words ‘global warming’ (see pages 529-530) you will see that any direct linkage to the current drought needs to be couched in very, very qualified terms.
There will probably be another dustbowl-level decade-long drought in the Midwest, when the atmospheric conditions they describe in the conclusion will again prevail. The impact of that drought will be affected by the changes in agricultural practices that we implemented — thanks to the role of a strong federal government and some very effective, ongoing federal programs. The longer-term crisis affecting the Midwest is the depletion of the Ogallala aquifer.
Conservatives and liberals should be able to agree on the need for adaptation, because we can see the catastrophes. And Americans tend to agree that catastrophic events are best prevented and dealt with by the federal government.
[i]OweBlamer[/i]
Ha! I like that.
Are we ruled by the “OweBlamer In Chief”?
Reports out of the UK… since the Gordon Brown administration raised the incomce tax level on British millionaires to 50%, 10,000 millionaires left the country.
The tax increase was supposed to raise £2.5 billion more revenue, but the net effect has been for tax revenue to drop.
[quote]In 2009-2010 British millionaires contributed about £13.4 billion to the public coffers, or just under 9% of the total tax liability of all taxpayers that year. At the 50% rate, the shrunken pool yielded £6.5 billion, or about 4.4%.[/quote]
But that won’t stop OweBlamer and our giverment from going down the same path.
The topic of this thread is climate change…
There were serious articles 40 years ago about the disasterous consequences if global warming caused glaciers to melt. Now they’re melting quickly, the oceans are warming, and we have huge storms.
If lots of infrastructure is destroyed as a result, commerce as we know it might disappear, i.e., become impossible, and we’ll be living as we did before industrialization.
One one hand, we are being coerced to reduce our carbon footprint. On the other hand, we are being urged to expand our electronic footprint. With a “Mickey Mouse” sized carbon footprint and a “Goofy” sized electronic footprint(thank you Crown Castle for your 29 additional cell phone antennae within city limits!), we will all know the hypocritical environmental laity of Davis by their “limping!”
[i]Conservatives and liberals should be able to agree on the need for adaptation, because we can see the catastrophes. And Americans tend to agree that catastrophic events are best prevented and dealt with by the federal government. [/i]
Agree 100% with this.
But politicized global warming hyperbole (both sides) will work against us for motivating the necessary cooperation.
[i]The topic of this thread is climate change…[/i]
Our ideological climate has a direct impact on our ability to adapt to and respond to weather.
[i]If lots of infrastructure is destroyed as a result, commerce as we know it might disappear, i.e., become impossible, and we’ll be living as we did before industrialization.[/i]
Well, that should make all the leftist environmental wackos very happy… those that envision a world with far fewer people wearing reed kilts, living in communal solar-powered hemp yurts, eating a equal-measured quantity of wild tubers and sustainable rodents.
Jeff, the environmentalists who want massive population drops through death and deep de-industrialization through poverty are a figment of your admittedly colorful imagination. (“Sustainable rodents” is cute.) I’ll assume you understand these are the things environmentalists are trying to prevent and you’re just sharing your wit.
Shale gas, as you mention, may help the climate. Or it may hurt. There is now scientific debate with a group at Cornell calculating the effective carbon footprint of shale gas rivals coal because the cracked rocks end up releasing methane into the atmosphere. Methane is around 25 times as climate disrupting as CO2. Also, warm weather may be nice for some but increasingly unstable weather and severe storms – another effect of greenhouse gases – are nice for no one. Global cooling would of course bring us off the equilibrium our econsystems and populations centers are built around, with severe consequences, but so does global warming which is the problem we are confronting now. Rivers running purple would also cause problems but that doesn’t make the real problem of global warming insignificant.
I do agree with you that adaptation is essential, and the govt can play a role. An example is Energy Commission funded studies of sea level changes in California along with mitigation practices now required for new construction by the Coastal Commission and the Bay Conservation Development Commission. Essentially, they say, plan for potential sea level rise and wave action when building (that potential being informed by studies and maps), with use of land grading, seawalls, and collecting property levees into a pool that will fund additional mitigation as needed (where it’s more cost effective than assuming the worst at the get go and over-mitigating.)
[quote]Jeff, the environmentalists who want massive population drops through death and deep de-industrialization through poverty are a figment of your admittedly colorful imagination. [/quote]
But…but…but…Agenda 21!!!!
Eagle eye:
“There were serious articles 40 years ago about the disasterous consequences if global warming caused glaciers to melt. Now they’re melting quickly, the oceans are warming, and we have huge storms.”
That’s funny, I remember in the 70’S all the lefty rage was about the coming ice age. They got that one wrong so why should we believe them now?
[i]I remember in the 70’S all the lefty rage was about the coming ice age.
[/i]
You remember wrong. Google it. Here, I’ll help: [url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm[/url]
“Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970’s global cooling fears were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Despite the fact that there was no UN IPCC organization created to promote global cooling in the 1970s and despite the fact that there was nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars in funding spent today to promote man-made global warming, fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media.
Newsweek Magazine even used the climate “tipping point” argument in 1975. Newsweek wrote April 28, 1975 article: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
But on October 24, 2006, Newsweek admitted it erred in predicting a coming ice age in the 1970’s. (NYT: Obama’s global warming promoting science czar Holdren ‘warned of a coming ice age’ in 1971.”
