900,000-year-old ice may destroy US case on Kyoto

[kskiska]

An Italian expedition to the Antarctic has taken a sample of ice which is more than 900,000 years old and could give scientists evidence of past climate changes which would discredit global warming doubters.

The ice core, which is double the age of previous samples, will show how much carbon dioxide there was in the atmosphere during previous warm and cold phases in the climate and whether the current concentrations caused by burning fossil fuels are likely the lead to catastrophic global warming later this century.

The new core could be enough to discredit the fast diminishing band of climate sceptics, who have the ear of the Bush administration and who say that the climate has always fluctuated and man's destruction of forests and use of oil has nothing to do with the current rising temperatures and increased storminess across the world.

(snip)

He (Bush) said that cutting fossil fuel use would damage the US economy and that more scientific research was needed. Since then the science has become more certain, but this latest ice core could provide evidence that even hardliners would find hard to ignore.

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1468499,00.html

[lovuian]

1. Bush will still say the Italian Ice is a lie!!!

Deny Deny Deny!!!

[1monster]

3. Naw... he'll just assume that the Italian Ice is just what is on the menu

for dessert at then next state dinner........

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. Clenis...

...did it.

[Tace]

18. Hail Clenis!

On Edit: Gotta' spell Clenis properly.

[54anickel]

2. Come on, that's simply based on science. I still won't believe it until

I'm given a sign from God! ;-)

[NickofTime]

4. Human-Induced Global Warming has Been Going on for >8,000-years

When Did Humans First Alter Our Climate?

[Lorien]

7. The only dramatic changes started during the

industrial revolution, then accelerated in the early 1970s, and again in the late '90s. A good friend of mine has been studying ice core samples in the Antarctic with a team from the Ohio State University since the mid '60s. They've been at the forefront of sounding the alarm on global climate disruption for thirty years now, but their solid science is largely ignored by the world's politicians. The hell of it is that WE'LL all pay the price for the greed of a few controlling corporate and political interests.

[donco6]

8. Even the article talks about the acceleration in recent years.

What's your point?

[Trajan]

10. EVIDENCE of Human Induced Global Warming ...

Is extremely recent ....

[Gregorian]

27. The major factor in global warming-

(see below)
It's an exponential curve. And it corresponds with the warming. 2 billion, four billion, six billion...1890, 1970, 2000.

[KittyWampus]

54. Difference- Now, Human Activity Has Left Earth With Black Lungs And

"bouncing back" will be much more difficult and traumatic.

In earlier times, there was more forest left and the Earth was in much better condition.

[LiberalFighter]

5. Freeze dry gw*dipshit and deposit in Antarctic

and his fake scientific advisors

[slor]

19. While I like your idea...

I do not think it is legal, yet, to dump toxic materials in the Antarctic.

[LiberalFighter]

43. Send bio hazard material to the sun

[Richard D]

6. this can't be true . . .

. . . after all, the universe was only created around 6000 hears ago. God put that ice there and made it look 900K years old just to test our faith.

[PartyPooper]

9. Amen.

:eyes:

[Occulus]

11. I love that argument.

It boils down to, "God is a deliberate liar."

[Delphinus]

22. Oooooh! n/t

[Algomas]

12. Exxon has paid RW think tanks over $8,000,000

to discredit global warming. What insanity, we have about ten years before the process is irreversible. Of course, in their tiny little minds, short-term profit overrules basic common sense. To hell with the Earth, I want more profit. They, themselves are the best evidence against evolution. We are truly a pathetic species worthy of extinction. Too bad we will take the whole planet with us...

[mutus_frutex]

13. Just saw a whole segment of this on PBS's NOW

Great piece. David Brancaccio is great. Amazing to hear that dipshit Inhofe accuse scientists of perpetrating a hoax.

The global warming deniers remind me of the creationist crowd: ignorant people for the most part.

[AnneD]

20. they remind me...

of the Holocaust deniers.
Now has had wonderful segment (Karl Rove was last week)lately. I try not to miss them. Very meaty.

[leftofthedial]

14. science is so reality based

that's so last century

[Anarcho-Socialist]

15. science is satan...

...the devil put things there to confuse the non-believers!!!

