Rasmussen: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

[Neotrotsky]

69% Say It

The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .)

The number of adults who say it’s likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009 .

Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009. One in four (25%) believes scientists agree on global warming. Another 18% aren’t sure.

This reminds of an old posting



Earth Day predictions of 1970- Why you shouldn’t believe nutroot predictions of 2009

Earth Day predictions of 1970- Why you shouldn’t believe nutroot predictions of 2009 or Hey, we got it right this time- trust us

See the Great Left Mind at work
some were "peer reviewed" of course



Here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970.
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist


“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Stanford's Paul Ehrlich announces that the sky is falling.
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

They’ve been making the same predictions for 39 years. And they’re going to continue making them until…well…forever.

 

[skookerasbil]

69% Say It

The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .)

The number of adults who say it’s likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009 .

Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009. One in four (25%) believes scientists agree on global warming. Another 18% aren’t sure.

This reminds of an old posting



Earth Day predictions of 1970- Why you shouldn’t believe nutroot predictions of 2009

Earth Day predictions of 1970- Why you shouldn’t believe nutroot predictions of 2009 or Hey, we got it right this time- trust us


Here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970.
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist


“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Stanford's Paul Ehrlich announces that the sky is falling.
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

They’ve been making the same predictions for 39 years. And they’re going to continue making them until…well…forever.

Which is EXACTLY why we see the 69% figure!!! Enough people have figured out that these people really dont know what they are talking about!! When people think of "science" they think of stuff that is 100% proveable, not speculation on what is likely to happen or what might happen.

It much like when people see some new fad product on cable TV. At first, everybody is compelled to listen in and perhaps check it out. Over time, less and less people are duped because the conventional wisdom changes. Most people dont want to look like an asshole in public. Its 2011.........you have a huge snowstorm these days, and people talk about the weather........and you quip, "Must be global warming!!!!!!" and a majority of people just laugh there asses off in response. There is no dobut that the whole concept of "global warming" now is looked upon by the masses as something that is trumped up hsyteria perpetuated by special interest. Indeed....its become the new standard joke. Ironically enough, the alarmists can blame themselves for this. ( and there are several goggleable articles on this by science websites). Instead of a measured approach, theyve taken every single weather anomoly and tried to paint it with the "were doomed because of warming" approach. The folks just tune it out now.........like they tune out those "YOURE A WINNER!!!" pop ups on the internet. 5 years ago, every asshole and their brother clicked on that shit!!!. Just like people embraced "Cap and Trade" when it first gained support way back when.......then they found out that while reducing greenhouse gases was nice, it wasnt so nice as to accept 100% increase in your electric bill..........thus............it died!!!


You look at that list above............many made by hyper-left entities or interests.........The Sierra Club..........Huge Lefty Universities...........lefty periodicals. The masses start to say to themselves, "WTF is up with this shit???"


And here we are in 2011 and the whole topic of global warming has become fringe banter to be laughed at. Maybe not in the nether-regions of cyberspace.........but everywhere else.

 

[skookerasbil]

Its 2011 s0ns..............

 

[Neotrotsky]

I hear you

did you ever see

The NYT Has Been Predicting Polar Ice Melt for 128 Years
no doubt these were "peer reviewed" as well



1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”
1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”
1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”
1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”
1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”
1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”
1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”
1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”
1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”
1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”
1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”
1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”
2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”
2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”
2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”
2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting – a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

 

[BoycottTheday]

No! The econutters are right, china HAS to BURN MORE COAL!!!!!

 

[Zona]

69% Say It

The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .)

The number of adults who say it’s likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009 .

Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009. One in four (25%) believes scientists agree on global warming. Another 18% aren’t sure.

Rasmussen? Seriously?

They still have McCain as the projected winner from the 2008 election.

RASMUSSEN? Oh dear god you cant be serious with this shit.

 

[Neotrotsky]

More lies from the Left


RCP has them being pretty accurate



Marist 11/3 - 11/3 804 LV 4.0 52 43 Obama +9

Battleground (Lake)* 11/2 - 11/3 800 LV 3.5 52 47 Obama +5

Battleground 11/2 - 11/3 800 LV 3.5 50 48 Obama +2

Rasmussen Reports 11/1 - 11/3 3000 LV 2.0 52 46 Obama +6...