Don, shall I post more articles? There are many……
Rusty, scientists and the media have been involved in a massive scrubbing effort to wipe away that embarrassing stain of the 1970s era global cooling scare… so they can better defend their absolutism and collectivism on their assertions that industrialized man is killing the planet my making it too hot.
So, they now claim that “few scientists subscribed to the global cooling theories”. Well, I was around during that time, and I clearly remember it being all the scientific rage of the times.
It is an “inconvenient truth” that they have ping-ponged on this topic. It is also an inconvenient truth that we have all the email evidence that the science has been politicized by the very scientists that demand that they are above politics.
Funny, if they would just admit to being confused about the weather and that politics are playing a part, I would probably trust their theories more.
“NYT: Obama’s global warming promoting science czar Holdren ‘warned of a coming ice age’ in 1971.”
Oweblamer’s own so-called expert.
“You remember wrong. Google it.”
There are some theories that changes in the salinity in the ocean as the result of melting freshwater icebergs and glaciers could divert the gulf stream south, which ironically would lead to a potential ice age. I know there were papers on this in the 1990s, not sure if anyone still believes that possible.
Rusty: I’m trying to figure out why you think this point matters. Let us accept that at one point some scientists believed that climate change meant cooling rather than warming. All evidence is that we are warming and that CO2 is contributing it. At this point what is the point of questioning what seems common sense?
Jeff:
Rusty: [i]”Don, shall I post more articles? There are many…..”[/i]
No, don’t bother. You’re wrong. Read this if you like. I don’t debate denialists any more. [url]https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf[/url]
Jeff: [i]Rusty, [b]scientists[/b] and the media [b]have been involved in a massive scrubbing effort [/b]to wipe away that embarrassing stain of the 1970s era global cooling scare… so they can better defend their absolutism and collectivism on their assertions that industrialized man is killing the planet my making it too hot. [/i]
That is incorrect. Why do you relentlessly, consistently disparage scientists?
At this point, rather than try to debate global warming with either of you, I think I’ll just state when you are making an incorrect assertion. Previous discussions on the topic have clearly gotten nowhere in changing your views, regardless of the facts and analyses that have been presented.
Don wrote:
> I think cap-and-trade is a pointless endeavor.
> We need to focus on flood control, sea level
> issues, and preparation… But just shifting
> money from carbon emitters back to utility
> customers accomplishes nothing whatsoever.
Most of the big “Global Warming”/”Global Climate Change” players don’t care if the earth is warming, cooling or even “changing”, they only want to make money and cap and trade (along with a long list of other things that have been sold as ways to save the planet) will make a lot of people rich.
There are about 7 Billion people in the world and about 38 Million (~1/2 of 1%) of them live in California. Does anyone (other than the people that sell $8 LED light bulbs and $80K Electric cars or the others that have found a way to get rich off “climate change”) really think that half of one percent of the “GLOBAL” population can really make a few small changes and change the “GLOBAL” climate?
P.S. I’m not a climate scientist and I have no idea if the globe is warming or cooling, but anyone that says scientists were not predicting another ice age in the 70’s is either lying, or was not watching or reading many newspapers or magazines back then.
Common sense is apparently the rarest commodity in your benighted burg !
[i]Why do you relentlessly, consistently disparage scientists?[/i]
I don’t disparage them any more than bidilin or Mr. Toad disparage people working in my profession. They are simply human and capable of all the mistakes and transgressions of any other human. In general, I don’t trust absolutists in matters as complex as weather any more than you would trust religious absolutist on similar complex matters… especially when we find emails proving scientists colluding to filter information to protect a theory that is more self-serving to the scientific community.
I do not doubt that a percentage of the Democrat vote derived from the global warming scare-fest and the uninformed voter connection that big bad business is the culprit.
Is it just irony that scientists benefit more economically from a big government President and Party being in power? I think it is an inconvenient truth that they do.
Note too that this global warming scare fest gives the big liberals in power the cover to implement more regulations (note the significant increase in EPA regulations and fines since Obama took the throne) and to reduce energy exploration and to punish industry.
So, yeah… I am sort of down on any scientist on the “I am absolutely sure that industrialized man is causing the earth to over-heat” bandwagon.
“..[i].anyone that says scientists were not predicting another ice age in the 70’s is either lying, or was not watching or reading many newspapers or magazines back then.[/i]”
I’m not lying. I provided links. Newsweek and Time aren’t “scientists.” I would guess most scientists would agree that representation of science issues in the popular media is poorly done, misleading, often distorted, and sensationalist. The suggestion that ‘most’ or even a significant number of scientists ‘predicted’ that there was going to be ‘another ice age’ was a misleading, distorted, sensationalist story in a couple of prominent news magazines. It didn’t represent mainstream views of climate scientists then, even in the absence of the massive amounts of data we have now.
Jeff: [i]I don’t disparage them any more than bidilin or Mr. Toad disparage people working in my profession.[/i]
Yes you do. Constantly. It’s that simple. We can’t have any discussion about climate change on this blog without your misrepresentations and disparagement of science and scientists.
