Glaciers disappearing from Glacier National Park

[Old Rocks]

The dumb asses here really, really do not like to be reminded of the very real and observable effects of global warming. They also insist that the world's scientific establishment are all in a conspiracy to re-distribute the world's wealth. Next, I expect them all to suggest a meeting at Area 57 to request help from the Greys to put down this nefarious plot.

Yes, they are truly kooks, anti-science wingnuts without a clue. Choosing a Conservative reality that exists in some other dimension, rather the reality that is staring them in the face.

The glaciers are receding worldwide. The polar caps are melting. The permafrost is thawing and emitting vast amount of both CO2 and CH4. The Artic Ocean clathrates have also started to emitt CH4. But none of that is revelant because the Prophet Rush has stated that is is not occuring.

It's not about conservative or liberal you poor silly person (though you consistently try to portray it as such), I am probably more "liberal" in social things than you are, after all I have a significantly lower carbon footprint than you ever will (not that it matters) nor do I work for a company that actively pollutes my neighborhood unlike yourself.

However, to get to your point about the "science" of AGW. There simply is none. There is ample empirical data that supports the theory that the current warming trend is entirely natural and cyclical in nature. You are the anti science followers of Ned Lud in this argument.

Not once have you or your minions been able to show the warming trend is man caused. You have cute little computer models that will show you pretty much whatever you want them to show you but the real world just seems to ignore those crappy little models doesn't she?

It is supposedly the warmest year ever yet the very real facts are that millions of creatures are dying from cold. They are not kicking the bucket due to heat. The so called Russian deaths due to the heat wave are being found to be respiratory in nature for the most part (that would be particulate matter induced, not heat induced) the cause of the forest fires was likewise not the heat. In fact the forests of Russia (much like the sage of California) require fires as part of their life cycle so the fires are not only natural but essential to their continued exhistence. The scope of the fires was due entirely to poor forest managment (as the Russians themselves admitted) not heat.

We have also found that the temperature record has been falsified (and in fact the perps are continuing to do so) in a furhter effort to conceal the fact the world is entering a cooling trend....just a few more years and then the legislation will be passed and the gravy train can begin before the public figures out they have been lied too......uh oh, the public is allready finding out!

You claim to be a liberal, but in fact you are a scientific illiterate who supports the very oil companies and investment companies that screw the very people you claim to be trying to help. You are thevery embodiment of useful idiot that corrupt corporations love to employ to do their dirty work.

Once again ol' dumb fuck denies reality. What does the American Geophysical Union state concerning global warming? Do they state that it is 'natural cycle'? And where the hell is the 'ample evidence' for that? You have yet to present any such evidence, other than the meanderings of such dimbulbs as Watts. Care to point out some peer reviewed articles from scientific journals?
AGU Revises Statement on Global Warming | Desert News

The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system – including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons – are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the period 1956-2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850.


The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change – an additional global mean warming of 1 degree Celsius above the last decade – is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2 degrees Celsius above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and – if sustained over centuries – melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2 degrees Celsius warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of carbon dioxide must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections

This is what real scientists are stating. Scientists that actually do research in this area. And, when this organization has it's annual December meeting, the discussion will not be whether we are creating a bad situation, but whether the situation is really bad, or really, really bad.

There will not be one lecture there stating the changes are natural. Why? Because these are real scientists, not faux scientists on a message board.

 

[DiveCon]

wow, i guess we need to go into another ice age to bring the glaciers back

 

[westwall]

The dumb asses here really, really do not like to be reminded of the very real and observable effects of global warming. They also insist that the world's scientific establishment are all in a conspiracy to re-distribute the world's wealth. Next, I expect them all to suggest a meeting at Area 57 to request help from the Greys to put down this nefarious plot.

Yes, they are truly kooks, anti-science wingnuts without a clue. Choosing a Conservative reality that exists in some other dimension, rather the reality that is staring them in the face.

The glaciers are receding worldwide. The polar caps are melting. The permafrost is thawing and emitting vast amount of both CO2 and CH4. The Artic Ocean clathrates have also started to emitt CH4. But none of that is revelant because the Prophet Rush has stated that is is not occuring.

