New Mars Forums

No, Trump, Ice Isn’t Growing at Poles, and Yes, We Are Boiling the Earth
Since Trump is not good with reading books and the like, it may be helpful to reply to his falsehoods with graphs.
by Juan Cole
January 29, 2018
Common Dreams

The Associated Press did a useful  fact check  of Trump’s bizarre assertions on climate change in the interview with his friend Piers Morgan.
Since Trump is not good with reading books and the like, it may be helpful to reply to his falsehoods with graphs.
   
   TRUMP: “There is a cooling, and there’s a heating. I mean, look, it used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming.
   That wasn’t working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place.” – ITV interview.

Actually, no. The average earth surface temperature has been  going up steadily  and indeed faster than most climate scientists predicted.

That is an average surface temperature increase. You have to keep in mind that it includes the oceans, which are cold, and the declining ice-covered parts of the world. So an increase of a degree Centigrade is much more alarming than it sounds. In any particular place, like Phoenix, AZ, the change could translate into a 10 degrees F. increase. Then planes couldn’t take off and people would be stuck in doors in air conditioning all the time.

   TRUMP: “The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records. They’re at a record level.” ITV interview.

The  National Snow and Ice Data Center begs to differ.

Trump spoke of “ice caps,” but the Arctic and the Antarctic are  very different systems. The north pole, what with being an ice cap on the ocean surrounded by land, is less complicated than Antarctica, which is a land mass covered by ice and surrounded by ocean.

Most scientists did not predict that the Arctic ice cap would be “gone by now.” They do think it will be gone in a matter of decades.

As can be seen from the NSIDC map, ice at the Arctic is not “at a record level.” The ice fluctuates month to month and year to year but the long term secular trend is obviously steeply downward. This declining northern ice cover is a direct result of humans farting greenhouse, heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at the rate of 41 billion metric tons a year! They belch out this nasty, toxic gas by burning coal and gas for heating and gasoline and diesel for transportation.

In 2016,  global sea ice declined so much that we lost a chunk of ice as big as the country of Mexico!

As for Antarctica, it is a land mass with an ice cover.  Its land ice sheets have been losing mass in this century at a worrisome rate.

It is true that the small ring of Antarctic sea ice  was growing slightly in extent in recent decades, but even it suffered a reversal last year. So it too is not at a “record level.” Since Antarctica is a land mass, its thin ring of sea ice isn’t what is significant (unlike in the case of the North Pole or Arctic, which is all sea ice). Antarctica’s sea ice can grow even if the gargantuan ice cover of the continent as a whole is melting. In fact, when  Antarctic ice over land melts and flows into the sea, it adds fresh water to salt water, making it easier for the ocean to freeze. Changes in the ozone layer could also be shifting wind patterns that contribute to a freezing of coastal water. There are also complex relationships between Antarctic weather patterns and the South Pacific.

Anyway, the paid-for denialists that Trump has been listening to have deliberately buried the lede. The story isn’t a little bit of extra sea ice around the continent of Antarctica. The story is the melting of the Antarctic ice pack. And that is not in doubt, any more than the melting of the Greenland ice pack.

It includes  enormous glaciers that are held back by ice shelves that extend over the ocean. If the ice shelves plop in, that won’t matter much–they are already in the water and so won’t increase sea level if they fall in. But if they release the glaciers, and the glaciers fall into the ocean, that will matter quite a lot. One of those glaciers is so enormous that it could raise sea level several yards/ meters all by itself, in which case say bye bye to Mar-a-lago and Miami and New Orleans and Calcutta, etc.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018 … ling-earth

Is it true that it will be called "the Great Trump Wall" with his name on it every mile?

They have found a way to easily get over Trump's bigley Wall!

Humans to Blame for Climate Change, Government Report Says
By Stephanie Pappas, Live Science Contributor |  November 3, 2017

Humans are to blame. That's the verdict of an executive-branch government report concluding that Homo sapiens are the dominant cause of planetary warming since the mid-20th century.

The climate report, released today (Nov. 3), paints a dire picture of the present and future effects of global climate change, from sea levels that could rise by as much as 8 feet (2.4 meters) by 2100, to more-frequent heat waves and other extreme weather events. It is also in stark contrast to climate change stances taken by President Donald Trump, who has ranged from calling it a hoax to saying he had an "open mind" about whether human-caused climate change is actually happening.

