Hi 44° | Lo 22°

Editorial: Ayotte standing in the way of real change with climate change

This newspaper first warned about the threats posed by global warming in 1989. Twenty-five years later, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group comprising scientists from 195 countries, issued its starkest report yet. Human-induced climate change is not only real, but its effects are being felt now, and even more dramatic changes are unavoidable. Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane were curbed tomorrow, the panel reported last week, the Earth would continue to warm before its temperature stabilized.

The panel’s recommendations: Work to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels drastically and prepare for rising sea levels and an inevitable increase in floods, droughts and other extreme weather events whose affect on the world’s food supply could be profound.

Most of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation recognizes the danger. The votes of Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Annie Kuster and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen on environmental legislation, including bills aimed at slowing climate change, have earned them near 100 percent scores from the League of Conservation Voters. Sen. Kelly Ayotte is the odd woman out. Her league score was 31 percent in 2013 and 26 percent overall. At least three of her 2013 votes, including one on a bill to ban any attempt to levy a tax on carbon emissions, put New Hampshire’s environment and economy at risk.

The panel’s report echoed warnings made years ago by national security agencies. If emissions continue at current levels, the effects of climate change will be severe enough to destabilize societies. Crop failures, famines, water shortages, floods, the forced migration of residents from coastal areas and other disasters all increase conflict. Global food prices will increase, as they already are because of the drought afflicting the American West. The poor will get poorer. With poverty, the risk of violence increases. Aging infrastructure such as bridges, roads, culverts and pipelines will fail under stress from extreme weather. If nations do not prepare, damage to coastal areas could be severe.

Climate change skeptics point to the slowing of global warming during the past decade as evidence that climate scientists who say the problem is real and man-made are overstating the case. Global warming mysteriously slowed, though carbon dioxide levels increased.

Scientists think they’ve found the missing heat. It’s being absorbed by the oceans and being driven deeper by currents. That forces cooler water to rise, leading to lower air temperatures. But water expands as it warms so the absorbed heat is raising sea levels. The missing heat will reappear sooner or later, hastening the warming.

The Earth’s surface has been successively warmer in each of the last three decades. In the northern hemisphere, the years between 1983 and 2012 appear to have been the warmest three decades in 14 centuries.

Climate change deniers still exist despite such data, and politicians like Ayotte continue to thwart measures to slow global warming for fear of harming the economy. Yet far greater harm will befall all the world’s economies unless emissions are severely curtailed, and soon. Cities may have to be relocated inland and newly arid or drowned places depopulated.

President Obama is using every executive power at his disposal to increase the U.S. response to climate change, but real progress will require the help of Congress. We urge Ayotte to think of the future and support a tax on carbon, and to level the playing field between alternative energy and other sources by voting to end subsidies for oil and other fossil fuels.

Legacy Comments53

All the good progressives must either be out in the yard cleaning it up or at church and left all the godless, lazy, internet addicted conservatives to do all the posting this beautiful Sunday morning. It is so bad they have to spiel their junk to each other. Excuse me got to get out and clean up my garden, no time to read the same old stuff from Sail, Itsa, GWTw and the rest.

Oh, the old "the oceans will rise" argument. Is this piece opinion or fact or just repeated talking points. I would go with the latter.

Oceans ARE rising. Many coastlines are washing away all over the world.

My advice: when in doubt, always go with the facts. if only for the novelty.

Would that be the true facts or those supposed facts as propagandized on left leaning blogs and sites that you take your talking points from?

"This newspaper first warned about the threats posed by global warming in 1989." In 1970, the Washington Post, along with dozens of other newspapers (probably the Monitor as well) reported that scientists believed that we were entering a period of global cooling. Reports and warnings of a new Ice Age continued in all the major newspapers all the way through 1979. Time Magazine had a cover story on "The Big Freeze" in 1977. All blamed the impending disaster on pollution. Some went so far as to suggest population control and outlawing the internal combustion engine. Perhaps Senator Ayotte is correct to ensure we are dealing with fact before we go imposing new taxes on businesses, driving up the price of fuel and spending billions of dollars on unproven technologies.

