The permanent melting of sea ice in the Arctic was predicted by climate change models, but it wasn't supposed to happen for decades.
The problem with bad news on climate change is that it just keeps stacking up and up, and the media, inevitably, gets bored with what seems to be "more of the same". This is probably why the Arctic ice pack story hasn't got anything like the attention it deserved this week.…
Article comments
26 - troll
Dave - the authors of the five year old report based on ten year old data that you cite say:
*we have at least 25 years in which to sharpen our understanding of climate and seek valid predictions, without contributing to serious climate change*
so now we have 20 years left - have we come closer to understanding what's going on - ?
are our predictions improving - ?
troll
27 - Dave Nalle
From what I've seen, troll, in the last 5 years what we've been seeing is more and more evidence suggesting that human causation and human ability to change global warming are both less credible, and massive evidence that the simplistic warming model is unrealistic. There's a reason why more and more experts are referring to what's happening as global climate change rather than global warming.
Dave
28 - troll
Dave - I look forward to your post presenting the data...though I'm not as interested in the question of 'human cause' as in whether or not there are things that humans can do now to influence the trend
troll
29 - Hoggle
I read the article, and it repeats all of the refuted arguments of climate sceptics the world over. Perhaps the financing from Exxon (see Sourcewatch article on The Heartland Institute) skewed their impartiality, but even giving them the benefit of the doubt on that, the arguments are decidedly vague and shaky.
I have written a long breakdown of their logical fallacies but there's no space here for such detail.
This does the trick, and a long hard look at wikipedia will also enlighten you.
30 - Dave Nalle
I've already read the Wikipedia article, and it's amusing. It's controlled by a group of the aforementiioned environmental fanatics, so it can't be seen as impartial. As for refuting their science, you can call it refutation if you like, but for me refutation involved proof not theory and not repeated denial of the conclusions based on nothing more than them not agreeing with the dominant theory.
And that's what the climate change argument comes down to, an argument between two (or more) different theories, none of them absoltutely provable.
Dave
31 - Forwarder
Source-Cnbc, Washington post, AP news wire, New York Times...
WASHINGTON - A senior official at the White House Council on Environmental Quality has resigned, days after a newspaper reported he changed some government reports to downplay links between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming by changing scientific data that say a change is definate, to one that reads that it is doubtful.
Philip Cooney, the council’s chief of staff and a former energy industry lobbyist, resigned on Friday, two days after The New York Times reported he edited some descriptions of climate research in a way that cast doubt on links between greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures.
32 - Forwarder
Source USA today...White House defends editing of climate reports
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON " The White House on Wednesday defended the actions of one of its key staffers who's publicly accused of editing government reports to downplay the link between "greenhouse" gases and global warming.
But some scientists reacted angrily. It's "par for the course from the administration, in terms of interfering with science for political ends," said Luke Warren of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has criticized the Bush administration's science policies.
The New York Times reported Wednesday that Philip Cooney, chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, changed descriptions of climate research approved by government scientists.
The Times said that Cooney, a lawyer and former lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute, made notes on drafts of reports issued in 2002 and 2003, removing or adjusting language on climate research.
Some of the changes were as subtle as adding the words "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," the Times reported. In one section, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of glaciers and snowpack, the newspaper said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in a press briefing that Cooney's editing was part of a broad review by 15 federal agencies, including policy people like Cooney as well as scientists. "Everybody who is involved in these issues should have input in these reports, and that's all this is," he says.
Climate change has been controversial for the Bush administration since 2001, when it withdrew support for the Kyoto Protocol, a global pact to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. The administration questioned the cost and scientific merit of planned constraints.
"Scientists are best equipped to inform the public about climate science, not White House lawyers," says Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego. "People have a right to know the truth about climate science and the scientific consensus on the seriousness of this problem," she says.
33 - Hoggle
Refutation involves pointing out logical flaws, which is easy to do when hardly any climate sceptics are scientists and those that are use the argument "the environment changes naturally, therefore all environmental change is natural"
As for wikipedia being controlled by fanatics, it is controlled by all its readers - that's the point. The only things that remain on articles about contraversial topics such as this are those things that everyone, fanatic and irrational alike, cannot find a way to disprove.
And I'm proud to call myself a fan of the environment. I support it whole-heartedly. I am surprised you class yourself as its opponent.
34 - Natalie Bennett
And Dave, one more thought. If I'm wrong (not sadly that I think there's a very high risk of that) what will be the outcome? A cleanier, healthier human society (fewer pollution deaths, fitter humans due to more walking and cycling etc), new technologies developed (wind, solar etc), more self-sufficient societies (fewer "food-miles", more sustainable farming). If you are wrong? ... the end of the world as we know it. (Which who knows, might end up fine in the end, but I don't fancy going through the process.)
