Amazon.com Widgets

« Say Anything | Main | Flogging the Climate Scientists »

Glacier National Park Loses 2 more Glaciers

Glaciergooseisland.jpg

Another two bite the dust after losing half their size since the 1960's and scientists predict that a 5000 year record of having glaciers in those mountains will end in the next couple of decades, with only the largest surviving past 2020.

Read more here


 

Comments

Slow loading photo credited to me.

well you did upload a 2592x1944 pixel picture from a (your?) Sony DSC-V3 taken last June 27th.

Resize before upload!

wow, you can tell all that.

better now. I still can see the meatadata though. Not that it matters much, but there are programs that strip it from the files, which comes in handy sometimes on the net.

Luckily my camera has never asked for my SS#.

btw the pic is cut off by the width of the blog. I can only see it fully by right-clicking and "view image" on Firefox (or downloading it altogether).

I thought it was still framed well enough. although going to the sun road is cut off.

I fixed the pic

Fixed, credited to me.

Credit where credit is due. Much thanks.

I'll stick with what the vast majority of climatologists and other experts are saying concerning this matter. I'd prefer to error on the side of caution. Does this make me a conservative?

No, it makes you a lemming.

Because he believes experts from the world over, over people who believe all those experts are conspiring for profit?

No, he believes experts who throw away raw data when it doesn't fit their computer models (garbage in, garbage out), and only use tree ring data (from one tree) when it fits the chart they've already made.

So you think they're the ones who are picking and choosing... All of them? So you don't think all of them are conspiring, but instead that all of them are stupid.

Define all please. This should be fun...

The experts would say that is far from true. I am sure the must have been taught that at conspiracy class in climatology school.

I think a better question to Cory is why would, in his opinion, a vast majority of scientists "fudge" (Cory's implication) so much data? To what ultimate end?

Why would scientists, whose singular goal using scientific method is to find the best possible conclusions and the most truthful observations, suddenly abandon what has been for the last 300 years since Newton a nearly continual pattern of astounding scientific discoveries that have forever changed our world?

The sophistry and lying come not from the scientific world, but from those who have vested commercial, religious, or political interests that are threatened by the scientific discoveries.

Hence the religious groups opposed to Darwin's theory have tried for 150 years to deny evolution science. They have even created their own junk science in a sad attempt to deny the overwhelming facts being presented by evolution science.

Or tobacco companies, who for years hired "reputable" scientists to disclaim the substantive scientific data that proved cigarettes caused lung cancer. We all know how that went, right?

And now we see energy companies and others with a vested commercial (and hence political) interest in denying climate change doing the same to cloud the public debate and scientific discoveries clearly indicating man is affecting the global climate for the worst.

Why? Well, because they don't want to change the status quo if it is going to cost them out the ass to do so, even if the world will be a safer, cleaner, and healthier place. Their short-term greed is much more important than long-term environmental stability.

I don't see most scientists who support climate change doing it for any other reason except to report the facts as they see and interpret them, and to warn the world of the possible--VERY possible--outcome if the current trends are not altered or reversed.

So, once again, I ask, when is it ever in a scientist's best interest to lie, obfuscate, or fudge data compared to those who have hugely vested interests in doing so?

I think what you believe makes you an ostrich.

And I resent your calling someone who trusts the overwhelming scientific view as a "lemming," Mr Always Whining About Ad Hominems.

I would call people lemmings who cling to pathetic religious views that prevent them from accepting the OVERWHELMING facts that prove evolution science.

Or hold poisonous and puerile political beliefs that prevent them from accepting that there are better ways to shape society, the world, and the environment than the current status quo.

Of course the better way is always Mat's way. The proud bully.

OK, I am a proud bully as you are an ignorant but smug right-wing douchebag.

There you go, douchebag, from the bully.

And I noticed, douchebag, you didn't answer my question above.

I wonder why.

Well, you did answer it. And I responded.

Ok kids, lets not fight.

So his handful of experts have all the answers and the vast consensus of the world's scientists with contrary evidence are lying? Just the sort of world view I would expect from an ardent Sarah Palin supporter.