Don, are you making a case that 100% of scientists should be considered beyond reproach? How CAN there be any debate in this case? Seems to me that you’re forming a bubble and a new protected class out of scientists as a group. Next thing I will be hearing that scientists are victims and I am guilty of a hate crime.
Come on now… I think we can use a bit thicker skin.
NO, Jeff. I have not made any ridiculous claim about 100% of anyone being considered anything. This is my point. When David writes an article about climate change, it is a foregone conclusion that you and rusty will make comments disparaging the consensus viewpoint among scientists, ridiculing any assertions about increased global temperature, etc. In this case you made the very broad allegations of a “massive scrubbing effort” and then go on about “their absolutism and collectivism” and other such alleged perfidies.
I know of very few scientists who are “absolutist” about anything. If anything, scientists tend to be very cautious in their public utterances. What your point is about collectivism, I have no idea. Any action by any government is a collective practice, I suppose. But it’s just more conservative boilerplate the way you’ve used it here.
How can there be any debate in this case? Try discussing the science, or debating the policies, rather than vilifying those who do the research. Your comments about government being the source of science funding don’t further any debate. Calling people “leftist environmentalist wackos” doesn’t further debate. Essentially what you do is subtle ad hominems along with unfounded allegations (who is “scrubbing” anything?).
There are, as I’ve said before, very reasonable debates to be had about policies regarding mitigation vs. adaptation, the likely efficacy of proposed legislation, the likelihood of anything productive coming out of international conferences, the costs vs benefits of various proposals. The problem is, it’s hard to debate the best strategies when I can’t even tell if you think there is a problem. The contemporary Republican party opposes every aspect of climate-change policy, and their practice is to deny the science rather than propose alternatives. That makes it hard to have a debate.
Don, fair enough. But you have to understand that from Rusty and my perspective, there is an impenetrable wall. In terms of debate, it manifests similar to how the secular left respond when debating religion. How can a layperson debate a pious religious scholar on his platform? How can Rusty or I debate a scientist on his platform? Because you cannot debate with the wall, your only choice is to encourage some debate from within. I am frustrated that there is so little debate from within. It looks and smells fishy to me.
My sense is that we are stuck on group think as it relates to global warming theories. You absolutely know the level of politics involved in scientific circles. Research monies are at stake. Egos are at stake. I simply do not trust any 95% consensus view of a theory this damn complex… with so many variables from so many scientific disciplines.
I open up my science magazines and every article is just more anthropogenic global warming is a foregone conclusion. There is no more debating the theory, only what should be done. The media regurgitates it. The ignorant voting populous sucks it into their collective conventional “wisdom”.
As if that is not bad enough, there are significant political/ideological consequences. I have no doubt that hurricane Sandy and the left’s successful demonization of business and industry pushed the Obama and Dem vote over the top. That was science helping to get Dems elected. Was it circumstantial? Well, the unfortunate inconvenient truth is that science benefits from having big-government Democrats in office. So, at least it is very suspect.
The big problem as I see it… scientists are being stubborn in their position that they can say or do anything in the name of science, and any policy that derives from it is not their responsibility. How nice is that position? It would be like a banker developing a new legal investment security that injects risk into the nation’s financial system without to own any responsibility for the damage it might cause.
From my perspective, Science has stepped into a significant political/ideological debate with their theories of human-caused global warming, and because of that, they are now free to be targeted as political tools. They can either man-up and defend themselves by taking a stand on the policies derived from their theories, or try to create a protected victims group that people like me will continue to ignore.
I have no vendetta against scientists in general. I wish I had had the brain wiring to have been one myself, because I am fascinated by the work of many scientists. I am a consumer of science… maybe at an eight grade science readling level, but a consumer nonetheless.
Aside from better preparing to adapt to the changes–almost all of them terrible–that human-caused global-warming is bringing about, the best idea all along has been a carbon tax.
There is an excellent piece in today’s online version of [b]The New Yorker[/b] ([url]http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/12/10/121210taco_talk_kolbert[/url]) explaining why that is what we ought to do. Here is an excerpt: [quote]
Not long ago, the Congressional Research Service reported that, over the next decade, [u]a relatively modest carbon tax could cut the projected federal deficit in half[/u]. Such a tax would be imposed not just on gasoline but on all fossil fuels—from the coal used to generate electricity to the diesel used to run tractors—so it would affect the price of nearly everything, including food and manufactured goods. To counter its regressive effects, the tax could be used as a substitute for other, even more regressive taxes, or, alternatively, some of the proceeds could be returned to low-income families as rebates (although, of course, this would cut down on the amount that could go toward deficit reduction).
Shortly after the C.R.S. report came out, the conservative American Enterprise Institute teamed up with its liberal counterpart, the Brookings Institution, to host a seminar on the subject, a collaboration that prompted the Wall Street Journal’s Web site to declare, “CARBON TAX IDEA GAINS WONKISH ENERGY.” “I think the impossible may be moving to the inevitable without ever passing through the probable,” Bob Inglis, a former Republican representative from South Carolina and a carbon-tax backer, told the Associated Press.