35 - Turbo_Glide
I must be confused, maybe delusional, maybe even senile at my age but I do have eyes, can still read, use a tape measure and see that over the years that I used to get 11 to 14 ft of snow at my mountain cabin, and now I only get 1 ft in the worst of winter. I smell the pollution from the big city a good 200 miles away and over 3 mountain ranges. In other locations that I've lived and visited it's the same story. Correct me if I'm wrong but that sure seems a trend to me. So I did the next simple step and started checking records anywhere I could find them. Not being a scientist or government flunky I think I'm entitled to say what I've found.
Facts and records in Canada, Europe and northern Asia point to global warming / climate change to the extent to which has not been seen [recently] in 1200 to 1500 yrs. Records in many libraries, traditional passing of information and many other sources tell of warming to catastrophic levels approximately every 12,000 / 12,500 yrs. Ice layers in Greenland, Himalayas and Northern Canada sure do point to substantiating this very clearly.
The earth is warming up at a slightly speedy rate not seen in 12,000 yrs. Icecaps are loosing ice built up of over 64,000 yrs. and some places 100,000 yrs. Even Inuit in Northern Canada and scientists checking Antarctica have confirmed the same. Now I don't know what you would call that but I sure seem to think there's something to it. So I really don't care what newspapers, governments or TV say, I'd rather be smart enough to be prepared whatever the case may be.
Don't take my word for it; open your eyes or get off your ass and check.
Oops, I wasn't supposed to say? Must have slipped. ;)
coder / fishnet / PhD, MD, QC
Proud to be Canadian
36 - Hoggle
This discussion
dissects and refutes the fallacious solar forcing arguments recycled (at least he is recycling something) above. It also goes into some detail about the reasns for lag between co2 and temperature at different times.
Neither phenomenon has any bearing on the validity of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming
37 - Natalie Bennett
Thanks Turbo-Glide for a powerful personal account!
38 - Hoggle
and, at the risk of overdoing the evidence...
This shows the degree of correlation between temperature and CO2, CH4 and insolation.
[Actually Hoggle, you wouldn't be overdoing anything if you made your links active... Thank you. Comments Editor]
39 - Hoggle
Sorry - wasn't sure how - most forms filter out HTML.
Testing...
Another CO2 Temperature Plot
40 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Comments #28 and #35 provide me with the guidance I need. That is to say, the weather has been warming up (even though I seem to be cooling down) and the issue is not in finger pointing, but where do we go from here.
It may be that we can't influence the weather as much as we think we can, or that we can't alter our behavior sufficiently to alter the influences we may be creating on the climate.
41 - Dave Nalle
To #35. Can you be sure that your low snowfall is the result of warming rather than a reduction in precipitation? The precipitation pattern changed dramatically this winter. The US east coast got lots and lots, with record amounts of snow late into the year. We're talking a foot of snow in Virginia in February, which is virtually unheard of.
Down here in Texas, like in Canada, our precipitation was low, but we had the most hard freezes we've had in a decade. That would suggest the opposite of global warming, but as I'm sure you're aware one year does not a trend make.
troll: Dave - I look forward to your post presenting the data...though I'm not as interested in the question of 'human cause' as in whether or not there are things that humans can do now to influence the trend
The thing is that if humans don't have the ability to cause a climate shift, then they may not have enough invluence in the environment to stop one either. Or even worse, they may have enough of an influence to help the ball get rolling, but not nearly enough to stop it once nature takes over.
Natalie B: one more thought. If I'm wrong (not sadly that I think there's a very high risk of that) what will be the outcome? A cleanier, healthier human society (fewer pollution deaths, fitter humans due to more walking and cycling etc), new technologies developed (wind, solar etc), more self-sufficient societies (fewer "food-miles", more sustainable farming).
Which is why I support most of the same ecological measures you likely do, but not for the same reasons. More efficient vehicles and pursuit of alternative energy are just as valid for conservation and economic reasons and even national security reasons, so as you say, why not do them since they only benefit us. Where I draw the line is things like Kyoto which harm the US and do nothing at all to help the worldwide environment.
Dave
42 - Bliffle
"White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in a press briefing that Cooney's editing was part of a broad review by 15 federal agencies, including policy people like Cooney as well as scientists. "Everybody who is involved in these issues should have input in these reports, and that's all this is," he says"
No, he's wrong. The report is issued over the names of the scientists as representing their thoughts and conclusions. Thus, tampering by outsiders is deceitful.
43 - Jet in Columbus
Bliffle, the comments #31 & 32 were inspired after I saw a report about it on CNN (judged a decidedly leftist network by some but not by me) and after some further googling I found the resulting reports to be most disturbing, that the White House would actually edit scientific reports to suit their own needs, leaving the original author's name to give the altered documents credibility.
