Centrism'sVoice
Seceded from USMB
- Jul 8, 2009
- 813
- 58
- 28
Man Made Global Warming KOOKS
- Thread starter ozzmdj
- Start date
*laughs* I'm well aware of all the catagories on the list and those on the list that have opinions that may even offer some support for the notion of man made climate change. so no sorry , don't think so.
Centrism'sVoice
Seceded from USMB
- Jul 8, 2009
- 813
- 58
- 28
I can see that I need to point things out again, however I dont think it does all that much good because obviously your blinded by a single minded vision on man made global warming. So fine.. will post something for you from the page..
Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming express varied opinions concerning the cause of global warming. Some say only that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming (e.g., Balling, Lindzen, and Spencer). Others attribute global warming to natural variation (e.g., Soon and Baliunas), ocean currents (e.g., Gray), increased solar activity (e.g., Shaviv and Veizer), cosmic rays (e.g., Svensmark), or unknown natural causes (e.g., Leroux).
What part of that is hard to understand? as I have said many times on here the nature of science is to question and it's not surprising that several of them would have varied opnions and that the list would also include some that would even support that notion. Thats science. if you like I can repost from many many other threads that I have debated on here scientists that don't agree with the IPCC assessment. I don't think it would do much good however, because it would seem that you have been indoctrinated into the Global Warming clut and you have my sympathies for the comming disappointment.
Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming express varied opinions concerning the cause of global warming. Some say only that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming (e.g., Balling, Lindzen, and Spencer). Others attribute global warming to natural variation (e.g., Soon and Baliunas), ocean currents (e.g., Gray), increased solar activity (e.g., Shaviv and Veizer), cosmic rays (e.g., Svensmark), or unknown natural causes (e.g., Leroux).
What part of that is hard to understand? as I have said many times on here the nature of science is to question and it's not surprising that several of them would have varied opnions and that the list would also include some that would even support that notion. Thats science. if you like I can repost from many many other threads that I have debated on here scientists that don't agree with the IPCC assessment. I don't think it would do much good however, because it would seem that you have been indoctrinated into the Global Warming clut and you have my sympathies for the comming disappointment.
Centrism'sVoice
Seceded from USMB
- Jul 8, 2009
- 813
- 58
- 28
For the record, I'm not: IMO, GW is a result of man and nature, and I'm 99% confident, based on the mainstream assessment, that AGW is more than just a drop in the bucket.
Let them debunk the mainstream assessment, then. That's what happened with cold fusion. But until that happens, it's delusional to ignore the mainstream and "stay the course" with your eyes wide shut.
The only disappointment I have is that Big Oil is as hellbent as you seem to be on preventing us from exploring and testing cleaner sources of energy.
You know, I believe that our nation given the ability to do so can actually come up with a solution that will be beneficial to everyone and will end our dependance on foreign oil. I am under no illusion that oil will simply disappear anytime soon because put simply, there is little or no technology that exists to replace it in many areas , especially heavy transportation. While energy needs such as solar,wind, hydro, and many others I'm all in favor of, I'm also in favor of producing all forms of energy such as oil shale, offshore oil, natural gas, nuclear, etc as an overall solution to our energy needs. Its my opnion that the MMGW cadre tends to use that stick to support restrictions and limit possibilites when we as a nation have the capability to produce energy in all forms in an environmentally sound manner. So until such time as those that support the MMGW divest themselves of oil completely and walk the walk instead of trying to impose their will based on unproven science they will find in me someone who questions their motives.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Navy, for God's sake, have a look at the background of that petition. It is bogus.
Climate "skeptics" | MNN - Mother Nature Network
When questioned in 1998, OISM's [founder] Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists or meteorologists, 'and of those the greatest number are physicists.'"
Even more outrageous and disturbing is this:
"When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments and names of non-persons, such as company names."
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
This is from the American Institute of Physics. A very accurate history of the investigation, from 1824 to present, of GHGs.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
FactFinder
VIP Member
- Mar 1, 2009
- 2,689
- 208
- 83
Interesting that the warming over the last 100 hundred years correlates rather neatly with record sunspot activity.