Perhaps because a carbon tax makes so much sense—researchers at M.I.T. recently described it as a possible “win-win-win” response to several of the country’s most pressing problems—economists on both ends of the political spectrum have championed it. [/quote]
Don wrote:
> I’m not lying. I provided links.
You provided a link that from a pro climate change site that handpicked 68 studies over 14 years that had 7 studies predicting cooling, and 42 predicting warming.
> Newsweek and Time aren’t “scientists.” I would guess most scientists
> would agree that representation of science issues in the popular
> media is poorly done, misleading, often distorted, and sensationalist.
If this was true why didn’t any of the almost 90% of scientists (according to your link) come forward in the 70’s to dispute the claims that were not only in Time and Newsweek, but were covered multiple times on PBS as well as major networks.
A agree with you that the popular media coverage of science is “poorly done, misleading, often distorted, and sensationalist” and I would go further and say that almost everything in the popular media is “poorly done, misleading, often distorted, and sensationalist”.
Al Gore has made over $100 million trying to “save” us from Global Climate Change (and his partners and investors at Kleiner Perkins have made even more) and Rush Limbaugh has made over $400 million bashing Global Climate Change (and the radio stations selling ads on his program have made even more).
It is unfortunate that something as basic as the “climate” has been made in to a political right vs. left issue. Al Gore is just trying to get richer just like Rush Limbaugh and both of them will say anything to get their (non-thinking left and right wing) “base” fired up so they (and the people they work for) make even more money.
Jeff,
I think you are confusing what the popular press reports with what the scientific consensus is.
The popular press (Time, Newsweek, etc.) picks up stories and promotes them largely based on how well, the story sells (good old capitalism, you might say) such that dramatic stories get a disproportionate amount of coverage, as do scientists who venture to the edges of the research field into more speculative areas, and have personalities that like to dramatize their research and its implications (sells better than some dull looking guy droning on about his research and the uncertainties he is addressing; even though this guy may be advancing the state of the art more!).
The global cooling hypothesis in the 1970s was a hypothesis/theory that was being explored by some climate scientists at the time. Although most of the scientists researching this hypothesis at that time were careful to point out that it was just a hypothesis; the popular press did not not necessarily relay this qualifier, as it lessens the drama. And of course there are always a few extreme scientists who promoted the hypothesis as being more certain than it really was by the scientific community at large. At no time was there a consensus within the scientific community that global cooling was in fact occurring; it never got past the hypothesis/tentative theory stage. In fact, one could use this example as an indicator of the auto-self-corrective nature of scientific research; as this hypothesis was explored evidence was uncovered that weakened, rather than strengthened the hypothesis, and meanwhile the investigations had contributed to a better understanding of how earth’s climate works (which is still not completed, by the way).
By contrast, there is now virtual certainty from many lines of empirical evidence and observations (not just theory) that global warming is in fact underway; and an emerging scientific consensus that CO2 and other gases are significant contributors to the observed warming; though there is still lots of room for legitimate disagreement as to how much various factors, such as CO2 level increases, are contributing to the observed warming, and how much other factors may be at play (including natural variations).
jimt: [i]…and an emerging scientific consensus that CO2 and other gases are significant contributors to the observed warming…[/i]
…and that human activity is the only plausible explanation for the increase in CO2 concentrations.
The average global temperature has been rising: fact
The level of C02 in the atmosphere has been increasing: fact
Humans are the primary contributor to the increase in C02 in the atmosphere: fact.
These are all facts we should agree on 100%.
However, here is a list of other facts that punch numerous holes in climatologists’ computer models for “proving” C02 is the ONLY material cause of global warming:
1. The global average temperatures of the Medieval Warming Period are still in dispute. If the average global temperature was the same or higher 1000 years ago as it has been over the last few decades, then non-C02 level causes should be given much higher weighting and consideration.
2.NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space much earlier than computer models predict.
3.Arctic sea ice declined due largely to changes in local wind patterns, not global warming. There is a weak theory for how global warming produces the changing wind patterns that if wrong, punches holes in the computer models.
4.Antarctic sea ice has been expanding to record levels/size. The model theory explaining this is also very weak.
5.C02 is a very weak greenhouse gas and even at current increased levels, it exists in very, very small concentrations (.04 of 1 percent of all gases present). Conversely, water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (about 95 percent of all greenhouse gas) has increase to roughly correlate with the rise in average global temperature. The theories for the causation for increased water vapor are weak and computer models don’t do enough to account for it and the causes.
6.The theorized mechanism for C02 being a greenhouse gas would result in a higher average global dewpoint and specific humidity. However, there has been little to no change in dewpoint and specific humidity. The computer models just ignore this fact.
7.There is not enough understanding of astrophysical causation of climate change. For example, the computer models don’t account well enough for solar activity and planetary gravitational impacts to our weather.
8.The oceans contain the vast majority of the earth’s carbon, and when the oceans warm they release carbon. The computer models assume that the greenhouse effect is warming the oceans. However, if the rise in ocean temperature is being caused by other factors, this shoots gaping holes in the accuracy of the models.