Not quite, Captain. You're repeating a denier tune that doesn't hold up after examination. It's true there were some media stories, and some researchers who were concerned about the possibility of cooling--principally from air pollutants--soot, etc. But even the media stories played it pretty evenhandedly--saying in effect: "On the one hand, this could happen, but on the other hand, this could..." I think most or all emphasized the high degree of uncertainty involved back then. That said, 5 to 6 times more researchers even in the 70's were concerned about the possibility of a warming planet from CO2. Charles Keeling began monitoring CO2 level from a remote location in Hawaii in the 1950's. Now there is very little uncertainty left, in either the fact the planet is warming, and that we are already feeling the effects of more extreme weather events around the planet.

Bruce, from the Economist, June 23, 2013: "GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: "Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections".

Not quite. Though it's nice to see you using a more reliable source than you or sail usually rely on. The rate of warming of the surface of the atmosphere has slowed. And the author of the piece has the warmest year wrong-- by most measurements 2005 has been the warmest year to date. Global warming, taken as a whole, has not slowed. The warming at the surface has slowed due to natural variability, but not for the first time. Global surface air temps. have increased by 0.17 degree C. per decade since 1975. But this rate of increase has NOT been constant. The rate of warming during the fifteen year period between 1992 and 2006 was much faster--"statistically significant", AND it didn't fit the computer models used by the IPCC-it was much faster than any of the models projected. Between 1992 and 2006 surface warming occurred at a rate of 0.28 degrees C./decade. In response to this dramatic increase, scientists did what scientists do--try to figure out what was going on. Their conclusion was--surprise!--natural variability in the climate system. The ongoing warming of today due to increased greenhouse gas levels happens within a complex system that includes ocean currents with decade long cycles, as well as the random "noise" of volcanos (and their associated cooling effects) and air pollutants, not to mention changes in the Sun's output of energy. The same thing is happening now to slow the rate of warming--natural variability in a complex system. But the warming has not stopped, or "paused". And it certainly hasn't cooled. The climate system may have shifted to produce increased warming of the oceans over the past decade. But at some point in the near future, the rate of surface warming is likely to increase again, just as it has in the past. And that will be due to the ever-increasing amounts of CO2 we're adding to the atmosphere.

A joke right? Keeling took CO2 readings from near the Hawaiian volcano that spews.... drum roll please....... ta da.....CO2

The only joke is your repeated posts on a topic you know nothing about--and are apparently proud of that ignorance, since you put it on display so often. From the Wikipedia article on the Keeling Curve: "Keeling and collaborators made measurements on the incoming ocean breeze and above the thermal inversion layer to minimize local contamination from volcanic vents. In addition, the data are normalized to negate any influence from local contamination. Measurements at many other isolated sites have confirmed the long-term trend shown by the Keeling Curve, though no sites have a record as long as Mauna Loa. The Keeling Curve also shows a cyclic variation of about 5 ppmv in each year corresponding to the seasonal change in uptake of CO2 by the world's land vegetation. Most of this vegetation is in the Northern hemisphere, since this is where most of the land is located. From a maximum in May, the level decreases during the northern spring and summer as new plant growth takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis. After reaching a minimum in October, the level rises again in the northern fall and winter as plants and leaves die off and decay, releasing the gas back into the atmosphere. Due in part to the significance of Keeling's findings, the NOAA began monitoring CO2 levels worldwide in the 1970s. Today, CO2 levels are monitored at about 100 sites around the globe."

Wikipedia ? I know it was a joke

LOL, only when it doesn't support your position? I suppose Faux News is - fair and unbiased?

So when did you turn against Wikipedia? It used to be your go to site. Getting hard to find sites that agree with you anymore?

this is why I question your reading comprehension. Never ever has wiki been a go to site for sail. The exact opposite is true.