As the sun has subsided so has the warming. Now how could that be? Wonder if this same solar activity could influence El Ninos and such?
As the sun has subsided so has the warming. Now how could that be? Wonder if this same solar activity could influence El Ninos and such?
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
The warming has subsided, but of the previous 13 years, 11 of them are the warmest recorded in the last 100 years? And the year that you fellows herald as so cold, was the eighth warmest on record. That was last year, 2008. This year looks to be among the top ten also, possibly among the top five. With an El Nino on the way, 2010 may exceed 1998 and 2005. That with the sun still in a quiescent phase. Now what does that do to your denial of warming?
KittenKoder
Senior Member
.... and the back pedaling begins ...
Do you know that the same applies to the the IPCC , that not every member of the IPCC is even a scientist in fact many of them are economist, Govt. officials, appointees. So by that measure and using your logic then I can suggest that any IPCC assessment is bogus as well correct? As a matter of fact, I'm well aware of the nature of the backgrounds of the players in this environmental movement of which a very small percentage happen to be real climate scientists on both sides and among them thre is strong debate on the merits of this issue. As for adding names to a list even you and I can do that, so it means little to me however it does prove one thing to me. That the environmental movement frequently uses tactics that when used against them will point out their own short commings as well. Want some examples. let me see...
IPCC Membership is open to all member countries of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO). More than 2,000 scientists from 154 countries typically participate in the IPCC process. Scientists are independently nominated for participation in the Panel by their own governments. The fields of Earth system science, meteorology, ecology, economics, engineering, the social sciences and many more are represented. A listing of the diverse team of contributors developing each Assessment Report is included in each reportÂ’s appendix.
So a social engineer or economics professor is qualified to study CO2 and its effects on or non effects Global Warming?
The Chair of the IPCC is Rajendra K. Pachauri, elected in May 2002; previously Robert Watson headed the IPCC. The chair is assisted by an elected Bureau including vice-chairs, Working Group co-chairs and a Secretariat (see below).
The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged. Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC Working Groups are held at the level of government representatives. Non Governmental and Intergovernmental Organizations may be allowed to attend as observers. Sessions of the IPCC Bureau, workshops, expert and lead authors meetings are by invitation only.[52] Attendance at the 2003 meeting included 350 government officials and climate change experts. After the opening ceremonies, closed plenary sessions were held.[53] The meeting report [54] states there were 322 persons in attendance at Sessions with about seven-eighths of participants being from governmental organizations.[54]
So in conclusion when you try to smear the reputations of those that would call into question the science or as these so called environmental acitvist would do make the list appear less than credible by destruction to make their own agenda seem more legitimate keep in mind that the side you are supporting when the same standards are applied to them would appear them same. In my my mind though, rather than call into question the reputations of those scientists that would make conclusions , I would rather debate the merits of the issue. I frequently see this tactic of the environmental groups to attack the reputations of those that oppose them on some level and am not suprised now. As I have stated many times in the past and continue to do so, I actually pity the environmental activist for their views and rather look upon them like I would someone that is trapped in a cult and cannot look beyond the walls of the world they are indoctrinated into. I find it somewhat amusing that groups like the EDF would scream to high heaven as to how bad the oil and natural gas industry is and then at the same time be in bed with them in legislative matters. I also get a chuckle at these so called environmental groups who make their claims then at the same time, get in their fossil fuel burning cars, and drive to the airport all the while emitting CO2 and then get a Starbucks in a cup made from paper from a tree cut down in a forest and then climb aboard an aircraft that burns JP4 , more fossil fuel and use their blackberry and computer while on the flight made from oil based plastics, all while on their way to a meeting to save the world from big oil. So while I applaud your efforts and those of the Oregon activists at trying an age old tactic at smearing anyone that would dare call into question their belief structure, you will find that I'm not so easily swayed by attempts to deflect if I were I could keep you very busy my friend with years of peoples names in the environmental movement and their qualifications. Starting with Al Gore....
NOAA scientists today announced the arrival of El Niño, a climate phenomenon with a significant influence on global weather, ocean conditions and marine fisheries. El Niño, the periodic warming of central and eastern tropical Pacific waters, occurs on average every two to five years and typically lasts about 12 months.