(/idiot freeper)

:bounce:

[Carolab]

17. Bush's argument is so full of holes it's practically transparent.

Who doesn't realize that the rising costs of fossil fuel are damaging the economy far more than signing on to an agreement that forces the development of renewable, biomass energy? We could develop an incredible industry in that and lead the world in reducing CO2 emissions.

[Poppyseedman]

21. The biggest problem with this article is the fact it leaves out a very

important piece of information

The Kyoto Treaty isn't going to work.

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

[hatrack]

23. Yes, it's far too weak

In addition, we're probably past the point where any treaty or agreement can rein in ghg buildup.

[MGKrebs]

24. Well sheeit! Then I guess we oughta throw it out!

If we cain't do it purfectly, then we ought not to do it at all! That's what my Pappy always told me.

[Poppyseedman]

25. It ought to be tossed.

First of all. China isn't participating. They have agreed to support it at least for now. Whatever that means. Russia is playing politics with it. India is building coal burning plants as fast as possible.

The USA is not going to throw it's economic strength down the toilet until we can be assured everybody is playing by the same rules. That will never happen.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1268251.stm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0518/p06s01-woeu.html

I know reality sucks, but the treaty is dead in the water and will be forever. Even if it was signed by all, China, Russia, India, the US will not implement it.

We should stop kidding ourselves. There is a better way to do this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. What is the better way to do it, then?

Everyone bent over backwards trying to get an agreement that the US could sign up to, and Bush still ignored it (with every evidence that the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, would back him up). How do you think the US government and legislature could be persuaded to sign up for a much stronger agreement? The US is still the major problem - producing CO2 far above the world's average.

[Poppyseedman]

30. First of all, I'd be the last person to defend bush, but it's not

just him. It doesn't matter who was in office, it's not going to get signed off by the congress and sent to whoever is sitting in the oval office. Clinton didn't push for it to be signed. Kyoto is a death sentence for us economically and that makes it politically unfeasible.

We don't need a stronger agreement, we need new thinking

The Kyoto treaty is a idea that is flawed from the beginnings. It's almost 10 years old. Technology will pass it by.

As the leading economic and only world power we have the ability to develop energy source that are cleaner and safer. We just need to political leadership to galvanize the business and scientific community to move in that direction.

1. Nuclear power. France is leading the world in production.

2. Hybrid Solar power systems: untapped

3. Hydrogen power: underdeveloped

4. Alternate uses for clean burning coal:

5. Ocean power: wave generators. Awesome potential

I could go on.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Kyoto doesn't stop those methods being used

It's up to the countries to work out how they will decrease their own production of CO2 (though I have the feeling that there's some clause that means you can't take increased use of nuclear power into account - and that does annoy me).

The point is that Kyoto commits governments to actual targets, rather than just saying "it would be nice to produce less CO2 - does any company feel like doing it, just to be a good corporate citizen?"

Why do you think that technology could make Kyoto obsolete? It doesn't mandate the technology used to decrease the emissions.

[Poppyseedman]

32. If I developed a at home nuclear power energy source.

The energy corp selling me my electric power and burning whatever fuel to produce it would be burning less fuel every time I sell one to my neighbor.

The energy company would be overjoyed meeting their Kyoto targets as their close their doors for the last time because no one needs their products

All their workers would apply to help me make my new energy source.

Simplistic example, but I think you get my point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. No, I don't get your point at all

I don't understand your example at all. Less CO2 is produced. You say Kyoto targets would be met. So what's the problem?

[Poppyseedman]

35. The point was

Kyoto didn't force them to make a target.

The new technology, the at home nuclear device, I invented, lessened the demand for fuel burning energy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. And Kyoto didn't prevent you from inventing it

It would have given you additional incentives to do so, because your invention would be worth more to people who could trade carbon credits using it. So what is the problem with Kyoto?

[Poppyseedman]

38. The problem with Kyoto

is real simple.

China, India, Russia: Three of the biggest polluters in the world except the elite polluters like the USA are not going to abide by the agreements. They will have an economic advantage over all the other signers, including us. CO2 pollution and green house gases will be hardly affected at all.

Hence Kyoto will be a paper tiger making people like you feel good that we are doing something, all the while our economic base is being crippled while the big polluters, especially China undermine our livelihood.