I watched a program last night on the problem with an explosion of giant jellyfish blooms that have migrated from China to Japan to damage the fishing industry (billions of giant jelly fish prevent fisherman from using their nets). Of course, this program sucked up and regurgitated the brain-dead alarmist template: industrialized man is responsible for global warming that is increasing ocean temperatures that is changing the jellyfish production and migration patterns. All of this was blasted into the mind of anyone watching the program, even with all the holes in the climate prediction models and the fact that scientists had not yet proved the cause for the jellyfish population explosion and migration changes.
This is the problem.
Hype and alarmism played by the media based on incomplete scientific theories regurgitated as fact.
Jeff: Nobody says “[i]C02 is the ONLY material cause of global warming.”[/i]
NASA has a useful link that reviews some of the areas of uncertainty about forcings and feedbacks: [url]http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/[/url]
[i]a pro climate change site that handpicked 68 studies
[/i]
There you go again. Of course. They clearly intentionally skewed the results. Attack the messenger. SOP for Jeff Boone.
So here we have agreement:
[i]The average global temperature has been rising: fact
The level of C02 in the atmosphere has been increasing: fact
Humans are the primary contributor to the increase in C02 in the atmosphere: fact.
These are all facts we should agree on 100%. [/i]
So, would reducing the output of CO2 be a desirable goal, then?
[i]a pro climate change site that handpicked 68 studies [/i]
Don, that wasn’t me. I think YOU are attacking the messenger even when he is not delivering the message.
[i]So, would reducing the output of CO2 be a desirable goal, then?[/i]
Sure, but without alarmism and hype and the resultant destruction of jobs and prosperity-producing industry. Global warming hype has led to a general acceptance and a lack of outrage over the over-reach of the EPA over the last four years.
[i]Don, that wasn’t me. [/i]
Aack! Sorry.
Global warming hype irritates me, and when I encounter it within my own area of expertise I do sometimes correct inaccuracies. [url]http://redwoodbarn.com/DE_Junequestions.html[/url]
But it’s also a reality that there is a massive campaign of disinformation on the ‘other’ side.
If there is general agreement about the things we’ve listed, in spite of uncertainties and refinements needed in the models (which are just tools, not theories), then how do you propose policy-makers begin to achieve reduction of CO2?
My preference is things like increased mileage standards for America’s auto fleet, for example.
More to the point, since I think we should focus on adaptation in our deployment of resources, how do you think the federal government and international agencies can best approach adaptation from a policy standpoint.
[i]Aack! Sorry.[/i]
No harm. I have done the same.
[i]how do you propose policy-makers begin to achieve reduction of CO2?[/i]
Think carrot not stick. Think economic and industrial support, not economic and industrial punishment.
I would focus on…
Government guaranteed loan programs that partner with the private banking industry to deliver subsidized capital to small businesses to help them convert to sustainable green energy sources.
Tax incentives for companies (including auto makers) to invest in R&D and product development for sustainable energy and green energy alternatives.
I would basically encourage free markets to convert and migrate to more sustainable and green energy use.
But I would not implement regulations and policy that attempts to force this if it risks damaging or impairing economic growth.
I would not tax carbon emissions because that will result in unintended consequences of unnatural and unhealthy market responses. It will change the competitive landscape for industries and companies in ways that are disconnected from the rules of supply and demand. It will cause feeding frenzies where there is money to be made, and service starvation in areas that would and should otherwise be covered.
Healthy, profitable companies will spend more on R&D. Consumers value green and alternative energy and they will purchase products as long as the premium paid is close enough to the cost of products made with or requiring conventional energy sources. We need to open up federal lands to oil and gas production so that we can reduce the cost of conventional energy so US industry can better compete in global markets and grow profitability. We should provide government funding as matching funds for R&D to convert to sustainable and renewable green energy sources and products.
My approach, and this is the way I would approach most social change, is to stop with the government central-control, behavior-changing direct approach to try and engineer social behavior… because it generally does not work and causes unintended consequences that the government then has to implement another central-control direct approach, and another and another… until we have a mess of unintended consequences… basically do away with that mindset that we can force the horse to drink… a regulated amount, only during a regulated time, at a regulated location… different if he is a woman or minority owned horse… instead of leading that horse to the water we want him to drink, and provide him an extra carrot to help motivate him to use his own free will in ways that we think benefits society.
The difference in these two approaches is nuanced, but vast in terms of our ideological views.
Conservatives like low pollution and pristine nature as well as liberals. But we are not willing to give up our country’s freedoms and prosperities responding to alarmists. Also, we know that government generally does a much worse job effecting positive change through direct control than it does so providing a framework and incentives to guide free decision-making.
I’d like to steer clear of the alarmist v.s. denialist debate, but I would very much like to participate in a “what can we do about it” discussion…
Don Shor wrote:
[quote]My preference is things like increased mileage standards for America’s auto fleet, for example. [/quote]
Commercial and residential buildings accounts for 39% of CO2 emissions in the United States per year, more than any other sector (America’s auto fleet is about 33%). U.S. buildings alone are responsible for more CO2 emissions in a given year than any other country except
China. These emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels to provide heating, cooling and lighting, and plug loads.
I’d propose we focus on addressing the built environment; the auto industry has received plenty of air time on the MPG (which is an awful metric FWIW).