Sea surface temperatures along the equatorial Eastern Pacific, as of July 1, are at least one degree above average — a sign of El Niño. Animation.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
NOAA expects this El Niño to continue developing during the next several months, with further strengthening possible. The event is expected to last through winter 2009-10.
“Advanced climate science allows us to alert industries, governments and emergency managers about the weather conditions El Niño may bring so these can be factored into decision-making and ultimately protect life, property and the economy,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator.
El Niño's impacts depend on a variety of factors, such as intensity and extent of ocean warming, and the time of year. Contrary to popular belief, not all effects are negative. On the positive side, El Niño can help to suppress Atlantic hurricane activity. In the United States, it typically brings beneficial winter precipitation to the arid Southwest, less wintry weather across the North, and a reduced risk of Florida wildfires.
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - El Niño Arrives; Expected to Persist through Winter 2009-10
The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change. References to such studies are provided in Hansen et al. (1999).
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
In response, a group-authored post on RealClimate, of which Mann is one of the contributors, stated, "the panel has found reason to support the key mainstream findings of past research, including points that we have highlighted previously."[30] Similarly, according to Roger A. Pielke, Jr., the National Research Council publication constituted a "near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al.";[31] Nature (journal) reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph."[32]
According to Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita[33] and Jesus Rouco,[34] reviewing the NAS report on McIntyre's blog Climate Audit, "With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless."[35] It was noted by their critics, however, that no such statement, explicit or implicit, is present on the two pages cited[36]; the closest the report comes being a statement that "Some recent results reported in Table 1S of Wahl and Ammann (in press) indicate that their reconstruction, which uses the same procedure and full set of proxies used by Mann et al. (1999), gives CE values ranging from 0.103 to -0.215, depending on how far back in time the reconstruction is carried."[37]
However, CE is not the only measure of skill; Mann et al. (1998) used the more traditional "RE" score, which, unlike CE, accounts for the fact that time series change their mean value over time. The statistically significant reconstruction skill in the Mann et al. reconstruction is independently supported in the peer-reviewed literature.[38][39]
[edit] Committee on Energy and Commerce Report (Wegman report)
A team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of SciencesÂ’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, was assembled at the request of U.S. Rep. Joe Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield .[40] The report primarily focused on the statistical analysis used in the MBH paper, and also considered the personal and professional relationships between Mann et al. and other members of the paleoclimate community. Findings presented in this report (commonly known as the "Wegman Report"[41][42]) at a hearing of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations, chaired by Whitfield, included the following:
MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be "somewhat obscure and incomplete" and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be "valid and compelling".
The report found that MBH method creates a PC1 statistic dominated by bristlecone and foxtail pine tree ring series (closely related species). However there is evidence in the literature, that the use of the bristlecone pine series as a temperature proxy may not be valid (suppressing "warm period" in the hockey stick handle); and that bristlecones do exhibit CO2-fertilized growth over the last 150 years (enhancing warming in the hockey stick blade).
It is noted that there is no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
A social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction of at least 43 authors having direct ties to Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him is described. The findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. Dr. Wegman stated this was a "hypothesis", and "should be taken with a grain of salt". [43]
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to interact with the statistical community. Additionally, the Wegman team judged that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done.
Overall, the committee believes that MannÂ’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
The Wegman report has itself been criticized on several contentious grounds:
The report was not subject to formal peer review [44][45] At the hearing, Wegman lists 6 people that participated in his own informal peer review process via email after the report was finalized and said they had no objection to the subcommittee submitting it.[43]
Dr. Thomas Crowley, Professor of Earth Science System, Duke University, testified at the committee hearing, "The conclusions and recommendations of the Wegman Report have some serious flaws." [43]
The result of fixing the alleged errors in the overall reconstruction does not change the general shape of the reconstruction. [46]
Similarly, studies that use completely different methodologies also yield very similar reconstructions[46].