If you don't have a problem with that scenario, I guess there is not a problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Russia ratified the agreement

China and India produce massively less carbon dioxide per capita than we do. To restrict them at this stage when it's us who have produced the excess carbon dioxide so far would be unfair.

You do realise that it's the Western economic base that has caused global warming, don't you? That it has to be reformed, or we'll kill millions?

Your alternative so far seems to be no international agreement at all. What would the incentive be for anyone to do anything to decrease carbon dioxide production at all?

[Viking12]

44. The problem with your argument

is that Kyoto was never set up as the "last word." Despite its flaws, the Kyoto Protocol is a necessary first step. Just as we exempted developing nations from the Montreal Protocol and brought them on board later, we can do so with the currently exempt nations.

[Igel]

34. The good shouldn't be the enemy of the perfect, t'is true.

But with Kyoto, we have the patently inadequate being trumpeted as the perfect for political ends by those who know better, and used to shore up their political bases and bludgeon others for political points.

In this case it's not the good being the enemy of the perfect. It's the bad being used to disguise the fact that nobody even wants to try to attain the good. The perfect? So unpalatable that it was garbage disposaled long ago to not embarrass the cooks.

[MGKrebs]

49. To papaphrase Rumsfeld,

it may not be the agreement we want, but it is the agreement we have. 189 signitories. And at the least, if we really can't sign it, we could at least say we agree with the intent and most of the provisions, and issue a resolution or something encouraging domestic compliance. Leadership does matter. Every country has economic hurdles to overcome, a large one for many countries being competing with powerful and established western corporations who already dominate industries.

Our current "leaders" sometimes point out the excessively high taxes in Europe, and they are high. And they are more unionized thatn we are, and generally pay higher labor wages. And yet, Airbus and Philips and LG and Daimler and Bosch compete quite well. A little economic hurdle for large corporations doesn't automatically mean the collapse of our economy.

[Igel]

52. The agreement we have is worth little to nothing.

Should it be enforced, it will offset the global warming curve by a couple of years. As it is, it doesn't kick in for a few years. Its net effect will be the misperception that something is actually being done.

[MGKrebs]

53. Ahh, this is the same argument I hear from some of the..

paper ballot activists around here. Anything less than a perfect bill is a decoy, and will only serve to hypnotize the masses into believing that the work is done.

Sorry. I ain't buyin'. Politics and activism are long term processes, and the masses ain't payin' attention anyway. Just because we only get 20% of what we want right now doesn't mean we give up and go home. Next year we get 20% more, and the after that maybe only 10%, but we keep working, and eventually, we get it done.

We tried to fix a lot of stuff fast last year. We lost. Time for plan B.

[Melodybe]

41. That's what my Grandpa, Dr. Wallace Broecker, says

He says that emissions are too far gone and the only way to do anything is to create some method of converting large amounts of CO2.

[Toots]

28. Impossible...The world is only 6000 years old

All science is bunk and only the bible is to be believed...

[leesa]

29. Well, we all know the planet is only 6000 years old, end of subject.

[orpupilofnature57]

37. Theres a giant on the beach! a giant on the beach!! His name is kkkarl.

[jsw_81]

40. 900,000 year old ice?

That's a lie! Everyone knows that the world ain't no more than 6,000 years old! The Bable says so! These silly scientists probably believe in evilooshin too! Gawd bless Presdent Bush! </fundie>

[Beetwasher]

42. MMMMM, 900,000 Year Old Italian Ice.....

Mmmmmmmmm.....

[leftchick]

45. Exxon Mobil/Bushco Connection to Think tanks is HUGE!

From the newest Mother Jones...



http://motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html


~snip~

Another contributor was ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol, who recently retired but who seems to have plied his trade effectively during George W. Bush’s first term. Less than a month after Bush took office, Randol sent a memo to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The memo denounced the then chairman of the IPCC, Robert Watson, a leading atmospheric scientist, as someone “handpicked by Al Gore” whose real objective was to “get media coverage for his views.” (When the memo’s existence was reported, ExxonMobil took the curious position that Randol did forward it to the CEQ, but neither he nor anyone else at the company wrote it.) “Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the U.S.?” the memo asked. It went on to single out other Clinton administration climate experts, asking whether they had been “removed from their positions of influence.”