It's not about conservative or liberal you poor silly person (though you consistently try to portray it as such), I am probably more "liberal" in social things than you are, after all I have a significantly lower carbon footprint than you ever will (not that it matters) nor do I work for a company that actively pollutes my neighborhood unlike yourself.

However, to get to your point about the "science" of AGW. There simply is none. There is ample empirical data that supports the theory that the current warming trend is entirely natural and cyclical in nature. You are the anti science followers of Ned Lud in this argument.

Not once have you or your minions been able to show the warming trend is man caused. You have cute little computer models that will show you pretty much whatever you want them to show you but the real world just seems to ignore those crappy little models doesn't she?

It is supposedly the warmest year ever yet the very real facts are that millions of creatures are dying from cold. They are not kicking the bucket due to heat. The so called Russian deaths due to the heat wave are being found to be respiratory in nature for the most part (that would be particulate matter induced, not heat induced) the cause of the forest fires was likewise not the heat. In fact the forests of Russia (much like the sage of California) require fires as part of their life cycle so the fires are not only natural but essential to their continued exhistence. The scope of the fires was due entirely to poor forest managment (as the Russians themselves admitted) not heat.

We have also found that the temperature record has been falsified (and in fact the perps are continuing to do so) in a furhter effort to conceal the fact the world is entering a cooling trend....just a few more years and then the legislation will be passed and the gravy train can begin before the public figures out they have been lied too......uh oh, the public is allready finding out!

You claim to be a liberal, but in fact you are a scientific illiterate who supports the very oil companies and investment companies that screw the very people you claim to be trying to help. You are thevery embodiment of useful idiot that corrupt corporations love to employ to do their dirty work.

Once again ol' dumb fuck denies reality. What does the American Geophysical Union state concerning global warming? Do they state that it is 'natural cycle'? And where the hell is the 'ample evidence' for that? You have yet to present any such evidence, other than the meanderings of such dimbulbs as Watts. Care to point out some peer reviewed articles from scientific journals?
AGU Revises Statement on Global Warming | Desert News

The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system – including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons – are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the period 1956-2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850.


The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change – an additional global mean warming of 1 degree Celsius above the last decade – is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2 degrees Celsius above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and – if sustained over centuries – melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2 degrees Celsius warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of carbon dioxide must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections

This is what real scientists are stating. Scientists that actually do research in this area. And, when this organization has it's annual December meeting, the discussion will not be whether we are creating a bad situation, but whether the situation is really bad, or really, really bad.

There will not be one lecture there stating the changes are natural. Why? Because these are real scientists, not faux scientists on a message board.

2008 is the best you can do huh. The real scientists are in a major fight against the leadership of the AGU which is entirely political.

Here is but one example

ICECAP

And another, I hate to tell you olfraud but this sort of behaviour is the antethesis of science.

What’s to say the Air Vent

As far as the rest of your silly response, it is wrong as usual. All climate that has been observed is cyclical. You have been chicken littling it for years now and the world has gotten tired of the alarmist claptrap. The people have too. All you alarmists have are failed models and falsified data. the rest of the world has figured it out and the religion is failing. Sadly it is taking much good science with it.

 

[Old Rocks]

ICECAP

Censorship at AGU: scientists denied the right of reply
By J. McLean, C.R. de Freitas, and R.M. Carter

Has the Journal of Geophysical Research been coerced into defending the climate alarmist faith?

So they went into a scientific debate with this kind of attitude and got their asses thourghly kicked. just deserts.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, you quote blogs. How about I post what the geological societies around the world say concerning AGW? Do you think that I will find even one supporting your position?

London Geological Society Conference. Earth will take 100,000 years to recover from global warming. | Resources for a sustainable future

The Geological Society warned that it could take the Earth 100,000 years to recover.
A statement read: The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition [a massive increase in greenhouse gases caused by the activities of mankind] is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5 to 6C, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earths climate in the absence of mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.

 

[westwall]

ICECAP

Censorship at AGU: scientists denied the right of reply
By J. McLean, C.R. de Freitas, and R.M. Carter

Has the Journal of Geophysical Research been coerced into defending the climate alarmist faith?