When the main body of scientific study points in the opposite direction from where is does at the present I will surely amend my views, but you can't wave around one flimsy study that supports your opinion and expect evryone to treat it like the 11th commandment. Most of the folks of his ilk are still insisting we teach ID in public schools.

My reading of the study is that it doesn't have much to say about global climate trends. It seeks to find decadal variations in Rocky Mountain glaciers (especially in Glacier NP) and, in particular, in precipitation - not temperature. The fact that over 90% of the world's glaciers are in retreat in spite of local or regional fluctuations with short- or medium-term time scales doesn't change. The authors of the study cited by Cory make no such argument, and there are a few statements in their paper which seem to me to imply that they didn't intend to.

I don't see any reason to doubt the validity of the study, but like you say it doesn't contradict the idea that the Glaciers are in retreat due to global warming.

Certainly there is no evidence that the Rockies are expereinceing a once ins 5,000 years drought.

Interesting that all the commentary is here and not in the subsequently posted video (flogging the climate scientists). The cherry picking has been performed almost exclusively by global warming deniers, with minimal error and bad science committed on the part of those who see the trend.

Responding to propaganda posted by Red would be a full time job. I figured most of you would see it for what it was - whining. Fifteen years of no significant warming is hardly cherry picking.

Jeez, did you watch the video and see why that cherry picked number is total bullshit? because it is.

Why not pick 1998? Or better yet, 1934? I mean if you really want to cherry pick, those would be a better choice.

Did you look at that chart?

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/208422main_global_temp_change.jpg

The fact that 1934 and 1995 were hot years don't really make it hard to see the trend.

Okay, Red. Just what should the temperature be? Should we take the average starting at the lowest year of the little ice age? I mean it's all cherry picking if you think about it. I love how they always use the 'average' from 1979-2000 to determine how much ice there should be in the arctic. Why pick 1979? Sure, that's the year they started satellite tracking, but how do we know the 70's weren't especially icy? Somoeone sure thought so.

1979?

Photos from outer space?

this is why use averages over the longest period.

Just what should the temperature be?

Something within the range that has allowed for glaciers in GNP for the last 5,000 years.

Preferably warmer than an Ice age.

Check the general trend over the years, not individual years. It's like checking your stock portfolio.

Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice Is also great

And would suffice.

  • Robert Frost

Nah - the world won't end. Life as we know it will.

Don't you all see? If we start cleaning up the earth the environmentalists win. -H.Simpson

Forget about the huge body of science supporting what most sane people believe, syngas is quoting from junkscience.com which trumps everything else.

Sorry, I'm afraid I will pit my sources against his any day and if he thinks that my opinion on this matter is based on "tree ring data (from one tree)" he is a complete fool. We have seen over and over how his sources (Fox, Rush, Glen Beck, and other Red State angry white male favorites) are completely full of shit on a daily basis.

I don't begin forming my opinions based on my political beliefs; I go where the facts lead me. Like with health care. I have seen socialize medicine first-hand and I know that it works. On climate change I have read study after study, from climatologists to ornithologists that build upon each other and lead to a common and inexorable (possible) conclusion; a conclusion which could have dire consequences. But forget about the scientists, as a human being I haven’t completely relinquished my own common sense and this tells me that mankind is taking a big dump on the planet and we should take measures to clean up after ourselves. If you listen to syngas’ hero Rush you learn that there isn’t a single scrap of environmental legislation they can live with. Every person who advises that we protect the planet is an eco-terrorist or and environmental whacko. We should just keep drilling for oil, dumping toxic waste into the rivers while filling our stomachs on three-egg, bald eagle omelets.

It's not that the VAST majority of scientists are conspiring Mat, it's that the VAST majority of scientists are looking at the same reports put out by a relatively small group of scientists who are hell bent on proving man causes global warming and coming to the same conclusion. I ask you, why, on this one issue is it so bad to have theories scrutinized? That's what scientists are supposed to do! The fact that anyone who looks for alternative explanations are so demonized by the 'consensus' can only be explained by despotism - a purely political, and intentionally destructive force.

It's not that the VAST majority of scientists are conspiring Mat, it's that the VAST majority of scientists are looking at the same reports put out by a relatively small group of scientists who are hell bent on proving man causes global warming and coming to the same conclusion.