More of this…
[url]http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Green Business fact sheet (final).pdf[/url]
And less of these new EPA regulations (what Obama stalled until 2013 so that it did not impact his re-election bid)…
[quote]New greenhouse gas regulations will no longer just affect coal plants, but will regulate churches, schools, restaurants, hospitals and farms, putting an enormous burden on Americans. “President Obama himself warned [these] would be worse than global warming cap-and-trade legislation,” said the Senate report. The new regulations will cost more than $300 to $400 billion a year and significantly raise the price of gas at the pump and energy in homes.
Farms, for example, will be required to comply with costly permit mandates and have to pay a “cow tax” on each animal and an annual fee on greenhouse gases emitted. EPA estimates that over 37,000 farms and ranches will be subject to greenhouse gas permits, at an average cost of $23,000 per permit each year, affecting over 90% of the livestock production in the country. “The EPA will proceed to issue regulations, industry by industry, until virtually every aspect of the American economy is constrained by strict regulatory requirements and high energy prices.”
New ozone rules will cost $90 billion a year by EPA estimates, while other studies have projected costs upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs, the report found. Large numbers of companies, by EPA’s own projections, will be unable to meet the stringent restrictions and are expected to close.
Natural gas fracturing regulations will severely impact energy production, resulting in new permits and well workovers costing $1.499 Billion to $1.615 Billion a year. At least “14 Federal agencies are working to regulate hydraulic fracturing at the federal level, so that they can limit and eventually stop the practice altogether,” the report revealed.
Clean Water Act new guidelines would allow EPA to expand federal control over virtually every body of water in the country, no matter how small, the report described.
Final stormwater regulations proposed by the EPA would become “the most expensive rule in EPA history,” according to the Senate. It would establish for the first time, standards for post-construction runoff, mandate cities to change existing buildings, stormwater sewers and streets, “and mandate the use of ‘green infrastructure’ techniques (like ‘green roofs,’ rain gardens, permeable pavement) to replace conventional stormwater management practices.”
New Gas regulations called Tier III, would lower the sulfur content in gasoline to from 30 to 10 parts per million at a cost of up to $10 billion initially and $2.4 billion each year. That would add another 9 cents per gallon in manufacturing costs, cost that will be passed on to consumers at the pump.
Farm Dust Regulations being proposed are so tightened, they would be below the dust created during normal farming operations and be impossible for rural American farms to meet.
The report goes on in more detail about the planned regulatory onslaught. It also describes the war on coal, which includes the EPA obstructing 190 coal mining permits, jeopardizing 18,000 jobs, and trying to stop permits that have already been granted. It describes the war on oil and natural gas, such as EPA alleging water contamination from fracturing, even when it was unable to find supportive evidence and quietly withdrew the scares after the damage had been done to companies and had frightened homeowners.[/quote]
SOUTH: [i]”P.S. I’m not a climate scientist and I have no idea if the globe is warming or cooling …”[/i]
That is a cop-out and an intellectually indefensible position for anyone of ordinary intelligence or higher. No one expects you (as a civilian, same as I am) to conduct or technically analyze climatological research in order to hold an informed opinion.
What you can do is listen to the arguments put forth by climate scientists of all stripes. You can fairly put weight on how much evidence they bring and what criticisms are made against their conclusions by other respected climate scientists, if any.
In this particular case, since there is effectively a consensus among all those who one, do research in this area and who two, have no monetary ties to companies or groups which have a track record of trying to corrupt the research in order to serve their own monetary purposes(1), it is not hard to figure out whom you can trust.
And since this research is not new (it goes back decades, but has continually been refined and updated), it is not the case that you need to wait until the science is settled.
And since the theory itself–that mining and burning fossil fuels and other human activities have added CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the Earth’s atmosphere and that build-up in atmospheric gas has increased global temperatures and that the increase will continue to get worse and cause more problems–is not hard to understand, you have to be intellectually dishonest(2) or dumb to say you “have [i]no idea[/i] if the globe is warming or cooling.”
——————-
[b](1)[/b] This Wall Street Journal article, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” ([url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html[/url]) is typical of what the bought and paid for skeptics of global warming theory come up with. It was signed by 16 “scientists” and “engineers.” What the WSJ did not mention is that the 5 who actually wrote the piece were on the payroll of Exxon, that none of them were actually climatologists, and that mainstream science had long since debunked every argument made in that op-ed.
[b](2)[/b]I think there are three ways to be ‘intellectually dishonest.’
One, you could hold a rigid, almost religious ideology and you close your mind off to facts which don’t fit into that ideology, and you fit in ‘facts’ (no matter how wrong) which fit the theory you have preconceived, and you will then cast doubt on virtually anyone who does not share your ill-conceived conclusions and accept the views of those who agree with your preconceptions, even if those people are not reliable. (Ideologues believe everyone who has a different opinion is as biased as they are, only in the opposite direction.)
Two, you could have a lot of money on the line by losing this debate. That is, you make your money burning fossil fuels. In that case, people will become ideologically rigid due to self-interest and incapable of seeing the facts as they are. They simply have too much to lose personally to be at all objective.
Three, you can cover you eyes and ears and refuse to even consider the matter because in some general sense you know the facts will be inconvenient and thus by shutting out all information you can claim ignorance, as if you were stupid.