So they went into a scientific debate with this kind of attitude and got their asses thourghly kicked. just deserts.

Wow, you really are clueless aren't you.

 

[westwall]

So, you quote blogs. How about I post what the geological societies around the world say concerning AGW? Do you think that I will find even one supporting your position?

London Geological Society Conference. Earth will take 100,000 years to recover from global warming. | Resources for a sustainable future

The Geological Society warned that it could take the Earth 100,000 years to recover.
A statement read: The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition [a massive increase in greenhouse gases caused by the activities of mankind] is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5 to 6C, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earths climate in the absence of mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.

How convenient that the "fix" for the "problem" of AGW is 100,000 years in the future! A conman would be sent to prison for life for uttering such a stupid statement in a bunco case. So I wonder, how many trillions of dollars do we need to give to these oh so smart people (that they get to spend right now to have a wonderful life on our dime) so that 100,000 years from now the Earth will recover Do you not see how completely ridiculous that claim is?

 

[Chris]

A growing base of climatological and biological information documents the fact that Montana's climate has changed in several ways in the past 60 years. What we do now to address these changes will have far-reaching impacts on the ability of us, our children and our grandchildren to continue enjoying our state's incomparable outdoors and sporting traditions.

Montana's average air temperature has increased 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit from 1951 through 2006, compared to a 1.25 degree increase for the entire United States. Our average winter snowpack has declined 17 percent over the same period, and spring rain has increased 5.9 percent. August precipitation has declined more than 20 percent in the 55-year period. Glacier National Park's storied glaciers are disappearing, with only 26 remaining of 150 that existed in 1850.

Reduced snowpack, more spring rain, lower streamflows and melting glaciers tell a story of environmental change that is beyond rational debate. People might argue about the cause, but the trends in air temperature, precipitation and recession of glaciers strongly suggest our state's climate is changing more rapidly and extremely than we predicted just 20 years ago.

Guest opinion: Conserving Montana wildlife during climate change

 

[Revere]

Wisconsin's climate changed 13,000 years ago. It still sucks, but what did men do to change it back then?

 

[westwall]

A growing base of climatological and biological information documents the fact that Montana's climate has changed in several ways in the past 60 years. What we do now to address these changes will have far-reaching impacts on the ability of us, our children and our grandchildren to continue enjoying our state's incomparable outdoors and sporting traditions.

Montana's average air temperature has increased 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit from 1951 through 2006, compared to a 1.25 degree increase for the entire United States. Our average winter snowpack has declined 17 percent over the same period, and spring rain has increased 5.9 percent. August precipitation has declined more than 20 percent in the 55-year period. Glacier National Park's storied glaciers are disappearing, with only 26 remaining of 150 that existed in 1850.

Reduced snowpack, more spring rain, lower streamflows and melting glaciers tell a story of environmental change that is beyond rational debate. People might argue about the cause, but the trends in air temperature, precipitation and recession of glaciers strongly suggest our state's climate is changing more rapidly and extremely than we predicted just 20 years ago.

Guest opinion: Conserving Montana wildlife during climate change

Big deal. They are considering using cloud seeding to try and save Walker lake here in Nevada. Guess what it has been dry several times in the past. Once for at least 500 years and another time (the most recent) for 600 years. Then it filled up again. All of this within the last 3,000 years.

You guys still don't get it. 60 years is NOTHING. 1,000 years is NOTHING. Man has been around for around 200,000 years and that is NOTHING in the time frame of the world.

You simpletons amuse me, youy really do. You claim to be all about the science and yet you don't know one iota about real science. Fortunately your religion no longer matters. It's failing and there's not a bloody thing you can do about it.

 

[elvis]

ICECAP

Censorship at AGU: scientists denied the right of reply
By J. McLean, C.R. de Freitas, and R.M. Carter

Has the Journal of Geophysical Research been coerced into defending the climate alarmist faith?

So they went into a scientific debate with this kind of attitude and got their asses thourghly kicked. just deserts.

what's a just desert? Is that part of the Sahara?

 

[elvis]

So, you quote blogs. How about I post what the geological societies around the world say concerning AGW? Do you think that I will find even one supporting your position?

