Science and Society

It would seem that Sec. Kempthorne is merely doing what many other government officials in a similar situation would do: attempt to strike a compromise which satisifies no one, which has no practical effects, and which fails to recognize the more significant problems behind the issue.

One question remains, though: was the polar bear on the right in the photo accompanying today's entry signifying his approval of the measure, or was he (or she) merely gesturing for the camera? I wouldn't want him (or her) to give the wrong impression, after all.

A few years ago Alaska was seriously looking into sueing for seperation from the US as the US has not lived up to the state hood act. The US didn't own Alaska at the time of statehood. Now it is time to seperate again, free Alaska from outside infuences!!!

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) which is a branch of NOAA, this season's (winter 2007-'08) Arctic Ice Cap was near normal in area, as opposed to below normal in the recent past, and was thicker than usual. In addition, the Antarctic ice cap is actually larger than is normal.

Why don't we transplant some Polar Bears to the Antarctic to help ensure their survival?

where are you getting your information?. I am looking at my own back yard at Mt. Hood in Oregon and the glacial side of the moutain has decreased a third in just the past 20 years. I am hear to tell you that this warming is afffecting everything. I used to have frogs in my back yard. They are no longer there. I am not some extremist. Nor am I some one to change the world. My voice is small.I would like to do what I can.

RE: Shanno. This type of isolated peaking at climate change is not only foolhearty, but dangerous. Did you ever stop to think that parts of the world change in temperature?

Some get hotter, some get colder, its climate shifting.

Sure your part of the world has gotten warmer, but what about parts who have become cooler? Don't assume that since it happens to you, that it is everywhere.

Secondly, have you stopped to think that changes in the temperature may not be anything human related? Did you know that 98% of all pollutants are natural?

Also, have you stopped and thought about the biggest affect on our climate? The sun. To gauge the effect of our sun on earth, we look at other planets to see how things are changing and compare them to Earth.

Get informed, don't hide behind what extremists scream and holler and "sue" for.

The endangered species movement was meant to save animals in danger of extinction - which was determined by numbers - how many and was the population growing or shrinking. It was not meant to be used as a political weapon for Global Warming or anything else. No matter how you feel about one, the other should be left for its intended purpose - to protect animals in imminent danger of extinction - and the Polar bear is not there. I hope we will continue to protect endangered animals everywhere. Using the endangered species designation to forward any other agenda is wrong - in my opinion.

Todd,

Actually the National Snow and Ice Data Center site is absolutely full of evidence that the ice is melting. They even help run a museum exhibit showing the changes inflicted on the Inuit. A study done by them last year shows the ice melting faster that IPCC computer models even suggested.

Given that a great many large mammals species died out at the end of the last ice age (and the current rate of extinction world-wide) it isnt hard to see that animals are quite often unable or unwilling to adapt their ranges or behavior quickly enough to avoid extinction. There have also been several studies showing that polar bears are having an increasingly difficult time of it.

Habitat loss is the number one killer of species world-wide, I don't know why it would be any different with the polar bear.

I think you're correct in your statement, but NSIDC also said what I posted for the latest winter season. I didn't try to color the message it only says for the most recent reporting period that the extent of the Arctic Ice Cap was about normal in area and thicker than usual which I assume is a true statement on their part. The fact that the Antarctic ice is actually larger than normal should be a confirmation off at least a short-term re-balancing of the ice sheets. Furthermore, there is a study by the Univ. of Washington regarding the ice covering Greenland which asserts that while the ice is melting it is doing so at a much slower rate than was thought previously. I don't want to see polar bears disappear, but I also don't want to see the US as third world nation because we wouldn't take simple steps to preserve our energy security and standard of living.

bubba.....sorry, I put your name in the name box instead of mine....oopps, not enough coffee yet.

I think that those who would blame the northern polar warming should read up on internal radiative forcing, the PDO and the North Atlantic Oscillation and keep in mind the current increase in vulcanism particularly under Greenland.

Bubba.....the use of oil in ANWR seems to be a matter of some disagreement. According to API figures it could offset our importation of Saudi oil for three decades while Nancy Polosi says it will only last 6 months. My point, obviously, is that for the past year the reduction of ice at the poles has not only stopped but reversed unless you have some other explanation for what's happened, Al Gore notwithstanding. The University of Washington study also suggests that the Greenland ice isn't melting as fast as was originally thought, what does that say to you? I think it's also true that polar bear populations have also been on the rise recently.....no?