Rich, I am not at all in agreement with your dismissal of the WSJ article. The problem is the same I wrote about… this tendency to close the debate to only a narrow band of scientific qualification. Don goes after me for dissing climate scientists, and yet it seems he and you – and others fully convinced of the full extent of the theory of man-made climate change – can dis any other scientist not in agreement. How are we supposed to have any meaningful dialog and exchange of ideas if only the believers are giving a credibility pass?
I think this quote from the article makes the main point:
[quote] Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.[/quote]
Frankly, I think the theory of anthropogenic climate change, Al Gore, the platform of the Democrat Party… one that has grown in brashness for growing big government… the type that benefits scientists hungry for research grant money… at a time when private industry has scaled back R&D budgets that are the alternative cash cow for research scientists… the ideological divide that has grown to epic proportions… all of these things added together… in my book… equal a very clear need for us to welcome outside challenges.
So, is there anyone out there that challenges the theories that you won’t discard as being ignorant, or a scientific quack with a hidden agenda?
[i]”Rich, I am not at all in agreement with your dismissal of the WSJ article. The problem is the same I wrote about… this tendency to close the debate to only a narrow band of scientific qualification.”[/i]
No, the biggest problem with that piece Jeff is that it was bought and paid for by a major oil company ([url]http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/01/30/the-journal-hires-dentists-to-do-heart-surgery/184002[/url]) (one I own a lot of stock in*) which has a huge monetary incentive to lie about global warming. The second big problem is that the arguments made were scientifically debunked. The fact that none of the primary authors of that piece actually do no climate research is only a tertiary problem.
*A friend of mine in Davis, who leans to the left, and who knows as well as I do that the mainstream climate scientists are correct with regard to global warming, once asked me why I am not bothered to own Exxon-Mobil stock. My response is simple: one, it’s a great and profitable company, and that is reason enough to own any stock; two, it produces a product I use, you use and everyone who ever drives, rides in a car or an inter-city bus or flies in an airplane uses; and three, it produces a product which will likely continue to be profitable many years into the future, which itself buffers my own losses when I have to pay more for my own gasoline. Save those who are entirely off the grid (so to speak), my feeling is that anyone who will not own stock in an oil company because they are offended by oil consumption is being a hypocrite and not being a wise or sound investor.
Ok, so that is a “follow the money” argument… similar to my argument that climate scientists may be colluding and blocking debate for similar reasons (sort of proved by emailgate).
Look and look as I might, I cannot find a single qualified individual whose opinion cannot be debunked by some connection to competing interests for money, power or both.
I just have a natural aversion to and suspicion of any lemming walk despite the credentials and the potential corrupting motivations of those involved… especially when and where the stakes are this high. When the stakes are this high, we should be encouraging and welcoming extensive debate… IMO.
I love an article that describes ‘many ypung scientists furtively” saying things — no attribution, no examples, no proof whatsoever. They then go on to distort the role and controversy surrounding Dr. de Freitas, who was the editor involved in the very controversial Soon and Baliunas paper and followup. That firestorm prompted the resignation of five editors at the journal (excluding de Freitas) including some like Hans Van Storch who are definitely not in the ‘alarmist’ realm (I provided his blog link to you once before).
More info: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy[/url]
What’s ironic about this is that the Soon and Baliunas paper was heavily politicized by the Bush administration, Sen. Inhofe, and others — all doing precisely what irks you so much about the ‘alarmist’ community regarding science. See the comments in the link about the Bush EPA using that paper in their policy formulations.
Aero Deo: I think that mileage standards are easy to implement; Obama already issued the new mpg standards earlier this year. Other than that kind of thing, I prefer incentives, and it seems that would be the way to deal with the building losses/uses of CO2. And Jeff has listed any number of things that could be incentivized.
As for the carbon tax, I just think it’s a political non-starter, at least in the present political climate. But I’ve been surprised to see some serious discussions about it recently, including some conservative voices.
Rifkin: [i]*A friend of mine in Davis, who leans to the left, and who knows as well as I do that the mainstream climate scientists are correct with regard to global warming, once asked me why I am not bothered to own Exxon-Mobil stock. My response is simple: one, it’s a great and profitable company, and that is reason enough to own any stock; two, it produces a product I use, you use and everyone who ever drives, rides in a car or an inter-city bus or flies in an airplane uses; and three, it produces a product which will likely continue to be profitable many years into the future, which itself buffers my own losses when I have to pay more for my own gasoline. Save those who are entirely off the grid (so to speak), my feeling is that anyone who will not own stock in an oil company because they are offended by oil consumption is being a hypocrite and not being a wise or sound investor.[/i]
This might be a coming phase in the political issue of climate change politics, reminiscent of apartheid protests. If so, then you’ll probably be asked this question again.
12/5/12, NYT: To Stop Climate Change, Students Aim at College Portfolios ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/business/energy-environment/to-fight-climate-change-college-students-take-aim-at-the-endowment-portfolio.html[/url])
[img]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/12/05/business/DIVEST/DIVEST-articleLarge-v2.jpg[/img]
I wrote:
> P.S. I’m not a climate scientist and I have no idea if
> the globe is warming or cooling …
Then Rich wrote:
> That is a cop-out and an intellectually indefensible
> position for anyone of ordinary intelligence or higher.
