Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin - Page 7

AMosely · 04-11-2006, 03:14 PM

I see your valid point as far as ranking climate change and other environmental concerns as pressing problems in your daily life.

However, you had mentioned earlier in this thread, and seem to continue to be uncertain about what we're talking about here in terms of censorship of writing vs. censorship of speaking opinion. This is not simply a matter of scientists opining, spouting opinions in public more for political reasons than scientific ones - it clearly goes deeper than that, and to me seems like a politically fueled backlash against widening concern for climate change in general. For example - from a 60 Minutes interview transcript with Rick Pitz:

Quote:

Rick Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet."

Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.

Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality."

Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney."

Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says.

Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Piltz says Cooney edited climate reports in his own hand. In one report, a line that said earth is undergoing rapid change becomes “may be undergoing change.” “Uncertainty” becomes “significant remaining uncertainty.” One line that says energy production contributes to warming was just crossed out.

And another example, from the Washington Post article most recently cited:

Quote:

In 2002, NOAA agreed to draft a report with Australian researchers aimed at helping reef managers deal with widespread coral bleaching that stems from higher sea temperatures. A March 2004 draft report had several references to global warming, including "Mass bleaching ... affects reefs at regional to global scales, and has incontrovertibly linked to increases in sea temperature associated with global change."

A later version, dated July 2005, drops those references and several others mentioning climate change. NOAA has yet to release the report.

**GhostintheShell** · 04-11-2006, 10:40 PM

Well, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on these topics.

Everyone of the items you mentioned have equal and opposite counterpoints form my POV.

Glaciers, everyone is focused on the few that are receding when in fact there are over 200,000 known glaciers in the world and we only have decent data on ~60 glaciers, some of which are actually increasing in size.

Carbon Dioxide, has increased approximately 75ppm (from 300 ppm in ancient days to 375 ppm now) Many scientists believe that this small increase in CO2 is insignificant and if anything will have an added bonus of boosting plant life on the planet, which would inevitably re-balance the CO2 levels.

Coral Bleaching, isn't simply a matter of increased UV radiation. Temperature, solar irradiation, sedimentation, fresh water dilution, inorganic nutrients, Xenobiotics and several other contributors are believed to be involved in the process.

Additionally, it has been hypothesized that bleaching is an adaptive mechanism which allows the coral to be repopulated with a different type of zooxanthellae, possibly conferring greater stress resistance.

Acid Rain,
Myth: Acid rain has caused a large portion of U.S. lakes to become acidic.

Fact: In a recent study of 7,000 Northeastern lakes, only 3.4% were found to be acidic. Most of these lakes are just as acidic as they were before the Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, most of the acidic lakes in the United States are in Florida, where there is the least acid rain.

Myth: Data taken by proponents of the acid rain theory is accurate and conclusive.

Fact: Proponents of the acid rain theory have rested their claims on a deeply flawed series of articles by G.E. Likens and his co-workers in the 1970s. A careful evaluation of Likens' research conducted by a group of scientists at Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., reveals that his data collection and selection was deliberately biased to support the desired conclusions.

Myth: Acid rain destroys vegetation.

Fact: Acid rain actually has a positive impact on vegetation. The nitrogen and sulfur characteristic of acid rain, act as nutrients essential for plant growth. The world's first acid rain study concluded that, "the principle effect of acid rain is the improvement of crop yields and crop protein content."

Myth: Acid Rain is unnatural.

Fact: Rainwater is naturally acidic. Because water is such a good solvent, even in the cleanest air, rainwater dissolves some of the naturally present carbon dioxide, forming carbonic acid. According to EPA regulations, Ph levels any lower than 5.0 are environmentally harmful. Yet, an analysis of ice from the Antarctic and the Himalayas, deposited hundreds and thousands of years ago when the environment was presumably pristine, had Ph values ranging from 4.8 to 4.2.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 04-12-2006, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Glaciers, everyone is focused on the few that are receding when in fact there are over 200,000 known glaciers in the world and we only have decent data on ~60 glaciers, some of which are actually increasing in size.