Your other point is the welfare of the polar bear is adversely effected by man....dah! We can do anything you want to try and mitigate mankind’s harm to the polar bear and it won't matter a hair. China has surpassed us as the world's leading carbon emitter and India is close behind, Russia doesn't care about global warming so there not going to do anything. None of them will take any action on reducing their carbon emissions. So we're going to make a GESTURE that won't improve the well-being of the bears and will keep us in energy and economic uncertainty for generations to come. Nice idea Polyanna.

If you really want to do something to help the atmosphere and thereby the polar bears, you should be shouting about the virtues of nuclear power....but that's not politically correct is it?

Sorry Todd but you seem to have brought a great deal of personal baggage to this discussion. I'm simply talking about the fate of the polar bear and how this event, WHATEVER THE CAUSE (<---read this part for once) might be damaging to them.

If you want to wage a jihad based on cut and paste republican talking points, attack Al Gore or misinterpret and cherry pick science in a way that would make a creationist proud, Im not getting involved in it. I'm not a global warming expert, I'm just making a comment on the danger to polar bears caused by the loss of the ice. Again, for the fourth time, whatever the cause.

I wasnt even aware that the current state of the art of climate change denial involved doubt that it is occuring. Most of their effort seem to be focused on it being a natural process bearing no relation to human activity.

Spin it any way you want Bubba, what I stated is a FACT according to the NOAA Agency. There HAS been a reversal of the reduction of polar ice caps. It may be temporary it may not.

I didn't say I didn't believe in global warming, I don't believe listing the polar bear as an endangered species, thereby keeping America from drilling for more domestic oil will make a difference to the bears survival, but it will help you and your tree-hugging friends feel better about your existence I suppose.

If you're not representing yourself as a "global warming expert," why are you questioning what is printed in black and white on the NSIDC website unless it violates your preconceived notions. Why can't you simply say, yeah may be it's an aberration?

Is this something fundemental with your personal self-image?

Bubba....I lived through both oil crisis during the 70's and very much remember them. My family drives two Civics (35 mpg), I totally agree with your SUV comment, it's total silliness. As I mentioned before though, we should speed the building and use of nuclear power plants for energy independence and security.

There are several issues here that you are conflating into a big ball of rhetoric. There is climate change and man-made climate change. I'm not making any claim of the cause, I dont follow the issue closely enough to comment.

What I am suggesting is that by taking a single data point and ignoring all of the other ones, you arent being rational. Without even explaining that the insititute that you are citing doesnt agree with your views.

There is always more ice in the winter, you have to see how much remains once the heat is one and compare from year to year. That's like saying the earth is cooling because it was cold last winter and maybe it will stay that way forever.

There are still seasonal cycles within the larger warming trend. NOAA said just last september that the artic is melting faster than expected.

Maybe god farted but the ice is melting over time. That is placing stress on the polar bears.

And I should add, this retreat of the glaciers is happening all over the world. Glacier covered mountains in the Ruwenzoris, the source of the nile, are reatreating fast and expected to be gone within two decades. Ive climbed on those glaciers so I know they used to be there. A similar thing is happening in the everest range.

As for nuclear power, I don't really have a problem with it but we need a way to dispose of the waste.

Bubba....I understand glaciers are retreating, if somewhat slower than predicted, at least in Greenland (Univ. of Wash.) How do you explain the fact that Antarctica's ice coverage is greater than normal?

I saw a TV feature on the snows of Kilimanjaro that stated, much of it's glacier is melting due to internal heat rise, it is a volcano, I think it was on Discovery Channel. I've skied on glaciers in Austria during the summer and they're getting smaller, no doubt.

Yucca Mountain in Nevada was supposed to be the National depository for nuclear waste, but the authorization bill was killed during the Clinton years for political reasons. I think it is otherwise ready to go, if we have the political will?

Glaciers in South America, Asia, North American, Europe, Africa and the Arctic are retreating. Mountains and ranges of every type. There will always be local climate and weather systems that have different variables but the big picture seems clear.

As for Antarctica, some parts are melting but its much less studied than the arctic. One argument suggests that its surrounded by complex deep ocean currents and so behaves differently. It might also be melting from underneath as parts of the arctic did. There is just much less information about that area atm and I dont know much more about it.

But on 5 of 7 continents (no glaciers in australia I imagine), you see the same clear glacier trends. Taken with other evidences of warming, I'd say we are warming. I don't have a reason to doubt it.