Do you have an issue with facts on the Keeling Curve as presented here? That's a yes/no question and should be the only issue here. Sail changed the subject because he has no factual basis on which to object. Nor do you.

Measurements are adjusted to account for local outgassing of CO2 from the volcano. Rhodes, J.M. and Lockwood, J. P. (editors), (1995) Mauna Loa Revealed: Structure, Composition, History, and Hazards, Washington D.C., American Geophysical Union Monograph 92, page 95 Nice try

"Measurements are adjusted" - what is troubling to real rational people is that with all the possible sites in the world to take measurements you support a study on the side of a volcano that has.... "Measurements are adjusted" - the Globull warming HOAX is over

You're blowing smoke. As ANY information on the Keeling Curve attests: the CO2 readings are confirmed by the same results from many other sites around the world. And here's a similar example from another real science study you can dismiss out of hand, in favor of the clown at WUWT: the BEST study looked at the urban heat island effect on temperature readings in the U.S., based on claims by the WUWT founder. The study found the NOAA/GISS "adjusted" temps fully accounted for any "urban heat island" effect. If anything, NASA/GISS over-corrected for any potential warming. But then, you'd already know this if you had read the real science, instead of what's deposited on right-wing sites after it's been passed through the alimentary canal of the deniers' lobby. And in case you didn't know, that clown at WUWT had promised beforehand to accept the results of the BEST study (partially funded by the Koch Bros), come what may, until the results came out, that is and threatened his claim to fame and raison d'être.

Facts always destroy a liberals narrative -1) HEADLINE: "NOAA closes 600 ‘hot’ weather stations.' 2) .HEADLINE: Has the BEST study out of Berkly California been debunked by one of its own authors? Dr. Judith Curry is again distancing herself from the BEST report which lists her as one of the two authors. She is considering severing relations with the BEST group due to the flagrant use of misinformaiton contained in the report. ... I am embarassed for you..... But go ahead Bruce and give us your excuse # 2826735

No excuses needed. A rational examination of the old claims in each of your recycled "headlines" shows that none of them pass the sniff test. Each has been dealt with on here in detail before. BTW: Curry had minimal involvement with the BEST study, and her public claims regarding anything having to do with climate science are taken with a large dose of skepticism. She's apparently chosen to lie down with the dogs of denial. As a result, she gets up carrying little fleas of distortion and inaccuracy. Only the mind of Judith Curry knows why, at this point.

Some media stories? Check out this list: There are some sixty publications that published "Global Cooling" warning. There are more references here:

How does a 16 year old small skinny kid go into a HS and injure 20 students with a knife? Is everybody he injures smaller than him? No football players around that are two years older than him? Is it me, or do our kids have no clue about how to defend themselves? Strange story. Sad also, that we are raising sons that seem to have a lot of anger issues, mental illness, and almost always seem to be hooked on violent movies and video games. We are definitely doing something wrong raising our boys these days.

Right on rabbit. I've said this for years . . . who is more dangerous, the kid who's taught how to handle guns(and preferably taught the lethal power of them firsthand through hunting) under the supervision of responsible, caring adults . . . or the kid who sits alone in his divorced mom's basement playing violent, 1st-person shooter games while mom is out late working her second job? There are many reasons for the recent rash of violent mass shootings/stabbings, etc. And most politicians continue to focus on the wrong one.

Um, who's mom took him to NRA-sponsored gun training, took him to NRA-sponsored shooting ranges - seems all the training by "responsible, caring adults " was for naught.

As someone who works in a public high school, I'd have to say that - depending on time of day - what happened today in PA is easy to envision. During passing time between classes, or at break/lunch, many school hallways are VERY crowded. You wouldn't have to travel too far and it wouldn't take that long in order to hit 20 or so students. I don't know much about the details of this incident - where in the school it happened, what time during the school schedule, etc. - so I can't say whether or not the halls were in fact crowded. I do agree that you'd think there'd be kids bigger than the assailant or a group of kids who would band together to stop them. In any event, the Asst. Principal who finally did step in is a hero.