The social network analysis is not based on meaningful criteria, does not prove a conflict of interest and did not apply at the time of the 1998 and 1999 publications. Such a network of co-authorship is not unusual in narrowly defined areas of science. [47] During the hearing, Wegman defined the social network as peer reviewers that had "actively collaborated with him in writing research papers" and answered that none of his peer reviewers had.[43]
Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Keep posting Hansens temps that are surface measurements and based on Mann's and the IPCC conclusions. The fact is the earth is roughly 70% water and GISS temp. stations do not gather temp. data from ocean surface temp nor was it considered in the overall surface temp. measurements. One other thing to consider , if the theory of man made CO2 is correct and Mann and others are using 30% of the earths surface temps as a means to justify that and omitting 70% of the surface temp and the atmosphere temps as well, how then is that settled science that man made CO2 causes Global Warming? Is it faith based? If so then of course you have every right to believe as you do, just don't call it settled science.
Sea surface temperatures along the equatorial Eastern Pacific, as of July 1, are at least one degree above average — a sign of El Niño. Animation.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
NOAA expects this El Niño to continue developing during the next several months, with further strengthening possible. The event is expected to last through winter 2009-10.
“Advanced climate science allows us to alert industries, governments and emergency managers about the weather conditions El Niño may bring so these can be factored into decision-making and ultimately protect life, property and the economy,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator.
El Niño's impacts depend on a variety of factors, such as intensity and extent of ocean warming, and the time of year. Contrary to popular belief, not all effects are negative. On the positive side, El Niño can help to suppress Atlantic hurricane activity. In the United States, it typically brings beneficial winter precipitation to the arid Southwest, less wintry weather across the North, and a reduced risk of Florida wildfires.
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - El Niño Arrives; Expected to Persist through Winter 2009-10
The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change. References to such studies are provided in Hansen et al. (1999).
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
In response, a group-authored post on RealClimate, of which Mann is one of the contributors, stated, "the panel has found reason to support the key mainstream findings of past research, including points that we have highlighted previously."[30] Similarly, according to Roger A. Pielke, Jr., the National Research Council publication constituted a "near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al.";[31] Nature (journal) reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph."[32]
According to Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita[33] and Jesus Rouco,[34] reviewing the NAS report on McIntyre's blog Climate Audit, "With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless."[35] It was noted by their critics, however, that no such statement, explicit or implicit, is present on the two pages cited[36]; the closest the report comes being a statement that "Some recent results reported in Table 1S of Wahl and Ammann (in press) indicate that their reconstruction, which uses the same procedure and full set of proxies used by Mann et al. (1999), gives CE values ranging from 0.103 to -0.215, depending on how far back in time the reconstruction is carried."[37]
However, CE is not the only measure of skill; Mann et al. (1998) used the more traditional "RE" score, which, unlike CE, accounts for the fact that time series change their mean value over time. The statistically significant reconstruction skill in the Mann et al. reconstruction is independently supported in the peer-reviewed literature.[38][39]
[edit] Committee on Energy and Commerce Report (Wegman report)
A team of statisticians led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of SciencesÂ’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, was assembled at the request of U.S. Rep. Joe Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield .[40] The report primarily focused on the statistical analysis used in the MBH paper, and also considered the personal and professional relationships between Mann et al. and other members of the paleoclimate community. Findings presented in this report (commonly known as the "Wegman Report"[41][42]) at a hearing of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations, chaired by Whitfield, included the following:
MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be "somewhat obscure and incomplete" and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be "valid and compelling".
The report found that MBH method creates a PC1 statistic dominated by bristlecone and foxtail pine tree ring series (closely related species). However there is evidence in the literature, that the use of the bristlecone pine series as a temperature proxy may not be valid (suppressing "warm period" in the hockey stick handle); and that bristlecones do exhibit CO2-fertilized growth over the last 150 years (enhancing warming in the hockey stick blade).
It is noted that there is no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
A social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction of at least 43 authors having direct ties to Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him is described. The findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. Dr. Wegman stated this was a "hypothesis", and "should be taken with a grain of salt". [43]
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to interact with the statistical community. Additionally, the Wegman team judged that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done.