Kilamanjaro could be shooting sparks out its ass and it's one mountain, one system. There could be unique pressures on it but that doesnt explain the wider trend.

Well, a quick check shows australia might not have glaciers but of course NZ does and they are retreating too.

bubba.....I looked it up, Kilimanjaro: Volcano Above the Clouds appeared on PBS's NOVA science show in 2003 rebroadcast in 2007. An expedition to the summit discovered rising ground temperatures, they believe, due to magma within 400ft. of the surface. They also discussed the problems deforestation in the area has caused with precipitation patterns and how that effects glaciation on the mountain.

I don't doubt the fact of global warming, I have questions about why it's happening, how quickly it's occurring, and how much effect we can have on arresting it though.

The question remains, what is the best thing we can do to slow it, if it poses a threat. I believe that switching our primary power sources from fossil fuels to electric generation is probably the right way to go. Nuclear, clean-coal (with carbon-capture), improved wind and solar, and natural gas are the most likely future modes of generation. We should be moving in that direction now!

I vaguely know some of the arguments around kilimanjaro, the problem is that they are red herrings so I don't see the point of dealing with it. It's a talking point of Michael Crighton who is responding to a single slide of the Gore movie. It just doesnt address the larger reality.

Just a few hundred miles west you have the Ruwenzoris, which are nestled in a jungle and not having problems with deforestation, and glaciers retreating elsewhere that are not even volcanic.

The pattern is pretty clear, as you seem not to doubt.

I can't weigh into the specifics of the cause, as I can with evolution, because I would need to examine both sides in detail. In general though I trust the consensus view of science organizations all over the world, that it is happening and that there is some evidence we are influencing it.

My impression is that some populizers of the idea of man made warming have rounded a few corners. It's also my impression that many internet doubters haven't done their homework and are criticizing things they don't even begin to understand. There are too many shared tactics with the creationists, which sets my alarm bells ringing.

Maybe one day I'll take the time...

As for solutions, those sound good, I really don't know enough about it. I would add a national priority of conservation. As with money, not spending it is the same as making it.

I know that of the candidates, Obama and McCain favor looking at nuclear power. Hillary is agnostic, Edwards opposed.

Bubba.....I am definitely NOT a creationist, if that's what you're thinking? I firmly believe in the scientific method - 100%!

I am however an agnostic as to the causes (plural), extent, and ultimate impact of global warming. I don't like to jump because some alarmists tell us too, that's essentially what happened with nuclear power after three mile island and the movie "The China Syndrome." You can see how much good that's one did us.

All the other alternative technologies people are talking about, electric cars, hydrogen, fuel cells require electricity to produce. If you just fire up a bunch of current generation coal plants you don't solve anything as they emit more greenhouse gases to produce the required power. Hence nuclear - no greenhouse gases, no foreign oil, a win - win solution!

To be fair I don't know how easy it is to dismiss so many scientific organizations as "alarmist". I mean, NOAA, NASA, National Acadamy of Science, IPCC, Science orgs from all over the world, even oil companies like BP all agree that there is evidence that made-made C02 is the cause of global warming. Where consensus diverges is usually the long term consquequences.

Now, that's just an appeal to authority but it works for me on 100% of the other subjects that I dont know much about as well. We all do it, every day.

I'm not saying you are a creationist, Im just pointing out that I often see sloppy logic, cherry picking and outright disinformation from global warming skeptics online. That just happens to remind me of the tactics of creationists. A certain strain of paranoia as well. Not only are the majority of scientists wrong but there is often an implication that they have a hidden agenda for lying to everyone. Again, similar to creationist charges.

Its a politicized subject so people who wouldnt ordinarily wade into a scientific topic seem more inclined to grab their water-wings and start paddling. I'm talking in general terms here, not about you specifically.

bubba....Interestingly, a NASA team led by Son Nghiem, recently (October 2007) released observations that indicate the reduction in Arctic Sea Ice extent over the previous eight years is due to changing wind patterns forcing the ice into currents where it escapes the polar basin - is driven into the open sea and melts and is not due to global warming.

Additionally, in the January 2008 issue of Nature Magazine another study cast doubt on the theory that global warming is the primary cause of Arctic sea ice melting. Researchers found that the predictions of greenhouse gas models of global warming and sea ice melting were at exact opposite extremes with observation of vertical temperature profiles! Another words, commonly accepted global warming models predicted increasingly warmer air near the surface, what was found was increasingly warmer air in the upper atmosphere?