Sixty articles from a diverse set of publications. And what fraction of all articles on all topics published in that interval examined is represented by articles on "global cooling"? I submit it's a tiny fraction of a fraction. And it would be equalled, if not exceeded by the number of articles in the popular press on global warming. And further, how many of those "global cooling" articles merely had catchy headlines, while the meat of the article was, as I said above, of the "on the one hand, and on the other" variety. And none of this obviates the fact that 5 or 6 times as many scientists even 40 years ago were investigating the likelihood of global warming. Try spending some time reading about the science, rather than cheap non-science b.s. from the denier lobby, just for a change.

In most Master degree programs they teach you to challenge assumptions as they do in Phd. programs at most institutions of higher learning. No one is suggesting that the planet is not warming but many educated folks are questioning the course of extreme action which hysterics would like to take. Mostly unilateral, most damaging to our prosperity, way of life and economic survival.

So, where did your education stop? Bachelor's, Master's or PhD???

I was working on my PhD..had to stop when my first heating bill came due.

Challenge assumptions? Credulous much? Surely you jest.You're the one who's swallowed whole the bunkum of the anti-science/conspiracy-minded far-right deniers lobby. We need to wake up to the urgency of the need for change. The ill-effects of climate change are the biggest threat to our continued "prosperity, way of life, and economic survival." is amazing that 1970 information is disseminated in 2014. You would think think that scientists have made no progress since then. I would refer you to a book at the Concord library 'Overheated' by Attorney Matt Guzman.

I read that much of the heat in NH sank to the bottom of Lake Winnipesaukee...under the 4 feet of ice.

hey..maybe we are entering an ice age...there sure is plenty in the great lakes and NH's big lake...

Before you make any claims about an ice age, better check your geography...even the Great Lakes are only a tiny fraction of the planet. And maybe check conditions in the Arctic, and down under as well. "Average ice extent for March 2014 was the fifth lowest for the month in the satellite record. Through 2014, the linear rate of decline for March ice extent is 2.6% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average." ttps:// BTW: global warming refers to global average temps. and does not mean that temps everywhere are constantly getting warming everywhere. Some places might even be colder than usual for a time. Just like some people are more obtuse than others. But luckily, on average, it all works out in the long run to yield a "liberal bias" in response to reality. But of course, you already knew that.

capthall, you are absolutely correct. But you can't argue those points with absolutists who see our country as the scourge of the world and want to take extreme measures. I am sure that many posters on this site would support population control and outlawing any fossil fuel use but it would be for some other ideological reason, using climate change as the excuse.

Classic globull warming ALARMIST ploy. FACT: oceans have warmed only 0.09C over the past 55 years. Neophytes can go to this link to see the real data and judge if the "journalists" editorials are in line with the data. 2) HEADLINE : Observed sea level rise still is (just) within the ‘natural range’ 3) "slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during last decade," which is in direct opposition to claims that the oceans "ate the global warming." 4) HEADLINE : Bottomless Pit: Even if ocean ate the warming, would only change ocean temperature by IMMEASURABLE hundredths-of-a-degree.

Ah..ignorance truly is bliss. Besides understating the warming, you've neglected another aspect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere: as part of the natural carbon cycle, the oceans absorb CO2. As they absorb increasing amounts, they become more acidic, with far-reaching consequences for marine life. is Ocean Acidification%3F

Only a deciple of the globull warming religion does not know that many studies have shown reefs throughout the world are doing just fine.