"Many lines of evidence demonstrate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," the authors wrote. "Over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence." [6 Unexpected Effects of Climate Change]

For instance, the global seas have risen an average of 7 to 8 inches (17.8 to 20.3 centimeters) since 1900, with nearly half of that (3 inches, or 7.6 cm) occurring since 1993, the report said.

"Human-caused climate change has made a substantial contribution to this rise since 1900, contributing to a rate of rise that is greater than during any preceding century in at least 2,800 years," the report said. "Global sea level rise has already affected the United States; the incidence of daily tidal flooding is accelerating in more than 25 Atlantic and Gulf Coast cities." [Photographic Proof of Climate Change: Time-Lapse Images of Retreating Glaciers]

And things are getting hotter, with annual average temperatures over the contiguous United States increasing by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) between 1901 and 2016. And over the next few decades, scientists predict those temperatures will rise by about 2.5 degrees F (1.3 degrees C) relative to the period of 1976 to 2005, the report said.

Assessing the science

The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) is based on an analysis of peer-reviewed research, publicly available resources, and certain models and data sets related to climate change, according to the report's executive summary. The report was overseen by the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program, which itself consists of 13 federal agencies that deal with environmental issues, ranging from NASA to the Department of Energy and the Department of State. The group assesses the current state of climate science as part of the National Climate Assessment (NCA) program. The new report is the first volume of the fourth-ever NCA (NCA4). The first NCA was published in 2000, the second in 2009 and the third in 2014.

Ultimately, the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program is under the oversight of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). President Trump has yet to name a head for his administration's OSTP. Previous presidents have typically filled the role before they've taken office or within a few months of doing so, according to The Washington Post.

The new report's findings conflict with Trump's stated positions on climate change. Over the years, he has called human-caused climate change a "hoax," including in a 2013 tweet that read, "We should be focused on magnificently clean and healthy air and not distracted by the expensive hoax that is global warming!" During the presidential campaign, Trump was vague on his beliefs about climate change, sometimes indicating he did not believe it was a problem, but telling The New York Times editorial board in 2016 that he had an "open mind" on the issue.

In office, Trump said that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, an international agreement that aims to limit global warming to below 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) above preindustrial temperatures. The president also nominated Scott Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who rejects the evidence that human-made carbon dioxide emissions are driving climate change, to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Dire warnings

In addition to documenting changes in temperatures and sea levels, the new report warns that heavy rainfall events are increasing across the United States, as are heat waves and forest fires. Reduced snowpack and early spring melt are driving water scarcity in the western U.S., according to the report, threatening to bring about long-term drought by the end of the century.

Atlantic hurricanes are likely to bring greater amounts of precipitation on shore in a warming world and may increase in intensity, according to the report. Small tidal floods have already increased between five-fold and 10-fold since the 1960s in U.S. coastal cities, and the rate of these floods continues to increase in 25 cities along the U.S. Gulf and Atlantic Coasts.

"Without major reductions in emissions, the increase in annual average global temperature relative to preindustrial times could reach 9 degrees F (5 degrees C) or more by the end of this century," the report authors wrote. "With significant reductions in emissions, the increase in annual average global temperature could be limited to 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) or less."

Such reductions require a major effort that would need to start rapidly, the report continued.

"After accounting for the temperature effects of non-CO2 species [such as methane], cumulative global CO2 emissions must stay below about 800 GtC [gigatons of carbon] in order to provide a two-thirds likelihood of preventing 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) of warming," the authors wrote. "Given estimated cumulative emissions since 1870, no more than approximately 230 GtC may be emitted in the future in order to remain under this temperature limit."

As is, the authors wrote, emissions are likely to surpass that level within two decades.

https://www.livescience.com/60860-human … eport.html

kbd512:  Since you have apparently joined the anti-science crusade of Trump and his corporate sponsors I assume you oppose this lawsuit against the EPA.   Is that correct?

Protect Democracy and Union of Concerned Scientists file suit against EPA over attempt to delegitimize science
January 23, 2018

Independent facts and institutions, and the open exchange of accurate scientific information, are touchstones of a functioning democracy. Anti-democratic regimes often seek to delegitimize and suppress authoritative voices that offer accurate information, especially if it can be used to criticize the government. President Trump and his administration have shown authoritarian tendencies in many ways, including a demonstrated hostility to science and to developing policy based on impartial and balanced scientific evidence. Recent particularly harrowing examples include subjecting traditionally independent EPA grant funding to political review, and EPA scientists being pulled from public events addressing critical national challenges, apparently because of their scientific views.