Such divergences should lead people to take another look at what's actually happening and not cling to politically correct orthodoxy.

And this means what? Measured increasing temperatures in the arctic might be changing the wind patterns and accelerating sea ice loss.

The same researcher, Son Nghlem, found large areas of inland antarctica melted recently as well. Quite a breeze.

How does that explain glaciel melting all over the world? Or measured increases in temperature? What you are arguing exactly?

The head of NASA, a bush political appointee has said that warming is established and that they have "pretty much nailed down" humans as the cause. He's no liberal and got himself in some hot water suggesting that the warming might be good for us. Buah himself called climate change a threat and he did that after being advised by the NAS. He didnt just make it up or read it on the internet.

The consensus of scientists and scientific organizations is that warming is real. OTOH, you keep making arguments that suggest there is no warming while saying that you agree that warming is happening. I dont quite understand your position.

bubba....you totally missed the point! I've said repeatedly I believe there is global warming, what do you want me to swear an oath?

My point was that some of the examples that the ALARMISTS use to scare people into also believing that it exists.....aren't caused by Global Warming! Mt. Kilimanjaro's snow cap, Arctic Ice shrinkage can all be demonstrated to be caused by factors unrelated, at least by the science we understand now, to GLOBAL WARMING!

Talk about disinformation, this is it. ALARMISTS such as Al Gore should stop trying to use these examples to create fear in peoples minds to prove their points. BTW, as long as Gore and his producer pal Laurie David fly around on private jets, drive SUV's, spend 20x the national average on their mansions utility bills, and Ted Kennedy doesn’t want a wind farm within sight of his family’s Hyannis compound, etc. people aren't going to buy their hype, it's utterly hypicritical.

Carl Sagan once noted "Extraordinary claims require, extraordinary evidence."
This issue REQUIRES further research, before taking drastic steps which might harm our economy and standard of living for generations to come, needlessly. Is that clear enough? Nobody knows the extent, rate of change, or harm that might be caused by the fact of global warming. I've heard food-shortages might be one of the possible negative consequences of warming. Guess what, the run-up of energy prices has already accomplished that way ahead of any global warming factors, hasn't it?

If polar bears are endangered by shrinking polar sea ice and the reason the sea ice is shrinking is due to changing wind patterns that we have nothing to do with, why should we change our policies?

>>>My point was that some of the examples that the ALARMISTS use to scare people into also believing that it exists.....aren't caused by Global Warming!>>>

That there is an alternate hypothesis to kilimanjaro melting means what? That wasnt the only example of glaciel retreat provided by Gore or anyone else in the debate. There are thousands of examples of it as youve admitted. What exactly does the alternate hypothesis establish for you to tout it so often? I still don't get it.

You are also overstating the case of the alternate kilimanjaro hypothesis for rhetorical purposes. It doesnt "prove" one thing or another, its just another possible model for a very specific location. It may well be right for that particular system but why hold it up as absolute truth (when you certainly arent qualified to assess 19th century water levels in Lake Victoria yourself) and then dismiss out of hand the consensus of opinion and papers that show man made C02 as contributing to warming? What's your metric for deciding which models are correct in a technical subject for which you are not trained? Your gut? Either way, kilimanjaro is a very specific system.

And what does someone's chosen transportation method have to do with the facts? Climate scientists could levitate on scooters that shoot out bricks of burning coal and it doesnt affect the argument. Are you planning on bringing John Kerry, Rosie and Alec Baldwin into the argument? I think you can barely conceal your vitriol for left wing figures.

An article at the NSIDC backed up many of the science claims in the Gore movie. You quoted them as some kind of authority on the subject so maybe that will impress you. Unless, they are suddenly no longer credible.

Certainly more study is always needed and criticism is how science works. There also may be some legitimate critiques of global warming from a few quarters. But, there is still a current consensus and it doesnt appear to agree with you.

bubba....I don't like hypocrites to begin with and that's what Gore et al. are, they talk the talk, but not the walk. Any one who calls for others sacrifice while declining to do so themselves aren't credible.

I've given you a number of examples of contrary phenomena that differ with man-made global warming conventional wisdom, as you point out, skepticism is key to science. Theories are always being questioned in almost every scientific field. What killed the dinosaurs, the origin and fate of the universe, the origins of life on earth, etc. To say, as you and others do, that we've arrived at the final consensus as to what causes and what will be the ultimate course of global warming isn't in keeping with that.