Your post is one more example that you have no idea what you're talking about, and that your far-right denier ideology demands you always say something to contradict the facts. You just make up your own facts to suit. Reality bites. "However, coral reefs are experiencing massive die-outs all around the world. At first, many thought the biggest threats to coral reef health were direct anthropogenic effects such as water pollution and sedimentation, but now it is clear that the problem is much larger in scale (Wilkinson 2011). 50-70% of coral reefs are directly affected by anthropogenic global climate change (Hoegh-Guldberg 1999). Rising global temperatures, increasing oceanic CO2, and other consequences of climate change are all affecting coral reef health in a negative way."

I hear all the dire warnings...from IPCCs to politicians to Monitor editors...and I'm left serious are these people? I read this article very carefully. This statement stands out among all of them: "The panel’s recommendations: Work to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels drastically..." First the IPCC jets off to all sorts of destinations, with motorcades and fancy hotels, feasts and no expense spared. Politicians do the same, Obama being the worst offender. Didnt Obama bail out the auto industry? Wouldnt a president so worried about the planet let them go bankrupt? And then we have the Monitor editors, who preside over a corporation whose product is extremely water and energy intense. I ask myself...what would the world look like if these people were really serious about this report? The answer is nothing at all like we currently see.

Not only that GWTW, their product is PAPER, made from trees. Do any of the executives of NE drive a sports car or BMW or fancy gas hog. Do any of the editors drive a SUV. Do they fly? It seems like the mainstream press jets all over the world, many live in McMansion's in placed like Greenwich and Nantucket. They really are hypocrites.

If you want to see how serious the Monitor editors are then read the editorial on possums in Friday's paper. BTW the earth is flat. Global warming is all about looking at average temperatures globally. And sad to say the average temperatures are going up, up, up specially in the last 20 years.

another false statement Den - NASA and NOAA Confirm Global Temperature Standstill Continues Date: 21/01/14 Dr David Whitehouse In a joint press conference NOAA and NASA have just released data for the global surface temperature for 2013. In summary they both show that the ‘pause’ in global surface temperature that began in 1997,

No, that's not a headline or a claim from either NASA or NOAA. That's why you rarely cite your source(s), because then anyone could see at a glance where they really came from and that distortions of the facts they are.

I googled your headline and low and behold came up with 3 pages of climate denier sites reposting the same info. On the fourth page was the actual NASA and NOAA site that contained the actual information. Funny thing is that neither the NASA or NOAA reports contained the "Standstill Continues" information your feeding us. But then again some might say distortion and misinformation is the usual content of you comments.

again go read the source and you will learn something other than your daily misinformation

Please cite the "sources" he should read. In addition to the actual science, I mean. You know, the ones who'll really put it into spin...I mean..."context". for those who rely on others to tell them how and what to think.

right there smack dab in the middle of the quote is the name of the author - use your googley thingy

Contrary to the impression your post tries to convey, neither the claims in your headline nor Whitehouse himself have anything to do with NASA or NOAA. Nor are the claims made by him shared by other than a tiny fraction of climate scientists. Had you been bold enough to publish the link from which you derived that phony headline, readers would have seen in an instant the pseudo-science source from whence it came--which is PRECISELY why you didn't link to it. And why you NEVER post links to your ridiculous claims. Your posts on almost ANY topic are always drawn from far-right, denier sources, because real science doesn't support anything you say on the subject.

your continued reference to SCIENCE is an absolute JOKE because you cite the IPCC as the Gospell of your religion. The number of lead authors that have quit that debacle is startling even to the casual reader. Climate Alarmism? Of Course! The IPCC Was Designed To Create and Promote It. - See more at: the globull warming alarmist deceivers will always find a few lame brained liberals who allow themselves to be like lemmings off a cliff

Ah yes...Tim Ball. You haven't used him in a while. Another expert whose inflated resume and phony expertise makes him a perfect fit for the deniosphere. From just such con-men is the merry band of deniers composed--3rd and 4th academics who sold out for easy money as poseurs to fool the gullible with big words and nonsense.

and your excuse for .... Global Warming Defector IPCC panelist Richard Tol on why he rejected new climate report.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.