Sort of what Bush did during his State of the Union address concerning the fictious Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the reports of their purchase of nuclear fuel from somewhere vaguely in "Africa" I should think.
44 - Dave Nalle
Jet, there was no vagueness about where the nuclear fuel was coming from. Iraq has purchased yellowcake from Niger before and the sources clearly said Niger and Bush also said Niger. Nothing vague about it because Bush had every reason to believe it at the time mhe said it.
And, of course, we now know that the WMD program was not fictitious at all, much though some choose to deny the increasingly overwhelming evidence.
Dave
45 - Jet in Columbus
If you look at his transcript, he says it's from "Africa", it was only disclosed later that it was from Niger.
And pulllllllllllease bring on this overwhelming evidence. Where are these rockets, and WMD's and where are they reported? I want to see photos!
46 - Jet in Columbus
Ah the truth is only a google away... I quote from the BBC...
"Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.
On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January.
But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech.
Both President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair mentioned the claim, based on British intelligence, that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger as part of its attempt to build a nuclear weapons programme.
Mr Blair is under fire from British MPs about the credibility of a dossier of evidence, which set out his case for war.
And in the US, increasing doubts are being raised about the American use of intelligence. "
WHITE HOUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME (and probably the last)OFFICIALLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE NIGER CLAIM WAS WRONG!!!
47 - Hoggle
The details of the 'Yellowcake Forgery' can be found here
specifically the Butler report:
Conclusion 499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded.
and
Conclusion 503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:
a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British Government did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.
Although sources other than the Niger documents are mentioned, no evidence of this is advanced.
48 - Hoggle
But of course, Wikipedia is controlled by vested interests and cannot be seen as authoritative :)
49 - Jet in Columbus
Which is why it's well documented that thw White House was forced to admit they were wrong...
50 - Hoggle
You appear to have misread the report.
One specific report was proven to be a forgery, but evidence from other sources was available to the UK when they made their conclusion, and not the forgery. Their conclusion was supportable at the time. It may have been wrong, but it was not 'wrong' when it was made.
I make no comment about the 45 minute claim, whcih is a whole other can of smelly worms.
51 - Jet in Columbus
According to many sources, it was a lot more than just one report that got altered my friend.
52 - Hoggle
Please tell me some of your sources. Links would be nice.
Something other than newspaper speculation or accusations of pressure groups is needed, if it is to qualify as evidence.
53 - Dave Nalle
Two points about the yellowcake forgery issue.
First, it was not forged by the Bush administration, but received by them third hand from sources they had no reason not to believe.
Second, it was highly believable because in the past on three separate occasions the Iraqi government HAD bought yellowcake from Niger.
Dave
54 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
The world climate may or may not be changing, but the climate at BC hasn't. Nigh every article turns into a debate over the Iraq war.
For a change of pace, I suggest, as I have previously, that the danger we face is either from sudden climate change - like those mammoths found whole and frozen with food in their stomachs - or from cooking like frogs in a pot - unaware that the climate is killing us until it actually does.
55 - Jet in Columbus
Okay, so what you're saying Hoggle is that any FACTS reported in any newspaper that don't support the Bush position is opinion-typical
Okay, Dave-where IS the yellow cake??? Why hasn't it been found? You'd think the White House would have if splashed all over the front pages and screamed from every pulpet from Jetty Falwell to Rush Limbaugh, to Dave Nalle's right-wing pulpits.
This site's political wing makes Fox New's "Fair and balanced" reporting look like the CBS Evening News in comparison! If you were to print out every political post on this site and stacked the pages neatly on your desk, they'd fall off the right side (and hopefully in to the waste basket)
Why?
For God's sake-Dave Nalle is the political editor of this site! Read any five-Hell any Two of his posts or comments and you can see that anyone even slightly right of center politically has a snowball's chance in hell here...
Insults, personal attacks that have nothing to do with this post/string to follow...
56 - Natalie Bennett
From today's Guardian:
"Half of Greenland and vast areas of Antarctica are destined to melt if global warming continues at the same pace until the end of the century, scientists warned yesterday. Their research shows that the loss of so much ice will trigger dramatic rises in sea levels, ultimately swamping low-lying regions of Essex, Lincolnshire and Norfolk and threatening the flood defences of cities such as London, Liverpool and Bristol. The last time so much ice was lost from the poles - in a period between ice ages 129,000 years ago - global sea levels rose by four to six metres.
Experts believe many coastal regions would suffer long before sea levels rose significantly, because even a minor rise will make storm surges more devastating and increase the risk of flooding. A rise of one metre would in effect close the port of London as the Thames barrier would need to be raised for 300 days a year to protect the city, according to one scientist."