One of the qualities of a classic scientific theory is that it must make testable, verifiable predictions, what prediction has the MAN-MADE global warming theory posed that has been tested and verified? In fact, the in the case of the January ‘08 Nature article, the global warming model used to predict vertical temperature profiles was exactly....wrong! What should someone make of that, even a layman, what confidence should we have in other predictions made by this model?

You seem totally unwilling to think critically, remember all the things the human race thought they knew without a doubt? The world is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, the heavens are static and unchanging. Don't be so quick to arrive at a conclusion based on others estimations, even notable others, try to read and reason for yourself a bit more.

Enough of my POV. What about you? You want to save the polar bears, correct? What's your solution, what price should we in the US (I assume you're a US citizen) be willing to pay for the well being of the largest land carnivores on the planet?

Also, you have two cases. One for arctic sea ice and one for ice loss on kilimanjaro. Neither rules out a contributing role for global warming. I think it would be quite odd to find that an exposed mountain like kilimanjaro was immune to world-wide glacial retreat and only happened to melt due to its own specific problems. The same for the arctic, which we know is warming. Winds may just be enhancing the ice loss, not replacing warming as a cause.

>>>You seem totally unwilling to think critically, remember all the things the human race thought they knew without a doubt? The world is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, the heavens are static and unchanging.>>>

Some of those are still believed by christian geocentrics today. But the greeks knew the world wasnt flat as did educated people at the time of columbus. Still, that uneducated or prescientific people believed odd things doesnt seem much help to you unless you are calling climate scientists ignorant and uneducated. Certainly Ive heard global warming skeptics express distaste for scientists before.

>>>To say, as you and others do, that we've arrived at the final consensus as to what causes and what will be the ultimate course of global warming isn't in keeping with that>>>>

Sorry, I never said final consensus, I said consensus. In fact I believe I said "current consensus" at one point. I find it interesting that even recognizing a current consensus appears to be painful to you and something you are unwililng to address.

>>>>>One of the qualities of a classic scientific theory is that it must make testable, verifiable predictions, what prediction has the MAN-MADE global warming theory posed that has been tested and verified?>>>>

Eh, continued warming and more ice loss. How about that one? For decades now. If you mean predictions regarding AGW (man caused warming) and carbon stuff, I have no idea, its not my issue.

As for my opinion, I dont have much of one beyond general concern. It's not my issue and I'm not one to cut and paste and pretend I know more than ive read. But without knowing much about a subject, I can still spot spotty logic and prejudicial reasoning. In general I tend to agree with scientific consensus on subjects I dont follow closely though I couldnt swear any oaths. I also know that much of the criticism of global warming that ive read online has been from people who, well, lets just say havent represented their views well. Nothing a climate scientist should worry about anyway.

I have to say I still don't really understand your position. But that's fine.

I answered your questions it seems you don't provide that courtesy to others.

As for the polar bear, the consensus is that we are impacting global warming. If you disagree with the consensus of climate scientists I just expected you to have an actual argument.

I suspect that you find the idea offensive politically and so you don't care what scientists have to say about anything on this matter. Do you generally doubt scientists when it comes to areas that you don't know much about?

They said the earth was flat, so I might be right is not a persuasive argument. It's sort of a Hail Mary to nowhere.

But it is often used by creationists so its a good note to end on.

No offense though, many of my pointed comments were not directly aimed at you. I was thinking of many other internet personas Ive had this conversation with as well.

Come on, you are actually using standard global warming denialist talking points. Silly ones at that. What happened to your "agreement" with global warming evidence? Thought so.

The National Academy of Science never backed the idea of global cooling, nor did NASA nor NOAA nor the UN. No treaties were built around it, etc, etc. It was largely promoted by a popular book and some speculation, not peer reviewed science and large scientific institutions.

In a NYT "cooling" article from 75, that I just read, scientists specifically mention the prospect of global warming from CO2 as also being a possibility. The NAS in a report quoted by the article says, "any assessment of climate trends is hampered by a lack of knowledge: "Not only are basic scientific questions largely unanswered but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the right questions". Hardly a ringing endorsement of cooling. Today the NAS says something very different about the evidence of global warming. They think it's happening.

Now, there may well be reasons to doubt global warming but that silly spam is not it. By all means, learn about the subject and make a case but that's just cut and paste misrepresentation.