It was, in short, an industry hit list of climate scientists attached to the U.S. government. A year later the Bush administration blocked Watson’s reelection to the post of IPCC chairman.



PERHAPS THE MOST SURPRISING aspect of ExxonMobil’s support of the think tanks waging the disinformation campaign is that, given its close ties to the Bush administration (which cited “incomplete” science as justification to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol), it’s hard to see why the company would even need such pseudo-scientific cover. In 1998, Dick Cheney, then CEO of Halliburton, signed a letter to the Clinton administration challenging its approach to Kyoto. Less than three weeks after Cheney assumed the vice presidency, he met with ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond for a half-hour. Officials of the corporation also met with Cheney’s notorious energy task force.

ExxonMobil’s connections to the current administration go much deeper, filtering down into lower but crucially important tiers of policymaking. For example, the memo forwarded by Randy Randol recommended that Harlan Watson, a Republican staffer with the House Committee on Science, help the United States’ diplomatic efforts regarding climate change. Watson is now the State Department’s “senior climate negotiator.” Similarly, the Bush administration appointed former American Petroleum Institute attorney Philip Cooney—who headed the institute’s “climate team” and opposed the Kyoto Protocol—as chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. In June 2003 the New York Times reported that the CEQ had watered down an Environmental Protection Agency report’s discussion of climate change, leading EPA scientists to charge that the document “no longer accurately represents scientific consensus.”

[sakabatou]

46. As long as it doens't happen in his lifetime

Bush will not care.

[iamjoy]

47. Is It Really 'Cos Of Fossil Fuels?

Is global warming really a result of the industrial age and emissions from fossil fuels? Current global warming doubters say we have not had enough time to really tell if these climate changes are natural or influenced by human activity.

For example, what is now Glacier Bay receded nearly forty miles in the first 75 years of the nineteenth century. Certainly the industrial age was in its infancy, but this is an unusually fast retreat for a glacier. And even today we have advancing glaciers (such as Taku Glacier which is part of the Juneau Ice Field). Advancing glaciers would seem to support the impending ice age theory.

but anyway, I think humans are causing global warming, and have been for thousands of years - ever since we changed from a hunter/gather society to an agrarian one.

In order to cultivate crops, humans cut down trees. Trees take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere (converting it to oxygen). With fewer trees, more carbon dioxide gets into the atmosphere...


Some climatologists claim we are heading into (or due for) another ice age. This provides fodder to those who would dismiss global warming as a hoax.

Maybe, the "due for ice age" crowd isn't really wrong. It is possible the the mini ice age of the medieval era would have been a full ice age or we would be headed into one right now were it NOT for the impact of human caused global climate change.

Am I maybe on to something here?

[panzerfaust]

48. Evidence?

What evidence have you that scientific evidence has, or has ever had, anything to do with BushCo's position on the irrefutable fact of global warming?

It will change nothing. BushCo will be “staying the course.” Now he just has 900,000 - instead of only 400,000 - years of data to ignore. Data that I doubt he knows, or cares, exists.






God Bless His representatives here below: Exxon et al

[Lisa]

50. a 900,000-year record -- COOL! (somebody had to say it ...)

I've been looking at a bunch of proxy climate studies lately. That is really amazing news. It'll be great if they can read right down to the bottom! It's neat how much data can be extracted from ice cores -- not just air composition and temperature, but even things like trace contaminants from forest fires and volcanoes.

(Yes, I'm quite the geek about this kind of stuff ...)

[orleans]

51. great--antique ice bush can pour his vodka & tonic over

just kidding of course. what would really happen if bush got his hands on it is he would say: "what do you want with this old stuff? i got fresher ice in the freezer" and he'd flush this chunk down the toilet.

naw--just kidding again. i'm sure he'd love for one of his christian "scientists" to get their hands on it to "disprove" everything all the other scientists will say about it--you know, someone who can "dispel" the trumped up truth we will hear from other scientists.

[IntiRaymi]

55. THE USA HAD A CASE?

Did anyone ever believe that the United States was actually using honest arguments in all this?