Today, Protect Democracy and Jenner & Block represented the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and an individual advisory committee member in filing suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), challenging one such attempt by the administration to delegitimize science and scientists: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s Directive removing academic and non-profit scientists who receive EPA grants from EPA advisory committees. In October, Pruitt announced that he would exclude anyone from serving on any of the twenty-three EPA scientific advisory committees if they had received EPA grants to fund any of their research. The Directive is arbitrary, without any factual or legal grounding, and violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires advisory committees to be fairly balanced and protected from inappropriate influence by the appointing authority.

As the suit explains, the Directive is an attack on science itself. By accusing academic and non-profit grant-funded scientists of having a conflict of interest, Pruitt seeks to portray legitimate, independent scientists—who provide accurate, evidence-based information backed by verifiable, peer-reviewed research in order to inform environmental policy—as just another interest group seeking to advance an agenda. But the EPA should have no vested interest in the outcome of EPA grant-funded research; grant recipients perform independent scientific research and are not beholden to the EPA for any particular result. The EPA’s interest is in obtaining accurate information in order to make the best policy; scientists on advisory committees provide just that—whether or not they receive EPA grants. Certainly, academic and non-profit scientists have significantly less to gain from agency action (or inaction) than the private industry representatives with whom they are being replaced.

The ability of ordinary citizens to participate in robust public discourse and to hold government leaders accountable requires a baseline agreement about fundamental facts. Anti-democratic regimes thrive on obfuscating truth—in part, by seeking to delegitimize and suppress authoritative voices that offer accurate information that can be used to inform the public or criticize the government.  Scientists are often a target of such efforts. This unprecedented Directive is an attempt to delegitimize and suppress the role of academic scientists advising the agency and, by extension, the results of their research.

American policymakers, businesses, and the American public must be able to trust that the government’s policies are grounded in fact-based analysis. A policy that excludes the nation’s most eminent scientists not only silences key, unbiased voices in EPA policy development, but signals government disapproval of the former committee members’ work—including, for example, critical climate change research. Government suppression and delegitimization of scientists and scientific research is anti-democratic and impedes the American public’s ability to knowledgeably engage with pressing national issues.

https://protectdemocracy.org/update/pd- … ee-member/

January 23, 2018
Scientists Sue EPA Over Advisory Board Changes
Administrator’s Directive Defies the Law, Undermines Science Americans Depend On

Today, a group of scientists filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for changing the makeup of its advisory boards to limit the participation of scientists from academia and nonpartisan non-profit organizations. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced in October that he would exclude anyone from serving on any of the 23 EPA scientific advisory boards if they had received EPA grants to fund any of their research. The directive is arbitrary, without any factual or legal grounding, and violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires advisory committees to be fairly balanced and protected from inappropriate influence by the appointing authority, according to the lawsuit. As the suit explains, the open exchange of accurate scientific information is a touchstone of a functioning democracy.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, and the law firm Jenner & Block, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists and Dr. Elizabeth A. (Lianne) Sheppard, professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health.

“This is an abuse of power and an affront to the scientific integrity of the EPA and the federal government.” said Joshua Goldman, senior legal analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists. “This directive singles out scientists from the nonprofit and academic sector—recognized experts in their field who want to serve the public—and asks them to choose between public service and their scientific work. It’s another example of this administration’s hostility to independent scientific input and basing policy on impartial and balanced scientific evidence. The directive inherently prevents the agency from receiving independent scientific advice, and erects unnecessary barriers to scientists who want to use their expertise to serve the public.

“The EPA hasn’t bothered to make the case for why EPA grants create a conflict of interest. Mr. Pruitt simply can’t justify this decision, especially when there are no such restrictions on scientists who get funding from the industries the EPA oversees.”
The lawsuit is vital because undermining scientific advisory committees weakens an important check on the administration’s decisions.
“Anti-democratic governments thrive on obfuscating truth and seeking to suppress scientists and other authoritative voices that offer accurate information,” said Protect Democracy counsel Jamila Benkato. “The EPA’s directive is one more example of the administration’s assault on facts.”

The directive unfairly excludes scientists from the role they should play in policymaking, according to the plaintiffs.
“I am committed to serving on federal advisory committees because I believe this is one of the most effective ways for me to use my scientific expertise to promote public health,” said Dr. Sheppard. “This directive forces me to choose between my own work and my commitment to the public.”

