When President Taft created Glacier National Park in 1910, it was home to an estimated 150 glaciers. Since then the number has decreased to fewer than 30, and most of those remaining have shrunk in area by two-thirds. Fagre predicts that within 30 years most if not all of the park's namesake glaciers will disappear.
"Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime," says Fagre. "It's like watching the Statue of Liberty melt."
So, is Fagre part of the liberal conspiracy as well? And, if you truly do mean what you say about looking at all the facts, why are you ignoring so many?
I don't think your evidence negates the other evidence as the majority of researchers have said that different areas of the planet will be affected differently. The problem here is that you are believing the straw man put up but the skeptic cult of right wing bloggers. Similar to Barack X and the argument that John Kerry is a French war criminal, you believe the fake or exaggerated version of climate change assertions.
Stop doing that and actually do your own research and thinking.
First, for Glacier National Park, instead of using a National Geographic article, why don't you scope out some of the easily available info out there. Starting perhaps with the USGS. While they do note that glaciers around the globe have declined (but not all, and maybe not even most since the alarmist reports from IPCC that comically claimed that Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035 when the actual original, and as I recall, non-peer reviewed speculation only claimed "possibly by 2350". Of course, now we know that the majority of Himalayan glaciers haven't seen any loss. At any rate, the USGS then goes on to say:
Climate reconstructions representative of the Glacier National Park region extend back multiple centuries and show numerous long-duration drought and wet periods that influenced the mass balance of glaciers (Pederson et al. 2004). Of particular note was an 80-year period (~1770-1840) of cool, wet summers and above-average winter snowfall that led to a rapid growth of glaciers just prior to the end of the LIA. Thus, in the context of the entire Holocene, the size of glaciers at the end of the LIA was an anomaly of sorts. In fact, the large extent of ice coverage removed most of the evidence of earlier glacier positions by overriding terminal and lateral moraines.
In other words, if the glacier extents at 1850 were an anomaly following rapid growth, then isn't what we're seeing now just part of an expected drawback?
And Mark, even a tennis coach should know that in the scientific method, it may take only one inconvenient fact to overthrow even the most beautiful theory. Repeat after me, science is not consensus. Science is a matter of being able to make verifiable, repeatable tests and experiments. Considering that in "climate science" they're basing their essentially untestable predictions of the climate of future centuries with computer models of a huge, chaotic (in the mathematical sense) system in which we don't even know all of the variables yet, let alone accurate measurements for those variables over much of the globe for more than a handful of decades. Nor do the models even attempt to simulate all that we do know. They pick what seems to be most important factors to their team of researchers, simplify and simplify until they get something that can be run in a reasonable amount of time on a supercomputer, then do some runs. Then they fine-tune their "adjustments" until it seems to work pretty well, but having some background in computer science, that kind of model is just a giant updated version of Ptolomeian epicyclic models of the solar system, which added epicycles upon epicycles to their models of planetary motion, but were still unable to (quite) match the observed data. Similar to climate science today. Models can be useful tools, but quite honestly, we need a hell of a lot more (and more accurate data) over a hell of lot more years to get to the point where we should be setting government policy by them. We need to be doing a lot more basic research and a lot less politicking (see Hansen, Mann, Jones, et al).
I'm not ignoring any facts at all, Mark, unlike your crowd. I'm not advancing a new theory in a fucking journal where I need to try to cover all bases. I'm just pointing out some facts that don't fit your favorite theory. It's up to you to show how your theory actually does predict that specific effect. That's how scientific rebuttals work, don't you know?
Why don't you do some fucking research for a change?
You really love Eisenhower, and there's no doubt you know all about the "military-industrial" complex, but why don't you ever bring up the next point of his Farewell Address?
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."
I don't think anyone can argue that the grant system and Federal funding of such a large proportion of science hasn't skewed research and development. It would actually be an incredible and singular event were such an inherently political a process hadn't been gamed, and if it hasn't been, then possibly conclusive evidence that no humans were actually involved. :/
5 comments:
That's funny coming from a AGW hoax supporter. Why are you so anti-science liberal boy?
A high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica shows "no significant trend in the 1979-2010 ice sheet"
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows
Study: Sierra snowfall consistent over 130 years
A new paper just published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roger Davies and Mathew Molloy of the University of Auckland finds that over the past decade the global average effective cloud height has declined and that “If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming.”