Which ones are increasing? Have any links?

AMosely · 04-12-2006, 01:23 PM

I was actually referencing a report on Anarctic sea ice - as in polar ice caps - not glaciers. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=australia. Glaciers are localized and are therefore subject to local climate, although I think you will find that on the whole, these are retreating as well.

This showed up today in the washington post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101893.html

**GhostintheShell** · 04-14-2006, 11:04 AM

The Washington Post article was a good one.

SmokingTarpan · 04-14-2006, 11:11 AM

Enter Al Gore:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramo...nvenienttruth/

Although I do think it's rather funny how he introduces himself, heh.

**GhostintheShell** · 04-15-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Which ones are increasing? Have any links?

Sorry I missed this somehow, I don't have any links but if you google for glaciers +Norway you will see that in addition to having a major glacier system that is expanding, they also have some of the most comprehensive data regarding glacier mass spanning the last 40+ years of measurements.

**Overlag** · 04-15-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

IMO "Global warming" is a myth.

They couldn't even measure temperature accurately (sub 1-2 deg C) until the micoprocessor was developed in the 70's.

They are trying to predict weather trends over 100+ years and they can't predict with any certainty what the weather will be like next week.

Carbon dioxide has increased a staggeringly small amount in the last 100 years (from ~300-375ppm), and its debateable whether or not that it even matters because plant life thrives on the slightly increased CO2 and compensates for it.

In cities you see the increased temperature due to "island heat effect" and pollution (I'm not debating pollution), but in neighbouring cities with less population there is often a decreased avg temperature over the same period.

The earth has been coming out of a very cold cycle for the last 600 years, not as a result of CO2, or other human means.

Some glaciers are melting, but some are also expanding equally rapidly and they don't have enough data to support any trend.

The only thing that is for sure is that thing change over time. There is no stability in any system, and the earth's temperature will change as a part of normal cycles.

It's interesting to red a bit about it, because up until recently it was something I took for granted.
Everyone just "knows" that global warming is true, until you start to research it more.

ok im late in this but.....

gobal warming isnt a myth... infact is very true.... however is it all down to humans?

alot of people that say "america is bad... it causes all gobal warming" are bloody idiots. The world was ALOT hotter during the dinosours, and we are infact JUST coming out of the last ice age... The world will get hotter... its a natural cycle, we *may* be speeding up the process, but we cant stop the natural warming, and cooling of the planet.

Alot of ice core information shows that the earth was red hot at one point, with ALOT of CO2 in the air... then, once global spread of plants set in, CO2 nearly drops to 0, and the world went into the biggest deep freeze thats probably ever happend.... since then, its been a cycle that never gets really hot, and never gets really cold. but its ALMOST like clockwork... mostly to do with the Earths location, and angle to the sun (milankovitch cycle).

I dont think the burning of gases that makes Co2 and other greenhouse gases is bad in itself, i think its bad so many trees/plants are being chopped down etc... Plants are the only way to balance our output (and natural earth output) of CO2....

Thats what we should be going after... not reducing (nor increasing) CO2 output, but increasing forest planting where ever possible....

**GhostintheShell** · 04-15-2006, 04:37 PM

I think what you are talking about with ice core samples are the "Vostok" cores which show the trend of CO2 to "estimated" earth mean temperatures. One of the problems is that they don't really show cause and effect. Maybe both items were high due to another factor? Maybe the increased earth temperature cause the increased CO2.

They move in relation, which is important, but they also show a very simple cyclic pattern of hot and cold. Right now we are at the point of a cycle which is admittedly high but does that mean we are going still higher or according to the Vostok samples "history" aren't we due for another ice age?