Final Results -- -- -- 52.9 45.6 Obama +7.3

Notice how much off the Lefts favorite polls are off

Gallup 10/31 - 11/2 2472 LV 2.0 55 44 Obama +11
CBS News 10/31 - 11/2 714 LV -- 51 42 Obama +9
ABC News/Wash Post
10/30 - 11/2 2470 LV 2.5 53 4 Obama +9


truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy

Perhaps if the Left bothered to educate themselves or do their own
research instead of "parroting" talking points then they would
really learn something

 

[westwall]

I haven't read through the whole thing but

And your proof of this conspiracy is ...?

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.

And yet they were in the final report. This isn't exactly evidence of a grand conspiracy.

And the whole point of peer review is that they filter out papers that are crap so show me a quote of someone saying they are denying a paper because it's anti Global Warming.

even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is

Sure thing. See that little bit I highlighted yet again for you? That is the height of scientific malfeasance. That little missive alone renders all that they do irrelevant. They would rather alter one of the cornerstones of scientifc enquiry then allow a dissenting voice.

And you seem to think that that is OK. And you wonder why the scientific community is abandoning them and their cause in droves.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. The warming of the globe, and the reasons for it, is a scientific subject. Yet the wingnutters here seem to think that a poll of a misinformed public represents a serious change in the data. You fellows can call a dog a horse until the cows come home, but it will still not carry a saddle.

 

[Old Rocks]

I haven't read through the whole thing but

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.

And yet they were in the final report. This isn't exactly evidence of a grand conspiracy.

And the whole point of peer review is that they filter out papers that are crap so show me a quote of someone saying they are denying a paper because it's anti Global Warming.

even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is

Sure thing. See that little bit I highlighted yet again for you? That is the height of scientific malfeasance. That little missive alone renders all that they do irrelevant. They would rather alter one of the cornerstones of scientifc enquiry then allow a dissenting voice.

And you seem to think that that is OK. And you wonder why the scientific community is abandoning them and their cause in droves.

Demonstrated by what, Walleyes? Show me this in present scientific literature. Just more disinformation from a fool.

 

[westwall]

Can the 69% point out the falsifications in the research?

We have, many times... Go look for yourself.

Like hell you have. All you have presented are political rants from sites with zero scientific standing.

Present us with a single Scientific Society, a single National Academy of Science, or a single major University that states the science behind AGW is incorrect. You cannot, because none exist. Not even in Outer Slobovia.

even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is





Game, Set, Match. Any scientist who resorts to these methods and philosophically believes it is proper to do this sort of behavior is no scientist. They are at best a propagandist.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Yes

they have developed a non-falsifiable theory with "Climate Change"

They use all changes as "proof" , this is not science; this is becoming a
religion

I suppose the earth would have to have perfect days
oh wait- that shows climate change too!

More proof

 

[westwall]

they are based on a non-falsifiable theory
that is not science that is more like a religion

You are one fucking stupid ass. Take all of your science from an obese junkie. Here is clearly falsefiable data and hypothesis, but no one has yet falsified any of it.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yes, first we had global cooling in the 70's then global warming
not Climate change, the name had to change with each wrong prediction (quite the science indeed)

Since the Climate change sympathizers take every bad weather condition
proof of Climate Change, they have made it non-falsifiable, it has become a religion
What would they except proof against their theory, if all bad weather supports it?

Indeed, before man who knew the climate changed


profanity does not help you and only makes you look more
stupid

He can't help it. He is stupid.

 

[westwall]

Can the 69% point out the falsifications in the research?

Actually, yes they can, as can anyone who chooses to open their eyes and actually look.

Then why have not you done so? You state you are a geologist and a member both of the AGU and the Royal Society. So where is you article in a peer reviewed journal falsifing the idea that the absorption bands of CO2 and other GHGs warm the atmosphere.

We have. Why do you think your religious movement is collapsing around your ears MENSA boy!

 

[Neotrotsky]

You are one fucking stupid ass. Take all of your science from an obese junkie. Here is clearly falsefiable data and hypothesis, but no one has yet falsified any of it.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yes, first we had global cooling in the 70's then global warming
not Climate change, the name had to change with each wrong prediction (quite the science indeed)

Since the Climate change sympathizers take every bad weather condition
proof of Climate Change, they have made it non-falsifiable, it has become a religion
What would they except proof against their theory, if all bad weather supports it?

Indeed, before man who knew the climate changed


profanity does not help you and only makes you look more
stupid

He can't help it. He is stupid.

Yes

but he has been "peer reviewed" and they think
he is "smart as a whip"


This is starting to remind me of when Papa Obama has his attorneys investigate
something potentially bad about his administration and, surprise, they find
nothing wrong

 

[westwall]

A warmist would think: "If it can't be proven wrong, then it must be true!"