57 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Natalie, the real isssue in the Guardian article is not how many metres the sea might rise - that's a foegone conclusion in the wake of the ice melting - but when?
If it is later than three weeks from now, no action will be taken to abate or prevent it.... That, apparently, is human nature.
58 - Jet in Columbus
Actually, Natalie, until sea water actually laps at the steps leading up to the front door of the Bush White House, any reports and facts concerning global warming-no matter how scientific-will be considered opinion, and most likely altered to reflect that point.
You've written a very good article, consise and to the point, too bad it won't be taken seriously...
59 - Hoggle
Jet said:
I said
So, no, that's not even close to what I'm saying. You made a claim to have multiple sources, and I asked you to back that claim up, specifying that it would be a waste of time to produce such secondary sources.
However, a newspaper article that publishes first-hand evidence, such as the downing street memo, is perfectly valid. Articles that make unsubstantiated claims are worse than useless for getting at the facts.
60 - Jet in Columbus
I believe the subject is Global warming?
But I did love your pretty highlighting!
Again...
until sea water actually laps at the steps leading up to the front door of the Bush White House, any reports and facts concerning global warming-no matter how scientific-will be considered opinion, and most likely will be altered to reflect that point.
It'd be so wonderful to stay on topic!
61 - Jet in Columbus
Top climatologist accuses US of trying to gag him
· 12:57 30 January 2006
· NewScientist.com news service
NewScientist.com staff and AF
NASA's top climate scientist has accused the Bush administration of trying to stop him from speaking out after he called for swift cuts in emissions of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming in a recent lecture.
James Hansen, director of the US space agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his forthcoming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard website and requests for media interviews, the New York Times reported on Sunday.
"They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," said Hansen, who told the paper he would ignore the restrictions.
Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at NASA, denied that there was any effort to silence Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," Acosta said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."
Acosta said that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen. "This is not about any individual or any issue like global warming," he said. "It's about coordination."
Different planet
Hansen has been issuing about the long-term threat of greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, and has had run-ins with various US politicians.
He said that "efforts to quiet him" had begun in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on December 6, 2005, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In this talk he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, but that without leadership by the US, climate change would eventually leave the Earth "a different planet".
US administration policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.
"After that speech and the release of data by Dr Hansen on December 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr Hansen that there would be 'dire consequences' if such statements continued, those officers and Dr Hansen said in interviews," the Times reported.
Hansen said "it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase 'to understand and protect our home planet'".
Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, is reported as saying there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up". However, he added: "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied.”
62 - Deano
It's not just isolated with climate and global warming science. It's popped up at NASA as well...
"A BUSH presidential appointee to NASA told a web designer for the research agency that he would have to go through the site and stick the words 'theory' before every reference to the big bang.
George Deutsch, 24, a man whose qualifications include being a 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign worker, was seen by Bush as the ideal man as his appointed spinner to NASA."
It continues...
"He said that the Big Bang is not a proven fact it is just opinion. "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator. This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA," he wrote."
Here is the original article; http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29502 (sorry I have no idea how to make the link active...)
[The next time you're logged into blogger, create a new post with a link in it. Click HTML View and you'll see how it's done. Comments Editor]
63 - Hoggle
Yes, the topic got derailed when you dangled the bait for David in post #43 :)
[Alas only basic html is allowed and I don't think it's possible to demonstrate it here as MT will always try to make anything between arrowheads active. Comments Editor]
I think the recent spate of articles concerning US states and cities ignoring the whitehouse on global heating (warming sounds so benign - James Lovelock uses heating and I think I will too) shows that Bush is increasingly isolated and marginalised in this fight for survival.
See here
64 - Hoggle
Hmmm - except that the preview is not accurate, darnit.
right click on my examples and view source to find out how it's done.
65 - Chad Kister
Climate change is indeed immensely startling, as I reveal in my newest book, Arctic Melting. But in addition to showing the horrific climate change crisis that we face, Arctic Melting also shows how we can meet all of the world's energy needs through efficiency, wind and solar.
Rather than focusing solely on the problem that we face, we should instead also focus on the solutions, and all of the other problems that will be solved as we switch to renewable energy to solve the climate change crisis, such as coal mine destruction, acid mine drainage, acid rain, mercury and particulate pollution and the adverse effects of oil development and petrol smog, all of which would be solved as we switch our energy to efficiency, wind and solar.
We must make this the central organizing principal of our governments and institutions, and if it is not, we should use the courts and have mass demonstrations to demand that it is.
I feel especially compelled to take action as a U.S. citizen, as I am aware and apalled by the fact that with 4 percent of the world's population, we emit 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
Chad Kister
Athens, Ohio (United States)