As long as people remember that science includes looking at all the facts, not just all the convenient ones.
As long as people remember that science includes looking at all the facts, not just all the convenient ones.
So, your way to support this is...to include a list of convenient ones that help you win the argument? Wow.
I would think that someone who was thinking critically, for example, would place this fact next to Point #2 on your list.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/
When President Taft created Glacier National Park in 1910, it was home to an estimated 150 glaciers. Since then the number has decreased to fewer than 30, and most of those remaining have shrunk in area by two-thirds. Fagre predicts that within 30 years most if not all of the park's namesake glaciers will disappear.
"Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime," says Fagre. "It's like watching the Statue of Liberty melt."
So, is Fagre part of the liberal conspiracy as well? And, if you truly do mean what you say about looking at all the facts, why are you ignoring so many?
I don't think your evidence negates the other evidence as the majority of researchers have said that different areas of the planet will be affected differently. The problem here is that you are believing the straw man put up but the skeptic cult of right wing bloggers. Similar to Barack X and the argument that John Kerry is a French war criminal, you believe the fake or exaggerated version of climate change assertions.
Stop doing that and actually do your own research and thinking.
First, for Glacier National Park, instead of using a National Geographic article, why don't you scope out some of the easily available info out there. Starting perhaps with the USGS. While they do note that glaciers around the globe have declined (but not all, and maybe not even most since the alarmist reports from IPCC that comically claimed that Himalayan glaciers could be gone by 2035 when the actual original, and as I recall, non-peer reviewed speculation only claimed "possibly by 2350". Of course, now we know that the majority of Himalayan glaciers haven't seen any loss. At any rate, the USGS then goes on to say:
Climate reconstructions representative of the Glacier National Park region extend back multiple centuries and show numerous long-duration drought and wet periods that influenced the mass balance of glaciers (Pederson et al. 2004). Of particular note was an 80-year period (~1770-1840) of cool, wet summers and above-average winter snowfall that led to a rapid growth of glaciers just prior to the end of the LIA. Thus, in the context of the entire Holocene, the size of glaciers at the end of the LIA was an anomaly of sorts. In fact, the large extent of ice coverage removed most of the evidence of earlier glacier positions by overriding terminal and lateral moraines.
In other words, if the glacier extents at 1850 were an anomaly following rapid growth, then isn't what we're seeing now just part of an expected drawback?
And Mark, even a tennis coach should know that in the scientific method, it may take only one inconvenient fact to overthrow even the most beautiful theory. Repeat after me, science is not consensus. Science is a matter of being able to make verifiable, repeatable tests and experiments. Considering that in "climate science" they're basing their essentially untestable predictions of the climate of future centuries with computer models of a huge, chaotic (in the mathematical sense) system in which we don't even know all of the variables yet, let alone accurate measurements for those variables over much of the globe for more than a handful of decades. Nor do the models even attempt to simulate all that we do know. They pick what seems to be most important factors to their team of researchers, simplify and simplify until they get something that can be run in a reasonable amount of time on a supercomputer, then do some runs. Then they fine-tune their "adjustments" until it seems to work pretty well, but having some background in computer science, that kind of model is just a giant updated version of Ptolomeian epicyclic models of the solar system, which added epicycles upon epicycles to their models of planetary motion, but were still unable to (quite) match the observed data. Similar to climate science today. Models can be useful tools, but quite honestly, we need a hell of a lot more (and more accurate data) over a hell of lot more years to get to the point where we should be setting government policy by them. We need to be doing a lot more basic research and a lot less politicking (see Hansen, Mann, Jones, et al).
I'm not ignoring any facts at all, Mark, unlike your crowd. I'm not advancing a new theory in a fucking journal where I need to try to cover all bases. I'm just pointing out some facts that don't fit your favorite theory. It's up to you to show how your theory actually does predict that specific effect. That's how scientific rebuttals work, don't you know?
Why don't you do some fucking research for a change?
You really love Eisenhower, and there's no doubt you know all about the "military-industrial" complex, but why don't you ever bring up the next point of his Farewell Address?
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."
I don't think anyone can argue that the grant system and Federal funding of such a large proportion of science hasn't skewed research and development. It would actually be an incredible and singular event were such an inherently political a process hadn't been gamed, and if it hasn't been, then possibly conclusive evidence that no humans were actually involved. :/
Post a Comment