It is almost like that,,,,

First we had global warming then global cooling now climate change.

Indeed, since they have one believe that all bad weather can be blamed on "climate change"
how does one test their theory?

You can't - that is not science; it is more like a religion

Dumb fuck, show some real science concerning your statemenst. Thus far, all you have done is flap yap. Here on the West Coast, we have watched our mountain glaciers get smaller with every decade. Just one easily observable effect of the warming that we are seeing.

He doesn't need to. Your side must first show some "real" science. You claim GW causes warmer temps. You also claim GW causes cooler temps. A thinking person recognises that the two predictions can't coexist within the same physical universe. That makes the theory unfalsifiable. That makes the theory false. In other words climatology is no better then the charlatanism of psychics.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Mother Gaia
forgive us for we know not what we do

 

[westwall]

A warmist would think: "If it can't be proven wrong, then it must be true!"

It is almost like that,,,,

First we had global warming then global cooling now climate change.

Indeed, since they have one believe that all bad weather can be blamed on "climate change"
how does one test their theory?

You can't - that is not science; it is more like a religion

Dumb fuck, show some real science concerning your statemenst. Thus far, all you have done is flap yap. Here on the West Coast, we have watched our mountain glaciers get smaller with every decade. Just one easily observable effect of the warming that we are seeing.

Not all MENSA boy!




By Samantha Young, Associated Press Writer

MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. — Reaching more than 14,000 feet above sea level, Mt. Shasta dominates the landscape of high plains and conifer forests in far Northern California.

While it's not California's tallest mountain, the tongues of ice creeping down Shasta's volcanic flanks give the solitary mountain another distinction. Its seven glaciers, referred to by American Indians as the footsteps made by the creator when he descended to Earth, are the only historical glaciers in the continental U.S. known to be growing.

With global warming causing the retreat of glaciers in the Sierra Nevada, the Rocky Mountains and elsewhere in the Cascades, Mt. Shasta is actually benefiting from changing weather patterns over the Pacific Ocean.

"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean."

Warmer temperatures have cut the number of glaciers at Montana's Glacier National Park from 150 to 26 since 1850, and some scientists project there will be none left within 25 to 30 years. The timeline for the storied snows at Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro is even shorter, while the ice fields of Patagonia in Argentina and Chile also are retreating.


It's a different story at Mt. Shasta, the southernmost volcano in the Cascade Range that is about 270 miles north of San Francisco.

Scientists say a warming Pacific Ocean means more moist air sweeping over far Northern California. Because of Shasta's location and 14,162-foot elevation, the precipitation is falling as snow, adding to the mass of the mountain's glaciers.

"It's a bit of an anomaly that they are growing, but it's not to be unexpected," said Ed Josberger, a glaciologist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Tacoma, Wash., who is currently studying retreating glaciers in Alaska and the northern Cascades of Washington.

Historical weather records show Mt. Shasta has received 17% more precipitation in the last 110 years. The glaciers have soaked up the snowfall and have been adding more snow than is lost through summer melting.

The additional snowfall has been enough to overcome a 1.8 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature in the last century, according to a 2003 analysis by Tulaczyk, who led a team studying Shasta's glaciers.

By comparison, the glaciers in the Sierra Nevada, which are about 560 miles south of Mt. Shasta, are exposed to warmer summer temperatures and are retreating.

The Sierra's 498 ice formations — glaciers and ice fields — have shrunk by about half their size over the past 100 years, with those exposed to direct sunlight shrinking fastest, said Andrew Fountain, a geology professor at Portland State University who has inventoried the glaciers in the continental U.S. as part of a federal initiative.

He said Shasta's seven glaciers are the only ones scientists have identified as getting larger, with the exception of a small glacier in the shaded crater of Washington state's Mount St. Helens. It formed after the 1980 eruption blasted away slightly more than half the mountain's ice, and scientists believe it will not grow in area once it stretches outside the shade of the crater.

Glaciologists say most glaciers in Alaska and Canada are retreating, but there are too many to study them all.

Four glaciers at Mt. Rainier in Washington state are staying about the same size. Those glaciers — shielded from the sun on the north and east sides of the mountain — have received just enough snow to keep them from shrinking, Fountain said.

But Shasta's glaciers have been advancing since the end of a drought in the early 20th century. The mountain's smallest glaciers — named Konwakiton, Watkins and Mud Creek — have more than doubled in length since 1950.

Shasta's largest glacier, the Hotlum, grew more than 600 yards between 1944 and 2003 and covers nearly 2 square miles of the mountain's northeastern face. The Whitney glacier grows up to 4 inches a day in winter and is about 2.4 miles long.