The lawsuit asks the court to overturn Pruitt’s directive and prevent EPA staff from implementing the directive.
“When we ban America’s top scientists from providing their expertise to the EPA, we all suffer,” said Goldman. “EPA advisory boards examine vital questions, like what makes for unsafe levels of pollution in the air and the amount of chemical exposure that constitutes a health risk. EPA rules need to be based on the best available science. This directive fundamentally undermines the EPA’s ability to carry out its mission of protecting all Americans.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.

https://www.ucsusa.org/news/press-relea … mjCb0xFyUl

UCS Sues to Stop EPA from Kicking Independent Experts Off Advisory Boards
Josh Goldman, senior policy analyst, Clean Vehicles | January 23, 2018

The Union of Concerned Scientists and Protect Democracy – a legal non-profit dedicated to preventing our democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government – have teamed up to challenge EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s directive that would ban anyone from serving on EPA advisory boards if they receive EPA grant funding. Under the guise of improving advisory board balance, Pruitt is using this directive to populate advisory boards with industry-funded scientists and state government officials who have made a career fighting federal regulations. The EPA Science Advisory Board, for example, now includes fourteen new members who consult or work for the fossil fuel or chemical industries, which gave Pruitt nearly $320,000 for his campaigns in Oklahoma as a state senator and attorney general.

Banning EPA grant recipients from EPA advisory boards excludes academic scientists from serving on EPA advisory boards in particular, since academics often rely on outside funding – from EPA or elsewhere – to conduct research, fund graduate students, and work in the public interest. For example, EPA grants have funded research linked with projects that: protect children who are at-risk for lead poisoning in Indiana, restore coastal forests in Connecticut, and maintain clean drinking water in Mississippi. It’s hard to argue why conducting research in support of these types of projects would make someone provide biased advice to EPA, yet that’s the reasoning that Pruitt uses to justify this directive. The reality is that industry-funded science tends to be biased, not science from independent academic institutions.

The scientists that Pruitt has removed from EPA advisory boards also happen to be some of our country’s best. Those already dismissed include a Fulbright Scholar and a member of the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, for example. Pruitt has replaced these leaders with scientists who work for the fossil fuel, tobacco, and chemical industries and have a history of downplaying the health risks of secondary smoke, air pollution, and other public health hazards.

The real reasoning behind this directive is to make it easier for Pruitt to delay, rollback, or dismantle the EPA regulations that are designed to protect clean air, water, and public health. As we begin 2018, EPA is reconsidering rules that would address: the high asthma and cancer rates caused by heavy-duty trucks on busy roadways, the huge amount of global warming emissions from passenger vehicles, and the outdated emergency response requirements for facilities that store explosive or hazardous chemicals. These types of regulations rely on advise from EPA advisory boards, which are now more likely to support Pruitt in loosening rules that cover the industries tied to the new EPA advisory board members.

Our suit challenging the advisory board directive, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleges that the Pruitt directive is arbitrary and capricious (legalese for b.s.), and has no basis in law or EPA precedent. Our complaint also details how this directive violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires all advisory committees to be “fairly balanced,” and not be “inappropriately influenced” by the appointing authority.

I’ll keep you posted on how this suit develops. In the interim, if you have received EPA funding or have served on an EPA advisory committee, send me your story at (jgoldman@ucsusa.org).

Even if you aren’t an EPA-connected expert, check out how you can get more involved in the fight against Pruitt’s anti-science crusade by visiting the UCS action center. This Administration needs to hear from everyone, not just scientists, and UCS provides a platform for you to join the hundreds of thousands of UCS supporters across the country in standing up for independent scientists and an EPA that seeks to protect public health, not industry profits.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldman/uc … ory-boards

They don't support Trump and his indicted gang.    Who does except assorted bigots and wackos?

So you agree with the Trump that this is nothing more than a "great climate hoax."    Do you also agree with Trump that China is behind the "hoax" and that their objective is to put West Virginia coal miners out of work?

All I can say is ..... YIKES!

Global warming?   Humbug!

I agree with peasant Trump and his loyal Trumpeters that global warming is a gigantic international hoax concocted by Chinese foreneers!

Last year John Davis,  Secretary of the Flat Earth, Society publicly announced:   “Universities have a history of granting honorary degrees to men of great significance.   Therefore I’m suggesting that this Society  make Donald J. Trump a lifetime honorary member of the Zetetic Council of the Flat Earth Society.