**Overlag** · 04-15-2006, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

I think what you are talking about with ice core samples are the "Vostok" cores which show the trend of CO2 to "estimated" earth mean temperatures. One of the problems is that they don't really show cause and effect. Maybe both items were high due to another factor? Maybe the increased earth temperature cause the increased CO2.

They move in relation, which is important, but they also show a very simple cyclic pattern of hot and cold. Right now we are at the point of a cycle which is admittedly high but does that mean we are going still higher or according to the Vostok samples "history" aren't we due for another ice age?

yes... if it gets too hot, the sea gets hot, and undersea CO2 reserves (locked in ocean floor) start to "boil" and bubble to the surface. creating some what of a run away effect. The Earth does have some reserves that are boiling (north sea near Norway has alot of activity lost link on that though), but not enough to cause any major issues... As i say, the plants are our only protection from this.

also, H02 is one of the worst greenhouse "gases" once water vapor fills the air, it holds alot more heat... and is probably the reason venus is so hot now.. Latest research seems to think that Venus, Earth, and Mars all had LARGE amounts of water at the beginning, but with large amounts of evaporation on Venus, the planet started to boil.... and we see the results today.... the hottest (and highest pressure) planet in our solar system... the lighter H02 Gas would have been "blown off" by solar wind (venus has no magnetic field to protect it), but the heavier CO2 has stayed to keep that planet at a nice and warm 300-400C (or is it F?)...

on the ice core information:
some of those cores show that at one point we had around 360ppm of C02, we are currently at around 375-400ppm on C02 not much of a difference. Mainly because when the planet was young, there was alot more volcanic activity releasing C02, Yet now, with all our fuel burning factories we still not pushing that too far over the natural peak of the planet.

(im slightly drunk so sorry if this makes no sence!)

**CingularDuality** · 04-17-2006, 12:58 PM

Global warming is true!!!!

Just look at Dallas temps for this year:

AMosely · 04-17-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Global warming is true!!!!

Just look at Dallas temps for this year

Actually I think that's just a result of the dramatic increase in the amount of political and religious hot air emminating from the city's population.

**CingularDuality** · 04-17-2006, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

Actually I think that's just a result of the dramatic increase in the amount of political and religious hot air emminating from the city's population.

Ah, if a rural town a few miles to the northwest hadn't been the hottest place in our country at 102F yesterday, then I would heartily agree with you...

**Overlag** · 04-17-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Ah, if a rural town a few miles to the northwest hadn't been the hottest place in our country at 102F yesterday, then I would heartily agree with you...

yet the UK (and Europe) has just gone through one of the longest winters in my life time....and its still bloody cold now!

i guess the golf stream is slowing down still... Bah everyone else gets warmer, and we get colder, it must be Blairs fault!

Switchcraft · 04-17-2006, 05:32 PM

What really bothers me is how often scientists who do not drink the Global Warming Kool-Aid are shouted into silence. Reading this by a professor of atmospheric science at MIT is telling, especially his references to being brow-beaten and ridiculed by crusaders like Al Gore.

It's a good read, especially inasmuch as it explains in layman's terms why this last years natural disasters cannot be blamed on global warming.