Hikers seeking to cross Shasta's glaciers — marked with crevasses as deep as 100 feet — say they are much larger than the boundaries drawn on geological maps.

"I noticed I was traveling down farther than the maps were showing it," said Eric White, the lead climbing ranger at the U.S. Forest Service who has climbed the mountain for 23 years.

Until recently, the same phenomenon that is now benefiting Shasta's glaciers was feeding glacier growth in southern Norway and Sweden, the New Zealand Alps and northern Pakistan, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In each area, scientists say more snowfall temporarily offset warming temperatures in the 1990s and early 2000s. But rising temperatures since then have begun to shrink those ice fields.

Climate change is causing roughly 90% of the world's mountain glaciers to shrink, said Lonnie Thompson, a glacier expert at Ohio State University.

In the Northern Hemisphere, the Earth's frozen ground has decreased by about 7% since 1900, according to figures released last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"Best that we keep our eye on the big picture," Thompson said in an e-mailed response about Shasta's unique position. "The picture points unfortunately (to) massive loss of ice on land, which has huge implications for future sea level rise."

Although Mt. Shasta's glaciers are growing, researchers say the 4.7 billion cubic feet of ice on its flanks could be gone by 2100. For the glaciers to remain their current size, Shasta would have to receive 20% more snowfall for every 1.8-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature, said Tulaczyk, of UC Santa Cruz.

Global forecasts show temperatures warming from 2 degrees to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century if no major efforts are undertaken to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. At that rate, California's snowpack and its remaining glaciers are among the most vulnerable of the state's natural resources to climate change.

"In a way, the Sierra glaciers may represent the future of the Mt. Shasta glacier system under a warming climate, showing that if one puts an increased amount of snow in a place that's warm enough, then glaciers will shrink anyway," Tulaczyk said.

Even without global warming, another threat to Shasta's glaciers could come more quickly: a volcanic eruption that could melt them, creating mud flows that could bury the surrounding communities.

Over the last 4,000 years, Shasta has erupted about every 250 to 300 years and did so most recently about 200 years ago, said William Hirt, a geology instructor at the College of the Siskiyous, near Mt. Shasta.

The communities around the mountain already have witnessed how quickly Shasta's complexion can change.

It was just 11 years ago that heavy spring rain melted the lower part of the Whitney Glacier, creating a mudflow that covered a state highway.

In 1924, a piece of the Konwakiton glacier broke to form a dam that stored melting ice. When the blockade broke, tons of debris flowed into the McCloud River and all the way to San Francisco Bay.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



Glaciers on California's Mt. Shasta keep growing - USATODAY.com

 

[westwall]

Didnt you get the memo. Its climate change

No, that wasn't working so they changed it again to "global climate disruption". Then they conveniently don't look at past history because when they do they find more storms that were also more powerful then what we are seeing today. But those would be "facts" and the globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption cult doesn't "do" facts.

Really? The only time that I can think of where there was as significant disruption of normal weather as we have seen in the last 12 months, was about two years ago, 1816.

You are the one that does not do facts, or science, for that matter. You claim that the vast majority of scientists are frauds, then claim to be one yourself. What an ass.

Type any year you wish into google MENSA boy and you will almost allways find there was some major storm somplace on the planet. Also you will find that the death rates were much higher (though that can be attributed to other factors) and the storms were more powerful.

 

[westwall]

And you guys swear by a conspiracy theory that hundreds of scientists spread across the globe all made up global warming so they could raise taxes or whatever.

But hey you don't see any difference between the opinions of random people and the opinions of experts who actually study this stuff.

If the "experts" limited themselves to accurately reporting the facts and didn't engage in a conspiricy to deny opposing viewpoints in the various Journals, I would agree with you. However, they did and still do all of those things. In a court of law they would be classified as perjurors, and as they say in court, once a liar...allways a liar. They are scientific pariahs and they are damaging science as a whole.

I see. The majority of the people in the AGU, the Royal Society, and the GSA are liars and frauds. That is your position.

Seems to me that by that position, one person for sure is labeled a liar, a fraud, and a scientific pariah. And it sure ain't the people reporting on the melting glaciers, warmer temperatures, and obvious consequences of those things that we are seeing right now.

Why is your side losing so spectacularly then? Hmmmm? Three years ago every wacko environmental law you could think of was likely to get passed, now.......crickets MENSA boy, crickets. That is all the proof I need...and the rest of the planet as well it seems.