In response a member of the Flat Earth Society commented on their discussion board:   “I totally agree.   I think that Trump has the qualities needed to be a flattie.”   Another Flat Earth member chimed in:   “Perhaps someone should propose a flat Earth curriculum be taught at Trump University.”

A well deserved and hard earned reward by our Twitter-in-Chief.

Yet another right-wing propaganda hit piece on Space X.   This time from the Washington Times newspaper.

The hidden fees of Space
By Peter Weyrich
January 17, 2018
Washington Times

No one likes hidden fees. From unauthorized phone charges to home closing costs and prepaid card levies, they take a toll on low and middle-income Americans. To mitigate consumer outrage, members of Congress often demagogue unknown expenditures like ATM and airline baggage fees in committee hearings; costs which usually do not amount to more than a few dollars.

While some of these nominal fees are distasteful, at least consumers ultimately come to terms with them. Unfortunately, this is not always the case when dealing with the federal government, especially on high-ticket items. In fact, last week, one aerospace manufacturer may have incurred unanticipated costs to the tune of tens of millions or even billions on our bills, and yet the government is refusing to even disclose if there are any. Most members of Congress have yet to say a word.

SpaceX recently conducted Project Zuma, a secret mission involving a secret payload for a secret government agency. Some believe that costly problems occurred with the flight, although no one is certain on this point either because the outcome is apparently a secret, too.

Given that this mission involves taxpayer dollars, reporters and activists have been demanding answers. In the middle of last week, a reporter for Bloomberg pressed the Pentagon, asking: “This is a billion-dollar satellite. It’s been four days. Was it a success or a failure? And what’s the fate of the satellite?” Declining to answer, they advised him to refer all questions to SpaceX.

This suggestion was not taken very seriously. Asking a launch provider if it failed is the equivalent of querying a politician on potential wrong-doings. Instincts naturally tell both to deny everything.

After all, Washington didn’t exactly decide on the most reliable business available for this secret yet ostensibly important mission; it picked one deserving of quite a few poor Yelp reviews. In 2015, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 exploded while operating on a $110 million government contract. In 2016, it blew up while on a $62 million government contract, destroying a $205 million Facebook satellite in the process. To say the least, it wouldn’t be very shocking if the Falcon 9 failed to operate as intended again in 2018.

Meanwhile, just days after this SpaceX launch, the United Launch Alliance (ULA) completed its 124th-consecutive successful mission for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) — a substantial comparative difference. Is it time to cut off funding or put SpaceX on the back-burner until it matures into a more reliable contractor? At a minimum, the government should aggressively pursue answers as to why SpaceX seems to have so many more costly explosions and mission failures than its competitors.

Taxpayers are tired of getting ripped off. Perhaps SpaceX does indeed have some value on the marketplace — it does often offer cheaper rockets — but it’s hard to gauge its worth when the government seems to always shield the company’s problems from the public’s view.

Some argue that this favoritism has existed for years, not weeks. For example, NASA has still not released a detailed, public report of SpaceX’s 2015 explosion even though it released one of the company’s competitor, Orbital ATK. Rep. Lamar Smith was right on target when he said this “raises questions about not only the equity and fairness of NASA’s process for initiating independent accident investigations, but also the fidelity of the investigations themselves.”

There are definite potential motives for these suspected hide-and-seek games. Since the Tea Party Massacre, Americans have always been the de facto market regulators; the “invisible hands” working behind the scenes to ensure quality control. When the mobs decry a dishonest politician, he or she is voted out of office. When enough speak out against a practice in Washington, things change. But none of this can occur without public knowledge, something that SpaceX-favoring bureaucrats likely know all too well.

If the government wants to continue using providers that may be providing sub-par performance, that’s its prerogative. At the very least, though, it owes the masses truth and transparency.

Without it, America is no longer operating as a democratic republic. No information means no public voice, while the megaphones of politicians and bureaucrats continue to expand.

There is nothing less American than this, and it should change right now — this week — with an explanation of what happened with the Zuma mission. The American people deserve to know. After all, it’s their money that’s on the line, and their national security that’s at risk.

• Peter Weyrich has worked for free market advocacy organizations, including the Free Congress Foundation and Coalitions for America.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … ut-spacex/

This is the taxpayers’ money we’re talking about. Doesn’t the government owe them the truth?

Erosion on Mars has uncovered large, steep cross-sections of clean, subterranean ice. In this false color image captured by NASA's HiRISE camera, one of eight recently discovered stripes appears dark blue against the Martian terrain.