> What you can do is listen to the arguments put forth by
> climate scientists of all stripes.
I have read (and listened to) “climate scientists of all stripes” and the ones paid by the left leaning groups say we have global warming (and lot of other climate problems) and the ones paid by right leaning groups and oil companies say things are fine.
Climate scientists are just like other scientists (remember the guys that went to Washington to tell Congress that cigarettes are not addictive and don’t cause health problems?) and they say what the people that pay them want them to say.
I have family in the ranching business in Oregon who have daily weather data going back over 100 years and they don’t see a real trend of warming or cooling and when I got to talk to winegrowers in Napa and Livermore (who have great temp data and are not paid to lie) the Napa temps were trending up while the Livermore temps trending down.
Take a look at the link below and tell me if San Francisco is warming or cooling:
http://ggweather.com/sf/temp1.html
P.S. Next time any of your left leaning car hating friends complain about your oil company investments ask then what is on their chain and in the hubs of their bike. Someday I hope to meet a guy who hates oil companies with bees wax from his hive on his chain and in his hubs and even though I may not agree with him I will respect him…
[i]” the ones paid by the left leaning groups say we have global warming (and lot of other climate problems) and the ones paid by right leaning groups and oil companies say things are fine.”[/i]
No, this is a cop-out. It just says you are not listening.
You can forget everyone who is paid by a political group. Listen to all of the independent academics, including the climate researchers at UC Davis. There is a nearly 100% consensus on every major point with regard to global warming theory among independent scientists who study the climate. Men like Professor Bryan Weare of UCD are not political hacks. They are real scientists interested in uncovering the truth. Their work is rigorously questioned by other real, independent scientists.
The notion that these thousands of academic scientists all over the world have reached the same conclusion on this topic–it took 40 years for a full consensus to emerge, for all the important research to fill in the gaps–because they are pursuing a political end is intellectually indefensible, a total misunderstanding of science, and thus, a total cop-out.
The people who attack the science are doing so out of shear ideological madness or monetary self-interest. To put equal weight on those folks with independent academic science is vacuous in the extreme.
Rich, I feel a need to question/challenge you on a few things:
[i]The people who [b]attack[/b][/i]
I think you are going overboard defining any disagreement as an attack. We cannot have dialog if we are going to be so protective.
[i]…the science are doing so out of [b]shear ideological madness[/b] or [b]monetary self-interest.[/b][/i]
So, which one do you subscribe to me or Rusty? Apparently you don’t have any concern for these things within the “qualified” academic scientific community, is this correct?
[i]To put equal weight on those folks with independent academic science is vacuous in the extreme.[/i]
So, if this is a debate that only “qualified” academic scientists can participate in, then why are you and I blogging about it?
I get your point, but I think what you are possibly missing is that it only takes a change to one or two existing and weak assumptions of the computer models to significantly change the theory. As I have written, there is much we can and should agree with in terms of actual data. The problem is the absolutism for the predictive models that are build on some very shaky assumptions. We don’t know what the impacts will be for climate change. However, that is not stopping the scientific community from participating in the alarmism… or at least being silent about it.
you should welcome challenges that cause the scientific community to look within and respond to these concerns. At the very least, you will help them prevent a larger smearing of egg on their face when the next discovery shoots holes in one of their critical assumptions. It always happens that way with science.
[i]”… the science are doing so out of shear ideological madness or monetary self-interest.”[/i]
[b]”So, which one do you subscribe to me or Rusty?”[/b]
I don’t believe either one of you is employed in the extraction or sale of coal or oil.
[i]”I have family in the ranching business in Oregon who have daily weather data going back over 100 years and they don’t see a real trend of warming or cooling and when I got to talk to winegrowers in Napa and Livermore (who have great temp data and are not paid to lie) the Napa temps were trending up while the Livermore temps trending down.”[/i]
That’s correct, and it’s something I addressed in my column that I linked above. The USDA climate zones used by gardeners were recently updated. The most pronounced effects were on the east coast and into the midwest. California, and coastal areas especially, have not seen increased average temperatures. In fact, cities along the coast have seen slightly lower average temperatures over the last couple of decades, while cities inland have seen slightly higher average temperatures. Cities such as Sacramento, which have some strong coastal influence (the delta breeze) are not showing temperature increases.
So when I saw a garden author in the Bee quoted as saying “Our weather is changing. I’ve lived in Alameda my whole life, and it’s not the same climate I grew up with – it’s hotter. We have to adapt. It’s one more challenge for gardeners” — I gnash my teeth because she had no factual basis for that statement, and in fact it was wrong. So I corrected it in a venue available to me, which is my own column ([url]http://redwoodbarn.com/DE_Junequestions.html[/url])
But look at what has happened to the USDA zones overall. Here is an interactive map; click on the ‘Differences’ link. This is based on observations of when plants flower (there are records at east-coast botanical gardens going back many decades) and temperature data from weather stations.
[url]http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm[/url]
Your friends and family are giving you anecdotal observations. That isn’t useful in assessing whether temperatures in the United States are increasing overall. And the United States isn’t the whole world. Global temperatures are increasing.