Overall, the committee believes that MannÂ’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
The Wegman report has itself been criticized on several contentious grounds:
The report was not subject to formal peer review [44][45] At the hearing, Wegman lists 6 people that participated in his own informal peer review process via email after the report was finalized and said they had no objection to the subcommittee submitting it.[43]
Dr. Thomas Crowley, Professor of Earth Science System, Duke University, testified at the committee hearing, "The conclusions and recommendations of the Wegman Report have some serious flaws." [43]
The result of fixing the alleged errors in the overall reconstruction does not change the general shape of the reconstruction. [46]
Similarly, studies that use completely different methodologies also yield very similar reconstructions[46].
The social network analysis is not based on meaningful criteria, does not prove a conflict of interest and did not apply at the time of the 1998 and 1999 publications. Such a network of co-authorship is not unusual in narrowly defined areas of science. [47] During the hearing, Wegman defined the social network as peer reviewers that had "actively collaborated with him in writing research papers" and answered that none of his peer reviewers had.[43]
Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Keep posting Hansens temps that are surface measurements and based on Mann's and the IPCC conclusions. The fact is the earth is roughly 70% water and GISS temp. stations do not gather temp. data from ocean surface temp nor was it considered in the overall surface temp. measurements. One other thing to consider , if the theory of man made CO2 is correct and Mann and others are using 30% of the earths surface temps as a means to justify that and omitting 70% of the surface temp and the atmosphere temps as well, how then is that settled science that man made CO2 causes Global Warming? Is it faith based? If so then of course you have every right to believe as you do, just don't call it settled science.
ozzmdj
Senior Member
- Thread starter
- #154
Debunking 'climate change myths'.........Debunking 'climate change myths' | News-Leader.com | Springfield News-Leader
KittenKoder
Senior Member
Until every scientist agrees what the cause is, it's still just a hoax and con, at least a majority of scientists (not counting only the peer pressured ones).
With a summer like this, you can`t tell my Dad there`s global warming.
On The Farm: Nick`s Wheat on KFYR-TV North Dakota's NBC News Leader
Only idiots think Global Warming means warming in every situation. There might be warming in the arctic and that causes a chain reaction that causes a draught in another part of the world and so on and so on.
Fact is, only a very small percentage of the scientists agree with GW deniers. This is another argument that makes the right seem stupid.
Do you want to wait until you get cancer before you start demanding that corporations start acting right? Start thinking long term and not just short term. That's the GOP's problem in a nutshell. Even CEO's. They used to worry about the long term success of their companies and now they only care about cashing in their stocks.
So...
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that global warming causes cancer?
KittenKoder
Senior Member
In Seattle, there is no excess melting of ice, yet we have to ration water about every other year, in spite of increased snow fall.
Centrism'sVoice
Seceded from USMB
- Jul 8, 2009
- 813
- 58
- 28
A majority of scientists does agree that CO2 emissions at least contribute to global warming. You won't find anyone outside the crackpot arena who says otherwise.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Glacier melt accelerating, federal report concludes - Kansas City Star
The federal government released the most comprehensive study of melting glaciers in North America on Thursday - and the results show a rapid and accelerating shrinkage over the last half-century due to global warming.
One of the glaciers in the study, the South Cascade Glacier in Washington, has lost nearly half its volume and a quarter of its mass since 1958, scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey scientists said. The two others in the study - the Wolverine and Gulkana glaciers in Alaska - have both lost nearly 15 percent of their mass.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
South Cascade
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operates a long-term program to monitor climate, glacier motion, glacier mass balance, and stream runoff. The data collected are used to understand glacier-related hydrologic processes and improve the quantitative prediction of water resources, glacier-related hazards, and the consequences of climate change (Fountain and others, 1997). The approach has been to establish long-term mass balance monitoring programs at three widely spaced glacier basins in the United States that clearly sample different climate-glacier-runoff regimes. Gulkana Glacier is one of these three long-term, high quality mass balance monitoring sites operated by the USGS. The other monitoring sites are Gulkana Glacier and Wolverine Glacier in Alaska.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Waterville (Maine) Teacher Calls on the Secret Service to Assassinate Trump, Says She’d Do It Herself if She Could
- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 2
-
Ukraine signs rare earth metals agreement. What will Russia do now?- Started by kyzr
- Replies: 5
-
-
The big challenges PM Carney has, in addition to how much the U.S knows about our "system". Concerning Economic Statistics for Canada- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