This is pure speculation on your part that scientists are "hellbent" on making specious claims (as you assert) or deliberately fudging facts to "bend" the outcome. Please cite substantive sources claiming there is a "conspiracy" of climate scientists to lie, obfuscate, or cheat the facts to create false outcomes.

The fact that anyone who looks for alternative explanations are so demonized by the 'consensus' can only be explained by despotism - a purely political, and intentionally destructive force.

Once again, this is speculation on your part. Most of the "alternative" climate science has been debunked with factual data, and if these "alternate" scientists feel "demonized" maybe it's a persecution complex for being wrong or clinging to bullshit ideas. I think for the most part when credible scientists have presented alternate ideas or theories to the prevaling consensus they have been taken seriously until the facts proved their theories wrong or inconclusive.

The only people crying about "persecution" are the fringe wackos who oppose the idea of man affecting climate change for religious, political, or commercial reasons.

I've already cited the CRU emails several times here. Doing it again won't make you (or Tim) read them.

This issue was well handled on a series of videos presented on the subject of climate change, the alternate theories and their proponents, your silly "Time Magazine Declares a New Ice Age by Scientists" assertion, and your CRU email "Climategate" issue as your pals at FOX News call it.

The following videos present a clear, sober, and balanced review of all facts. It is one of the best journalistic investigations into the science of climate change, and presents the facts from all sides as fairly as I have seen anywhere. It also cuts through all the bullshit and hysteria on BOTH sides.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six

Part Seven

I've already cited the CRU emails several times here. Doing it again won't make you (or Tim) read them.

Since you have no idea what I read or don't read (or Tim), or what I know or don't know, I would certainly call such a claim as the above statement by you ridiculous and unfounded on your part.

It's not that the VAST majority of scientists are conspiring Mat, it's that the VAST majority of scientists are looking at the same reports put out by a relatively small group of scientists who are hell bent on proving man causes global warming and coming to the same conclusion.

So, you think the park rangers are GNP are just seeing some self fullfilling prophecy?

Botanists that are tracking the buckeye tree north from ohio into michigan? The botanists and naturalists accross the world watching animals and plants changing their ranges move? All those watching glaciers melt away? Ocean acidification?

There are too many scientists working accross too many diciplines to allow some small chunck of bad data to pollute everything. It would take a massive conspiracy to keep decent to such a tiny minority, as it now is.

The truer statement is a vast majority of the anti-climate change crowd rally around the same two or three naysaying scientists, such as MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen. Dr. Lindzen is probably the most famous naysayer. Since he does hold a chair at MIT and has been a vocal and mostly substantive critic for years, Dr. Lindzen is not exactly "demonized"--although he loves to whine that he has been.

However, Dr. Lindzen's own "alternative" theories have all more less been discounted, and respectfully so, time after time the last 15 years by the science community, as the video I cited clearly explained. However, Dr. Lindzen's dissent is a healthy sign that the science world isn't "despotic" as Cory claims so ridiculously.

As Harper's magazine pointed out 14 years ago, Dr. Lindzen isn't exactly an impartial or dispassionate scientist. For many years in the 90s he was a highly paid sophist for the energy industry.

There's nothing wrong with rallying behind the dissent generated by Dr. Lindzen. That his own alternate theories have all blown up under factual scrutiny doesn't mean his work isn't futile, but he has yet to provide substantive proof to back most of his dissent. His dissent, however, does keep his peers following an honest and factual path to their conclusions. That's how peer review works.

I'll stick with the majority consensus on climate change. As an engineer and former research scientist, I know and understand that scientific method and peer review remain as honest and true as any intellectual exercise in humanity.

Unlike Cory, I don't see some grand conspiracy. I see flawed human beings, no matter how brilliant, making mistakes here and there, but the scientific community by and large fact checks everything with great due diligence and scrutiny, so liars and charlatans would hardly be able to hoodwink everyone on the scale Cory seems to imply.

To think otherwise is just plain goofy paranoia. Or deliberate bullshit by the powers that be who wish to cloud the public debate with sophistry and lies.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives