White House repeatedly edited global warming reports

And you know this how?

Cycloptichorn

Warming will also cause reductions in mountain glaciers and advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow pack in polar regions.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And you know this how?

Cycloptichorn

I know this from reading about the editing process on A2K.

Read the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph is based on the first sentence being fact instead of conjecture.

Quote:

Warming will also cause reductions in mountain glaciers and advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow pack in polar regions.

I have highlighted the erooneous, opinion based portion of the sentence. That is based on projections, models, estimates, theories and guesses. NO FACTS.

The rest is just scientific guesswork based on a theory.

Parados obviously has no scientific background. Otherwise, Parados wouldn't find this so funny.

IF warming trends continue as they are, there MAY be reductions in mountain glaciers and IT MAY advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow pack in polar regions.

McG,

The only thing I see is you don't have any knowledge of science after you accused me of not having it.

Go read "Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Science Program"
I posted the link above.


As for your...

Quote:

IF warming trends continue as they are, there MAY be reductions in mountain glaciers and IT MAY advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow pack in polar regions.

Until you can show me that the melting temperature of ice has changed I will stick with the prevailing science. If a certain lattitude averages 5 days a year of 31.6F and then warms up by .5 I can tell what happens to the average on those 5 days. It appears you can't.

There is a very real difference between predicting the exact temperature on a given day and predicting the averages over a longer period of time. Trends are called trends for a reason. It doesn't mean every measurement is UP if the trend is up. It means that on average they are up. I can't predict what the stock market will be next month or next year or in 10 years but I can predict the trend. Or are you totally against Bush's plan to invest money in the market since you can't predict what it will be on any given day?

I assume you understand that a prediction is a guess and not a fact, right? Keep in mind that we are discussing the paragraph that was edited and not global warming science. Trends change, predictions vary. To state something as a fact in an official government release would be a mistake. That's why it is SOP to have a committee vet any documents before they are released.

McGentrix wrote:

I assume you understand that a prediction is a guess and not a fact, right? Keep in mind that we are discussing the paragraph that was edited and not global warming science. Trends change, predictions vary. To state something as a fact in an official government release would be a mistake. That's why it is SOP to have a committee vet any documents before they are released.

So, I can assume you were and are completely against putting money in the stock market based on your claim that a prediction is only a guess. You do keep the SAME standard at all times. Right McG?

I assume you understand that a prediction is a guess and not a fact, right? Keep in mind that we are discussing the paragraph that was edited and not global warming science. Trends change, predictions vary. To state something as a fact in an official government release would be a mistake. That's why it is SOP to have a committee vet any documents before they are released.

parados wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

I assume you understand that a prediction is a guess and not a fact, right? Keep in mind that we are discussing the paragraph that was edited and not global warming science. Trends change, predictions vary. To state something as a fact in an official government release would be a mistake. That's why it is SOP to have a committee vet any documents before they are released.

So, I can assume you were and are completely against putting money in the stock market based on your claim that a prediction is only a guess. You do keep the SAME standard at all times. Right McG?

Please try staying with the subject of this thread.

McGentrix wrote:

I assume you understand that a prediction is a guess and not a fact, right? Keep in mind that we are discussing the paragraph that was edited and not global warming science. Trends change, predictions vary. To state something as a fact in an official government release would be a mistake. That's why it is SOP to have a committee vet any documents before they are released.

We are discussing a paragraph that was edited in a 211 page document about global warming with sections titled "State of knowledge" and "Research needs". Are you claiming you know everything there is to know about the Arctic water cycle and there is no need to understand what will happen if it changes?

I am curious as to how you propose to study anything if you don't come up with a hypothesis first and then test that hypothesis. Care to elaborate on that for us with your vast "scientific" knowledge? The paragraph was not listed as fact. It was a list of very probable changes that would need to be studied if warming continues. A prediction. You do know what they call predictions in science, don't you McG?

You are too funny McG. First you point out that the paragraph has the word "will" in it so it isn't a fact at all but is opinion. Now you argue that it shouldn't be included because the govt document shouldn't state it as fact. You are contradicting yourself now McG. Which is it as it was written? An opinion or a fact? You can't seem to make up your mind.

Warming will also cause reductions in mountain glaciers and advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow pack in polar regions. In turn, runoff rates will change and flood potential will be altered in ways that are currently not well understood. There will be significant shifts in the seasonality of runoff that will have serious impacts on native populations that rely on fishing and hunting for their livelihood. These changes will be further complicated by shifts in precipitation regimes and a possible intensification and increased frequency of extreme hydrological events.

"Reducing the uncertainties in current understanding of the relationship between climate change and Artic hydrology is critical."

"wetlands will expand in areas where meltwater resutling from deeper and longer thaw periods does not have a natural drainage path to the ocean."

That whole paragraph is an opinion. It has no facts represented within it. The reason it appeared to be deleted was it was so edited that it became useless and could be replaced in a much simpler way with less opinion.

Read the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph is based on the first sentence being fact instead of conjecture.

Quote:

Warming will also cause reductions in mountain glaciers and advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow pack in polar regions.

I have highlighted the erooneous, opinion based portion of the sentence. That is based on projections, models, estimates, theories and guesses. NO FACTS.

The rest is just scientific guesswork based on a theory.

Parados obviously has no scientific background. Otherwise, Parados wouldn't find this so funny.

I assume you understand that a prediction is a guess and not a fact, right? Keep in mind that we are discussing the paragraph that was edited and not global warming science. Trends change, predictions vary. To state something as a fact in an official government release would be a mistake. That's why it is SOP to have a committee vet any documents before they are released.

Climate model results also indicate that temperature increases will be amplified in the Arctic due to feedbacks involving permafrost, snow, and ice cover. Should these amplified increases occur, melting continental snow and ice may result in changes in northern river runoff and ocean salinity, while thawing permafrost may lead to increased releases of methane (a greenhouse gas) to the atmosphere.

...there is a difference between "compares the potential consequences" which is a definitive statement and that "might allow comparisons of the potential consequences" which is a maybe and a hope.

Ah, ok, I see where your misunderstanding is now. I should have said "To state something as a fact, that isn't, in an official government release would be a mistake."

wetlands will expand in areas where melt water resulting from deeper and longer thaw periods does not have a natural drainage path to the ocean.

Warming will also cause reductions in mountain glaciers and advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow pack in polar regions. In turn, runoff rates will change and flood potential will be altered in ways that are currently not well understood. There will be significant shifts in the seasonality of runoff that will have serious impacts on native populations that rely on fishing and hunting for their livelihood. These changes will be further complicated by shifts in precipitation regimes and a possible intensification and increased frequency of extreme hydrological events. Reducing the uncertainties in current understanding of the relationship between climate change and Artic hydrology is critical.

Bush wants to kill us all.