What Could Global Warming do to the Northeastern United States?
by Union of Concerned Scientists on 07.23.07
The Union of Concerned Scientists has released a peer-reviewed report on the impact global warming could have in nine Northeastern states. Combining the expertise of 50 scientists and economists, the report takes a detailed look at the consequences of sticking with a fossil-fuel dependent economy or switching to cleaner, greener alternatives.
The differences between the two scenarios in the report are stark. Under the higher-emissions scenario, only Western Maine would have a reliable ski season by the end of the century, but under the lower-emissions scenario, many other parts of the Northeast would retain their ski seasons for winter recreation. Sea level rise is another big factor, with the higher-emissions scenario predicting much more frequent severe flooding for several major cities in the region, with less frequent floods under the lower-emissions scenario.
Global warming also could affect everything from farming, to milk production, to forest ranges and the spread of damaging invasive species.
The conclusion of the report is clear: The very notion of the Northeast is at stake. We need solutions and real leadership at every level of government to tackle the problem.
You can see the specific impacts for your state on the Climate Choices Web site. And while many states in the Northeast are already tackling global warming, some can do much more. And in some states that are moving forward on global warming, representatives in the federal government have yet to sign on to comprehensive global warming legislation. Depending on where you live, you can tell the right people to do the right thing for our climate.
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Using the "Flash" from Lightning To Predict Deadly Floods
- Scientists Report Global Warming Good for California
- Ocean's 'Poop Machines' Could Help Fight Climate Change
- Global Warming Opens Northwest Passage
Do they have a report on how it affects Texas and the southeastern portion of the U.S.? I would be interested in hearing about that.
The problem is this covers upstate NY and NYC. It completely ignores long island. Long Island is different. It has been raining more and more. i would like to know if the rain would increase if global warming continues. If it does there would be a lot of people moving here in a couple of decades.
Ah, it is good to live on the north shore, on the highest point on the peninsula.
Either way Long Island is a non issue, as our only evac routes are via the city the arrogance that is Long Island is pretty much swamped.
One problem I have with this whole issue is the concept of ’scientific consensus’. Consensus is a political, not scientific, term.
Here’s an interesting, albeit non-scientific, exercise: You know there’s lot’s of information to find out there by doing a Google search for ‘global warming’, and a lot of it is quite scary; but try adding ‘climatologist’ to your search terms and the results - the ‘consensus’, if you will - changes dramatically. It’s quite interesting how many actual climatologists are anthropogenic global warming doubters, compared with the doomsayers who are mostly in other fields like geology, biology, journalism, politics, fashion, and entertainment.
Try it -
http://www.google.com/ search?hl=en&q=climatologist+global+warming
And then consider this question - What causes ice ages? They are cyclical, as you know; so doesn't it seem logical that the warming periods between ice ages are part of the same cycle? Go ahead and do another Google search. Also, I found some interesting info on the causes of ice ages in my kid's 6th grade science textbook (the cycles of warming/cooling have been understood for a long time).
And then 'consider the source' when you hear something about global warming. Al Gore, for instance, is making millions of dollars selling 'carbon offsets'.
I have found a good rule of thumb is to disbelieve ANYTHING a politician or salesman tells me (and keep my hand on my wallet) until I've done my own research. And listening to rock stars and movie actors on science questions is just a plain ol' waste of time.
Want to do another Google search? Read up on this guy - "Maurice Strong"
Ron...
The American Geophysical Union has a section dedicated to atmospheric sciences. This section has 15,000 members with 6,200 of those stating atmospheric science research as their primary field. In 2003 the AGU issued a report that clearly stated the position that anthropogenic GHG emissions are causing global warming.
Do you know of a professional body of climatologists in this country or any other that has stated otherwise?
Giving a google search string as an authoritative source is laughable.
I agree with rhapsodyinglue - and if you are a doubter about GW that's fine but I've learned to go with the "better safe than sorry" approach to major life threatening issues.
Rather we are contributing to it or not, if we don't do something radically different the fate may be sealed the same. Who really cares who is "right" or "wrong" if the result points to the same direction?
25 years ago I read disturbing scientific reports indicating the very path we are seeing today - and back then talk about doubters - wow. But you know, every single thing they predicted is happening right now. Who cares why? We just need to figure out some better solutions.
And aside from global warming it's pollution - the very poisoning of your air,water and soil that you should be extremely concerned about. This is not some theory - toxic chemicals kill things.
For anyone who is interested, the American Bar Association has just published "Global Climate Change and U.S. Law," a 784-page multi-author book edited by Michael B. Gerrard. The book sells for $59.95 (minus a discount for ABA members). It will be updated by a web site.
After a summary of the factual and scientific background, the book begins by addressing the international and national frameworks of climate change law, including clean air regulation, civil remedies and the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on many domestic actions. The book then describes emerging regional, state and local actions, and includes a 50-state survey. Next is coverage of issues of concern to corporations, including disclosure, fiduciary duties, insurance, and subsidies. The book ends with an examination of the legal aspects of various efforts to reduce emissions, including voluntary programs, emissions trading programs and carbon sequestration.