04-11-2006, 10:40 PM	#92 (permalink)
GhostintheShell Join Date: May 2003 Location: Guelph, Ontario Age: 37 Posts: 963	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin Well, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on these topics. Everyone of the items you mentioned have equal and opposite counterpoints form my POV. Glaciers, everyone is focused on the few that are receding when in fact there are over 200,000 known glaciers in the world and we only have decent data on ~60 glaciers, some of which are actually increasing in size. Carbon Dioxide, has increased approximately 75ppm (from 300 ppm in ancient days to 375 ppm now) Many scientists believe that this small increase in CO2 is insignificant and if anything will have an added bonus of boosting plant life on the planet, which would inevitably re-balance the CO2 levels. Coral Bleaching, isn't simply a matter of increased UV radiation. Temperature, solar irradiation, sedimentation, fresh water dilution, inorganic nutrients, Xenobiotics and several other contributors are believed to be involved in the process. Additionally, it has been hypothesized that bleaching is an adaptive mechanism which allows the coral to be repopulated with a different type of zooxanthellae, possibly conferring greater stress resistance. Acid Rain, Myth: Acid rain has caused a large portion of U.S. lakes to become acidic. Fact: In a recent study of 7,000 Northeastern lakes, only 3.4% were found to be acidic. Most of these lakes are just as acidic as they were before the Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, most of the acidic lakes in the United States are in Florida, where there is the least acid rain. Myth: Data taken by proponents of the acid rain theory is accurate and conclusive. Fact: Proponents of the acid rain theory have rested their claims on a deeply flawed series of articles by G.E. Likens and his co-workers in the 1970s. A careful evaluation of Likens' research conducted by a group of scientists at Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., reveals that his data collection and selection was deliberately biased to support the desired conclusions. Myth: Acid rain destroys vegetation. Fact: Acid rain actually has a positive impact on vegetation. The nitrogen and sulfur characteristic of acid rain, act as nutrients essential for plant growth. The world's first acid rain study concluded that, "the principle effect of acid rain is the improvement of crop yields and crop protein content." Myth: Acid Rain is unnatural. Fact: Rainwater is naturally acidic. Because water is such a good solvent, even in the cleanest air, rainwater dissolves some of the naturally present carbon dioxide, forming carbonic acid. According to EPA regulations, Ph levels any lower than 5.0 are environmentally harmful. Yet, an analysis of ice from the Antarctic and the Himalayas, deposited hundreds and thousands of years ago when the environment was presumably pristine, had Ph values ranging from 4.8 to 4.2. __________________ Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

04-12-2006, 01:23 PM	#94 (permalink)
AMosely Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maine Age: 34 Posts: 2,793	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin I was actually referencing a report on Anarctic sea ice - as in polar ice caps - not glaciers. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=australia. Glaciers are localized and are therefore subject to local climate, although I think you will find that on the whole, these are retreating as well. This showed up today in the washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101893.html

04-14-2006, 11:04 AM	#95 (permalink)
GhostintheShell Join Date: May 2003 Location: Guelph, Ontario Age: 37 Posts: 963	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin The Washington Post article was a good one. __________________ Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

04-14-2006, 11:11 AM	#96 (permalink)
SmokingTarpan Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,471	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin Enter Al Gore: http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramo...nvenienttruth/ Although I do think it's rather funny how he introduces himself, heh. __________________ [squadl] "I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

04-15-2006, 04:37 PM	#99 (permalink)
GhostintheShell Join Date: May 2003 Location: Guelph, Ontario Age: 37 Posts: 963	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin I think what you are talking about with ice core samples are the "Vostok" cores which show the trend of CO2 to "estimated" earth mean temperatures. One of the problems is that they don't really show cause and effect. Maybe both items were high due to another factor? Maybe the increased earth temperature cause the increased CO2. They move in relation, which is important, but they also show a very simple cyclic pattern of hot and cold. Right now we are at the point of a cycle which is admittedly high but does that mean we are going still higher or according to the Vostok samples "history" aren't we due for another ice age? __________________ Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

04-17-2006, 12:58 PM	#101 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 17,137	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin Global warming is true!!!! Just look at Dallas temps for this year: __________________ Become a supporting member! Buy a Tactical Duck! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

04-17-2006, 05:32 PM	#105 (permalink)
Switchcraft Join Date: May 2003 Location: New York, NY Age: 31 Posts: 1,096	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin What really bothers me is how often scientists who do not drink the Global Warming Kool-Aid are shouted into silence. Reading this by a professor of atmospheric science at MIT is telling, especially his references to being brow-beaten and ridiculed by crusaders like Al Gore. It's a good read, especially inasmuch as it explains in layman's terms why this last years natural disasters cannot be blamed on global warming.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links