London Geological Society Conference. Earth will take 100,000 years to recover from global warming. | Resources for a sustainable future

The Geological Society warned that it could take the Earth 100,000 years to recover.
A statement read: The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition [a massive increase in greenhouse gases caused by the activities of mankind] is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5 to 6C, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earths climate in the absence of mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.

You quote blogs all the time, dipshit.

 

[code1211]

Glaciers throughout Alaska are shrinking more and more rapidly, and scientists comparing old photos taken up to a century ago with digital images made during climbing expeditions today say the pictures provide the most dramatic evidence yet that global warming is real.

And it's not only the glaciers reflecting the climate change. Everywhere on the treeless tundra north of the jagged slopes of Alaska's Brooks Range, explosive bursts of vegetation -- willows, alders, birch and many shrubs -- are thriving where permafrost once kept the tundra surface frozen in winter.

Two geophysicists and a government geologist who spend much of their working lives exploring changes in the Arctic displayed dozens of photographs from the thousands in their files Thursday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

Shrinking glaciers evidence of global warming / Differences seen by looking at photos from 100 years ago

I just don't see the downside in glaciers retreating and trees in various form growing in their place.

Incidentally, where did the seeds come from that the trees grew from on the slopes that had previously been covered with ice for millenia?

 

[code1211]

XINING, Feb. 4 (Xinhua) -- Chinese scientists said Wednesday glaciers that serve as water sources on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau are melting at a "worrisome speed," having receded 196 square km over the past nearly 40 years.

The decline is equal to about one-fourth of the area of New York City.

Xin Yuanhong, senior engineer in charge of a three-year field study of glaciers in the region, said glaciers at the headwaters of the Yangtze, China's longest river, cover 1,051 square km, down from 1,247 square km in 1971.

"The reduction means more than 989 million cubic meters of water melted away," said Xin, whose team surveyed the glaciers between June 2005 and August 2008. That much water would fill Beijing's largest reservoir.

Melting glaciers on China's Qinghai-Tibet plateau water source "worrisome"_English_Xinhua

Not to interject logic where it doesn't belong, but in order to serve as a source of water, doesn't ice need to melt? How long has this been a source of water?

 

[Old Rocks]

Far be it from you to ever interject logic, Code.

As the mass of the glaciers diminish, there will be far less water melting in the summer and fall. That translates as less irrigation water for crops. A lot of water from ealier melts in the spring doesn't do the fall crops that much good.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, you quote blogs. How about I post what the geological societies around the world say concerning AGW? Do you think that I will find even one supporting your position?

London Geological Society Conference. Earth will take 100,000 years to recover from global warming. | Resources for a sustainable future

The Geological Society warned that it could take the Earth 100,000 years to recover.
A statement read: The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition [a massive increase in greenhouse gases caused by the activities of mankind] is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5 to 6C, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earths climate in the absence of mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.

You quote blogs all the time, dipshit.

Go find another tele-evangelist, Rent-a-Boy. You do better when discussing your fetish.

 

[code1211]

Far be it from you to ever interject logic, Code.

As the mass of the glaciers diminish, there will be far less water melting in the summer and fall. That translates as less irrigation water for crops. A lot of water from ealier melts in the spring doesn't do the fall crops that much good.

And, to restate the question, how long has this been a source of water?

 

[Old Rocks]

Same amount of time that the Cascadian glaciers have been a source of water for our rivers. Now we see where the melt could endanger some of the runs in the near future.

 

[elvis]

So, you quote blogs. How about I post what the geological societies around the world say concerning AGW? Do you think that I will find even one supporting your position?

London Geological Society Conference. Earth will take 100,000 years to recover from global warming. | Resources for a sustainable future

The Geological Society warned that it could take the Earth 100,000 years to recover.
A statement read: The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition [a massive increase in greenhouse gases caused by the activities of mankind] is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5 to 6C, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earths climate in the absence of mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.

You quote blogs all the time, dipshit.

Go find another tele-evangelist, Rent-a-Boy. You do better when discussing your fetish.

You stupid fuck. Algore is your tele-evangelist.

 

[editec]

Welcome to

National Park Formerly Known as
GLACIER NATIONAL PARK​